The Brief

State capitalism. MAGA Marxism. Crony capitalism.

Those are just some of the terms business and political commentators have used this year to describe how President Donald Trump's policies are reshaping U.S. free-market capitalism. There are some differences in definition — but all of these terms underline how dramatically Trump has blurred the boundaries between business and government, to an extent that could have long-term consequences for the U.S. economy and the country's global standing.

"When the American government appears to favor a company over rival companies, that distorts the marketplace," says Ann Lipton, a veteran business law expert and professor at University of Colorado's law school.

"It means that other firms have less incentive to compete on innovation, which is sort of the opposite of how a free market is supposed to operate," she adds. "It's just bad for the economy."

There's ample evidence this year of Trump actively favoring some U.S. companies and investors, while threatening others. In August, he publicly called for the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan — until Tan came to the White House to meet with him, and agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake in the tech company.

Several other tech CEOs also spent the year appearing to personally court Trump. Take Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who runs the world's most valuable company and is among the donors funding Trump's controversial plans to build a White House ballroom. This month, Trump said the U.S. would grant Nvidia permission to sell one of its more advanced semiconductor chips in China — as long as the U.S. government gets a 25% cut of sales.

Lipton calls this capitalism by "schmoozing," and warns that it could seriously damage the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, thus hurting the overall economy in the long term.

"We're not going to get the best innovations. We're not going to get the best products," she says. "If [businesses] are competing on their ability to schmooze, then that's bad for everybody."

Intel did not respond to an NPR request for comment. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Nvidia said, "In our discussions, President Trump focuses on his desire for America to win as a nation and his efforts to protect national security, American prosperity and technology leadership."

China-style 'state capitalism'

Business leaders have always spent some amount of time trying to cozy up to the White House, no matter its occupant. But Lipton and business insiders across the political spectrum say that Trump's direct influence over private companies this year — and the degree to which some of those companies and their leaders have sought to appeal to him personally — is pushing the U.S. economy away from free-market or "rules-based" capitalism.

This system, traditionally embraced by both businesses and Republicans, has helped make the United States into the dominant global economy.

But now, these business insiders say, Trump's policies are creating a government-controlled style of "state capitalism," in which the government — rather than competition between private businesses — shapes the economy. Some go so far as to call it "crony capitalism," meaning that the U.S. government picks winners and losers based on the president's personal relationships.

"We are seeing a shift away from the type of rules-based capitalism that has made America's economy so robust for so long. And there's a lot of risk in that," says Daniella Ballou-Aares, who co-founded the consulting firm Dalberg and served in President Obama's State Department. She now runs the Leadership Now Project, a coalition of business leaders that has endorsed candidates from both political parties.

In October, her group and The Harris Poll surveyed business leaders across the political spectrum — and found that 84% are worried "about the current political and legal climate's impact on their companies."

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang listens as President Trump speaks at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in November in Washington, D.C. Nvidia has spent the year seeking the U.S. government's approval to sell more of its semiconductor chips in China.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images North America

)

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says "this narrative about how [President Trump] reshaped capitalism is significantly overstated" and calls Trump's policies by and large "the traditional free-market policy-making that you would expect coming out of a Republican Administration."

The official dismissed claims that the White House is engaging in "crony capitalism," and says "there are companies that are benefiting [from Trump's policies] whether or not they have a good relationship with the administration."

The official also notes that so far, the U.S. government has largely sought to take ownership stakes or revenue-sharing deals from companies that play a role in economic and national security: For example, Intel and Nvidia both sell the semiconductors at the center of the artificial-intelligence arms race with China. The U.S. government has also taken stakes or other interests in U.S. Steel and MP Materials, a rare-earth minerals mining company, among others.

"What we're trying to do is very much embracing the free market and the growth that it unleashes, but making targeted interventions where there's too much on the line," the official says.

Tech winners vs. everyone else in corporate America

Businesses largely welcomed President Trump's victory in last year's election, in part due to frustration with what they perceived as a harsh and "anti-business" regulatory climate under President Biden.

And some seem pretty happy with his first year in office — especially the tech billionaires whose "Magnificent Seven" companies are powering the A.I. boom.

"The Magnificent Seven and Trump 2.0 are really on the same page to a large extent," says Daniel Kinderman, a political science professor at the University of Delaware who studies what he calls "authoritarian capitalism" and business responses to right-wing movements.

Some of President Trump's policies, including his sweeping tariffs and his changes to immigration policies for highly-skilled foreign workers, have complicated the business of Big Tech. But most tech CEOs have tried to avoid criticizing those policies publicly, and instead focused on donating to Trump's personal projects. Apple's Tim Cook, for example, this summer presented Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque as his company promised to invest $600 billion in the United States.

Such gifts appear to have helped: Apple's iPhones have escaped the worst of Trump's tariffs.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Kinderman points out that for wealthy and powerful CEOs, Trump's degree of personal involvement in their businesses at least makes it efficient to deal directly with him — if they can keep him happy — instead of wading through the slow and complicated red tape of federal regulatory processes.

"These companies are a huge portion of the American economy," he says. "And I think Trump is also giving them, to a large extent, what they want."

In August, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque, as his company pledged to invest a total of $600 billion in the United States.

(

Brendan Smialowski

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Still, he and others warn that, taken to the extreme, codependent relationships between political leaders and CEOs don't always end well for the latter.

In more authoritarian countries, where leaders exert much more control over private businesses, the stakes can be especially fraught. Russia, Hungary, and China all exercise some form of state-controlled capitalism, where an autocratic leader cultivates relationships with oligarchic business CEOs — and can quickly force them out of favor.

As one extreme example, Ballou-Aares invokes Jack Ma, the Alibaba founder who built one of China's biggest tech companies before criticizing the country's financial regulations … and then largely disappearing from public view for several years.

"We know that crony capitalism never really ends well for most companies," she says. "I mean, tell Jack Ma that autocracy is okay for business."

'Most CEOs are pretty frustrated'

Outside of Big Tech, many businesses feel a lot more conflicted about how President Trump is reshaping U.S. capitalism. Some have even filed lawsuits against the administration, over its tariffs and its immigration policies.

"Despite the handful of tech titans that do seem to admittedly genuflect at the White House and at Mar-a-Lago, most CEOs are pretty frustrated with what's happening," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor who regularly speaks with CEOs.

Pockets of frustration from corporate America have become more visible recently. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the administration over its plans to start charging $100,000 for H-1B visas for highly-skilled foreign workers — although it did so while praising Trump's "ambitious agenda."

And JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon, who runs the country's largest bank and is one of the most prominent non-tech CEOs in the country, recently told CNN why his company had declined to donate to Trump's White House ballroom.

"Since we do a lot of contracts with governments here and around the world, we have to be very careful about how anything is perceived," Dimon said. "We're quite conscious of risks we bear by doing anything that looks like buying favors or anything like that."

That said, most businesses are reluctant to publicly criticize President Trump or his policies. Smaller companies lack the power to effectively stand up to the White House. And even those running the country's biggest companies are unwilling to draw the personal attacks that Trump can often wield, or the ensuing partisan boycotts and financial damage that can follow.

Earlier this month, demolition work continued where the East Wing once stood at the White House. President Trump ordered the East Wing and Jacqueline Kennedy Garden leveled to make way for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he says will be paid for with private donations from companies including Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google.

(

Chip Somodevilla

/

Getty Images North America

)

Many businesses have neither the appetite nor the capacity to take on the U.S. government. They just want to focus on making money, even if that means adapting to dramatic tariffs or other sharp shifts in government policy.

"It's tactical fire-fighting," says Drew DeLong, who advises businesses around the world as head of corporate statecraft for the consulting company Kearney, and who served in the State Department during Trump's first administration.

"Every moment and every hour you spend on tariff mitigation is one less hour that you spend on innovation," he says. "There is an urgency towards fire-fighting as best as they possibly can, but there's also a fatigue."

'Merger review has been weaponized'

The Trump Administration's approach to approving — or not — corporate mergers has drawn some of the highest scrutiny, because of the nexus of political and business issues at stake.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission this year approved several telecommunications mergers only after Verizon and T-Mobile agreed to terminate internal policies around "diversity, equity, and inclusion," or DEI. Then it threatened to take federal action against some ABC affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel's comments about Charlie Kirk's killing on his ABC late-night show; the owners of some of those stations were also seeking federal approvals for mergers. (ABC parent Walt Disney suspended Kimmel's show for almost a week, before reinstating him. ABC did not respond to requests for comment.)

"Merger review has been weaponized into a tool for control," says Elizabeth Wilkins, the former chief of staff to Lina Khan, who oversaw U.S. merger review as chair of President Biden's Federal Trade Commission.

"With those kinds of tools hanging over corporate leaders' heads, we have seen an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear — which breeds silence," adds Wilkins, who now runs the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank.

The exception is, again, for leaders who cultivate close ties with the president. This year, the White House helped broker a deal for a coalition of U.S. investors to buy the U.S. operations of TikTok — and asked for an unusual multibillion-dollar payment to the federal government, which business experts have compared to a "shakedown" or "extortion." Some of those same investors, including Trump ally Larry Ellison and his son, David, are now seeking even more media deals.

Some business experts say now that corporate America has a better idea of President Trump's playbook in this administration, they expect to see companies and their executives feel more confident about how and when to push back against White House policies that they think will damage their businesses and the wider economy.

"I think it is clear that the administration's approach here is broadly unpopular, including with business," says Ballou-Aares.

But Kearney's DeLong, the veteran of Trump's first administration, warns businesses to brace for much more policy change, and uncertainty about what capitalism and the economy will look like in the future.

"This is just year one," he says. "Where do we go [during] the rest of this administration? Where do we go after?"
Copyright 2025 NPR

May gray skies will continue to keep the mornings on the cooler side, but come later this afternoon we'll see some sunshine and slightly warmer temps.

High temperatures along the beaches will stay in the mid 60s to around 70 degrees, and reach the lower 70s for the inland coast.

For the valleys, temperatures will reach the upper 70s. Meanwhile the Inland Empire will see highs up to 83 degrees.

Coachella Valley will see highs from 95 to 100 degrees.

Looking ahead to the weekend, the National Weather Service is forecasting high surf and dangerous rip currents for nearby beaches.

Come Saturday afternoon around 3:00, Ventura County will be under a high surf advisory. That will last until 9 a.m. Monday. Waves could be five to eight feet tall.

Meanwhile, the Malibu coast and L.A. County beaches will see dangerous rip currents and breaking waves starting Saturday evening through Monday morning. Swimmers, surfers and beach goers should be careful.

Since staunch conservatives achieved full control of Huntington Beach’s seven-member City Council in 2024, they have voted in lockstep to fight state mandates to build more housing, and for the right to censor books in the children’s library. They also voted unanimously to install a commemorative plaque at the library that spells out “M-A-G-A” and to commission a public mural to honor slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

But the city’s once-solid MAGA coalition appears to be fracturing, largely over allegations of “cronyism” — contracts, deals, favors and political appointments that appear to benefit friends and family of the city’s leaders. In April, several members of the council publicly lambasted the mayor’s plan to award a lucrative contract, seemingly out of nowhere and without competitive bidding, to the fiance of his appointee to a city commission.

The public backlash was swift from across the political spectrum — an unusual occurrence in the politically polarized city. An equally unusual display of dissent arose from the once-allied council. One of the dissenters, City Councilmember Chad Williams, told LAist he was outraged by “the audacity of our own mayor to push through this sweetheart deal for his commissioner’s fiance. Our city deserves better,” he said.

The mayor, Casey McKeon, told LAist he didn’t “understand the pushback.” He said the consultant who would have benefited from the contract, Tyler Wolff of Wolffhaus Studio & Creative, “happens to be one of the best in the industry. Why should we not engage in his services?”

Wolff, for his part, told LAist he merely saw problems with the city’s “brand ecosystem” — including events, merchandising and media outreach — and proposed solutions. “There’s no creative leadership, there’s no oversight, and there’s no accountability,” he said. Wolff said he was caught off guard by the controversy over the proposed contract for his company. “I know nothing about the RFP procurement process,” he said.

Ultimately, McKeon withdrew the contract with Wolffhaus under pressure, and the city is currently evaluating alternative bids (including from Wolffhaus).

The rift comes at a fraught time for the MAGA movement: Nationally, the coalition is splintering over the war in Iran; Locally, a deepening budget crisis in Huntington Beach has caused some residents and local leaders to look more closely at the city’s recent spending decisions.

At the heart of the city’s problems is cronyism, critics say. But not everyone agrees on what falls into that category.

The backstory

The latest controversy started when a proposal to award a $720,000 contract to Wolffhaus appeared on the city’s April 7 council meeting agenda, proposed by Mayor McKeon. The two-year contract was for revamping and maximizing the city’s “brand,” including ramping up sales of HB merch, opening a film commission, and improving the city’s public relations. The ultimate goal is to generate more revenue to help close a looming budget gap.

Several council members said they had no prior knowledge of the initiative before it appeared on the agenda — nor did they know that the city had already paid Wolff $30,000 to “audit” the city’s branding and communications strategy.

Critics, including Councilmember Williams, pointed out what they characterized as a number of other red flags, including Wolffhaus’ unfinished website which included a contact number that went to an adult hotline. (Wolff said it was a mistake and is now fixed.) The contract also contained a clause stating that, should the city want to cancel the contract at any time without cause, it would owe half of the remaining allocated funds to Wolffhaus. Williams called it a potential “windfall for work that was never done.”

“This was tailor made for Tyler [Wolff],” Williams said of the contract.

City Councilmember Andrew Gruel sided with Williams in vocally opposing the contract, calling its road to near-approval “sloppy.” Gruel told LAist he has a high regard for Wolff’s work, but was concerned about the transparency leading up to the contract’s sudden appearance on the council’s agenda. “I think the whole process was upside down,” Gruel said.

The council’s usual critics were livid, lambasting the personal connection between McKeon and Wolff and the lack of a competitive bidding process, which is generally required for large contracts.

“The whole thing just smacks of cronyism, backroom deals, sloppiness, lack of accountability, fiscal responsibility, I mean, pick some adjectives,” said Cathey Ryder, co-founder of the group Protect HB. The group has been a frequent foil to the current council’s agenda, including spearheading a ballot initiative last year that overturned the library censorship measure.

But indignation came in equal measure from the other side of the proverbial aisle, including from former backers of the mayor and his allies.

“I’ve supported most of the people on this city council for a long time,” resident Domnic McGee said during public comment at the April 7 meeting. “But it seems that certain people are ruling by fiat,” he said, referring to McKeon.

McGee, who serves on the city’s planning commission, told LAist he worried that the communications contract would give the mayor a direct line to “spin” the messaging coming out of the city during election season. McKeon is up for re-election this fall.

“Casey [McKeon] will be able to override anything he doesn't like and overemphasize what he does,” McGee said. “And he could pretty much use this for his campaign.”

McGee said he campaigned for McKeon in 2021 but would now “never vote for him again.”

Following the outcry, McKeon withdrew the proposal from consideration and the city put out a request for competitive bids. An ad hoc committee made up of the mayor and two allied council members will review the proposals in private and recommend their top choices. Williams said the bidding process had been “utterly tainted.”

A pattern of 'cronyism' complaints

The rift over the Wolffhaus contract may have temporarily shaken up Huntington Beach’s conservative factions, but the faultlines are blurry. At their latest meeting, the city council voted 6-0 to shift $10,000 in federal grants from an afterschool care program in the city’s Oak View neighborhood, and $5,000 from a local program for at-risk youth, to a nonprofit where Councilmember Gruel, a vocal critic of the Wolffhaus deal, is the executive director.

The organization, Save the Brave, which is based in Temecula, takes veterans on deep-sea fishing trips. Gruel left the city council chambers when the vote was taking place, but did not formally recuse himself, or publicly disclose his ties to the organization. Under California’s Political Reform Act, elected officials are required to publicly disclose and recuse themselves from voting on any issue that represents a potential financial conflict of interest.

Gruel told LAist he had disclosed his ties with the organization from the start of the grant process — well before the money came to a vote before city council. He said he takes no money for his work with Save the Brave, and that he didn’t know he was supposed to publicly disclose his ties to the organization at the time the vote took place. “I’m still learning all this stuff,” said Gruel, a chef and TV personality who was appointed to his seat last year after former Councilmember Tony Strickland won a seat in the state legislature in a special election.

Asked whether he thought the council’s vote to give his organization additional funds was a bad look, Gruel said “Of course.”

“Especially in the framework of previous council decisions, there’s this reputation now that there are these backroom deals,” he said.

Longtime critics of Huntington Beach’s city government say it has become commonplace to reward people with political and family ties with funds, contracts, and prominent positions in city government. They point to the following examples:

• A decades-long, multi-million dollar settlement with the operator of the city’s annual airshow, who staged campaign events and printed signs for several of the city councilmembers who approved the settlement. The city has been fighting a state effort to audit the deal. But Williams and Gruel recently proposed settling the case and letting the audit go forward.
• A special street renaming for a local conservative donor, Ed Laird, who helped fund the campaigns of several city council members. (Laird also helped negotiate the airshow settlement.)
• The appointment, by Gracey Van Der Mark, of City Councilmember Gruel’s wife to the city’s Community and Library Services Commission in 2023. Gruel said he had nothing to do with the appointment, which is unpaid.
• The appointment in 2022 of Kelly Gates, wife of Michael Gates, the former city attorney and now deputy assistant attorney, to the city’s Finance Committee, also an unpaid position. Van Der Mark also made that appointment. 

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, the state ethics body, has found legal violations related to some of these incidents. The commission recently ruled that former city attorney Michael Gates, and City Council members McKeon, Van Der Mark, and Pat Burns violated disclosure rules by failing to report that they had received free VIP passes to the airshow in 2022 when they were negotiating a settlement with the event’s operator. A similar complaint is pending against Kelly Gates — city finance commissioners are also required to disclose their income and gifts.

The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is problematic for good governance, said Tracy Westen, a public interest lawyer who has expertise in government ethics. For example, appointing the spouses of government leaders to key positions in city government. “It could be they were the best people for the job,” Westen said, “but it raises an appearance issue.”

Some Orange County cities, including Irvine, Westminster and Laguna Niguel, prohibit appointments of family members to city commissions. Huntington Beach does not have a similar rule, although the city council is prohibited from appointing relatives to salaried positions.

What it all means for the November election

Those looking to unseat the current city council majority see opportunity in the rift over the Wolffhaus contract. “We are pleasantly surprised to see that there's a crack in the cabal, for lack of a better word,” said Ryder of Protect HB. The group is backing a slate of four candidates in the November election in hopes of unseating the council majority. One of the candidates is Erin Spivey, who sued the city over the book censorship policy and won, including a $1 million judgment against the city for attorneys' fees. The city is appealing.

If elected, Spivey said she would propose a ban on contracts and city appointments for individuals with close ties to city councilmembers. “This has got to stop. The government is not the plaything of elected officials,” Spivey said.

Some of the city’s most controversial figures are seeking higher office this year. Michael Gates is running for state Attorney General in the June primary. Van Der Mark is also hoping to make a jump to Sacramento — she’s one of four candidates to represent State Assembly District 72 on the primary ballot.

At the local level, McKeon and Burns are up for re-election this fall, and Gruel will face his first test on a ballot.

McKeon, Burns, and newcomer Brian Thienes are running as a conservative slate, with signs reading “Don’t split the vote!”

But Gruel has chosen to run solo — distancing himself from the trend in Huntington Beach, over the last two election cycles, of Republican-backed council candidates running as a bloc. “I don’t necessarily look at everything through a party filter,” Gruel told LAist, adding that he considers himself a small-government libertarian.

Gruel said he shared critics’ concerns about the lack of daylight on some of the city’s recent contracts and decisions. “Generally speaking this is why I’m so frustrated by the look, because my whole thing is transparency,” he said.

Orange County will stop spraying local flood control channels with toxic chemicals — an environmental issue that has morphed in recent months into a major theme in the June 2 primary race to represent South O.C. on the Board of Supervisors.

In an emailed announcement, Supervisor Katrina Foley, who represents District 5, wrote that “following months of community outcry,” O.C. Public Works would halt spraying and “instead observe the growth patterns of invasive species to evaluate the safest and most effective procedures for removal.”

The backstory

The environmental activists who make up the three-person Creek Team OC began raising the alarm earlier this year about the county’s practice of spraying toxic chemicals to keep vegetation down in local waterways and flood control channels, which flow out to the ocean. Brent Linas, the group’s founder, had become concerned about the issue while noticing what he characterized as “dead” ecosystems during his runs along San Juan Creek, which empties into Doheny State Beach.

The political context

The herbicide spraying had become a major issue in the race to represent District 5 on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Katrina Foley, a Democrat, is running for reelection against state Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a Republican. The conservative Lincoln Club, through its PAC, has spent around $200,000 thus far to try to influence the race. The PAC has latched onto the herbicide issue to attack Foley in ads and mailers.

The Lincoln Media Foundation, which shares an address and officers with the Lincoln Club, has simultaneously published content critical of Foley’s handling of the herbicide issue through the affiliated publication, California Courier.

Linas of Creek Team called Foley’s announcement about the countywide pause on herbicide spraying “a huge, huge victory for us.” Linas, who described himself to LAist as a lifelong Democrat, said his group ultimately used the political jockeying over the issue to their advantage. “ We took this firehose of money that exists and we redirected some of it towards what we saw as an urgent issue,” he said.

What’s next?

Orange County Public Works could still use herbicides in conjunction with maintenance work if they identify an “immediate need of vegetation management,” according to the announcement. But the county would give the public seven days' notice in advance of any such use. A pilot project along San Juan and Trabuco creeks is underway to evaluate the viability of replacing chemical spraying with manual and mechanical weed removal.

How to watchdog your local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention. Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The Orange County Board of Supervisors meets on alternating Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. at 400 W. Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.

U.S. domestic air travel has boomed in recent years, except for one segment. Short flights of a few hundred miles decreased over the past decade, while longer flights became more popular, according to data gathered by the aviation analytics firm OAG for NPR.

Nearly 4 million short flights are scheduled for this year. But as of mid-April, the number of flights spanning less than 250 nautical miles had declined by 11% from 2016 to 2026 — the biggest drop of any route length. The decline comes as no surprise to John Grant, a senior analyst at OAG.

"That is an awful distance to be operating," he says, because short flights are more expensive for airlines than flights with a longer cruise time.

In contrast, every domestic flight category of more than 500 miles saw notable gains over the same 10-year span. The numbers depict the U.S. hub-and-spoke aviation system moving toward longer "spokes" for some routes.

The trend was well established even before rising fuel prices from the Iran war rattled U.S. aviation. It could now accelerate, as airlines raise prices and trim less-profitable flights due to jet fuel supply constraints.

Domestic jet fuel costs have roughly doubled since early February, before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. U.S. airlines spent more than $5 billion on jet fuel in March, a 56% increase from February, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Spirit Airlines blamed the soaring fuel costs when it announced it would shut down last weekend. Prices are even higher for Asia and other markets that rely more heavily on supplies transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

"Any time there is pressure like that, particularly a cost pressure, but also a resource pressure, airlines are going to concentrate flying where they can move the most passengers with the fewest pilots," says Faye Malarkey Black, CEO of the Regional Airline Association.

Short-hop flights are the most frequent, and least efficient

Every day, thousands of U.S. airline passengers step off planes without needing to check the local time and weather, because they've traveled less than 100 miles, on flights lasting less than an hour.

For example, there are dozens of flights between Milwaukee and Chicago each week, even though they're separated by less than 80 miles and have been connected by rail lines for more than a century. But there's a key snag for travelers in the Milwaukee area who might want to take the train to O'Hare International, says Joshua Schank, an urban planning professor at UCLA who's also a partner with the consulting firm Infra Strategies.

"Remember, that rail is going between the [cities'] two downtowns, and it's not between the airports," he says. "And that's the key distinction," he adds, noting that a majority of the route's passengers are likely connecting to other destinations beyond Chicago.

For routes like that to make economic sense, they require enough people willing to pay, says Black, of the airline association.

"It's not the distance, it's the density," she says. "If you have a short flight that has a lot of density because it's between two urban centers and it's a viable option, then people will take that option."

It's one of the shorter spokes in the U.S. hub-and-spoke system that helps airlines concentrate their traffic. That's why the sub-250-mile distance remains the second most popular domestic route, even with its double-digit decline. The most popular flight category over the past 10 years isn't much longer, with the 251 to 500 nautical mile distance scheduled 2.1 million times in 2026, despite a roughly 4% dip.

But all those repeated shorter flights come at a cost.

"A lot of the fuel is used in the takeoff and landing processes," Grant says. And every landing, he notes, adds wear and tear on the planes' equipment.

To hit the sweet spot of revenue versus cost, Grant says, "airlines typically try to be in that two-hour block time" – a category that includes flights over 500 miles, such as Washington, D.C., to Atlanta.

At airports, short flights also add to the workload for understaffed air traffic control systems and congested gates. A small regional jet carrying 50 people, for instance, is just as important to a controller as a wide-body airliner. And it takes up gate space repeatedly, as it shuttles passengers back and forth to a hub airport. As Black notes, the impact of all those short flights adds up.

"Regional airlines have always been the backbone of air service to smaller communities," she says. "In the early 2000s, they were the only source of scheduled air service for roughly three-quarters of U.S. airports. Today, that figure is closer to two-thirds."

Prices for U.S. jet fuel have nearly doubled since before the Iran war began, shaking up the aviation industry. This file photo shows a worker preparing to fuel a United Express jet at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, in Grapevine, Texas.

(

Tony Gutierrez

/

AP

)

Where are we heading? 

Despite their recent decline, short-hop flights are integral to the hub-and-spoke network, taking people from Colorado Springs to Denver, for instance, or from Birmingham to Atlanta.

But airlines have shifted more toward longer flights over the past decade, thanks largely to a new generation of narrow-body aircraft that are more efficient, making them an enticing option for longer-range routes. That's why the trendline favors routes such as the 501 to 750-mile category (e.g. Portland to Las Vegas, or Houston to Tampa), which grew by 11% to nearly 1.7 million scheduled flights in 2026. Flights of more than 750 and 1,000 miles each saw double-digit percentage gains, as well.

"Unfortunately for short-haul routes, the economics are not in their favor," says Ahmed Abdelghani, professor of operations management at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. He notes that a smaller jet's higher costs must be borne by fewer passengers than a larger plane, prompting higher fares.

"Those new generation narrowbody aircraft will have much better economics than the smaller 50-seater, 70-seater aircraft," Abdelghani says, citing the newer jets' ability to spread costs over more than 160 seats, depending on how they're configured.

The newer planes align with airlines that prioritize route profitability, Abdelghani says. But he and Black both say that larger narrow-body planes aren't a good fit for every market – and as a result, smaller communities could see fewer flights and connectivity.

"The airports with the sharpest service losses tend to be small hub and non-hub airports," Black says, "and those markets are often built around shorter-distance flying." She notes that other problems, such as pilot shortages, are also affecting small markets. "As pilot availability tightened, airlines had to make decisions about where limited flying could be sustained," Black says.

As Abdelghani puts it, "The airline decides, OK, since now I'm going to fly only efficient aircraft, I'm going to sacrifice the routes that this aircraft doesn't fit."
Copyright 2026 NPR