The recent blowup between the state of California and the Trump administration over that state’s federally funded high-speed rail project does not raise any new concerns about the Honolulu rail project, experts say.

The Trump administration this week announced it intends to pull back $929 million in federal funds awarded to California’s high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco, and also wants the state to return $2.5 billion in federal money that already has been spent on the effort.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced earlier this month that the rail project approved by voters in 2008 would cost too much and take too long, and said he intends to scale it back. The governor’s staff said he eventually plans to complete the project, but Newsom said in the near term he intends to build 171 miles of rail in Central California.

The U.S. Department of Transportation described that as a “significant retreat” from the original project that was awarded federal funding, and announced it plans to cancel plans to provide California with $929 million for the project.

The Trump administration also wants to recover the $2.5 billion that already was spent, and DOT said it is exploring its legal options to accomplish that.

But Andrew Robbins, CEO of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation, said the Honolulu rail project is in an entirely different situation. Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, agreed. O’Toole is a transportation expert and author of the book “Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need.”

California’s high-speed rail line needs many billions of dollars in additional funding commitments if it is to ever be completed, and the source of that money has not yet been identified.

But the Honolulu rail project is fully funded, with a cash flow adequate to pay for the entire project provided the budget stays at $9.2 billion. The Hawaii project is slated to receive $1.55 billion in federal funding, with the rest provided by a general excise surcharge on Oahu, the state hotel room tax and some city funding.

“The second major differentiator is we have a plan,” Robbins said. “California really didn’t have a full plan, and I think that’s what the governor of California was talking about in his remarks.” Newsom also seemed to indicate he plans to scale down the project, which would deviate from California’s funding agreement with the federal government, Robbins said.

“In our case we’re fully committed to building all the way to Ala Moana so that we don’t have any conflict with the full-funding grant agreement” that the city signed with the Federal Transit Administration in 2012, Robbins said.

O’Toole said he believes Trump is “grandstanding” in the dispute and might not have the authority to take back money from California. When the Obama administration funded the California project, it was explicit in the federal funding agreement that California did not have enough money to complete the entire project, he said.

Honolulu has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, but if the city remains determined to complete the 20-mile project, “then there’s no problem” comparable to the California controversy, O’Toole said.

The city signed an agreement with the Federal Transit Administration in 2012 that called for rail’s elevated guideway and 21 stations to be built for $5.26 billion and open by 2020, but the project is far over budget. Construction and financing are now expected to total about $9.2 billion, and the rail authority expects to finish the system in late 2025.

The FTA has withheld nearly $744 million until Honolulu submits an acceptable “recovery plan” for the project. To add to those troubles, this month the Honolulu rail authority was served with two federal grand jury subpoenas seeking an array of records, and it is still unclear what has triggered the federal investigation.

House Speaker Scott Saiki has said he is worried the FTA might not release the $744 million while the federal investigation is underway, but the FTA has declined to respond to questions about that possibility.