To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal public transportation fixed guideway capital investment grants, and for other purposes.

1) What happened: On April 9, 2026, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) introduced HR8233, the 'No CIG Act', which would repeal Section 5309 of title 49—the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program for fixed guideway transit projects (light rail, subways, commuter rail, bus rapid transit with dedicated lanes). The bill has been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but has seen no further action; it remains in early legislative stage with a single sponsor who is a junior member of the House Republican conference, not a committee chair. Passage probability is very low in the current session given the strong bipartisan support transit infrastructure has historically received. 2) The money trail: The CIG program does not receive mandatory appropriations—it is a discretionary grant program funded through annual Transportation-HUD appropriations bills. In FY2025, Congress appropriated approximately $2.2 billion for CIG program projects. HR8233 does not appropriate or authorize any funding; it only repeals the authorization for this specific grant program. This means the actual spending reduction would depend on subsequent appropriations decisions even if the bill passed, but repeal of the authorization would effectively zero out the program going forward. 3) Structural winners and losers: The primary losers are companies that supply heavy construction equipment for large transit infrastructure projects ($CAT), and freight railroads ($UNP, $NSC, $CSX) that benefit from transit-rail intermodal connections partially funded by CIG grants. Pure-play transit construction companies (private, not publicly traded) would be more directly affected. There are no clear winners from this bill, though it aligns with a broader policy preference for highway and road funding over rail transit. The recent Presidential Memoranda under the Defense Production Act (April 20, 2026) directing investments in energy and natural gas infrastructure are completely separate and do not offset the repeal—they address grid, pipeline, and energy production capacity, not transit. 4) Competitive landscape: The CIG program currently funds dozens of transit projects across the US. Repeal would shift the burden of capital funding to state and local governments, which face declining sales tax and fare revenues post-pandemic. This would likely result in project delays or cancellations, particularly in states with smaller budgets (e.g., Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin) compared to wealthier states (California, New York, Washington) that may self-fund. The bill has zero public support or cosponsors, no companion in the Senate, and has not advanced since introduction. 5) Timeline: As an early-stage bill with one sponsor and no committee markup scheduled, this legislation has virtually no chance of passing the current Congress. The 119th Congress runs through January 2027; with no action in over two weeks since introduction, the bill is stalled. Any markup or floor vote would require support from the Transportation Committee chair (Rep. Sam Graves, R-MO) and House leadership, which has not expressed interest. Repealing transit funding is politically risky in an election year. Realistically, this is a messaging bill.