trump Claims Credit for Infrastructure Projects He Previously Opposed
WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump is actively taking credit for the benefits of infrastructure projects funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, despite publicly opposing the legislation when it was before Congress. The shift comes as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president, highlighting a pattern among GOP lawmakers who now tout funding they previously voted against.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed by President Biden in November 2021, allocates billions of dollars to upgrade roads, bridges, public transit, broadband internet access, adn other vital infrastructure across the country.While the law garnered support from both parties,it faced staunch opposition from many Republicans,including Trump,who derided it as a Democratic overreach. Now, Trump is showcasing projects enabled by the law at rallies and in statements, presenting them as achievements of his own policies.
This isn’t an isolated incident.Several Republican members of Congress are similarly promoting infrastructure funding they initially opposed. Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia recently deleted a social media post praising a $70 million expansion of the Port of Virginia in Norfolk, funded by the infrastructure bill, after his office steadfast it created the impression he supported the legislation. Wittman had previously issued a press release criticizing the bill as a “Green New Deal in disguise.”
“While Congressman Wittman voted against the infrastructure bill, he’s ecstatic that the Port of Virginia received the funding that he worked so hard over the years to secure,” a spokesperson told ABC News.
Other Republicans, including Representatives Gary Palmer, Ashley Hinson, and Kay Granger, have also highlighted infrastructure funding in their districts that they voted against, according to reports from ABC News and the Los Angeles Times. This behaviour underscores a growing trend of republicans embracing the tangible benefits of the infrastructure law while attempting to distance themselves from its legislative origins. The situation raises questions about political consistency and the willingness of lawmakers to prioritize local benefits over partisan loyalty.
