Why Gutting Energy & Infrastructure Investments Would Be a Costly Mistake - and What to Do Instead

February 6, 2025

There's no question that America's infrastructure is in bad shape, Anyone who's ever sat in traffic because of crumbling roads, dealt with unreliable public transit, or lived through a power grid failure knows just how much work needs to be done, That's exactly why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was such a big deal when it passed in 2021. It was the first real attempt in decades to tackle the massive backlog of repairs and upgrades our country desperately needs.

Now, the new administration is looking to cut key programs under BIL, citing concerns about waste, unnecessary regulations, and connections to Green New Deal policies and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEi) initiatives, And while cutting red tape and ensuring money is well spent is a good thing, gutting these programs outright would be a critical mistake. Not only would it set back infrastructure redevelopment by years-maybe even decades-it would also waste the momentum and resources that have already gone into these projects,

"Throwing the Baby Out with the Infrastructure Water"

This captures the idea that in the rush to dismantle anything with DEi or Green New Deal branding, the administration is discarding fundamentally conservative, locally driven investments that return taxpayer dollars to state and local governments-the very essence of federalism. It highlights the irony of attacking programs that, at their core, embody the "Federal Partnership Experiment" by empowering states to determine how best to address their own infrastructure needs.
 
The push to roll back key infrastructure programs under the banner of eliminating so-called "Green New Deal" and DEi initiatives is short-sighted and risks undermining the economic, environmental, and structural gains these programs were designed to deliver. While some elements of these programs were framed around equity and sustainability, the core of these initiatives has always been about modernizing America's infrastructure, supporting local economies, and tackling regional challenges that otherwise would fall squarely on the shoulders of states and businesses.

Instead of outright cuts, a smarter approach would be to reframe these programs around their fundamental benefits-economic growth, job creation, and cost avoidance for state and private sector stakeholders­ rather than focusing on political branding that has made them an easy target.

Understanding The Impact And What's At Stake

When the Biden administration rolled out key infrastructure investments under the BIL and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), certain funding allocations were explicitly linked to climate resilience, equity, and economic revitalization in historically underserved communities. This was primarily framed as a way to ensure that federal investments didn't just go to major urban centers or wealthier states but instead reached communities with the most pressing infrastructure needs. The great irony here is that areas that are due to receive the most outsized investment across these initiatives are fundamentally and politically aligned with the new administration.

However, critics labeled these efforts as extensions of the Green New Deal or unnecessary DEi-driven spending. In reality, many of these programs have clear, tangible benefits that go beyond political narratives and instead represent smart investments in long-overdue infrastructure modernization.

While there have been only a few examples of outright funding recensions so far, there is a collection of programs under immediate threat. Amongst them:

Energy Grid Modernization & Rural Electrification

•    What Could Be Cut: Some investments in renewable energy grid upgrades, rural microgrids, and infrastructure to support a transition to clean energy.
•    Why It Would Be A Mistake: Many of the grid modernization programs in BIL and IRA were targeted at improving energy reliability in rural areas and small towns-places where aging infrastructure has led to more frequent power outages and inefficiencies. Upgrading these systems doesn't just support clean energy; it reduces the economic burden on businesses that currently face unstable electricity service, which directly impacts local economies and job growth.

Transportation and Public Transit Investments

•    What Could Be Cut: Expansion of rural bus services, electric vehicle charging networks, and investments in low-emission public transit.
•    Why It Would Be A Mistake: The effort to remove these programs ignores the fact that many rural areas have limited or no public
 
transit options, making economic mobility difficult for workers. Rather than framing these as DEi initiatives, the reality is that access to efficient transportation is a workforce development issue, directly linked to business productivity and economic activity in small towns and mid-sized cities.

Broadband Expansion in Underserved Areas

•    What Could Be Cut: Federal investments to provide broadband access in low-income and rural communities, many of which had Justice40 designations.
•    Why It Would Be A Mistake: In today's economy, broadband access isn't a luxury-it's a fundamental requirement for businesses, education, and healthcare. Cutting these programs under the justification of eliminating equity-driven policies ignores the fact that states and local businesses will end up shouldering the costs of bringing broadband to these areas, which could otherwise be accomplished through public-private investment partnerships between ISPs and State Broadband Offices.

Water Infrastructure & Flood Resilience

•    What Could Be Cut: Lead pipe replacement programs, stormwater management investments, and upgrades to rural drinking water systems.
•    Why It Would Be A Mistake: Much of this funding was directed toward states that have suffered from failing water infrastructure­ think Flint, Michigan (birthplace of GM), or Jackson, Mississippi. While some of the original policy framing emphasized equity considerations, the reality is that these are state and regional crises that will become economic liabilities if left unaddressed.

Smart Infrastructure Investment = Agriculture Resiliency

One of the most overlooked yet critical areas of infrastructure investment under BIL and IRA is agriculture-focused resilience programs. Many of these programs are now at risk of being defunded due to perceived Green New Deal ties. Why is this, in my opinion, a critical misstep?

Consider the following examples:

•    Drought mitigation and water efficiency programs for farms in the Western U.S., where states like Arizona, California, Texas and Kansas rely on federally supported irrigation infrastructure to sustain agricultural production. Farmers face skyrocketing water costs and increased competition for dwindling water supplies without these investments. In alignment with the new administration's priorities and foreign tariff tactics, domestic production should be
incentivized. Still, drought and water scarcity continue to be the most significant impediment to weaning off foreign reliance on agricultural products. Disposing of these programs would undermine the very spirit of the new administration's domestic resiliency strategy.
•    Transportation improvements for rural supply chains, including investments in freight rail and inland waterways that help farmers and ranchers get their products to market more efficiently. Cutting these programs doesn't eliminate the need-it just shifts the burden to farmers and private industry.
 
•    Soil conservation and regenerative farming investments, which help stabilize farmland, improve yields, and reduce long-term input costs for agricultural producers. While often framed as environmental policies, these initiatives are fundamentally economic and serve to reduce operating costs for farmers.

A Smarter Approach: Keep the Investments, Fix the Branding

The biggest mistake the current administration could make is assuming that gutting these programs will result in cost savings or greater efficiency. The truth is, the need for infrastructure investment doesn't go away-it simply shifts the cost burden onto states, local governments, and businesses without maximizing the economies of scale that doing so in a structured, federalized manner would achieve.

Rather than scrapping these programs altogether, I strongly believe the administration should pursue an expedited directive to streamline and reframe these investments in a way that focuses on outcomes rather than political branding. This means:

1.    Clarifying that investments are about economic and workforce growth, not social engineering.

2.    Replacing abstract qualifying criteria with clear, outcome-driven benchmarks, such as measurable improvements in energy reliability, water security, and broadband access.

3.    Allowing states greater flexibility in determining how to implement these investments while maintaining oversight on federal priorities.

Bottom Line

Gutting infrastructure programs in the name of eliminating Green New Deal and DEi initiatives is a short-sighted move that will only create bigger economic problems for states and businesses down the road. These investments weren't just about climate or equity-they were about ensuring that critical infrastructure needs were met in a way that supported economic expansion, job creation, and long-term cost reductions for both public and private sector stakeholders.

Rather than dismantling these programs, I am holding out hope that in close collaboration with Congress, the administration can double down on their economic benefits, reframe their messaging as they see fit, while ensuring they continue to serve the core purpose of modernizing American infrastructure. The need is still there-the only question is whether we'll address it now, or pay a much higher price later.

To learn more about the dedicated resources we have and gain valuable insights on grants management, please visit our Center for Grant Excellence page.

If you need further assistance, please reach out to see how we can help.

Authored by: