On November 14, 2025, the United States Department of Transportation officially withdrew a hotly debated directive that would have required airlines to pay passengers compensation for significant flight delays. The announcement, made public by the White House on Friday, marked the formal end to a plan that had its origins during the Biden administration and had drawn both political fire and industry praise since its inception.
The original compensation proposal, first outlined in December 2024 under then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, would have mandated airlines to pay between $200 and $300 for domestic delays lasting more than three hours. For even longer, unspecified delays, the compensation could have reached as high as $775. The plan aimed to address mounting frustrations among travelers facing frequent disruptions, especially in the wake of a record-setting government shutdown that left thousands of flights delayed or canceled across the country.
But as the Trump administration took the reins, priorities shifted. The Department of Transportation (USDOT) explained its reasoning for scrapping the plan by stating that such rules would create “unnecessary regulatory burdens.” According to Al Jazeera, the department argued that eliminating the compensation directive would “allow airlines to compete on the services and compensation that they provide to passengers rather than imposing new minimum requirements for these services and compensation through regulation, which would impose significant costs on airlines.”
The withdrawal did not go unnoticed by lawmakers. Just last month, a group of 18 Democratic senators penned a letter urging the Trump administration to reconsider. “This is a common-sense proposal: when an airline’s mistake imposes unanticipated costs on families, the airline should try to remedy the situation by providing accommodations to consumers and helping cover their costs,” the senators wrote. The letter, signed by Richard Blumenthal, Maria Cantwell, Ed Markey, and others, captured a sentiment widely shared among affected travelers but ultimately fell short of swaying the administration’s decision.
It’s worth noting that while U.S. airlines are required to refund passengers for canceled flights, there is currently no federal mandate for compensation when flights are delayed. This stands in sharp contrast to international norms. The European Union, Canada, Brazil, and the United Kingdom all have established rules requiring airlines to compensate travelers for significant delays. Yet, as Reuters reported, no major U.S. airline currently guarantees cash compensation for such disruptions. For American travelers, the lack of a safety net can feel like a roll of the dice each time they book a flight.
The Trump administration’s move comes at a time when the airline industry is still reeling from the aftershocks of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which ended just two days before the announcement. According to FlightAware, a platform that tracks global flight disruptions, there were still approximately 1,000 delays and 615 cancellations on November 14, highlighting the persistent operational challenges facing airlines and passengers alike.
Industry reaction to the withdrawal was predictably split along familiar lines. Airlines, which had lobbied the Trump administration to go even further in rolling back regulations, welcomed the decision. They argued that the proposed compensation rules would have imposed significant costs at a time when the industry is struggling to recover from pandemic-era losses and the recent government shutdown. On Wall Street, however, the news did little to buoy airline stocks. Most major carriers saw their shares dip in midday trading: American Airlines was down 1.2 percent, United Airlines slipped 1 percent, Delta dropped 1.3 percent, JetBlue tumbled 3.6 percent, and Southwest edged down by 0.2 percent. The market’s lukewarm response suggested lingering concerns about the industry’s immediate prospects, despite the regulatory reprieve.
Beyond the compensation plan, the Department of Transportation signaled a broader regulatory rollback. In September, it announced plans to revisit and potentially rescind several Biden-era consumer protection measures. These include regulations requiring airlines and ticket agents to disclose service fees alongside advertised airfares—a move initially intended to help consumers avoid hidden costs. The department also indicated it would clarify the definition of a “flight cancellation” that entitles consumers to ticket refunds, and it pledged to take another look at rules governing ticket pricing and advertising. The stated goal, according to both Al Jazeera and Reuters, is to reduce regulatory burdens and allow airlines more flexibility in how they serve their customers.
The debate over airline compensation is hardly new, but the stakes have grown as flight disruptions become more common and public frustration mounts. Proponents of compensation point to the consumer protections enjoyed by travelers in other countries, arguing that the U.S. lags behind its peers in holding airlines accountable. Critics, on the other hand, warn that additional regulations could stifle competition, raise ticket prices, and ultimately hurt the very passengers they aim to protect.
“When an airline’s mistake imposes unanticipated costs on families, the airline should try to remedy the situation by providing accommodations to consumers and helping cover their costs,” Democratic senators argued in their letter. Their plea echoed the frustrations of countless travelers who have found themselves stranded or out-of-pocket due to delays beyond their control. Yet, for now, the administration’s stance is clear: let the market, not the government, determine what compensation—if any—passengers receive.
For U.S. travelers, the current landscape remains a patchwork of airline policies, with little recourse beyond ticket refunds in the event of cancellations. As the industry continues to recover from the dual blows of a historic shutdown and ongoing operational challenges, the question of passenger compensation is likely to remain a contentious issue. Will U.S. regulators eventually revisit the idea, perhaps under a future administration? Or will the American approach continue to diverge from international standards, leaving travelers to hope for the best—and prepare for the worst?
With the regulatory pendulum swinging back toward industry self-regulation, the coming months will test whether airlines step up to fill the gap left by the abandoned compensation plan. For now, passengers are left to navigate a system where, despite mounting calls for reform, cash compensation for delays remains out of reach.