(The Hill) – The Trump administration announced last week that it will no longer pursue an effort that would have required most airlines to compensate customers for flight delays and other inconveniences when their travel plans are disrupted.

The Department of Transportation has described the reversal as a part of its broader clawback of federal government overreach that took place under the Biden administration.

“Some of the rules proposed or adopted by the previous administration … went beyond what Congress has required by statute, and we intend to reconsider those extra-statutory requirements,” a department spokesperson told The Hill on Monday.

Here are five things to know about what the shift means for consumers:

Rule change had not yet taken effect

Then-President Biden’s administration issued its final version of the rule in December, punting the proposal to take effect after President Trump’s White House return. It was part of the administration’s push against “junk fees” that cost consumers millions each year — either directly or passively through onerous refund policies.

The rule to require automatic compensation for airline passenger disruptions was first floated in 2023 and made it to the final approval stage, with public comments open through February this year, before it would have gone into effect.

The Department of Transportation revealed last week that the plan was being withdrawn “consistent with Department and administration priorities.”

Passengers would have received refunds

Under the proposal, travelers could have been entitled to cash compensation of up to $300 for domestic flight delays that lasted at least three hours and up to $775 for delays that stretched past nine hours, on top of compensation for other unexpected costs incurred, such as meals and lodging.

U.S. and foreign air carriers with U.S. destinations would have been required to adopt clear customer service plans to provide cash compensation only when airlines were responsible for travel disruptions. It would not apply to instances outside the airlines’ control, such as weather delays or mass electrical outages in areas.

Several European countries have established similar requirements for airlines.

Airlines applaud the reversal

Airlines for America, a trade group that represents major air carriers including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and others, lauded the Trump administration’s reversal of the proposed compensation requirement.

“We are encouraged by this Department of Transportation reviewing unnecessary and burdensome regulations that exceed its authority and don’t solve issues important to our customers,” the group said in a statement Thursday.

Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), who served eight years as the state’s top executive and has often shifted between supporting Trump and criticizing him, is set to become president and CEO of Airlines for America on Tuesday.

Buttigieg unfazed by move

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who shepherded the Biden-era proposal, said in a social media post last week that he wasn’t surprised by the reversal because of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s past ties to the airline industry.

“Our billionaire President put an airline lobbyist in charge of the Department of Transportation. So no, this is not a surprise,” Buttigieg wrote on BlueSky, with a link to a post about the change.

What’s next?

Several lawmakers have proposed legislation in the past that would mandate airline carriers compensate travelers for covered disruptions.

The Transportation Department, in its statement to The Hill, indicated it would follow whatever Congress decides.

“We will faithfully implement all aviation consumer protection requirements mandated by Congress, including the requirement to refund ticket prices to passengers in the case of airline canceled or substantially delayed flights when consumers choose not to travel,” a spokesperson said. “Some of the rules proposed or adopted by the previous administration, however, went beyond what Congress has required by statute, and we intend to reconsider those extra-statutory requirements.”