The dust is beginning to settle after a landmark US Presidential election, and industry stakeholders are taking stock, trying to understand how a second Trump White House will affect their industries.
Airport Technology spoke to industry professionals across the US aviation sector to bring you a sense of the initial feeling in the aftermath of the surprise landslide result.
Go deeper with GlobalData
It’s all about tariffs, baby
Although transport policy was entirely missing from the Republican “platform” documents prior to the election (unless you count the Project 2025 documents, which Trump has so far distanced himself from). But while airport infrastructure, air taxes and new technologies and fuels were absent, tariffs were not.
Trade tariffs have been a pillar of Trump’s personal platform for a decade or more. He hiked prices of domestic goods, technology like solar panels, and the import duties on raw materials like steel and aluminium.
While these duties, which are paid by the importer not the country of origin, were metered out across all imports to the US, Trump has held a special contempt for China. In 2018 he levied a gigantic $50bn on Chinese goods and sparked a trade war.
President-elect Trump’s strong words on the matter during the 2024 election campaign have worried those in the air cargo sector.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataXeneta, an ocean and air freight intelligence platform, explained Trump’s election would mark a “step in the wrong direction” for international trade into the US.
Its chief analyst Peter Sand explained that importers should not be pleased with the election result, but he noted that a conclusive win did ward off the dangers of uncertain months (as designed by Trump after his 2020 campaign lost to Joe Biden, and he pivoted to unsubstantiated claims of an election “theft”).
“Another Trump presidency will not be welcomed by US importers and exporters, but they needed a swift and clear result in the election. Uncertainty is toxic for supply chains, so at least the industry now has a clearer understanding of the financial and operational risk and can execute the plans they will have prepared in the event of another Trump presidency,” Sand said.
(De)Regulate
Unlike Warren G and Nate Dogg, President-elect Trump isn’t interested in regulation. Quite the opposite, in fact, as deregulation has been a second pillar of his industrial strategy.
Clearly influenced by his many years in the heavily regulated construction industry, Trump has often railed against what he considers constraints on entrepreneurial business.
Expert aviation and consumer lawyer Timothy Loranger (senior partner at Wisner Baum) shed a light on how this might look after 20 January 2025, the date of Trump’s second inauguration.
“If Trump returns to office, the aviation industry could face sweeping changes, with deregulation likely taking centre stage. We’d expect a renewed push to ease up on federal oversight, favouring a more ‘self-regulate’ approach for major industries like aviation,” Loranger predicted.
“This might look like efforts to privatize air traffic control, something the prior administration floated. Privatizing air traffic management could cut costs and streamline operations, but it would also shift control from the FAA to private interests, raising concerns about how public safety standards might fare in that scenario.”
In the context of Boeing’s recent production failures and the ongoing FAA processes, it’s clear to see why the idea of deregulation might set industry nerves on edge. And as Loranger set out, that isn’t just a US problem.
“Globally, a focus on deregulation could set U.S. aviation on a different track than other major regulatory bodies, like the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. The industry operates across international borders, and a potential divergence from global standards could add complexity and friction for U.S.-based airlines and manufacturers who must operate within a global framework,” he explained.
But Loranger’s view is not ubiquitous. While his view is focused on commercial mass transit aviation, the private jet sector offered another view of the regulatory ecosystem – and Trump’s likely effect on the smaller VIP sector.
Kevin Singh is CEO of Icarus Jet, a private jet and charter provider. He deemed the impact of potential Trump deregulation as minimal, because the current environment is already “relatively simple.”
“Aviation in the USA has historically never been heavily regulated, unlike its counterparts in the EU or elsewhere. It is relatively simple to operate a private aircraft in the USA. The only regulations implemented were because of International pressure (like SIC type and First class medical for international flights and SMS implementation),” he told Airport Technology.
Singh noted instead that ‘green’ regulations were more of a concern for the private jet sector, with laws that appeared to impact business negatively repealed during Trump’s first term.
“The biggest fear private aircraft operators and airlines have is the environmental regulations… Most EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations and water and air clean acts were rolled back during Trump’s first term, and they did not seem to impact aviation positively,” he said.
While the private jet and charter sector may enjoy domestic growth in such a scenario, Loranger described a more difficult international picture for US airlines and aviators if Trump again dismantles climate change reduction initiatives.
“With global aviation increasingly focusing on carbon reduction, diverging from those goals could isolate US interests, potentially impacting our international partnerships and reputation in aviation,” he explained.
Federal Funding Fiasco?
Although Trump and his direct team have not (publicly) opined on the level of federal funding the Department of Transport may receive over the next four years, but we can look back to understand what is likely.
Although Trump has talked of the need to rebuild US infrastructure, more has actually been done to that effect during Biden’s time in office than the 2016 term. While there is no direct answer, yet, to the question of future funding, there are possible hints in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document.
Writing on the subject of the DoT, economist and George Washington University professor Diana Furchtgott-Roth decried the evolution of the government arm from a policy maker, to “to believe that its role is ‘to deliver the world’s leading transportation system’”.
The FAA, which is identified by Furchtgott-Roth as “overly bureaucratic, legalistic, byzantine, and… hyperpoliticized”, is also the most visible agency within the DoT.
Under her plan, Furchtgott-Roth would separate the key aviation body from the Department, and “completely restructure the FAA’s funding system so that the nation’s aviation system is not held prisoner to annual appropriations or used as a political football to solve nonaviation problems.”
Going into more granular detail, and reaching further into business operations than some US conservatives might naturally aim for, Furchtgott-Roth also recommended publicly supporting mergers of smaller airlines to help bolster nationwide and international competition.
She recommended: “Publicly indicat[ing] that a new Administration would support joint venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers.”
However, this policy is not openly supported by Trump and his team. We will simply have to wait and see if it is adopted or ignored.
Yet some stakeholders have already formed opinions and made predictions.
Kevin Singh of Icarus Jet told Airport Technology he expected the positive results of “Biden’s infrastructure improvements” to end as soon as Trump sets foot in the Oval Office.
“The first two years of the Trump administration will be a Biden economy and policy phase-out, as Trump’s cabinet will shape its agenda,” he predicted.
Loranger agreed with Singh, but approached the issue of funding from another angle: taxes.
“On the tax front, corporate cuts could give financial relief to airlines and aviation manufacturers, allowing them to lower costs. While that’s attractive on the surface, it could reduce federal revenue, indirectly affecting agencies like the FAA,” he advised.
Even with a fully Republican government, in the White House, on the Hill, and in the Supreme Court, the Administration might find full-throated cuts to large departments and agencies problematic. In which case, indirect cuts through tax breaks could well be the tool of choice. And that will still likely result in dangerous outcomes, the lawyer said.
“Less funding could mean less oversight, and the potential trickle-down effect here on safety, certification, and regulatory standards could be far-reaching.”
But it will more than likely be possible for Trump to push through divisive legislation, or even enact change through Executive Order. As Loranger pointed out, this would be a faster and perhaps more attractive option for Trump and his voracious supporters.
“Federal funding could also be impacted. We may see budget priorities shift away from long-term safety and infrastructure advancements toward projects with more immediate economic appeal,” he proffered.
The result?
“That could mean fewer grants for airport improvements, reduced investment in environmental technologies, and even slowed momentum for safety initiatives critical to passenger welfare.”
AAM and all that
So far we have discussed the more traditional side of the aviation market, but the sector has been changing rapidly in the past three years.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, electronic vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and Advanced Air Mobility have all burst into our lexicon and (to some extent) into our skies.
James McDanolds is program chair at the School of Uncrewed Technology at Sonoran Desert Institute (a higher education institute that awards associate-level degrees, and has a military focus).
McDanolds said he thought the Trump administration would help the emerging industry, through its economic and fiscal programme.
“I believe the upcoming presidency will have a positive effect on the United States UAS (unmanned aviation systems) industry as in his previous term in office, he approved the start of the Innovative Drone Integrated Pilot Program (IPP) which allowed organizations to expand their research and usability of UAS in different types of commercial applications,” he told Airport Technology.
“I can see there is some potential incentives for being a U.S.-based drone manufacturer. I don’t know if this will come in the form of tax breaks or what those incentives will be.”
He also predicted a change in the way the federal government supports airports (rather than an end to the funding support).
“I believe that in the focus on airports and the coming age of autonomous air taxi services and even larger scale system drone delivery, airport infrastructure may need to undergo some changes which would require additional funding in order to achieve and support the addition of medium to larger scale UAS into the existing national airspace system,” he said.
