Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., has introduced legislation to repeal a provision in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed by former President Joe Biden that would require all new vehicles sold in the United States to be equipped with technology capable of detecting driver impairment and remotely disabling the vehicle.
The two-paragraph No Kill Switches In Cars Act would eliminate the mandate requiring car manufacturers to install systems that "monitors a driver's performance to identify driver impairment" and can "prevent or limit vehicle operation if the system determines the driver may be intoxicated or impaired." The provision was included in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and has not yet been fully implemented.
What the Right Is Saying
Perry argues the provision represents government overreach into Americans' personal freedoms and could violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Perry described the technology as a system where "the vehicle itself decides whether it appreciates and approves of your driving based on a series of algorithms, computer metrics."
The congressman contends the mandate would drive up vehicle costs and eliminate consumer choice in purchasing decisions. "Cars are expensive and one of the reasons they're expensive is because we have all these systems on them," Perry said. He argued that Americans should be able to purchase vehicles without being forced to pay for features they may not want or need, drawing comparisons to backup cameras and lane assist technology already mandated on new vehicles.
Perry has emphasized he supports efforts to reduce drunk driving, noting he has had family members affected by impaired driving incidents, but maintains the Biden-era provision represents "a bridge too far" in balancing public safety against individual liberty. He has raised concerns about scenarios where sober drivers could be stranded, including pregnant women rushing to hospitals or individuals fleeing dangerous situations.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and safety advocates have defended the mandate as a lifesaving public health measure. Drunk driving continues to claim thousands of lives annually, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reporting approximately 13,384 fatalities from alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2021 alone. Supporters argue that technology-based intervention represents a commonsense approach to reducing preventable deaths on American roads.
Proponents contend that the technology is analogous to seatbelt requirements and other vehicle safety standards that were initially met with resistance but ultimately became accepted measures protecting public welfare. They note that drivers would retain significant latitude, as the systems are designed to detect impairment rather than minor traffic infractions. Safety advocates have also pointed out that the mandate underwent extensive expert review before being included in the final legislation.
What the Numbers Show
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law in November 2021, included provisions requiring the Transportation Department to establish performance requirements for advanced impaired driving prevention technology by November 2024. The timeline for full implementation on all new vehicles has not yet been finalized.
According to NHTSA data, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for approximately 31 percent of all traffic deaths in 2021. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that drunk driving costs the U.S. economy roughly $44 billion annually in medical expenses, lost productivity, and other costs. The average cost of a new vehicle reached record highs exceeding $48,000 in recent years, according to Kelley Blue Book data.
The Bottom Line
The No Kill Switches In Cars Act represents an early legislative test of how the new Congress will approach regulatory rollback efforts under the Trump administration. While Perry's bill has Republican support, it faces an uncertain path in a divided legislature where some members have expressed openness to technology-based safety measures despite broader deregulatory priorities.
The debate touches on broader questions about the balance between technological innovation in safety and concerns over government-mandated surveillance capabilities in personal property. Industry groups have largely remained quiet on the legislation while automakers continue planning for potential implementation of impairment detection systems.
What happens next: Perry will need to build bipartisan support for his bill to advance through committee. The Transportation Department continues working on rulemaking for the underlying provision, with industry stakeholders watching closely for regulatory clarity on technical specifications and timelines.