Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7389
Last Updated: July 21, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]

ID: G000558

Follow the money

The bill

Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026

HR. 7389, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]

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

The money

$78,800 raised

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

The alignment

67% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" 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

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 1.

May 20, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

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

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 (HR 7389) claims to "modernize" the motor vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appease the automotive industry and their lobbyists. The bill's primary objective is to create a framework for regulating automated driving systems (ADS), which is just a fancy term for "self-driving cars." Because what could possibly go wrong with that?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines various terms related to ADS, including "automated driving system," "dynamic driving task," and "Level 1" through "Level 5" automation. These definitions are crucial in understanding the scope of the bill, but let's be real, they're just a bunch of bureaucratic jargon designed to confuse and obfuscate.

The bill also requires the NHTSA Administrator to develop and regularly update a comprehensive motor vehicle safety rulemaking and research priority plan (Priority Plan). This plan must include information on planned rulemakings, research priorities, and timelines for milestones. Because what's more exciting than reading about government bureaucrats' plans for regulating self-driving cars?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects are involved: the automotive industry, NHTSA, Congress, and various other stakeholders who will likely be lining up to feed at the trough of taxpayer-funded subsidies and regulatory favors.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where the government creates rules that benefit the very industries they're supposed to regulate. The ADS industry will get to shape the regulations, ensuring that their interests are protected and profits maximized. Meanwhile, consumers will be left with the illusion of safety and innovation.

The real impact of this bill will be felt in the form of increased costs for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for subsidies and regulatory compliance. And when (not if) self-driving cars start crashing or malfunctioning, we can expect a flurry of lawsuits and finger-pointing between industry players, regulators, and lawmakers.

In conclusion, HR 7389 is just another example of government's ineptitude in regulating emerging technologies. It's a bill that prioritizes the interests of corporations over those of consumers, all while pretending to promote safety and innovation. How quaint.

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$78,800
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$1,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,800

No PAC contributions found

1
BL PARTNERS GROUP, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SMITH, BRAD
1 transaction
$6,600
2
ERGEN, CANTEY MRS.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
ERGEN, CHARLES MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
4
DUNN, TIMOTHY M. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
5
WALK, CLAIRE MRS.
1 transaction
$5,000
6
TREXLER, ALLISON
1 transaction
$5,000
7
OSGOOD, STEVEN
1 transaction
$5,000
8
FOSTER, JEFF
1 transaction
$5,000
9
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ARNOLD, LAURA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BERTA, VINCE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
CHANDLER, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GLASS, LARRY
1 transaction
$3,300
14
NATCHER, JOE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
PIERCE, DARRELL
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SIMPSON, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BATES, HUNTER
1 transaction
$3,300
18
RICKS, DAVID MR.
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 21 connections (44 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $78,800

Top Donors - Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

  • +Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90

    Section 4 establishes a New Car Assessment Program Office and reforms NCAP, which benefits automotive manufacturers by providing a framework for safety technology evaluation and consumer education, potentially increasing demand for safer vehicles.

  • Section 4's NCAP reforms and consumer education activities (subsection 4(a)(6)) could promote awareness of EV safety features, benefiting EV manufacturers like Tesla and Rivian.

  • Section 4(b)(2)(F) includes a representative of the property and casualty insurance industry on the NCAP Advisory Committee, giving insurers influence over safety ratings that could affect premiums and risk assessment.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60

    Section 4(a)(6)(B)(iv) allows consumer education activities to include digital and social media platforms, potentially benefiting telecom companies through increased data usage for safety campaigns.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.50

    Section 4(a)(6)(B)(iv) mentions digital platforms for consumer education, which could benefit big tech companies providing advertising or distribution channels.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate66.6%
Pages: 658-660

— 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

Introduction

Moderate66.6%
Pages: 658-660

— 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

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills