The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), is a United States federal statute enacted on 15 November 2021 that authorizes approximately $1.2 trillion in spending over fiscal years 2022-2026, including roughly $550 billion in new federal funding above baseline levels for transportation, water, broadband, energy, and other infrastructure programs. The law passed the Senate 69-30 and the House of Representatives 228-206, with support from both major parties, though the framing of the bill as “bipartisan” is itself sometimes contested; see infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-bipartisanship-viewpoint. The IIJA is distinct from, though originally linked in legislative strategy to, the separate reconciliation bill that became the Inflation Reduction Act; see infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-inflation-reduction-act-debate.

Implementation of the IIJA is administered primarily through the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce (notably the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program). As of the mid-2020s, federal agencies have reported that a large majority of formula funds have been allocated to states, while competitive grant programs and broadband buildout have proceeded on a longer timeline, with some projects facing delays attributed to permitting, labor and materials costs, and state-level administrative capacity. Assessments of the law's economic effects, job creation figures, and pace of project completion vary by source and methodology; see infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-economic-impact-debate. Disputes also exist over whether spending has been distributed according to the law's stated formulas and priorities or has been influenced by political considerations; see infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-fund-allocation-controversy.

For legislative history, including the bill's origins in earlier infrastructure proposals and its passage through Congress, see infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-history.

• Necessary public investment viewpoint - holds that decades of underinvestment had left roads, bridges, water systems, and broadband access in the United States inadequate or unsafe, and that the IIJA represents an overdue and appropriately scaled federal response. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-necessary-investment-viewpoint.
• Fiscally excessive viewpoint - holds that the law's cost is poorly targeted, partly funded through budgetary maneuvers rather than genuine offsets, and contributes unnecessarily to federal deficits and inflationary pressure. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-fiscal-excess-viewpoint.
• Scope-expansion critique viewpoint - holds that the bill extends “infrastructure” to cover items such as electric vehicle incentives, climate resilience, and social programs that go beyond traditional roads-and-bridges infrastructure, and criticizes this broadened definition. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-scope-expansion-viewpoint.
• Insufficient scale viewpoint - holds that, despite its size, the law falls short of what is needed to address the full backlog of infrastructure needs, climate adaptation, and modernization, particularly relative to estimates from engineering and planning bodies. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-insufficient-scale-viewpoint.
• Process and bipartisanship viewpoint - focuses on the legislative negotiation process itself, with some holding it as a model of productive cross-party cooperation and others viewing the coalition as fragile, transactional, or used by each party for differing political ends. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-bipartisanship-viewpoint.

• Dispute over whether the law's broadband, electric-vehicle charging, and equity-related provisions constitute genuine “infrastructure” or represent unrelated policy riders attached to a popular bill. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-definition-scope-controversy.
• Disagreement over the use of “deeming” procedures and budgetary scoring methods, including disputes over the Congressional Budget Office's projected deficit impact versus administration claims of being “fully paid for.” See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-cbo-scoring-controversy.
• Conflict surrounding the law's electric-vehicle charger buildout program, including reported delays in deploying federally funded chargers and subsequent political disputes over program effectiveness. See infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-ev-charger-controversy.

• History: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-history
• Debate: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-economic-impact-debate
• Debate: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-inflation-reduction-act-debate
• Controversy: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-fund-allocation-controversy
• Controversy: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-definition-scope-controversy
• Controversy: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-cbo-scoring-controversy
• Controversy: infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-ev-charger-controversy
• Related Main Topic: united-states-infrastructure-policy
• Related Main Topic: american-rescue-plan-act
• Related Main Topic: Inflation Reduction Act

1. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021).
2. Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2021).
3. Congressional Research Service, The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): A Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Programs (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2022).
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” accessed 2026, https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
5. White House Briefing Room, “Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal,” The White House, 6 August 2021.