But industry officials have been studying the political landscape and recent history finding clues about the policy paths each candidate might take on infrastructure.

Steve Hall, American Council of Engineering Companies executive vice president, said in an interview, “There is an assumption that a Harris administration would be inclined to support policies, and perhaps funding, that is consistent with what the Biden administration has done.” Hall adds, “That may not be the case with a Trump administration.”

The Biden-Harris administration’s marquee infrastructure accomplishment has been the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Harris has been involved in the funding rollout from that landmark package, says Dave Bauer, American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) president and CEO.

Looking ahead, Gribbin, now an infrastructure consultant, said via email, “A Harris administration is likely to maintain the course set by the current administration and would be inclined to find ways to maintain the elevated spending on infrastructure flowing from IIJA, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act,” or IRA.

Although Harris has been quiet about her infrastructure policies, President Biden has linked her to the IIJA. In a speech at the Democratic National Committee Convention in Chicago last month, he stated that “because of what Kamala and I have done … we’re giving America an infrastructure decade, not week.”

Biden added, “We’re modernizing our roads, our bridges, our ports, our trains, our buses.” He also mentioned removing lead from drinking-water lines and expanding broadband around the country.

A Trump administration, Gribbin says, would likely “take another look at spending under the Inflation Reduction Act.” That 2022 law includes tens of billions of dollars and an extensive list of provisions to address greenhouse gas emissions.

Gribbin also says Trump would probably take steps aimed at streamlining the project-approval process. “The need to address the excessively long permitting process has bipartisan support,” he says.

ARTBA’S Bauer said in an interview, “President Trump was very supportive of infrastructure when he ran as a candidate in 2016 and during his presidency.”

In 2018, Trump did unveil an outline of a major infrastructure proposal that had an estimated price tag of $1.5 trillion. But that plan included only $200 billion in direct federal funds. It also sought to draw on state and local matching funds as well as assistance from the private sector. That plan went nowhere in Congress.

Michele Stanley, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association executive vice president and chief advocacy officer, said via email that members of both parties support addressing infrastructure needs. But she adds, “Democrats tend to be more willing to spend the money” and Republicans “are more supportive of a pro-business environment with rules and regulations that foster economic growth.”

When the dust settles after Nov. 5, infrastructure advocates, particularly those who focus on transportation, will be eagerly waiting to see what the new Congress and the White House have to say about what will be one of construction’s top legislative priorities in the 119th Congress: the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs.

The legislation deals only with the federal highway and transit programs that are supported by the Highway Trust Fund. The current authorization is part of the IIJA.

The surface transportation authorization is critically important to construction and states. According to ARTBA, the current five-year authorizations total $303.5 billion in highway contract authority and $69.9 billion in transit contract authority.

Many IIJA provisions are not covered by the surface reauthorization, such as non-transportation programs as well as aviation and most DOT discretionary grants.

Still, at more than $370 billion, the surface transportation part of the IIJA was huge. It also served as the engine to pull other transportation and non-transportation infrastructure programs and form the eventual mega-measure.

With a new highway-transit measure now on the horizon, ACEC’s Hall says that the key question is whether Congress will aim to pass another massive, multisector package—“a bipartisan infrastructure law Part II”—or will lawmakers pursue something narrower, a surface transportation-only bill, perhaps with some add-ons.

So what do Harris and Trump prefer? Hall says,“We don’t have a sense yet what either candidate will go for.” Construction and transportation groups underscore that, in any case, Congress must not miss the Sept. 30, 2026, deadline.“Otherwise,” Hall says, “the program lapses and we have chaos with state DOTs.”

A transportation issue may also come into play on Capitol Hill in the debate over another major construction-related issue: the coming expiration of elements of the 2017 Jobs and Tax Cuts Act. That legislation is scheduled to lapse at the end of December 2025.

Stanley says NSSGA sees the upcoming tax reform debate “as a timely opportunity to solve the Highway Trust Fund solvency issues once and for all.” The problem is “longstanding,” Stanley adds. The trust fund’s revenue, from motor fuels taxes and other sources, has been falling short of its disbursements for highway and transit projects.

To keep the trust fund out of a deficit position, Congress since 2008 has approved a series of transfers, mainly from the Treasury’s general fund. Those infusions have totaled $275 billion to date, including $118 billion in the IIJA.

That has bought the trust fund some breathing room for several years. But more help may be needed in the future.