How Political Retaliation Led to the Waste of $50 Billion in Taxpayer Funds

In 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion initiative aimed at overhauling the nation’s infrastructure. The bill was historic not just in scale but for its inclusion of a climate change mandate. This mandate demonstrates Biden’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

The bipartisan legislation was intended to fund numerous infrastructure projects, such as improving rural access to high-speed internet and accelerating the transition to renewable energy. The bill seemed to be a significant step toward addressing these modern challenges. However, the reality reveals a pattern of inefficiencies and political score-settling against pro-Republican iconoclasts.

Electric Vehicles

As demand for EVs rises in the U.S., estimates indicate that six times more charging stations than current numbers will be needed by the end of the decade. The IIJA allocated $7.5 billion over five years to create a nationwide network of 500,000 EV charging stations by 2030. Of this, 70% would be managed by state transportation agencies, which were expected to start immediately deploying chargers.

But the results have been underwhelming. Since the bill’s passage in 2021, only eight EV charging stations have been built, with a handful more in various stages of development. States like Hawaii, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have seen some progress, while others lag and fail even to issue contracts.

Why the delay? It turns out that many state agencies lack the experience needed to deploy EV charging infrastructure. According to Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy, “state transportation agencies are the recipients of the money, but nearly all of them had no experience with electric vehicle charging stations before this law was enacted.”  Similar issues have significantly slowed progress, even as the demand for EVs continues to grow. If these hurdles are not addressed soon, the rollout of EV infrastructure will continue to fall short of its ambitious goals.

Despite these delays from the government, the private sector has proven to be far more agile in responding to consumer demand. In the second half of 2023, U.S. drivers witnessed nearly 1,100 new public fast-charging stations, a 16% increase from 2021. These stations were built by private companies, with Tesla leading the charge. Tesla’s Supercharger network, which includes over 57,000 chargers globally, highlights its effectiveness in meeting demand more efficiently than government initiatives.

This raises an important question: Why should the government continue funding EV infrastructure projects with high compliance costs instead of allowing the more capable private sector to handle the job?

Speculation has continued about the Biden-Harris administration’s suggested bias against Tesla, primarily due to its CEO, Elon Musk. The friction started in 2021 after Musk criticized Biden’s proposed policy to offer a tax credit of up to $12,500 for electric vehicles made by unionized workers. This measure excluded Tesla while benefiting companies like Ford and GM. Since then, Musk has openly criticized Biden, even calling him a damp sock puppet.

 

Broadband Access

The White House’s disdain towards Musk is not limited to the issue of EV chargers. Another ambitious goal of the IIJA was to improve broadband access in rural America. The bill allocated $42.5 billion for high-speed internet infrastructure to close the gap for the 30 million Americans without reliable internet access. Like the EV program, the broadband initiative has been plagued by delays, without a single home or business connected to new networks nearly three years after the law was signed.

Both lawmakers and internet companies blame federal red tape for the slow rollout. Compliance with climate change mandates and union labor requirements has pushed the start dates for broadband projects to 2025 or beyond. This means that millions of rural Americans who have been waiting for years for reliable internet will likely remain disconnected for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet company, has rapidly expanded its service across the U.S. As broadband demand continues to surge, Starlink provides coverage to 99.6% of the US population, including areas where traditional fiber or cable infrastructure cannot easily reach. During the Trump administration, Starlink was on track to receive $885.5 million from a federal program to expand internet access in rural areas. However, the current Democratic-led FCC rescinded this award in August 2022.

The commission cited concerns about Starlink’s ability to meet its rollout targets,  though other companies funded by the FCC faced similar issues.  Ironically, after Hurricane Milton, FEMA has since turned to Starlink to restore internet access in disaster-hit areas like rural Florida. Despite the revocation of federal funds, Starlink has continued proving its capability to deliver internet service where traditional providers have failed.

Considering recent events, the FCC’s defunding of Starlink appears even more biased. Just months ago, the FCC Chair granted a three-year extension to Dish Network to meet its 5G rollout deadlines despite Dish’s lagging in fulfilling its obligations. This move raised eyebrows, mainly because Dish’s Chairman, Charlie Ergen, is a Biden-Harris campaign donor.

This political wrangling highlights the IIJA’s inefficiencies and raises critical questions about government priorities. Instead of leveraging private sector innovation, the administration has allowed bureaucratic red tape and political biases to stifle progress. Musk reposted an X user who claimed, “[F]or $42 billion, they could have bought Starlink dishes for 140 million people.”

A need for a better approach

While government subsidies for private broadband networks might not be ideal, company selection should be based on transparent, objective criteria.

On November 5, Americans elected Donald Trump, who appointed Elon Musk and American entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as co-heads of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory board that will recommend ways to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash unnecessary regulations, eliminate wasteful spending, and restructure federal agencies. However, Musk’s role in DOGE warrants scrutiny. Although Musk can continue as the CEO and largest individual shareholder of his companies like Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, his cost-cutting initiative raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Suppose the goal is to advance the country’s infrastructure. In that case, Trump’s administration should start by improving collaboration with the private sector and committing to ending the design of policies based on political bias. The first step is introducing strict conflict-of–interest protocols for public appointees and private sector participants involved in infrastructure projects. For instance, Musk’s role in DOGE could be subjected to regular reviews by ethics panels and independent oversight committees to ensure impartiality in Tesla, SpaceX, or Starlink decisions.

DOGE’s structure is still unclear, but if it were to become a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC), similar to President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, it would have to legally open most committee meetings to the public and make its records available. Further, the viewpoints of FAC members must be reasonably balanced, indicating that Trump would have to appoint someone from the Democratic party to  DOGE.

Additionally, the administration should ensure that all infrastructure-related projects involve an open and competitive bidding process. This initiative would require clear, objective criteria for selecting contractors—such as cost, efficiency, and scalability—to avoid favoritism and encourage healthy competition among service providers. The winner of the bid should be announced via mandatory public reporting on contract awards, including a justification for the selection of the recipient and an evaluation of competing bids.

Americans would also benefit from an approach in which the government transitions from broad government-led programs to a merit-based subsidy system that encourages private-sector innovation. This can be achieved by utilizing Public-Private Partnerships(“P3s”), a project delivery method in which a private entity assumes a substantial role in designing, financing, building, and occasionally operating a public infrastructure project.

Unlike the traditional “design-bid-build” method, where the design is completed separately from the construction bidding process, with the public sector managing most of the responsibility and risk, a private partner would install and maintain EV charging stations in exchange for user fee revenue. The developer would likely finance the project with support from state tax incentives. This financing approach reduces the need for significant federal expenditures and incentivizes the private sector to invest in essential maintenance tasks.

At the same time, the federal administration should ensure that states receive the technical assistance and training they need to implement infrastructure projects. Enhancing their expertise and capabilities ensures smoother execution and minimizes delays caused by inexperience.

Finally, the federal government should implement technology-neutral policies to prevent favoritism. Instead of requiring fiber-optic broadband solutions, policies should prioritize the efficient connectivity of rural areas, whether through satellite, 5G, or other emerging technologies. This neutrality fosters innovation and ensures that capable providers are not excluded.