‘Dystopian Science Fiction’: Thomas Massie’s Amendment to Stop ‘Kill Switch’ in Vehicles Fails

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., joined at right by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., both members of t
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Hannah Knudsen

Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) amendment to stop what has been dubbed a “kill switch” in vehicles beginning in 2026 under the guise of “passive drunk driving technology” failed last week — something that largely fell under the radar as all eyes remain on newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Congress passing his stopgap funding bill this week.

This battle broke out last week, as Massie presented an amendment, which essentially states that none of the funds made available in the Biden-approved Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed in 2021, may be used to implement Section 24220 of the bill.

 

This section of the bill, specifically, allots funds for what the law describes as “advance impaired driving technology,” pointing to the prevalence of drunk driving fatalities occurring in the U.S. every year.

“According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually,” the bill states, concluding that “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles” in order to “ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities.”

Further, the bill specifically states these technologies would “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected,” leading critics to label it a “kill switch.”

“My amendment is simple. It will defund the federal mandate that requires all new vehicles after 2026 be equipped with a kill switch that can disable a vehicle if the vehicle has monitored the user’s, the driver’s, performance and that the vehicle determines that the driver is not performing well,” Massie said on the House floor.

“It’s so incredible that I have to offer this amendment. It almost sounds like the domain of science fiction, dystopian science fiction, that the federal government would put a kill switch in vehicles that would be the judge, the jury and the executioner on such a fundamental right as the right to travel freely. But here we are. It is it is federal law that this is mandated,” Massie concluded, as Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) disputed the amendment, asserting that the section of the infrastructure law “does not require auto manufacturers to install kill switches.”

“Passive drunk driving technology is a vital tool in safeguarding our loved ones and other innocent people on our roads,” she said, appealing to emotions of losing loved ones to drunk drivers.

“The sponsor of this misguided amendment will tell you that he worries about privacy concerns. We heard the same inane calls with seatbelt requirements, but you don’t have a right to engage in potentially fatal behavior that we know poses a major health threat to public safety,” she continued, asserting that “passive drunk driving technology is pro-police,” allowing them to “focus on more pressing safety concerns.”

Massie acknowledged that drunk driving is a “serious problem” and pointed to 31 states that “already have a law to implement interlock ignition technology, where if you’ve been convicted of a DUI that you have to pass this test in order to operate your vehicle.”

“But this federal law that I seek to defund goes far beyond that. And I regret that I have to spend some of my time reading the law to the other side of the aisle but I will do that, “ Massie said, before reading the law to his Democrat colleagues.

Massie said:

This law that was passed in a 1,000-page bill two years ago requires that automobiles can passively monitor the performance of a driver — not the blood alcohol content but the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle — to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired, not drunk. It says impaired, and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation. That’s a kill switch. How much time do you have once your dashboard tells you that it doesn’t approve of your driving?

“What if you’re a single mother and you’re out on in bad weather and you’re trying to avoid some obstacles? Ice perhaps, and you swerve three times? And your dashboard says swerve one more time, and you’re going to be pulled over to the side of the road, that you’ll have 100 yards to park this vehicle in the middle of nowhere with your children in the backseat,” he said, explaining that this is not “some fantastical scenario.”

“This is what will happen if this is implemented. And this is the law. I have read it to you here. Now you maybe should have read it two years ago when you all voted for it on that side of the aisle. But it wasn’t a bill that was 1,039 pages long. So I can understand how you don’t know what the law has in it,” he added, as critics have pointed out that this technology could eventually be abused to target those based on their political ideologies and allegiances, as the U.S. government has a track record of doing so.

WATCH the debate below:

Despite his pitch, the House failed to pass Massie’s amendment in a 229-201 vote. Nineteen Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it.

That includes Reps. Bilirakis (FL), Carey (OH), Fitzpatrick (PA), Fleischmann (TN), Garbarino (NY), Garcia (CA), Graves (LA), Joyce (PA), Kean (NJ), Kiley (CA), Kim (CA) Kustoff (TN), Lawler (NY), Mace (SC), McCaul (TX), Nunn (IA), Salazar (FL), Smith (NJ), and Thompson (PA).

“Now, this bill also has the ability it says the car manufacturers need to somehow passively monitor the air in the car to see if you’ve been drinking. The problem with that is what if you’re the designated driver and you’re trying to get somebody home who’s had too much to drink. There’s so many ways this could go wrong,” Massie said during an appearance with Laura Ingraham, noting that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), surprisingly voted in favor of the amendment due to civil liberty concerns.

“She knows this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. But think about this: There’s 19 Republicans who are to the authoritarian left of AOC now. So that’s my question is not why did I get the Democrats to vote for it, why were there Republicans who want to keep this mandate in cars?” he asked.

WATCH:

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.