The ASCE Infrastructure Report Card Is Propaganda. We Deserve Better.
Every few years, the American Society of Civil Engineers releases its Infrastructure Report Card—a glossy, well-marketed document that assigns letter grades to the nation’s roads, bridges, pipes, and power lines. This year’s report proudly tells us that America has earned a C.
Let’s be clear about what this report card actually is: industry propaganda, not unbiased analysis.
As an engineer, I’m troubled by how ASCE wraps this report in the credibility of our profession. The civil engineers involved in this effort are not conducting a neutral review of national infrastructure needs. They are advocating for massive government spending that directly benefits their own industry. This is not about public safety or financial responsibility—it’s about securing funding. And it is sold to policymakers and the public under the banner of objective expertise. That, it is not.
This is particularly frustrating because civil engineers should be among the loudest voices calling for restraint, prioritization, and financial prudence. Our work doesn’t end when the ribbon is cut—it begins there. We know the long-term maintenance costs. We know how quickly a poorly planned project becomes a financial burden. But the ASCE report card ignores these realities in favor of a narrative that says more construction, at seemingly any cost, is always good.
Media outlets should stop treating the ASCE report card as if it were a serious policy document. It's not. It's a marketing campaign. And yet, year after year, headlines breathlessly repeat the grades—as if a national C is some kind of scientific truth rather than a lobbying tool.
The 2025 Report Undermines Its Credibility
Even if we take the report on its own terms, it undermines itself. By ASCE’s own numbers, the largest infrastructure investment in U.S. history, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, barely moved the national GPA from a C- to a C. Imagine a massive increase in education spending that raised test scores by a fraction of a grade. Would we applaud that? Or ask hard questions?
Worse yet, the funding gap ASCE cites keeps getting bigger, not smaller. In 2017, the report projected a $2 trillion investment shortfall. By 2021, that number had grown to $2.6 trillion. And in the 2025 report, despite the $1.2 trillion federal infrastructure package passed in 2021, ASCE tells us the gap has now ballooned to $3.7 trillion. From the report: “Our infrastructure bill has grown to $3.7 trillion. The longer we wait to address it, the more it will cost us.”
What kind of report claims success while showing its central metric getting worse? It’s the equivalent of a doctor congratulating themselves while your health declines, just because you followed their expensive treatment plan.
These numbers don’t reflect a failing system; they reflect a failing approach. Groups like ASCE treat infrastructure as an end in itself. Their answer is always the same: spend more. There’s no reflection on why we have a deficit, no accounting of whether these “investments” actually generate value.
In many cases, they do not. The infrastructure systems America builds are often underused, overbuilt, and financially unsustainable. Cities and states, induced with federal funds to build more than they need or can afford, are left with overwhelming liabilities, not more wealth. The real return on investment is just not there.
For local governments, especially, these investments do not create value—they create future obligations. They do not improve long-term fiscal health—they undermine it. The ASCE grades will never be good because the approach to building infrastructure that their advocacy reinforces makes us poorer with each new expansion.
Grade Criteria are Vague and Self-Serving
You can see this in how the report card talks about results. In the 2021 report, ASCE celebrates that “for the first time in 20 years, the GPA is out of the D range.” But in the same breath, it acknowledges that “we’re still just paying about half of our infrastructure bill.” These aren’t success stories; they’re warning signs.
ASCE is not sharing a roadmap to a better future. What it seeks is a life support system for a dying paradigm—one focused on big national projects, large federal appropriations, and centralized power.
For example, we built the interstate system. We finished it four decades ago. And yet we keep building more highway lanes, bridges, and overpasses while the infrastructure that Americans actually depend on—local streets, sewers, and water systems—continues to decay from chronic neglect. The ASCE report card not only fails to address this imbalance, it reinforces it.
This debate isn’t just a question of spending—it’s a question of priorities. The roads outside your house, the storm drains that protect your neighborhood, the pipes that deliver your drinking water—these are the systems people rely on every day. They are the backbone of everyday life in American communities. And they are falling apart.
Why? Because the system ASCE champions is designed to lavishly reward expansion projects, not fund basic maintenance. Federal appropriations favor projects with big price tags, not routine local maintenance. Because infrastructure, in the hands of lobbyists and national trade groups, becomes a means of wealth transfer, not a public service.
The Report Card Doesn’t Address The Elephant In The Room
The most troubling thing about the ASCE report card is its glaring lack of introspection. There is no serious effort to answer the most basic question: Why is our infrastructure in such poor condition despite decades of advocacy and funding? Why merely a C grade after the largest investment in the country’s history? Instead, the conclusion is always the same: spend more, build more, ask fewer questions.
The 2025 report’s recommendations include “continue increased investment,” “fix the Highway Trust Fund,” and “support innovative technologies”—but nowhere is there a call to evaluate whether current investments are actually paying off, or to develop better measures of productivity and value. There’s no fiscal analysis. No return-on-investment model. Just page after page of arguments for more federal money.
The ASCE Infrastructure Report Card Isn’t The Report We Need
Americans don’t need more propaganda. What we need is humility, clarity, and financial accountability. We need engineers who serve the public interest, not just the next construction contract. We need policymakers and journalists who stop treating marketing copy like serious policy.
We need to stop measuring success by how much we build and start asking whether we’re building responsibly.
It’s time for something more thoughtful. And a whole lot more honest.
Want to get a more accurate picture of whether your city’s infrastructure spending is paying off? Check out the Finance Decoder today!
RELATED STORIES
Charles Marohn (known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) is the founder and president of Strong Towns and the bestselling author of “Escaping the Housing Trap: The Strong Towns Response to the Housing Crisis.” With decades of experience as a land use planner and civil engineer, Marohn is on a mission to help cities and towns become stronger and more prosperous. He spreads the Strong Towns message through in-person presentations, the Strong Towns Podcast, and his books and articles. In recognition of his efforts and impact, Planetizen named him one of the 15 Most Influential Urbanists of all time in 2017 and 2023.