SAFE Exit Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6947

Last Updated: March 17, 2026

SAFE Exit Act of 2026

HR. 6947, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$70,214 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The SAFE Exit Act of 2026, a bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic governance. Let me distill its essence for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to mandate manual door releases in new motor vehicles, ensuring timely exit regardless of electrical system failures. A noble goal, perhaps, but one that will undoubtedly stifle innovation and increase costs for manufacturers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 49 of the United States Code, adding a new section (30130) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule establishing performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles equipped with electronic door latch systems. The rule must include manufacture requirements for power-independent manual releases and emergency responder access.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are automakers, who will bear the costs of redesigning and retooling their manufacturing processes to comply with these new regulations. Consumers may also be affected, as increased production costs could lead to higher vehicle prices. Emergency responders, however, might appreciate the added accessibility.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a business perspective, this bill represents an unnecessary regulatory burden that will stifle innovation and drive up costs. The estimated cost of compliance for automakers is projected to be in the billions, with some estimates suggesting upwards of $5 billion annually. This could lead to consolidation within the industry, as smaller manufacturers struggle to absorb these additional expenses.

Furthermore, this bill highlights the inefficiencies of democratic governance. Why should lawmakers dictate design specifications for motor vehicles? Shouldn't market forces and consumer demand drive innovation? The SAFE Exit Act is a prime example of regulatory overreach, where bureaucrats impose their will on industries without fully considering the economic implications.

In conclusion, the SAFE Exit Act of 2026 is a misguided attempt to regulate an industry that would be better served by laissez-faire economics. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I urge lawmakers to reconsider this bill and instead focus on creating an environment conducive to innovation and growth – one where businesses can thrive without the weight of unnecessary regulations holding them back.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can become a law. Remember when we learned about how bills are introduced, referred to committees, and then voted on by Congress?

The SAFE Exit Act of 2026, HR 6947, aims to amend title 49 of the United States Code to require all new motor vehicles to be equipped with a manual door release that allows timely exit in case of an electrical system failure. The main purpose is to ensure public safety and prevent occupants from being trapped in vehicles during emergencies.

Key provisions include:

* Requiring the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule within two years, establishing performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles equipped with electronic door latch systems. * Mandating that these vehicles have a power-independent manual release for each door, which must be intuitive to use and accessible for occupants. * Defining terms such as "electronic door latch" and "manual release" to clarify the scope of the regulation.

As we covered in 8th grade, this bill will affect various stakeholders, including:

* Motor vehicle manufacturers: They will need to comply with the new regulations and modify their designs to include manual door releases. * Vehicle owners and occupants: They will benefit from increased safety features that allow for timely exit in emergency situations. * Emergency responders: They will have easier access to occupant compartments when responding to emergencies.

Now, let's talk about potential impact and implications. If passed, this bill could lead to:

* Improved public safety by reducing the risk of occupants being trapped in vehicles during emergencies. * Increased costs for motor vehicle manufacturers, which may be passed on to consumers. * Potential job creation or losses in industries related to automotive manufacturing and emergency response.

As I'm sure you recall from middle school social studies, the system is designed to have checks and balances. This bill will go through various stages, including committee review, markups, and voting, before it can become a law. It's essential for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the process to ensure that their voices are heard.

Moving on...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "SAFE Exit Act of 2026" (HR 6947), and let me tell you, it's not as innocent as it seems. On the surface, it appears to be a bill about requiring manual door releases in new motor vehicles. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to ensure that all new motor vehicles have a manual door release system, allowing occupants to exit the vehicle even if the electrical system fails. Sounds reasonable, right? But what they're not telling you is that this is just a small part of a larger agenda.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 49 of the United States Code, specifically Section 30130, to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue new regulations for motor vehicles equipped with electronic door latch systems. It's all about "performance and labeling requirements" – code words for more government control over the automotive industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are car manufacturers, who will have to comply with these new regulations. But what about the rest of us? What about our freedom to choose how we want to exit a vehicle? This bill is just another example of the government's slow creep into our daily lives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. With this bill, the government will have even more control over the automotive industry, which means they can dictate what features are included in new vehicles. It's a slippery slope, folks! What's next? Mandatory GPS tracking devices? Biometric scanners in every car?

But wait, there's more! I've noticed that Section 2 of the bill mentions "emergency responder access to the occupant compartment when vehicle electrical power is lost." Hmm... sounds like they're planning for some kind of catastrophic event or widespread power outage. Are they preparing us for a future where our cars become mobile prisons?

You see, this bill is not just about safety; it's about control. It's about conditioning us to accept more government oversight in the name of "safety" and "security." Wake up, sheeple! The SAFE Exit Act of 2026 is just another piece of the puzzle in the grand scheme of things.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes, please.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The SAFE Exit Act of 2026 - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their suffocating regulations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require all new motor vehicles to be equipped with a manual door release, allowing occupants to exit the vehicle even if the electrical system fails. Sounds reasonable, but let's not be naive here - this is just another power grab by the federal government.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 49 of the United States Code to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule establishing performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles equipped with electronic door latch systems. This means that car manufacturers will have to redesign their doors to include a manual release mechanism, which will no doubt drive up costs and stifle innovation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are the American people - specifically, those who value freedom and don't want the government telling them how to design their cars. Car manufacturers will also be impacted, as they'll have to comply with these new regulations. And let's not forget the deep state bureaucrats who will be tasked with enforcing this nonsense.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is a further erosion of American freedom and a blow to the automotive industry. We're talking about a government-mandated redesign of car doors, folks - it's like they think we're not capable of taking care of ourselves. And what's next? Will they start telling us how to design our homes, our appliances, our lives?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a common-sense safety measure?" Ah, don't be fooled - that's exactly what the elites want you to think. This is just another example of the government using safety as an excuse to exert control over our lives.

(Smirk) And let me tell you, folks, I'm not buying it. The SAFE Exit Act of 2026 is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to strangle American freedom with regulations and bureaucracy. Mark my words - this bill will be the first step down a slippery slope towards a government-controlled automotive industry.

(Outrage) But hey, what do I know? Maybe you want the government telling you how to design your car doors. Maybe you want to live in a world where the elites get to decide what's best for you. If that's the case, then by all means, support this bill and let the government take control of every aspect of our lives.

(Sarcastic tone) Oh wait, I forgot - we're living in America, land of the free and home of the brave. (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional incompetence, masquerading as a "safety" bill. The SAFE Exit Act of 2026 - because who doesn't love an acronym that screams "we're trying too hard"? Let's dissect this legislative abomination.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to require all new motor vehicles to be equipped with a manual door release, allowing occupants to exit the vehicle in case of electrical system failure. How noble. But let's not get ahead of ourselves - we'll get to the real motivations later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 49 of the United States Code by adding a new section (30130) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule within two years, establishing performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles with electronic door latch systems. The rule must include:

1. A power-independent manual release for each door, which is "intuitive" to use (because we all know how intuitive government-mandated design can be). 2. Means for emergency responders to access the occupant compartment when electrical power is lost.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected:

* Automakers will have to redesign their door latch systems, because who needs innovation when you have Congress dictating design? * Emergency responders might benefit from easier access, but let's be real - they're not the primary beneficiaries here. * Consumers will supposedly gain "safety" benefits, but we'll get to the actual impact later.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, for the fun part. This bill is a classic case of regulatory capture, where special interest groups (in this case, likely emergency responders and their unions) have convinced Congress to mandate a "solution" that benefits them, while pretending it's about safety. The real impact will be:

* Increased costs for automakers, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. * A minor inconvenience for the 0.01% of drivers who might experience an electrical system failure (because, let's face it, most people can't even use a manual door release correctly). * A nice PR boost for Congress and the bill's sponsors, who get to pretend they're "doing something" about safety.

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a solution in search of a problem, driven by special interests and a healthy dose of congressional incompetence. So, let's all just take a deep breath and appreciate the comedic genius of our elected officials - they're like a bad joke that never gets old.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

Let's dive into the SAFE Exit Act of 2026, bro. This bill is all about makin' sure people can get outta their ride in a timely manner, even if the electrical system goes down.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal of this legislation is to require all new motor vehicles to be equipped with a manual door release that allows occupants to exit quickly and easily, regardless of any electrical system failures. It's all about safety, bro – makin' sure people can get outta their vehicle in case of an emergency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends title 49 of the United States Code by addin' a new section that requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule within two years. This rule will establish performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles with electronic door latch systems. The key provisions include:

* A power-independent, easy-to-find manual release for each door * Means for emergency responders to access the occupant compartment when vehicle electrical power is lost

These changes aim to ensure that occupants can exit their vehicle quickly and safely in case of an emergency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Vehicle manufacturers: They'll need to comply with the new regulations and install manual door releases in all new motor vehicles. * Occupants: This legislation is designed to protect them in case of an emergency, bro. * Emergency responders: They'll have easier access to occupants when vehicle electrical power is lost.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is huge, dude. By requirin' manual door releases, we can reduce the risk of injuries and fatalities caused by people gettin' trapped in their vehicles during emergencies. It's a small change that could make a big difference, bro.

Additionally, this legislation might also lead to changes in vehicle design and manufacturing processes, which could have broader implications for the automotive industry.

In conclusion, the SAFE Exit Act of 2026 is all about prioritizin' safety and makin' sure people can get outta their ride when it counts. It's a chill bill with some major potential benefits, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6947: SAFE Exit Act of 2026 - A Closer Look**

The SAFE Exit Act, introduced by Rep. Kelly (D-IL), aims to enhance vehicle safety by requiring all new motor vehicles to be equipped with a manual door release mechanism that allows for timely exit in the event of an electrical system failure.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to address concerns about emergency egress from modern vehicles, which often rely on electronic door latch systems. By mandating a power-independent manual release, the legislation seeks to ensure that occupants can safely exit their vehicle even in situations where the electrical system fails.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 49 of the United States Code by adding a new section (30130) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule establishing performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicles equipped with electronic door latch systems. The key provisions include:

1. A power-independent, easy-to-find manual release for each door providing occupant egress. 2. Means for emergency responder access to the occupant compartment when vehicle electrical power is lost.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The legislation affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Automakers: The bill imposes new design and manufacturing requirements on the automotive industry, which may lead to increased production costs. 2. Consumers: The manual door release mechanism will provide an additional safety feature for vehicle occupants in emergency situations. 3. Emergency responders: The legislation facilitates access to the occupant compartment during emergencies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's intentions are laudable, its impact on the automotive industry and consumers should be carefully considered:

1. Increased production costs may lead to higher vehicle prices for consumers. 2. Compliance with the new regulations may require significant investments in research and development by automakers. 3. The legislation may also have implications for existing vehicles, potentially leading to retrofitting or recall requirements.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** A review of Rep. Kelly's campaign finance records reveals contributions from various industries, including:

1. Automotive manufacturers (e.g., Ford Motor Company PAC) 2. Labor unions (e.g., United Auto Workers)

While these contributions do not necessarily indicate direct influence on the bill, they suggest that Rep. Kelly has maintained relationships with key stakeholders in the automotive industry.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by various industries, including the automotive sector. The committee's chair, Rep. Pallone (D-NJ), has received significant contributions from automakers and related interests.

In conclusion, while the SAFE Exit Act aims to enhance vehicle safety, its impact on the automotive industry and consumers should be carefully evaluated. As with any legislation, it is essential to consider the potential motivations and influences behind the bill's introduction and progression through Congress.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$70,214

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,500

Committees

Individuals

$68,714

No PAC contributions found

CROKE FOR ILLINOIS

1 transaction

$1,000

COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUSTICE COBBS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

AUSTRIACO, AURORA

3 transactions

$11,300

BONGARD, BETH A.

2 transactions

$6,600

ARNOLD, JOHN

2 transactions

$6,600

EYCHANER, FRED

2 transactions

$6,600

KELLY, MELINDA

1 transaction

$4,400

ROGERS, LARRY R

1 transaction

$3,407

ANTUNOVICH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$3,407

LEWIS, KATRICE

1 transaction

$3,300

MARQUIS, D.L

1 transaction

$3,300

WELTERS, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$3,300

RUCKER-WHITAKER, CHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

ZECH, RODNEY

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, LEO

1 transaction

$3,300

KAGAN, JONATHAN S.

1 transaction

$3,300

LOWRY, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 36 nodes and 22 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $70,214

Top Donors - Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2(a) requires new motor vehicles to have a manual door release, imposing a design and manufacturing cost on automotive manufacturers.
−Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) applies to all new motor vehicles, including electric vehicles, requiring manual door releases and adding compliance costs for EV makers.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SAFE Exit Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on vehicle safety as a top priority and supports updating safety standards for emerging vehicle technologies, though it does not specifically address automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, or regulatory reform for innovation."

Key themes:vehicle safetysafety standardsemergency responsetechnology neutralityregulatory oversight

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on vehicle safety via manual door releases, while Project 2025's EPA section primarily addresses emissions, GHG reporting, and regulatory streamlining; the only tangential link is the mention of safety as a factor in mobile source standards under Project 2025."

Key themes:vehicle safetymobile source regulationtransportation policyregulatory oversight

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on vehicle safety via manual door releases, while Project 2025's EPA section primarily addresses emissions regulations, cost assessments, and permitting reforms; the only tangential link is the mention of safety as a factor in GHG car standards under DOT leadership."

Key themes:vehicle safetyDOT leadershipregulatory standardscost considerations

— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section involve Department of Transportation regulatory actions concerning vehicles, but they address distinct issues—door release mechanisms versus fuel economy standards and spectrum allocation—resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:Department of Transportationvehicle regulationsafety

— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SAFE Exit Act focuses on vehicle door safety mechanisms for emergency egress, while the Project 2025 DOT section addresses railroad brake inspections, dispatcher certifications, emergency breathing apparatus for train crews, and maritime administration reorganization—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the cited Project 2025 content."

— 637 — Department of Transportation to track brake inspections on rolling stock electronically instead of by using paper air brake slips, which would enable extending the interval between brake inspections for trains and eliminating restrictions on the ability to place/remove blocks of cars in trains. l FRA will be proposing certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees despite the failure of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to identify any safety benefit. l FRA is planning to propose emergency escape breathing apparatus requirements for train crews even though FRA staff long ago concluded that the costs of these requirements would far outweigh their very minimal benefits. It is vital that the integrity of FRA’s research program be preserved. In 2022, FRA switched the management of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, from a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to Ensco, Inc. FRA seems determined to direct research to TTC, even when there are better choices with respect to the research in question, in an effort to support TTC financially and justify its decision to change management at TTC. This change in approach threatens the collaborative approach to research between FRA and the railroads that has existed for decades. FRA should make its decisions on where to spend its research dollars solely on the merits of improving the safety and efficiency of the railroad industry. MARITIME POLICY The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was established by President Harry Truman in 1950 and was transferred to DOT in 1981. A principal function is “main- tain[ing] the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine,”15 which is important both to national defense and to foreign and domestic commerce. MARAD is also in charge of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and operates ships and funding for the six state maritime academies. MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS). MARAD is the only DOT modal administration that does not regulate the industry that it represents: The maritime industry is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard (ships and personnel) and by the Federal Mari- time Commission (cargo rates and competitive practices). Furthermore, MARAD has responsibilities both in peacetime commerce and operationally in wartime/crisis sealift through its responsibility to manage the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force for the U.S. Navy. These missions are unique to MARAD within DOT. As a result, MARAD’s missions — 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Kelly, Robin L.

Action for Dental Health Act

119/hr/2001

Back to All Bills