Back in November 2021, Congress quietly added a clause to the sprawling “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” that would make Orwell blush. Section 24220 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require that every new passenger car include “advanced drunk-and-impaired-driving prevention technology.” The provision is sold as a way to save lives, but alleges to do so by commanding vehicles to monitor drivers and refuse to operate when the software suspects impairment. In other words, AI will determine whether or not you can drive should you buy a new year model vehicle starting in 2027.
This is neither a technical innovation nor a societal demand for greater security. It is a political choice that converts a privately owned car into a behavioral policeman. The requirement emerged with little debate and broad support. It signifies the latest state overreach toward a future in which property is conditional, while privacy is optional.
In its typical abdication of responsibility, Congress left the details of the kill switch to federal regulators, though demanded an aggressive timetable. The NHTSA had three years to finalize a safety standard, with a possible one-year extension. Yet by early 2026, the agency openly acknowledged in a report to lawmakers that no commercially available system can reliably detect driver alcohol impairment and that most existing prototypes are unsuitable for in-vehicle use. The law envisions a combination of cameras that track eye movement and steering as well as sensors that detect blood-alcohol concentration through breath or touch. Each option is, at best, experimental and prone to error, yet Congress requires that the technology prevent or limit vehicle operation. NHTSA suggests a flagged car may not start or may enter a reduced-speed mode. But precluding any AI-sponsored sentencing is the fact that there is no clear definition of “impairment,” leaving uncertainty about what behaviors will trigger a shutdown. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has warned that the kill switch will serve as judge and executioner. Yet when he offered an amendment to defund the Biden-era mandate, it was defeated, with dozens of Republicans joining Democrats.
Modern cars have been akin to computers on wheels for some time. They can record a myriad of data on the driver’s activity: location, speed, route history, braking, voice commands, and in-cabin signals. This creates a log of daily life that can reveal where someone worships, seeks medical care, or attends political meetings. Most importantly, that information can be used to incriminate you, and you have little choice to decline this surveillance other than to stick to older model vehicles. The kill switch mandate adds biometric and behavioral monitoring to the mix, asking vehicles to track drivers’ eyes and steering, or sample cabin air for alcohol. Such data is highly sensitive and, in many cases, will be stored or transmitted beyond the vehicle. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Edward Markey (D-MA) have documented that automakers share driver location and behavior data with brokers and insurers, often without meaningful consent. A government-mandated feed that reports when a car decides you are impaired would be a boon to advertisers, insurance companies, and law enforcement, but a nightmare to your right to privacy.
Speaking of privacy, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches, yet its application to digital data remains dubious. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized that long-term cell phone location tracking invades privacy and generally requires a warrant. Driver-monitoring systems could yield equally sensitive logs, but because the data is created by a product rather than the police, it may fall under the third-party doctrine, making it accessible to law enforcement without probable cause. Critics caution that continuous vehicle telemetry is persistent and searchable and often sits outside a driver’s control. Requiring every driver to generate such logs effectively forces citizens to produce potentially incriminating evidence. Scholars argue that if the technology can map visits to doctors, support groups, or religious services, then warrants and strict limits are essential.
Vehicle GPS data may be stored indefinitely without the driver’s knowledge or consent, leaving a trail of bread crumbs to every location a private citizen visits. Because cars remain parked near destinations, law enforcement can infer what happens even after drivers exit their vehicles, creating a so-called “automatic diary” that can be used against them in court. Section 24220 normalizes this surveillance by requiring every car to generate these logs.
The kill switch mandate raises another question: Do we truly own what the government can disable at will? Real property offers a cautionary tale. Every state permits local governments to impose tax liens and sell homes to collect unpaid property taxes; fall behind and you can lose your house. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County described how the state of Minnesota seized a condominium for about $15,000 in taxes and kept the surplus after selling it for $40,000, which the court rightfully described as taking beyond what was owed. Property ownership, then, is already conditional on meeting tax obligations. In other words, you don’t own your property so much as you’re renting it from the state. Even if you don’t believe on the whole that taxation is theft, missing a single payment may subject you to an altogether different level of robbery.
Section 24220 extends the question of ownership versus rental to the automobile. Cars—symbols of personal freedom—become services rather than possessions that only operate if software judges you fit to drive. The idea resembles the infamous 2016 World Economic Forum essay in which Danish politician Ida Auken imagined a future where people own nothing, not even cars or houses, and where privacy disappears because everything is recorded. Turning automobiles into sensor-laden platforms controlled by algorithms edges us closer to that world.
This policy of constant surveillance is not the brainchild of a single wing of the political class. The underlying bill passed the Senate 69-30, with nearly one-third of Republican senators joining Democrats. It then cleared the House 228-206 with thirteen Republicans voting yes. Such a consensus among Congress shows that the appetite for surveillance, especially once established, transcends party lines. Citizens concerned about liberty should resist the temptation to view Section 24220 as someone else’s problem. Bipartisan enthusiasm makes it everyone’s problem.
Supporters claim a kill switch will save lives by stopping drunk drivers or aiding law enforcement in pursuit of a suspect, but the mandate leaves many questions unanswered. There is no appeal process if software deems you impaired; no way for a stranded driver, potentially one experiencing a medical emergency, to prove sobriety or override the system. A camera that misinterprets swerving to avoid a pothole could leave someone stuck in a dangerous situation. Because the system is controlled by software, security experts warn that hackers might disable entire fleets at once, potentially causing mass chaos. Adding more private data to the existing telematics economy also invites discrimination by insurers and employers. In typical government fashion, Section 24220 creates more problems than the ones it alleges to solve, all while trampling on the Constitution.
Americans have accepted safety mandates in the past: seatbelts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc. But the downsides to these, beyond violating the principle of personal responsibility, were usually limited to increased cost and nuisance. But the kill switch crosses into a new territory of turning vehicles into informants. It subjects private property to continuous monitoring, conditions the right to travel on algorithmic approval, and aligns with a vision of conditional ownership. Because Section 24220 enjoys support from both political parties, citizens cannot rely on partisan politics to save their rights. Those who value the Fourth Amendment and the concept of private property must boycott new vehicles that feature these systems until lawmakers are forced to act. We must kill the kill switch before it kills more than an engine.
