CHICAGO — Shortly after his appointment as the transportation secretary under President Donald Trump, Sean Duffy distributed a controversial memo that emphasized prioritizing families in funding decisions. The memo suggested favoring communities with higher-than-average marriage and birth rates when allocating grants.
Concerns regarding this directive were voiced by prominent lawmakers, including Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who described it as “deeply frightening,” and Patty Murray from Washington, who labeled it “disturbingly dystopian.” Among other stipulations, the memo advised against imposing vaccine and mask mandates for governments receiving funding from the Department of Transportation, in addition to mandating cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The implications of this memo are significant, particularly as there remain hundreds of billions in transportation funds yet to be disbursed from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The new guidelines could potentially favor projects in states that lean Republican, where fertility rates tend to be higher compared to Democratic-leaning states. Conversely, states governed by Democrats generally exhibited greater acceptance of mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, and have also shown resistance to Trump’s immigration policies.
When it comes to determining which transportation projects receive prioritization, it is typical for administrations to establish their own criteria. However, some aspects of Duffy’s directives have raised eyebrows. Kevin DeGood, a senior director with the Center for American Progress, expressed that the focus on marriage and birth rates in allocating transportation funding feels “bizarre” and “a little creepy.” DeGood questioned the rationale behind neglecting regions with older populations that may have naturally lower birth rates, suggesting that these areas should still qualify for transportation investments.
Recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that in 2022, states with the highest fertility rates primarily supported Trump in the last election, while those with the lowest rates — including the District of Columbia — leaned Democratic. Marriage rates align with these trends, though the discrepancy is not as significant.
Vice President JD Vance has long echoed concerns regarding declining birth rates, citing both economic implications and the inherent value of family. Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn raised the possibility of linking transportation funding to population growth during Duffy’s confirmation hearing, pointing out the migration of people from blue states to destinations like Tennessee.
Sarah Hayford, a sociology professor and director of a population research institute, stated that she was surprised by the emphasis on birth rates as a criterion for funding. Traditionally, policies addressing declining birth rates focus on removing obstacles to parenthood rather than rewarding existing families.
The U.S. birth rate has seen a downward trend since 2007, a situation that Hayford attributes partially to economic challenges experienced during the Great Recession. Her research connects higher birth rates with areas that have lower levels of education. Long-standing transportation policies already take into consideration the needs of families and children, according to Beth Jarosz, a senior program director at the Population Reference Bureau. She argues that using birth rates as an indicator for investment in family support isn’t necessarily effective, as many growing families migrate to find homes that suit their expanding needs.
The Department of Transportation has yet to respond to inquiries about Duffy’s memo. So far, there is no information indicating birth and marriage rates have been connected to non-transportation grants.
Critics like Blumenthal have gone so far as to compare the directive to social engineering reminiscent of certain repressive regimes. He contended that the focus on these demographic factors appears discriminatory, targeting blue states and influencing their legal policies regarding mandates and immigration.
U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume expressed concern that Duffy’s approach could jeopardize previously announced grants, such as an $85 million award to Baltimore aimed at revitalizing a previously neglected area. Mfume urged Duffy to be transparent if his intentions were indeed to favor red states, warning that pushback could escalate to legal challenges across the nation.
Jarosz noted that the political implications of the memo are murky, given that certain progressive areas, such as parts of California, exhibit high birth rates and could be impacted by these new criteria while rural regions might not meet the threshold.
Regarding legality, experts remain uncertain whether any aspects of Duffy’s memo could face judicial challenges. While federal laws protect against discrimination based on various criteria, crafting a legal argument linking funding distribution to political affiliation presents complications. Joel Roberson, a transportation lawyer, noted that while federal administrations have significant latitude in setting funding criteria, communities denied support could claim they faced discriminatory practices if their funding requests were rejected geared toward a particular demographic.
State officials involved in transportation have expressed that they believe the new guidelines will not currently affect the federal funding access used to address local infrastructure needs. However, discretionary grants handled by the federal administration are subject to changes. The legality surrounding previously approved grants, including a significant commitment made prior to Biden’s exit from office for a Chicago transit project, remains uncertain.
Blumenthal, with his background in law, suggested that the memo lacks the legal weight of formal regulations, and he predicts that the courts will ultimately disallow the policy. He remarked, “Anyone can draft a memo.”
