If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Republican attempt to cut off federal funding tied to vehicle “kill switch” enforcement failed in the House this week, leaving intact a law directing the Department of Transportation to develop mandatory impaired-driving prevention systems in new vehicles. The proposal, led by Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, sought to bar the government from spending money to advance or enforce the measure, formally known as Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The amendment was added to a broader spending bill, H.R. 7148, but was defeated 268 to 164. According to the House Clerk’s official roll call, 160 Republicans supported it, joined by four Democrats, while 57 Republicans and 211 Democrats voted against it. Massie’s measure would have “prohibit[ed] the use of funds made available by this Act to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including any requirements enabling or supporting vehicle ‘kill switch’ technology.” His goal was to block any federal action that could force automakers to install technology capable of monitoring driver behavior and intervening when impairment is detected. Following the vote, Massie wrote on X: “Unfortunately, the amendment I offered to defund the federally mandated automobile kill switch did not pass. 57 Republicans joined 211 Democrats to defeat it.” The Kentucky lawmaker has led several efforts on this issue, including the “No Kill Switches in Cars Act” introduced in early 2025, which would “repeal a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations with respect to advanced impaired driving technology.” Although the technology has not yet been required in any vehicle, the 2021 infrastructure law compels the Department of Transportation to develop regulations mandating its use. The legislative text refers broadly to systems that can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” if impairment is detected, but it leaves the technical design and privacy boundaries to regulators. Four Democrats, Representatives J. Luis Correa of California, Val Hoyle of Oregon, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, joined most Republicans in supporting Massie’s amendment. The final tally recorded 164 in favor, 268 against, none present, and four not voting. Those opposing the amendment argue that the technology could prevent thousands of deaths caused by drunk driving. Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, a Democrat, stated in a release distributed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving: “Rep. Massie’s statements that impaired driving technology would track driver location, monitor driver performance, or enable cars to shut themselves down in the middle of the road are blatantly false and an intentional mischaracterization of the law. Massie’s amendment is an insult to every American who has been hurt by or lost loved ones to drunk driving…We have the technology now to save lives, and we should not delay in implementing it.” Supporters of the amendment take a different view, warning that government-mandated vehicle monitoring threatens core civil liberties. Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said: “The vehicle ‘kill-switch’ is precisely the kind of overreach that will empower regulatory agencies to manage behavior without votes by elected representatives in Congress or real accountability. We must oppose this erosion of civil liberties and not set this precedent for government monitoring of everyday Americans. Kill switch technology will not be confined to one narrow purpose, no matter what its proponents believe or claim.” What the Law Says and What It Leaves Open Representative Dingell is right that Section 24220 contains no explicit references to GPS tracking, remote data transmission, or real-time surveillance. The law also does not instruct automakers to design vehicles that shut down abruptly while in motion. Instead, it directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a rule requiring technology that can “prevent or limit” operation when impairment is detected. However, the statute’s open wording gives regulators wide latitude. It neither specifies how impairment should be detected nor limits what data may be collected or stored. As a result, the door remains open to methods that rely on driver-facing cameras, behavioral monitoring, or biometric analysis, all systems that could create ongoing data streams about driver behavior. Nothing in the law restricts how long such data could be retained, how it could be shared, or whether processing must occur solely within the vehicle. Nor does it guarantee that a driver could override a false positive reading. From a privacy standpoint, those omissions represent the central point of contention. It’s a little similar to many of the online “age verification” bills. They don’t all say that platforms have to collect digital IDs or scan biometrics to access platforms, but there would be little other way of enforcing. While Thursday’s vote blocked Massie’s attempt to defund implementation, it did not settle those underlying concerns. The real decisions now shift to the Department of Transportation and NHTSA, which must decide to what extent the impaired-driving systems will reach into vehicle operation and driver data. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post House Vote Keeps Federal “Kill Switch” Vehicle Mandate Despite Privacy Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.