DOT-administered funding through the BUILD competitive grant program has disproportionately been awarded to districts and states represented by congressional Republicans, according to new Eno Center analysis. The appearance of political favoritism is not new; awards have historically often been skewed to fund projects in seats held by the party in power, as well as by powerful congressional appropriators of both parties. Certain RAISE grant funding rounds under the Biden administration appeared significantly lopsided on partisan grounds. Under the second Trump administration, however, partisan favoritism of grant awards has seemingly soared to new heights.

Case in point: despite Republicans only maintaining the narrowest of majorities in the House of Representatives (just 50.8% of total House seats on Opening Day of the 119th Congress), 75% of BUILD 25 Round 2 funding was awarded to projects in Republican-held seats. Likewise, 82% of the round’s funding flowed towards states with Republican senators, despite Republicans holding only 53 of 100 Senate seats.

These findings suggest that, although authorized to award projects on the basis of competitive, nonpartisan criteria, BUILD grants have in many ways continued to demonstrate clear partisan preference by the executive branch.

Background

Congressional appropriators originally created what would become the BUILD grant program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Though not originally authorized in statute, each year, Congress would dedicate annual appropriations to the USDOT competitive grant program through the National Infrastructure Investments account. The program’s awards were initially known as TIGER grants, standing for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. The first Trump administration continued the grants through annual appropriations while attaching a new, more straight-to-the point moniker to the program: Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development, or BUILD.

While intended as a fully competitive program, based on USDOT discretionary evaluation of project merit, the program eventually evolved into something of a substitute for congressionally earmarked project funds. When a former Senate Appropriations Committee clerk, assumed the post of Under Secretary of Transportation midway through the Obama presidency, the list of TIGER grant awardees started showing signs of preference for the districts and states of powerful congressional appropriators. This trend continued under the first Trump administration, as a former Senate Republican leadership staffer was elevated to the position of Under Secretary.

The grants program would be renamed twice more. Under the Biden administration, the program was referred to as Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, or RAISE. The program quickly reverted to the BUILD label during Trump’s second term. However, the more significant change over this time period was the introduction of a new, more stable federal funding source. Originally funded through the yearly appropriations process, the program was written into law as part of the IIJA and provided an additional, dependable $1.5 billion per year through FY 2026 by way of the law’s Division J advance appropriations.

Analysis

As the IIJA’s advance appropriations for the grant program come to an end, it’s worth assessing how grants have been awarded across the country during the Biden administration. Evidence points toward significant overrepresentation of congressional districts and states represented by the party in power over the last seven rounds of grant funding. This seeming partisan favoritism has reached new heights under the second Trump administration.

Since 2020, margins within the House and Senate have remained slim, meaning the number of districts and states represented by Republicans and Democrats, as well as the number of Americans within them, has stayed approximately balanced. However, RAISE and BUILD grant awards have failed to represent this nearly 50-50 split, instead seeming to favor the party in power. While the Biden administration awarded nearly half of grant funding to Republican-held seats in the 2022, 2024, and 2025 rounds of RAISE awards, it sent only 32% of funds to red House districts during its first round of awards. Even in this lopsided round, states with Republican senators still received 45% of funds.

The trend of apparent partisan preference has become much harder to ignore during the second Trump administration. In both rounds of awards under Secretary Duffy, Republican-held House districts have received over 70% of BUILD grant funding. Moreover, states with Republican senators received 82% of BUILD 25 Round 2 funding. These amounts simply fail to add up with the roughly 51% of Americans represented by Republican members of the House or the roughly 47% of Americans represented by Republican senators.

As shown above, when directly comparing grant awards with the balance of congressional seats, clear partisan disparities emerge. Democratic seats received 17 percentage points more of total RAISE 21 funding than they would have if funding was split evenly among seats. Meanwhile, states with Republican senators received 29 percent of BUILD 25 Round 2 funding than their share of Senate seats suggest they would receive if states received uniform funding.

Totaling up the amounts awarded by each administration makes partisan overrepresentation under the second Trump administration far starker. The Biden administration awarded 43% of RAISE funds to Democratic-held House districts over its five rounds of funding. Throughout this time, Democrats held 49 to 51% of House seats, so there is an approximately 6 to 8 percentage point disparity in favor of blue districts.

By contrast, over the second Trump administration’s first two grant rounds, 72% of BUILD award funding has flown to Republican-held districts. This represents approximately 21 percent of BUILD funding awarded to red districts more than they would have received if awards were distributed evenly in line with the slim Republican majority in the House.

It may be tempting to attribute the apparent partisan preference to a change in the criteria administration officials are looking for when selecting grants. Indeed, previous ETW analysis has shown Trump administration BUILD grants have heavily favored highway projects, while the Biden administration spread out funding more evenly among modes. In theory, a preference for highway projects could explain the Trump administration’s perceived partisan bias, as Republican state governments are often more focused on highway expansion than on transit, rail, pedestrian and bike infrastructure.

However, the data appears to refute this proposed explanation. Roadway projects in Republican-held House districts received 50% of funding under the Biden administration’s final round of grants. This share of roadway funding to red districts skyrocketed to over 80% within the two most recent Trump-era rounds. It is possible that Democratic-governed areas are being penalized for content of their project proposals this administration opposes, like climate, equity, and complete streets provisions, rather than the partisanship of their members of Congress. A preference for projects in more geographically expansive districts and states – usually Republican – could account for some of the bias, though the statutorily required 50-50 rural-urban split should largely negate this factor.

All in all, the clear partisan differential in grant distribution across transportation modes suggests that partisanship serves as a dominant factor, whether conscious or intentional, in the Trump administration’s selection of BUILD grant awards.

Notes on Methodology

When a grant was awarded to multiple districts, we assumed even division of grant funds between the different included districts for the sake of simplicity. Similarly, for states with split-party Senate delegations, we categorized half of grant funding within the Democratic column and half within the Republican column. Funding to districts and states represented by independent members of Congress was categorized according to the party with which the member caucuses. For congressional seat vacancies, we looked to the most recent election result. We excluded federal districts and territories for analysis of awards by party of states in the Senate.

House seats generally serve as a more accurate baseline for this analysis. Since districts contain a relatively uniform number of constituents, we know that when the House is near evenly split, a roughly equivalent number of people live in Republican and Democratic-held districts. By contrast, because small states like Wyoming have the same number of Senators as large states like California, the share of Republican Senate seats overcounts the share of Americans represented by Republican Senators. For example, Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats but represent states where only 47% of Americans live.

This Github database on members of Congress proved essential to sorting out funding by district, along with the comprehensive BUILD/RAISE/TIGER grant awards spreadsheet recently released by the Department of Transportation.