Unless Congress hits the brakes soon, an impending regulation could require all new cars to monitor your behavior, specifically whether you are too impaired to drive.
It’s a law that has largely gone under the radar, but one that could affect millions of Americans. And before it takes effect, Congress owes the public clear answers about privacy, surveillance and who controls the data these systems collect.
The “kill switch” requirement started in 2021 when Congress passed the HALT Drunk Driving Act as part of broader infrastructure legislation. It received bipartisan support, although many more Democrats voted for it than Republicans. In recent months, several Republicans have tried to repeal the mandate.
The law charged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with writing rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology in new vehicles within five years. Those rules are still being written but could go into effect as early as next year.
The law’s text states that, to “ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities,” advanced drunken- and impaired-driving prevention technology must become standard equipment in all new passenger vehicles.
It also mandates that this technology can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”
So while the term “kill switch” isn’t included in the legislation, the meaning is clear.
Supporters of the regulation say it’s about saving lives and preventing deadly crashes caused by impaired drivers. Opponents argue it’s an Orwellian measure that violates constitutional protections and opens the door to broader government surveillance.
I understand both arguments.
The human cost of drunken driving
The push for this driving law originated in Michigan, where I live. In 2019, a drunken driver killed a family of five as they were returning home from a vacation in Florida.
Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Democrat, championed the legislation after their deaths.
My own family has experienced this tragedy. On Christmas morning in 1987, my 26-year-old aunt and her boyfriend were killed by a drunken driver just a few miles from my home. I was only 8 years old, but the loss has shaped my life.
These senseless deaths, caused by someone else’s reckless decision to drive impaired, naturally spur calls for action and justice.
Public-awareness campaigns, tougher enforcement and stricter penalties have helped reduce drunken driving deaths over the past few decades.
Yet the toll remains staggering. More than 30 people die each day in drunken driving crashes in the United States, according to NHTSA. In 2024 alone, 11,904 people lost their lives in these preventable accidents.
What’s to be done?
For many Republicans and libertarians, preventing impaired driving doesn’t justify giving the government more power to monitor drivers.
In January, a group of House lawmakers introduced an amendment to defund the mandate. It failed in a 164-268 vote. Still, 57 Republicans voted against the repeal.
“The car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that you’re not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, said on the House floor ahead of the vote. “So the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury and your executioner.”
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, has continued the push to “kill” the kill switch, arguing in late April that the Biden-era surveillance mandate is a threat to Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.
“Do you really want to put that kind of data collection mandated inside every car?” Roy asked his House colleagues. “At what point is there just literally no privacy at all anywhere?”
It’s a fair question.
I am deeply sympathetic to efforts to prevent these needless and heartbreaking deaths. But Americans shouldn’t have to surrender their privacy every time they get behind the wheel. Congress should not impose a mandate that gives the government, automakers or anyone else the ability to monitor drivers without clear limits and protections.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: ‘Kill switch’ law means your next car could be watching you | Jacques
Reporting by Ingrid Jacques / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
