Fifty-seven House Republicans voted against the kill switch amendment on January 22, 2026, joining 211 Democrats to defeat Representative Thomas Massie’s effort to block federal funding for a vehicle impaired-driving detection mandate. The amendment failed 164–268 on Roll Call No. 43, preserving a 2021 law that directs regulators to require the technology in new passenger vehicles.1Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Roll Call 43, Massie of Kentucky Part B Amendment No. 1
The Vote in Brief
Massie offered H.Amdt. 155 during debate on H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. It would have barred the use of any funds in the spending bill to implement Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the provision that instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a safety standard for advanced impaired-driving prevention technology.2Congress.gov. H.Amdt.155 to H.R. 7148
Of the 164 votes in favor, 160 came from Republicans and 4 from Democrats. Against were 211 Democrats and 57 Republicans. The broader six-bill spending package passed the House and moved to the Senate.3Roll Call. Final Fiscal 2026 Spending Bills Pass House, Senate Up Next
The 57 Republicans Who Voted No
The Republicans who voted against the Massie amendment were:4Newsweek. Kill Switch Cars Approved: House Republicans Full List
- Mark Amodei (Nevada)
- Don Bacon (Nebraska)
- Stephanie Bice (Oklahoma)
- Gus Bilirakis (Florida)
- Mike Bost (Illinois)
- Ken Calvert (California)
- John Carter (Texas)
- Tom Cole (Oklahoma)
- Mario Diaz-Balart (Florida)
- Neal Dunn (Florida)
- Chuck Edwards (North Carolina)
- Jake Ellzey (Texas)
- Randy Feenstra (Iowa)
- Randy Fine (Florida)
- Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)
- Chuck Fleischmann (Tennessee)
- Vince Fong (California)
- Andrew Garbarino (New York)
- Carlos Gimenez (Florida)
- French Hill (Arkansas)
- Jeff Hurd (Colorado)
- Brian Jack (Georgia)
- John James (Michigan)
- David Joyce (Ohio)
- Thomas Kean Jr. (New Jersey)
- Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania)
- Jen Kiggans (Virginia)
- Kevin Kiley (California)
- Young Kim (California)
- Kimberlyn King-Hinds (Northern Mariana Islands)
- Darin LaHood (Illinois)
- Nick LaLota (New York)
- Mike Lawler (New York)
- Frank Lucas (Oklahoma)
- Nicole Malliotakis (New York)
- Celeste Maloy (Utah)
- Brian Mast (Florida)
- Dan Meuser (Pennsylvania)
- Max Miller (Ohio)
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa)
- Tim Moore (North Carolina)
- Blake Moore (Utah)
- James Moylan (Guam)
- Greg Murphy (North Carolina)
- Dan Newhouse (Washington)
- Zach Nunn (Iowa)
- Hal Rogers (Kentucky)
- Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida)
- Mike Simpson (Idaho)
- Elise Stefanik (New York)
- Glenn Thompson (Pennsylvania)
- Mike Turner (Ohio)
- David Valadao (California)
- Derrick Van Orden (Wisconsin)
- Rob Wittman (Virginia)
- Steve Womack (Arkansas)
- Ryan Zinke (Montana)
As of the day after the vote, none of the 57 had publicly explained their reasoning, according to Newsweek.5Newsweek. Vehicle Kill Switch Divides Republicans: What to Know
One Name Worth a Second Look
Representative John James of Michigan is on the list, and his position is unusual. James co-sponsored a separate standalone bill, the No Kill Switches in Cars Act (H.R. 1137), and has publicly called the mandate “Orwellian” and “intrusive,” warning that “letting A.I. decide whether someone can drive their own vehicle is a dystopian nightmare.”6Office of Congressman John James. Congressman James Co-Sponsors No Kill Switches in Cars Act His vote against the Massie amendment suggests that at least some of the 57 may have preferred a direct legislative repeal to a rider tucked into a spending bill, though James himself has not confirmed that reasoning.
What the 57 Preserved
Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed on November 15, 2021, directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring new passenger vehicles to include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”7NHTSA. Report to Congress: Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology
The statute defines that technology as a system that passively monitors driver performance to identify impairment, passively detects whether a driver’s blood alcohol concentration is at or above .08, or does both. If impairment is detected, the system must “prevent or limit vehicle operation.”
“Passively” is the operative word. These systems are intended to work without any deliberate action by the driver, unlike an ignition interlock that requires a breath sample before starting the car. The law does not require the technology to communicate with external servers, transmit data to the government, or allow remote deactivation of a vehicle.8Kelley Blue Book. Explaining the Car Kill Switch Controversy
Supporters of the mandate, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, reject the “kill switch” label. MADD has argued the technology would “save more than 10,000 lives each year” and operates as a localized system with no requirement for personal data storage or sharing.9MADD. MADD Rallies Against Rep. Massie’s Attempt to Block Impaired Driving Prevention Tech in All New Cars Critics say the concern is less about what the current law says than about what the underlying in-vehicle infrastructure could eventually enable.
The Backlash
Prominent conservatives and other Republican members reacted sharply to the 57. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote on X that “the idea that the federal government would require auto manufacturers to equip cars with a ‘kill switch’ that can be controlled by the government is something you’d expect in Orwell’s 1984.”10NewsNation. Car Kill Switch Rule Divides GOP
Representative Chip Roy of Texas said the mandate “makes cars more expensive and puts the government in your car,” calling it “insane to vote against ending the kill switch mandate.” Representative Keith Self of Texas wrote that “57 House Republicans just joined almost all the Democrats to ensure the government can shut off your car whenever it wants.” Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene described the vote as evidence that Republican-aligned institutions would keep supporting members who cross the party’s base.5Newsweek. Vehicle Kill Switch Divides Republicans: What to Know
Massie framed his amendment in equally pointed terms, writing on X: “Federal law says new cars after 2026 must monitor drivers and shut down if the car disapproves. Your dashboard should not be judge, jury, and executioner.”10NewsNation. Car Kill Switch Rule Divides GOP
What Happens Next
The mandate remains law, but the rule that would enforce it does not yet exist. NHTSA missed the original three-year deadline in November 2024. The agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in January 2024 and received more than 3,000 comments, which it was still analyzing as of its most recent report to Congress.11Federal Register. Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology The statute allows a three-year extension if the Secretary of Transportation determines the standard cannot yet meet its requirements, pushing the outer deadline to late 2027.7NHTSA. Report to Congress: Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology NHTSA has also reported that no commercially available in-vehicle passive alcohol detection system is ready for production vehicles, and that even a system with 99.9% accuracy would produce millions of incorrect results annually given national trip volumes.
Legislative efforts to repeal the mandate continue. Roy pressed the issue again in late April 2026, citing Fourth Amendment concerns.12USA Today. Drunk Driving Prevention Law, Privacy, and Surveillance James’s No Kill Switches in Cars Act remains before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.13Congress.gov. H.R. 1137 — No Kill Switches in Cars Act Neither has moved to a floor vote.