Transportation advocates are sounding the alarm bell over whether Massachusetts could lose critical funding under the Trump administration, after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that federal dollars would be tied to immigration policy, birth rates and vaccine mandates.
In a series of memos issued last week, Duffy stated that “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the administration will prioritize projects in areas that comply with federal immigration enforcement, prohibit mask and vaccine mandates and have marriage and birth rates higher than the national average. The move seemingly takes aim at Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts, which limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, mandates vaccines for hospital employees and has lower-than-average birth and marriage rates.
“It is concerning,” said Pete Wilson, senior policy director for the nonprofit advocacy group Transportation For Massachusetts . “Historically, US DOT, and the reason why US DOT exists, is to fund transportation and infrastructure through nonpolitical avenues.”
Wilson said it’s unclear to what extent the new policies could affect Massachusetts. But he noted that the MBTA and the state’s other 15 Regional Transit Authorities rely on federal funding. Several other projects, including a multibillion dollar reconfiguration of I-90 in Allston and the replacement of the Cape Cod bridges have received federal funding.
The MBTA did not respond to a request for comment on the changes. A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation said in an email that the agency is reviewing the Trump administration directives.
Former state representative and former chair of the House Transportation Committee Bill Straus said that while the new policies are concerning for the commonwealth, Gov. Maura Healey’s recent announcement that the state plans to increase transportation funding with revenue from the recently passed surtax on incomes over $1 million, will help Massachusetts weather any disruption in funding.
“We’re going to rely more on our own resources,” he said on GBH’s Boston Public Radio. “We’re probably better off, frankly, than some of the other states you might think would be targeted.”
Other experts have cautioned that it’s too early to tell whether Duffy’s memos will have a tangible, negative effect on Massachusetts, given the legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict federal funding.
“We are in the very early stages of sorting out the actual meaning, enforceability and legality of the blizzard of proclamations,” said former Massachusetts Secretary of State Jim Aloisi.
“My counsel is that people not jump to any conclusions, because there is so much to play out.”
