When then-candidate Donald J. Trump first began making public statements about what would become his infrastructure plan back in August of 2016, observers were uncertain as to what exactly they could expect. Just before that time, candidate Hillary Clinton put forth a $275 billion infrastructure plan, which Trump proposed to “at least double.” Pressed for specifics, campaign staff promised that details would come later in the summer of 2016. By November, the $500 billion proposal had grown to $1 trillion and evolved into a bullet-point list of criticisms and goals on his campaign website. The prospect of infrastructure investment, a long-recognized need, was welcomed by those across the political spectrum, even if the details were still murky.
Faced with cynicism, even within his own party, especially as to cost, Trump clarified that he intended to fund his infrastructure plan through a combination of tax credits and “innovative financing programs” that would provide a “10-to-1 return on investment.” This financing program was also met with criticism, however, in that, because the thought was that such a program relies on a tax credit, only revenue-generating projects with collectible user fees, such as toll roads and bridges, would be capable of being funded in this manner. Further criticism was aimed at the specter of increasing privatization of once-public assets and the invitation for tax fraud perpetrated on an under-funded IRS that the financing scheme might bring with it. A more specific articulation of the plan authored by investor Wilbur Ross and controversial economist Peter Navarro drew further attention to its potential gaps in reasoning and practical shortcomings.