“We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”

That was a quote from Donald J. Trump that was part of dozens of campaign speeches delivered in states that have long been concerned about crumbling roads and hazardous bridges.

Now that Trump has won the election, he faces the same challenge of every previous president—how to turn a promise into a plan that will actually succeed.

He starts with some advantages: a U.S. infrastructure bill would be the perfect foundation for the America-first philosophy that helped to win him the White House. And as a builder, it’s an issue where he brings real-world industry knowledge to the table, something his critics contend will not be the case when it comes to foreign policy and other areas.

Plus, there have been several infrastructure bills introduced by Democrats over the past eight years, so there would not be a philosophical objection to its intention from the minority in Congress, as there would with a wall at the border.

However, given the contentious nature of the presidential campaign, it’s difficult to envision a “honeymoon” period for the Trump presidency, though its presence may not be as crucial with the Republicans having majorities in both houses of Congress. Will the Democrats choose to obstruct, and risk getting tagged with the Party of No designation they attached to the GOP over the past eight years? Or will they work across the aisle to help a president they distrust (some would say despise) to make American roads, bridges and tunnels great again?

Whatever happens, it certainly won’t be boring.

The Plan

According to a Trump policy statement, the objective is to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. That includes not just the oft-cited roads and bridges but transportation, clean water, telecommunications, the electricity grid, and infrastructure related to national security.

The plan would be financed in a deficit-neutral way, by enlisting private companies to invest $167 billion of their own equity into projects, in exchange for a tax incentive equal to 82 percent of that investment. Those funds could then be leveraged to borrow more money on private financial markets, at a time when interest rates are historically low. They would also receive additional revenue from project beneficiaries—such as tolls on new roads.

The cost of the government tax credits would be recouped through the increased tax revenue generated from wages of those involved in the projects, and from taxes paid on the increased revenues of the companies doing the work.

Proponents claim that one advantage of relying on private enterprise is the ability to avoid the bureaucracy and red tape that result when government takes the point. With schedules and approvals streamlined, projects can be brought to fruition more efficiently. There would also be an emphasis placed on using American steel and other raw materials in the projects, providing a lift to domestic manufacturing.

The Challenges

Obviously this isn’t the first infrastructure bill that has been considered by Congress. Previous efforts stalled for different reasons. A $305 billion bill proposed by the Obama administration was shot down by Republicans. A $478 billion bill backed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks that Sanders claimed allowed corporations to “stash money overseas” also met with resistance.

With these bills, as will likely happen with the next one, any delays or objections are likely to stem from funding, and how funds are allocated.

Critics, among them some economists, claim that tax revenues alone will not be enough to offset the costs associated with such an ambitious plan. Will some taxes have to be raised to generate additional funding? The last time a Republican president reneged on a promise of “no new taxes,” it didn’t end well.

Given the manner in which Trump has attacked opponents during the campaign, there have also been worries that the states that supported his candidacy will benefit more from his plan than those that voted against him. However, the president-elect’s meetings with former rivals and some of his harshest critics, from South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, suggest that there will not be that much carry-over from political grudges.

Perhaps the greatest bipartisan cause for concern is that, even if the $1 trillion investment is approved, it still won’t be enough. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there is currently a $3.6 trillion infrastructure investment gap.

And, while that first step toward improvement still awaits congressional approval and a presidential signature, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is petitioning government to expand its view of what constitutes infrastructure to also include schools and libraries. “It’s not just the infrastructure that moves people and things,” said Andrew Goldberg, AIA’s managing director of government relations. “It’s also what happens once you get there.”

In less than two weeks Americans will go to the polls and vote for their next president. The choice is between a Republican candidate vowing to eviscerate unfair U.S. trade pacts, and a Democratic candidate who used to support global trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but has altered her position after discovering how unpopular they are with the electorate.

Whatever happens in the election, the U.S perspective on trade may have fundamentally changed over the course of the past two years. A newfound inclination to consider more closely the domestic impact of any trade deal on manufacturing and jobs will place any future negotiations under additional scrutiny.

This trend toward nationalism is not limited to the United States, as demonstrated by Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. And nationalism, at least as articulated by Donald Trump and the UK’s Nigel Farage, is inextricably linked to some degree of protectionism.

“Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” said Donald J. Trump, on the campaign stump.

Those opposed to such sentiments suggest that they are expressed not from economic concern but something more primal: an us-versus-them mentality that is often portrayed as prejudice. Racism accusations have dogged Trump almost from the moment he announced his candidacy. In Britain, the Brexit vote that shocked so many observers was attributed in part to anti-foreign sentiment.

Studies conducted by economists and political scientists have affirmed a link between nationalist sentiment and opposition to global markets—and sometimes the people who live in those global markets—especially when they move next door.

But such a characterization is too simplistic, and ignores other reasons for questioning the way some trade agreements are negotiated. President Obama discovered this back in April when he visited Germany in support of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Thousands of demonstrators gathered to oppose the U.S.-European trade deal, fearing it would lower standards for products and consumer protection.

That message also resonates in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where steel mills that provided lifetime employment to thousands for decades are now shuttered, a victim of a world market now dominated by cheaper Chinese steel.

In 1999, conservative journalist and one-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan described a $57 billion trade deficit as “a malignant tumor in the intestines of the U.S. economy.” Less than 20 years later that trade deficit has ballooned to more than $500 billion, with China alone accounting for $300 billion.

With American manufacturing already in critical condition, it’s easier to depict deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the last nail in the coffin, especially when the playing field is already tilted against the home team. China’s reputation for unfair trade practices and currency manipulation would make even a mutually beneficial deal suspect.

Democrats point to the hypocrisy of such outrage from a billionaire businessman who has several Trump-branded products manufactured in China. But he’s just following the crowd, while campaigning for better laws and better deals.

In the meantime, companies like Carrier and Caterpillar are also headed overseas, and China’s middle class income growth has topped 70 percent in the past 20 years, while America’s has struggled to hit four percent.

Proponents of free trade insist that in the long run a global perspective is healthier, and that U.S. manufacturing may have to change to keep up with the competition, but it will never disappear. But now they face a broader coalition of opposition—from conservatives complaining about getting taken by bad deals, and liberals worried about the impact of globalization on third-world communities, where slave wages keep the economic engine running.

Whoever wins on November 8, there will be no victory to celebrate for globalism.