Fact-Checking the '11 Percent' Infrastructure Claim: What the Bipartisan Law Actually Funded

When President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)—commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—into law in late 2021, it was hailed by supporters as a historic, once-in-a-generation investment in the nation’s physical foundations. Yet, almost immediately, the legislation became a target of fierce political debate. Critics, led by former President Trump and conservative advocacy groups, labeled it a "spending spree" that neglected traditional infrastructure in favor of progressive policy priorities [1, 6].

Central to this criticism was the assertion that "only 11 percent" of the package’s funding was allocated to "real infrastructure" [1]. As the nation marks several years of project implementation in 2026, the validity of this claim can be tested directly against the law's statutory appropriations and subsequent project obligations. An empirical review shows that the claim rests on two major fallacies: a misleading comparison of different funding baselines and a highly selective definition of what constitutes infrastructure.

The Origin of the 11 Percent Figure

The "11 percent" claim did not emerge in a vacuum; it was a modified iteration of earlier arguments directed at the Biden administration's initial, much larger legislative proposals. In early 2021, when the White House first unveiled the "American Jobs Plan"—a $2.3 trillion proposal that included substantial funding for elder care, housing, and research and development—critics calculated that only 5% to 7% went to "actual roads and bridges" [5].

When negotiations subsequently stripped out the social spending categories to produce the narrower Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the critics' mathematical formula remained. The final legislation included $110 billion in new discretionary funding specifically earmarked for roads, bridges, and major surface transportation projects [2]. Opponents divided this $110 billion by the total price tag of the bill ($1.2 trillion), yielding approximately 9.2%. When rounded up or adjusted slightly, this calculation formed the basis of the "11 percent" talking point [1, 2].

However, this calculation is a mathematical mismatch. It compares new roads-and-bridges funding with the bill's total authorized cost. The $1.2 trillion figure is a gross authorization that includes $650 billion in baseline funding to reauthorize pre-existing, recurring federal highway and surface transportation programs over five years [3]. If one counts the total funding for roads and bridges (the baseline highway trust fund spending plus the new supplemental funding), the allocation exceeds $350 billion, representing approximately 30% of the entire $1.2 trillion package.

What the Data Shows: The New Funding Breakdown

To evaluate the claim fairly, analysts focus on the $550 billion in new spending authorized by the law above the baseline [2, 3]. Applying standard accounting categories from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that traditional transportation projects received the single largest share of this new capital [2].

Of the $550 billion in new funding, roads, bridges, and major projects received $110 billion (20.0%). Passenger and freight rail received $66 billion (12.0%), representing the largest federal investment in Amtrak since its creation. Public transit systems received $39 billion (7.1%), airports received $25 billion (4.5%), and ports and waterways received $17 billion (3.1%) [2]. Combined, these transportation systems account for $257 billion, or 46.7% of the new funding [2].

To reach the 11% figure, critics had to exclude all forms of transportation other than highways. By this standard, the federal government's investments in passenger trains, subway networks, airport runways, and shipping ports were characterized as "non-infrastructure" spending. Yet, these assets have been classified as public infrastructure by economists and federal budgets for generations.

The Definition of Infrastructure

The second major flaw in the 11% claim is the exclusion of utility networks. Traditional infrastructure planning has long recognized that physical grids—such as water supply lines, electrical transmission wires, and communication links—are just as vital to economic activity as concrete roads.

The nonpartisan American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which issues a biennial National Infrastructure Report Card, routinely grades 17 categories of infrastructure. These categories include drinking water, wastewater, the electricity grid, solid waste, and broadband [4]. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, these three utility categories received historic funding:

• Clean Water and Wastewater: $55 billion was allocated to replace lead service lines, address PFAS chemicals, and upgrade local water treatment plants [2].
• Broadband Expansion: $65 billion was directed to expand high-speed internet access to rural and underserved areas [2].
• Power and Energy: $73 billion was targeted at modernizing the nation's electrical grid, building new transmission lines, and promoting renewable energy integrations [2].

Combined, these three categories account for $193 billion, or 35.1% of the new funding. If one accepts the standard economic definition of infrastructure—which encompasses both transportation networks and utility grids—the total allocation in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law reaches $450 billion, representing 81.8% of all new spending. This classification is not a partisan invention; the Trump administration's own 2018 legislative infrastructure proposal explicitly defined water infrastructure, rural broadband, and energy grid projects as core components eligible for federal investment.

The Full Picture: Nuance and Policy Debates

While the claim that the bill spent only 11% on infrastructure is factually incorrect, the debates surrounding the legislation do highlight genuine policy disagreements. Conservative and libertarian organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, have argued that while clean water and broadband are physical networks, funding them is not a proper federal role [6]. They contend that local municipal water systems should be funded via local utility rates, and that private telecommunications companies are better suited to expand broadband networks without taxpayer intervention. Under this view, excluding municipal utilities and commercial communications from "federal infrastructure" spending is a matter of constitutional philosophy rather than accounting [6].

There are also legitimate debates regarding the efficiency and execution of the bill's non-traditional transportation spending. The IIJA allocated $7.5 billion to build a national network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers, but the rollout has faced significant operational delays. By mid-2024, only a handful of federally funded charging stations had actually been opened to the public, drawing bipartisan criticism over red tape and slow implementation [7]. Furthermore, the $79 billion allocated for environmental remediation and climate resilience—including projects like capping abandoned oil wells and building flood defenses—while involving physical labor, is viewed by some critics as environmental spending rather than core infrastructure development.

Acknowledging these policy debates is essential for a fair analysis. Reasonable policymakers can disagree on whether the federal government should finance broadband networks, subsidize EV chargers, or spend billions on grid resilience. However, framing this disagreement by claiming the legislation is a "non-infrastructure" bill that spent 89% of its resources on unrelated programs is a distortion of the empirical record.

Conclusion

The claim that only 11% of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law went to infrastructure is unsupported by the data. The figure is a product of selective arithmetic that counts only highway funding, ignores baseline surface transportation spending, and excludes Amtrak, public transit, airports, ports, water treatment facilities, electrical transmission lines, and broadband networks. Under standard policy frameworks, core physical infrastructure accounted for more than 80% of the law's new capital. While the efficiency and federal scope of these programs remain subjects of ongoing debate, the bill was, by any conventional metric, overwhelmingly dedicated to the nation's physical infrastructure.