Trump's Transportation Department Revokes Rules Forcing Airlines to Compensate Delayed Passengers

The Trump administration has formally scrapped a plan that would have required airlines to pay cash compensation to passengers when flights were severely delayed for reasons within the carrier’s control. With this move, there will be no new federal rule in the United States that forces airlines to pay travelers when the airline is at fault for long delays or last minute cancellations.

The decision became official when the Department of Transportation (DOT) withdrew its earlier passenger rights rulemaking, which had been the vehicle for a compensation proposal developed under the prior administration. That proposal never fully took effect, but it had been moving through the federal rulemaking process and was seen as a major shift in how the United States treats airline delays.

What the Scrapped Compensation Rules Would Have Done

The revoked plan was designed to mirror some of the passenger protections already in place in regions like the European Union and Canada, where airlines must pay cash when flights are delayed or canceled for reasons within the airline’s control.

Under the shelved proposal, airlines would have been required to provide:

• Cash compensation starting around a few hundred dollars for domestic delays of several hours
• Higher payments for disruptions that stretched well beyond six to nine hours
• Guaranteed amenities such as meal vouchers, overnight hotel stays, and transportation to and from lodging when the airline was responsible

These payments would have only applied when disruptions were considered controllable by the carrier, for example crew scheduling problems or maintenance issues that were not caused by severe weather or air traffic control restrictions.

‍

Why the Trump DOT Walked Away

In its withdrawal notice, the DOT set out several reasons for dropping the compensation plan.

Limited Legal Authority

The department argues that its legal authority is limited. It points to recent legislation that directs the agency to ensure that airlines have clear reimbursement policies for lodging, meals, and ground transportation in certain disruptions, but not to mandate specific cash amounts for delays.

Preference for Market Competition

DOT leans heavily on the idea that Congress expects it to rely on competitive market forces whenever possible. In that view, airlines should be allowed to compete on the level of service and compensation they offer, rather than being forced into a single national standard.

Cost Concerns and Impact on Fares

The department also echoes industry concerns about cost. Airlines and their trade groups warned that mandatory compensation could add billions of dollars a year in expenses, potentially pushing fares higher or leading to cuts in marginal routes and frequencies.

Doubts About Reliability Gains

Trump’s DOT also questions whether mandatory compensation schemes actually improve reliability. It points to mixed evidence from overseas markets and says it prefers to focus on infrastructure and operational improvements such as modernizing air traffic control and tightening airline performance metrics.

What Protections Travelers Still Have Today

The withdrawal does not remove any existing federal passenger rights. It simply prevents stronger rules from being added.

Under current rules:

• Passengers are entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled and they choose not to travel
• Travelers who are involuntarily bumped from oversold flights must receive compensation, with amounts tied to the length of the delay and the price of the ticket
• Airlines must publish customer service plans and spell out what they promise to provide in common disruption scenarios

However, there is still no blanket requirement that US airlines pay cash compensation for delays or cancellations, even when the disruption is clearly within the airline’s control. What passengers receive in those situations is mostly governed by each carrier’s own policy, which might include meal vouchers, hotel nights, travel credits, frequent flyer miles, or in some cases very little.

How Airlines and Consumer Advocates Are Responding

Airlines and industry associations strongly opposed the compensation plan from the beginning and have welcomed its withdrawal. Carriers argued that the proposal went beyond DOT’s authority, would have been expensive to administer, and could have forced them to raise fares or cut service in smaller markets.

Consumer groups and many individual commenters argued the opposite. They say voluntary promises are not enough, since airlines can change them at any time and passengers often do not understand what they are owed in the middle of a chaotic travel day. These advocates wanted clear rules, simple thresholds, and automatic payments when an airline causes a major disruption.

Some lawmakers have already turned to legislation as a workaround. Bills introduced in Congress would write compensation standards directly into law, specifying that passengers receive defined cash payments when flights are significantly delayed or canceled for reasons within an airline’s control. Whether those proposals gain traction will determine if this fight moves from the regulatory arena to the Capitol.

What This Means for Travelers and Travel Managers

For now, the bottom line in the United States remains:

• No guaranteed federal cash compensation for delayed flights
• Refunds still required when flights are canceled and the traveler chooses not to rebook
• Amenities like hotels, meals, and vouchers driven primarily by each airline’s own customer service policies

For individual travelers, that makes it more important to understand each airline’s written commitments before booking and to consider credit cards or travel insurance that include delay and interruption benefits.

For corporate travel managers, the rollback underscores the need to look beyond published fares. Reliability records, disruption handling, and the practical value of an airline’s customer service commitments should all factor into preferred carrier strategies and traveler policy guidance, since federal rules are unlikely to fill the compensation gap anytime soon.

‍