WASHINGTON — The stopgap spending bill supported by an overwhelming majority of U.S. senators does not address tens of billions in expiring transportation funding, leaving states facing a massive effective budget cut starting Oct. 1.

The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, which authorized highway and transit programs for five years, expires Sept. 30. Roughly $38.6 billion per year in extra federal transportation funding is set to expire with it, even if the continuing resolution the Senate advanced 89-4 Monday becomes law.

The stopgap measure, a version of which has also passed the House, would keep the government funded mostly at current levels, and reauthorize highway and transit programs through Dec. 11.

But it would not renew the advance appropriations that provided $184 billion over five years for a host of transportation programs under the infrastructure law President Joe Biden signed in his first year in office.

Ben Gilsdorf, an associate legislative director for transportation at the National Association of Counties, said in a Tuesday interview that the advance appropriations funded many of the group’s top transportation priorities.

“It’s not all of the programs under (the infrastructure law) that would stop without an extension,” he said. “But for us, it’s several of the most impactful ones.”

The National Association of Counties was part of a broad range of advocacy groups representing business, labor, cities, state departments of transportation and every mode of transportation that signed a letter last month asking Congress to extend the supplemental funding.

Funding for Transportation Department programs makes up a bit more than half of the total advance appropriations in the infrastructure law, which also includes major funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Energy Department and telecommunications program.

The total advance appropriations for fiscal 2026 were about $66.2 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Bridges, airports, transit and more

The DOT funding largely flows to state departments of transportation.

Returning to pre-2021 baseline infrastructure spending would leave every state with less federal funding to cover varied transportation needs.

About 30%, $10.8 billion per year, of the extra transportation funding is determined by formula, meaning the amounts sent to each state vary based on population, highway miles and other factors.

California is the only state that would lose 10 figures worth of funding, at nearly $1.1 billion.

But even Vermont, the state with the lowest total funding lost, would see $55.6 million less in formula funds if the funding is not extended, according to data Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray of Washington sent to her fellow Democratic senators last month.

A total of 10 formula programs representing different modes of transportation would be affected, according to the fact sheet from Murray’s office.

More than half of the formula funding, $5.5 billion, is slated for the Federal Highway Administration’s bridge repair program.

Airport construction funds represent the next-greatest funding at $3 billion per year. The Federal Transit Administration’s grant program to maintain transit system infrastructure would lose $950 million and state transportation departments would lose another $900 million in federal funding for electric vehicle charging stations.

Other affected programs are for highways in Appalachian states, truck safety inspections, ferry boats and terminals, FTA grants for senior passengers and those with disabilities and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration programs.

In addition to formula funds, the remaining 70% of advance appropriations is distributed via 25 competitive grant programs, according to the Murray document.

Grant programs to fund ports, large highway and rail projects, transit station upgrades, roadway safety and other projects would be among those losing funding.

Complicating spending negotiations

While the law that initiated the additional funding was bipartisan, there are indications an extension could be a more partisan issue.

Murray said ahead of the Senate floor vote Monday that Republicans did not “agree to our efforts to extend critical advance appropriations for infrastructure” and vowed to continue pursuing the additional funds.

Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, did not reference advance appropriations in a press release announcing a deal on the stopgap bill.

Republicans, who hold majorities in both chambers of Congress, may prefer to settle the future of the funding through a long-term surface transportation bill or full-year appropriations measure, Gilsdorf said.

Even if the Senate bill is enacted, there will be an opportunity when it expires to revisit the issue, he said.

“There’d be another bite at the apple,” he said.

A person familiar with negotiations who was not authorized to speak on the record said Tuesday that the advance appropriations in the 2021 law were meant to be one-time funding, and that extending them in a stopgap measure meant to preserve the status quo would be inappropriate.

The funding is part of a larger policy debate than is usually considered in a continuing resolution, the person said.

The issue could hang over negotiations for full-year spending bills, likely to begin in earnest after November’s elections.

Senate appropriators have not reached a deal for top-line spending levels for fiscal 2027.

Republicans, at President Donald Trump’s urging, are seeking a massive boost to defense programs.

Democrats historically seek parity between non-defense and defense spending, but have relaxed that stance while the extra infrastructure funds have been flowing. Without that additional funding, Democrats might be less amenable to compromise.

A federal commission voted Tuesday in favor of a Trump administration proposal to rescind requirements that larger employers report the demographics of their workers — information that’s used to help enforce racial and gender antidiscrimination laws.

Most employers with 100 or more workers have been required to submit data annually on staff sex, race and ethnicity since 1966 to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Earlier this summer, the administration submitted a proposed rule that would eliminate that reporting requirement for companies as well as for state and local governments. 

The EEOC contends that demographics reporting requirements place an “impermissible focus on ‘minorities’ and women.” The commission argues the forms “may encourage employers to discriminate against employees who are not considered ‘minorities.’” The proposed rule will be posted to the Federal Register for a public comment period of 30 days, and a public hearing will be held Aug. 11, with requests to testify due Aug. 7.

Bloomberg Law reported that the commission voted 2-1 along party lines to advance the plan.  

Since President Donald Trump took office, the administration has been focused on eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The new proposal, if finalized, would roll back federal oversight and limit employer transparency, experts say. 

If the federal requirements end, states might step in to create their own requirements, said Alexandra Garrison Barnett, a partner at the law firm Alston & Bird in Atlanta, Georgia.

“We might see more states imposing those kinds of requirements in the absence of a federal requirement, or we could see states banning or prohibiting employers from collecting (demographic information),” said Barnett, a labor and employment attorney who helps employers evaluate their DEI policies and strategies.

A handful of states already have requirements that employers collect and report on workplace demographic information, she noted. 

The commission’s vote comes on Black Women’s Equal Pay Day. Tuesday marks how far into the year Black women must work to equal the average pay earned by a white man by the end of the previous year.

The lack of demographic data will hinder accountability for employers, said labor economist Valerie Rawlston Wilson, director of the Economic Policy Institute’s Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy.

“(The proposal) is consistent with the general anti-equity push of this administration to eliminate pretty much all of the infrastructure that have been in place for equal employment in this country,” Wilson said. “We have laws in place that prohibit discrimination, but the effectiveness of those laws is really dependent on our ability to enforce those laws. And the enforcement of those laws is facilitated by having consistent reliable data.”

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research reports that Black women make 64 cents for every dollar paid to white men — across all education levels and positions, including leadership positions. 

Broken down by state, the gap widens: In Idaho, for example, Black women make 36 cents for every dollar white men make, across all workers with earnings.

The rule, Wilson said, would “severely hinder the ability of the EEOC to carry out its enforcement responsibilities.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanen@stateline.org.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s guidelines to states on how to request funding under counterterrorism grant programs include potentially illegal demands related to election administration, Democrats on the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee said Thursday.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, sent states last month notices of available federal funding for non-disaster grants under the Homeland Security Grant Program, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and the Transit Security Grant Program.

Those notices included “blatant attempts to force communities to comply with the Trump administration’s political demands” or risk losing $200 million in federal funds, the letter said.

“As we approach the 25th anniversary of September 11th, it is deeply alarming that DHS and FEMA, under Donald Trump, continue to manipulate the very funding born out of a national tragedy,” they wrote. “Playing political games with counterterrorism funding undermines public safety and deprives first responders of the resources they need to do their jobs.”

The panel’s 15 Democrats, led by ranking member Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, signed the letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting FEMA Administrator Robert Fenton.

Spokespeople for DHS, FEMA and the committee’s Republicans did not immediately return messages seeking comment late Thursday. A White House spokesperson referred a request for comment to DHS.

SAVE computer system

The department is withholding up to 20% of the programs’ congressionally appropriated grant funding unless states and cities update their election laws, the Democrats wrote. The administration wants states to use the department’s powerful SAVE computer system to verify the citizenship of every voter, among other demands, the letter said.

The department also continues to retain more than $600 million in 2025 funding, the lawmakers said.

Some of the administration’s demands are unworkable or illegal under federal court decisions or state law, they said.

For example, two days before the notice went to states, a federal judge ruled that states could not use the SAVE system to check voter eligibility.

“It is unclear how or why DHS and FEMA published (notice of funding opportunity) guidance that would deliberately conflict with a court ruling,” they wrote. “To date, FEMA has not provided a revised (notice) that complies with court orders on the use of the SAVE system.”

‘Costly and impossible’ for states

Several requirements, demanded barely five months before midterm elections in November and one month before grant applications are due, “are costly and impossible to achieve on the unrealistic timeline dictated by the administration,” the letter said.

Other criteria were unclear, such as a requirement to “reconcile voters and ballots using a methodology the Secretary has not disclosed,” the Democrats wrote. The department has also not said how post-election manual audits must be conducted.

The lawmakers asked the administration to revert to 2024 guidance, which would remove confusion about the grant programs’ requirements and their legality, release materials that informed the department’s decision to tie the grant funding to election security and to immediately release all holds “explicit or de facto” on last year’s grants.

Constitutional mandate 

The changes would “very likely harm” states’ election integrity, David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said in a media briefing earlier Thursday. 

Becker predicted that the order would be “very easy to block” in court.

The department’s requirements are not authorized by Congress or the Constitution, which empowers states to administer elections, Becker said.

“This administration continues to either fail to understand or openly defy the constitutional mandate that gives authority to run elections to the states,” he said.