Infrastructure investment is a fiscal policy measure taken by the government to build or improve the facilities and structures of cities. Examples of infrastructure investments include public roads, highways, waste management equipment, aviation equipment, and power grid networks. Fiscal policy encompasses changes in government spending and taxation aimed at influencing the broader domestic economy—for example, reducing income tax rates to stimulate demand. Infrastructure investment, according to recent polls, is a subject that has overwhelming bipartisan support in the United States.
In a poll conducted by ARTBA/Rasmussen Reports in 2019, 96% of Americans supported infrastructure investments as a way to improve the standard of living for themselves and future generations. Specifically, 96% answered that infrastructure policies were important to them, while 64% claimed it was very important, and a marginal 4% believed infrastructure investment was unimportant. According to a separate 2023 poll by the American Communities Project, about 50% of the working-class country and the African American South, along with 62% of Native American lands, describe their communities’ infrastructure as only fair or poor. While it appears both parties predominantly support infrastructure investments, the Democratic Party has pushed for more infrastructure investments than the Republican Party in recent years.
Democrat Stance on Infrastructure Investment
In the same 2019 Rasmussen poll, 10% more Democrats answered that infrastructure investment was very important to them when compared to the Republican stance on infrastructure investments. In 2021, under Joe Biden’s administration, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed bipartisanly, which included millions of dollars of spending allocated towards public transit, airports, and community revitalization. This bill also directly referenced the specific communities that feel most impacted by the lack of efficient and functional infrastructure, such as tribal lands.
The 2021 Democratic administration emphasized clean energy infrastructure and demonstrated the Democratic interest in investing in infrastructure. As another example, the 2024 Democratic Party Platform used the term “infrastructure” almost fifty times, whereas the 2024 Republican Party Platform mentions “infrastructure” three times. The Democratic stance on infrastructure is much more eager to invest, in recent years, compared to the Republican Party, which exhibits more skepticism about where and how the large sums of money are allocated.
Republican Stance on Infrastructure Investment
For example, during the writing of the IIJA in 2021, it is documented that some Republicans, while they supported overall infrastructure investments, were unsure of forcing Americans to pay for public transit in places they did not live. Republican Senator Marco Rubio voiced his disdain for the “rushed” nature of the bill and the negative impact he believed it would have on the national debt, donning a traditional fiscal conservative viewpoint. Along with those concerns, some Republican representatives, such as Senator Rand Paul, expressed that they were hesitant to support the funding of some transit, bike lanes, and passenger rail because of the project’s intentions to lessen the impact of climate change.
Ultimately, the IIJA and its climate change mitigation projects were passed in 2021, but the opinions expressed by these Republican representatives can offer insight into why the Republican Party is overall slightly less supportive of infrastructure investments. Much more recently, in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, shortly after his inauguration, to pause all funding for the IIJA that was passed under the Biden Administration.
The issue remains highly debated. For some, the funding pause directly undermines the bill’s intent to promote electric vehicles and climate action. For others, redirecting money to AI and digital infrastructure—like data centers—doesn’t count as infrastructure investment.
U.S. History of Infrastructure Investments
There exists a variety of significant US infrastructure investment policies that have impacted the course of American history. The Erie Canal is one example. Influenced by the War of 1812 and the necessity for defensive maneuvers in the East, the canal began construction and took 8 years to complete. The idea to build a canal from Lake Erie to the Atlantic using the Hudson River was cast aside by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who refused to fund the infrastructure venture.
The canal was built regardless, and allowed Midwest states to send produce and grain directly to the East Coast and Europe. This project highlights the permanent nature of anti-infrastructure investment thought in American history and how those attitudes can be proven wrong through the long-term positive aspects of infrastructure investment on American citizens.
A separate landmark instance of positive investment in infrastructure is Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1952 Federal Aid-Highway Act. Similarly influenced by defense procedures, Eisenhower desired an interstate highway system to move military personnel and equipment quickly around the nation should there ever be a conflict.
The bill is referred to as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which created around 41,000 miles of highway using the allocated federal budget of 25 billion, or 280 billion in contemporary USD. This federal budget included 90% of the total cost for the infrastructure project that lasted twelve years, leaving the states to support the remaining 10% of the funds.
This project reflects the possibility for a lasting impact when investing in functional and intelligent infrastructure. Eisenhower believed that through connecting large populations effectively, there was a possibility for national economic improvement. In a similar way to many infrastructure projects, there were adamant opponents to this plan, largely in urban areas that the highways would cross.
Some critics preferred state-by-state highway systems rather than interstate routes, and others warned about the investment’s impact on the national debt. Even so, the Federal-Aid Highway Act produced the world’s largest controlled-access road network and has benefited millions of Americans across generations who use these highways daily.
On the other hand, some negative aspects of the 1956 Federal Aid-Highway Act include the large number of displaced people in urban populations, as highways were constructed through their homes. Many of these communities were inhabited by low-income families, who were also exposed to toxic chemicals and pollution as a result of the construction and subsequent motor vehicle traffic, leading in some cases to chronic disease.
Drawing on major historical cases and the patterns evident in modern-day fiscal policy, it’s clear that the cost-benefit analysis of U.S. infrastructure investment remains a complex and sensitive issue.
Infrastructure Investments Going Forward
In the fall of 2025, President Donald Trump and Congress had not reached an agreement on appropriations, resulting in a government shutdown. Trump suggested the shutdown would affect funding for ongoing Democratic initiatives, potentially including the Biden administration’s 2021 IIJA. This impasse highlights the broader debate over how federal dollars should be allocated, including for infrastructure investments.
The path forward is uncertain—we can’t know how policymakers or the public will ultimately act. That said, based on President Trump’s prior emphasis on infrastructure, the administration may pursue its own approach while remaining skeptical of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. What is clear is that most Americans want reliable, effective infrastructure, even as many Republican leaders urge caution and scrutiny over how funds are allocated.
While most Americans value strong infrastructure, the debate centers on which projects should take priority and whether the opposing party can manage them effectively. Because infrastructure spending can deliver substantial benefits but also carry significant risks for everyday life and the broader economy, it remains a highly contested issue.