The Highway Funding Flexibility Act of 2025 would redirect unobligated federal funding from two electric vehicle infrastructure programs into other highway-related uses. Specifically, it would repurpose unused money from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program so states can use those funds for traditional highway projects such as construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, bridge replacement and rehabilitation, wildlife crossing improvements, truck parking, and related engineering and design work.
For future fiscal years, the bill would continue to require that these program funds be distributed to states, but it would narrow their use to the highway purposes listed in the bill rather than EV charging or fueling infrastructure. It also changes how certain set-aside funds are handled, directing unobligated amounts that had been reserved for the Joint Office and for additional assistance grants back to states under a proportional formula tied to existing highway apportionments. The bill specifies that these redirected amounts are treated largely like other federal-aid highway funds, while remaining available for the same period they would have been under the original programs.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend the practical use of funding authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and related highway title provisions by limiting EV charging infrastructure dollars and converting them into broader highway funding. It would affect the administration of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, as well as the distribution of certain set-asides, while leaving the underlying statutory programs in place. States, transportation agencies, and entities involved in EV infrastructure deployment would lose access to these funds for charging and fueling projects, and highway departments would gain additional flexibility to apply the money to roads, bridges, truck parking, and wildlife-collision mitigation.
Sentiment
The bill’s framing and title suggest support from sponsors who favor redirecting unused EV infrastructure dollars toward more conventional transportation needs. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for maximizing immediate highway spending and reducing the amount of federal money reserved for EV charging deployment.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether federal funds originally intended to build out electric vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure should instead be repurposed for highway projects. Supporters are likely to argue that unobligated balances should not sit idle and should be used for roads, bridges, truck parking, and safety-related improvements. Opponents would likely object that the bill undermines national EV infrastructure goals, reduces support for charging deployment, and could slow the transition to electric vehicles by diverting money away from that purpose. The bill also raises administrative questions about how set-aside funds and future appropriations should be reprogrammed and whether states should have discretion to choose between EV infrastructure and highway uses.