What are US stakeholders saying about Trump?

Trump has emerged election winner, but many of his policies are still shrouded in mystery. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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 Industry Review spoke to industry professionals across the US aviation sector to gauge the initial feelings in the aftermath of the surprise landslide result from those in the aviation sector.

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 over a decade. He hiked prices of domestic goods, technology such as solar panels, and the import duties on raw materials including 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 giant $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. According to Xeneta, an ocean and air freight intelligence platform, Trump’s election would mark a “step in the wrong direction” for international trade with the US. 

Xeneta chief analyst Peter Sand explains that importers should not be pleased with the election result, noting that a conclusive win does ward off the dangers of uncertain months. 

“Another Trump presidency will not be welcomed by US importers and exporters, but they needed a swift and clear result in the election," explains Sand.

"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.”

President-elect Trump isn’t interested in regulation – quite the opposite. Deregulation has been a second pillar of his industrial strategy. 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, a senior partner at Wisner Baum, sheds 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 predicts.

“This might look like efforts to privatise air traffic control, something the prior administration floated. Privatising 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 sets out, that isn’t just a US problem. 

“Globally, a focus on deregulation could set US aviation on a different track to other major regulatory bodies, like the European Union Aviation Safety Agency," he explains. "The industry operates across international borders, and a potential divergence from global standards could add complexity and friction for US-based airlines and manufacturers who must operate within a global framework.”

But Loranger’s opinion is not ubiquitous. While his view is focused on commercial mass transit aviation, the private jet sector offers another view of the regulatory ecosystem – and Trump’s likely effect on the smaller VIP sector. 

Kevin Singh is the CEO of Icarus Jet, a private jet and charter provider. He deems the impact of potential Trump deregulation as minimal because the current environment is already “relatively simple.” 

“Aviation in the US 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 US. The only regulations implemented were because of international pressure – like SIC type and First class medical for international flights and SMS implementation,” he tells Airport Industry Review. 

Singh notes 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 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 says. 

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 explains.

Although Trump and his direct team have not publicly opined on the level of federal funding the Department of Transportation (DoT) may receive over the next four years, 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 as of 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 in the document, economist and George Washington University professor Diana Furchtgott-Roth decries the evolution of the government arm from a policy maker, 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… hyper-politicised”, is also the most visible agency within the DoT. Under her plan, Furchtgott-Roth would separate the key aviation body from the DoT, 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 recommends publicly supporting mergers of smaller airlines to help bolster nationwide and international competition. 

She recommends publicly indicating that a new Administration would support joint venture efforts by smaller carriers to "achieve the 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. Singh tells Airport Industry Review that he expects 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 predicts. Loranger agrees with Singh but approaches 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 advises. 

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 this case, indirect cuts through tax breaks could well be the tool of choice. And that will still likely result in dangerous outcomes. 

“Less funding could mean less oversight, and the potential trickle-down effect here on safety, certification, and regulatory standards could be far-reaching,” says Loranger. 

But it could likely be possible for Trump to push through divisive legislation, or even enact change through Executive Order. As Loranger points 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 proffers. "That could mean fewer grants for airport improvements, reduced investment in environmental technologies, and even slowed momentum for safety initiatives critical to passenger welfare.”

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), electronic vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs), and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) have all burst into our lexicon and – to some extent – into our skies over recent years. 

James McDanolds is the programme chair at the School of Uncrewed Technology at Sonoran Desert Institute, a higher education institute that awards associate-level degrees. McDanolds thinks that 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 US Unmanned Aviation Systems (UAS) industry as in his previous term in office, he approved the start of the Innovative Drone Integrated Pilot Program (IPP), which allowed organisations to expand their research and usability of UAS in different types of commercial applications,” he tells Airport Industry Review. 

“I can see there are some potential incentives for being a US-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 predicts 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 to achieve and support the addition of medium to larger scale UAS into the existing national airspace system,” he says.