Read theMandate

Project 2025 › Chapter 19

Department of Transportation

Chapter 19 · pp. 619–640 · Diana Furchtgott-Roth

What this chapter is about

This chapter is about roads, trains and cars. It says states should decide how to spend transport money, not Washington. It wants the rules on how far cars must go per gallon loosened. It also wants clearer rules for self-driving cars.

6 proposals indexed from this chapter.

The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, DOTHow: legislationp. 621 in the PDF
What the document says

“DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abolished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 621

The chapter argues that federal money removes the incentive for state and local officials to check whether an investment is worthwhile, because it becomes what it calls someone else's money. It says states know their own needs and are the ones incentivized to weigh long-term maintenance costs, and that at a bare minimum the number of grant programs should be consolidated.

What the document actually says

“DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abolished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 621
That sentence, in plain words

End the grants the department hands out by choice. Send money to states by formula instead.

What this is about

Washington picks which transport projects get money. The book says states should decide instead. Money would go out by a set formula.

Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate, rule-2025-19460 of October 3, 2025, removes race-based and sex-based presumptions of disadvantage from the Transportation Department's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs. It changes who qualifies inside those programs and leaves every discretionary grant program standing. Nothing indexed abolishes or consolidates the department's discretionary grant programs or shifts that money to formula distribution to the states, which would take an act of Congress. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.

The document says “would be more efficient”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 621 in the PDF
What the document says

“it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 621

The chapter frames this as conditional on funding remaining federal at all, and says the approach would let states prioritize different kinds of transportation, giving states that rely more on cars as its example.

What the document actually says

“it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 621
That sentence, in plain words

It would work better to send the money to each state. Each state could then buy what it needs.

What this is about

Some states need roads most. Others need buses or trains. The book says each state should choose. Washington would just send the money.

Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed document changes how transportation money reaches the states or lets a state choose which transportation services to buy with it, and the change would take an act of Congress. The nearest candidate is a docket, State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, and the litigation record here carries docket details rather than the text of any ruling. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.

The document says “must”Who acts: DOT, NHTSAHow: regulationp. 628 in the PDF
What the document says

“The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 628

The chapter states that the 1975 statute directs the department to set the maximum feasible mileage requirements achievable with combustion technology, and not so high as to stop automakers profitably meeting demand. It says standards must be reset at levels technologically feasible for combustion vehicles and consistent with increased domestic production, and suggests considering a return to the model year 2020 levels aimed at a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon.

What the document actually says

“The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 628
That sentence, in plain words

Put the fuel rules back inside the limits Congress set.

What this is about

Cars must average a set number of miles per gallon. The book says the target went too high. It says it should go back to what the law allows.

What has happened
Partly matches

Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program

2025-06-11 · 90 FR 24518

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretive rule on June 11, 2025 titled Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. It sets out the factors the agency reads the law to forbid it from considering when it sets maximum feasible standards under the 1975 and 2007 statutes, describes this as the legal foundation for bringing both the passenger car program and the medium and heavy duty program into compliance with those statutes, and says the agency will exercise its enforcement authority over existing standards according to that reading. That is the chapter's argument about statutory limits carried into agency practice. The fit breaks down because an interpretive rule does not set mileage numbers: replacement standards are left to a later rulemaking, so the levels the chapter asks for, feasible for combustion vehicles, are not yet in place, and the rule takes no position on returning to model year 2020 levels.

In plain English

A federal road safety agency put out a rule on June 11, 2025. It lists the things the law bars it from weighing when it sets gas mileage rules. The agency calls this the legal base for fixing the car and truck programs. But the rule sets no mileage numbers, and new limits are left for later.

The document says “must”Who acts: DOT, EPAHow: regulationp. 628 in the PDF
What the document says

“Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 628

The chapter says environmental limits must not override or usurp the transportation department's role under the 1975 energy statute, and offers as an example that the environmental agency could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to transportation.

What the document actually says

“Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 628
That sentence, in plain words

Any carbon limits must fit with the transport rules. They must not override them.

What this is about

Two agencies both affect car rules. One covers mileage, one covers pollution. The book says the mileage agency should lead.

What has happened
Partly matches

Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act

2026-02-18 · 91 FR 7686

The Federal Register summary of this final rule of February 18, 2026 records the Environmental Protection Agency rescinding the 2009 findings of contribution and endangerment and repealing all greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, on the agency's reading that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize standards set in response to global climate change concerns. That removes the federal carbon limits on vehicles that the passage says must not override the fuel economy standards Congress assigned to the Transportation Department, so the clash the chapter describes no longer arises. The fit breaks down because the passage assumes such limits continue and asks only that they support and work in harmony with the Transportation Department's standards, offering air conditioning systems as an example of what the environmental agency might still regulate, while the rule concludes the agency has no authority to set vehicle greenhouse gas standards at all. The rule states no relationship between the two agencies, and neither the 1975 energy statute nor the Transportation Department appears in what the site holds, which for this document is the rule's own summary rather than its full text.

In plain English

The same rule of February 18, 2026 lifts the federal climate limits on cars. The passage said such limits must not override the mileage rules Congress set. With the limits gone, that clash no longer comes up. But the rule goes further and says the agency had no power to set them at all.

The document says “should”Who acts: DOT, NHTSAHow: regulationp. 625 in the PDF
What the document says

“NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 625

The chapter asks for a technology-neutral approach with safety as the first priority, and separately that the motor carrier agency clarify its rules so that drivers can be safely removed from the operation of a commercial vehicle. It says these technologies can save lives and expand mobility for people with disabilities, aging populations and communities where car ownership is impractical.

What the document actually says

“NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 625
That sentence, in plain words

The safety agency should clear the rules out of the way. It should set rules based on how well a car performs.

What this is about

Cars that drive themselves face old rules written for human drivers. The book says those rules should be updated. New rules would judge how well the car performs.

Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed rule updates the federal motor vehicle safety standards for automated vehicles, publishes performance-based rules for how they operate, or clarifies the motor carrier rules on removing a driver from a commercial vehicle. The nearest candidate, rule-2025-10586, is a highway safety agency interpretive rule about fuel economy, and rule-2026-16388 sets rules for scooters and similar devices in national parks. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.

The document says “should”Who acts: DOTHow: internal managementp. 625 in the PDF
What the document says

“It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 625

The chapter adds that if a technology underperforms the private sector should bear the liability rather than the government, and that the department's role is to oversee testing and deployment so that communities and individuals can choose what fits them.

What the document actually says

“It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 625
That sentence, in plain words

Firms should pick which one wins. That is not a job for government.

What this is about

New transport technology is being tested. The book says government should not choose which kind wins. Firms should take that risk.

What has happened
Partly matches

Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers

2025-04-09 · 90 FR 15629

Executive Order 14267 of April 9, 2025 opens with the statement that federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers, and directs every agency head, including at the Transportation Department, to review all regulations under their rulemaking authority with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General and identify those that create monopolies, raise barriers to entry, or otherwise limit competition, with a view to rescinding them. It adopts the chapter's premise and turns it into a concrete review. The fit breaks down because it acts on regulations that restrict competition between firms and does not reach the government backing particular technologies through funding or promotion, and it says nothing about who bears the liability when a technology underperforms or about the department's role in overseeing testing and deployment.

In plain English

The order says rules should not pick winners. That is the chapter's own view. Agencies must find rules that block new firms. But it reaches rules, not money the government spends on a technology. It says nothing about blame when a technology fails.

What cites those orders

10 agency rules

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

Share this page
How to cite this
  1. The document itself

    Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “Department of Transportation,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 619-640.
    https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

  2. This page

    “Department of Transportation,” Project 2025, chapter 19. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-19/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).

Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.

What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out

Recommendations on how transportation funding is distributed, the infrastructure loan program, public-private partnerships, automated vehicles and fuel economy standards.

The chapter's treatment of aviation, rail and transit programs in detail, and its technical discussion of loan underwriting terms.

Several proposals here are about process rather than policy, such as how loans should be structured. Those are summarized rather than indexed one by one.