Safety is Not For Sale Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7372

Last Updated: March 17, 2026

Safety is Not For Sale Act

HR. 7372, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

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

The money

$82,625 raised

30 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 "Safety is Not For Sale Act" - a bill that reeks of bureaucratic overreach and regulatory capture. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of its impact on my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. In other words, it seeks to restrict the ability of manufacturers (like mine) to bundle safety features with non-safety features, thereby increasing costs for consumers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill prohibits manufacturers from offering optional safety features unless they are sold separately or as standard trim equipment. It also requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the cost of these features. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this provision, with states having limited authority to bring civil actions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Manufacturers like myself will be directly impacted by this bill, as it restricts our ability to package safety features in a way that maximizes profits. Consumers may benefit from increased transparency and potentially lower costs, but they'll also face reduced choice and flexibility. The FTC and state attorneys general will gain more authority to regulate and enforce compliance.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill is a prime example of regulatory overreach, stifling innovation and limiting the ability of manufacturers to respond to market demands. By restricting bundling, it may lead to increased costs for consumers, as they'll be forced to purchase safety features separately. This could also create new barriers to entry for smaller manufacturers, further consolidating the market in favor of established players like myself.

From a business perspective, this bill poses a significant threat to my empire's bottom line. I estimate that compliance costs alone will exceed $500 million annually, with potential losses in revenue exceeding $2 billion over the next five years. This is unacceptable and highlights the need for more efficient, market-driven solutions rather than heavy-handed regulation.

In conclusion, the "Safety is Not For Sale Act" is a misguided attempt to regulate an industry that's better equipped to self-regulate. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to advocate for policies that promote innovation, deregulation, and free-market principles - even if it means challenging the status quo and pushing back against bureaucratic overreach.

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, a bill is a proposed law that goes through the legislative process. This one, HR 7372, is titled the "Safety is Not For Sale Act." Remember when we learned about how bills are introduced and referred to committees? Yeah, this one was introduced by Mr. Pallone and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. In other words, car manufacturers can't bundle essential safety features with non-essential features like heated seats or navigation systems. The objective is to make these safety features more accessible and affordable for consumers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill prohibits certain sales practices by car manufacturers. Specifically, it requires them to offer optional safety features separately from non-safety features or as standard trim equipment. This means that consumers can purchase essential safety features without having to buy a more expensive package deal. The bill also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce these provisions and allows states to bring civil actions against manufacturers who violate this law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include car manufacturers, consumers, and state attorneys general. Car manufacturers will need to change their sales practices to comply with this new law. Consumers will benefit from having access to affordable safety features. State attorneys general can bring civil actions against manufacturers who don't comply with the law.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant. By making essential safety features more accessible and affordable, it could lead to a reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities. However, car manufacturers may argue that this will increase costs for consumers or limit their ability to offer package deals. The FTC's enforcement powers will be crucial in ensuring compliance with this law.

As I taught you, the system is supposed to work by having checks and balances between different branches of government. In theory, Congress passes laws, the Executive Branch enforces them, and the Judicial Branch interprets them. But, as we've seen time and again, things don't always work out that way in practice. This bill is a good example of how Congress can use its authority to regulate industries and protect consumers.

Now, if only people had paid attention in my 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind HR 7372, the so-called "Safety is Not For Sale Act". On its surface, this bill appears to be a noble effort to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to prohibit the bundling of safety features with non-safety features in motor vehicles, making it easier for consumers to purchase essential safety features without being forced to buy unnecessary luxuries. Sounds good, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new prohibition on sales practices that bundle safety features with non-safety features. It also grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce this provision and allows states to bring civil actions against manufacturers who violate this rule. But, have you noticed how this bill quietly expands the FTC's power? This is not just about safety; it's about control.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders here are motor vehicle manufacturers, consumers, and state attorneys general. However, I'd like to point out that this bill also benefits the government by increasing its regulatory grip on the automotive industry. Think about it: with this law, the government can now dictate how safety features are packaged and sold. It's a subtle but significant expansion of their authority.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** On the surface, this bill might seem like a win for consumer safety. But consider the broader implications:

* Increased regulatory burden on manufacturers could lead to higher costs, which will be passed down to consumers. * The government is further consolidating its power over industries, setting a precedent for future regulations. * This law may also create new opportunities for crony capitalism, where favored companies receive exemptions or special treatment.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this bill seems like a good idea. Why are you being so paranoid?" Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is always hidden in plain sight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the liberal elites in Congress. Say hello to HR 7372, the "Safety is Not For Sale Act." (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, can't you just feel the freedom emanating from this one?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. Sounds noble, right? But let's not be fooled – this is just another power grab by the federal government to control the auto industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits manufacturers from bundling safety features with non-safety features, forcing them to offer these features separately or as standard equipment. It also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce this provision and allows states to bring civil actions against manufacturers for non-compliance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The auto industry is the obvious target here, but let's not forget about the consumers who will ultimately foot the bill for these "safety" features. And what about the small businesses that might struggle to comply with these new regulations? (Wink) Just another example of how the elites in Washington are out of touch with Main Street America.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of government overreach, folks. By forcing manufacturers to offer safety features à la carte, we'll see increased costs passed on to consumers. And what about the unintended consequences? Will this lead to fewer people buying cars because they can't afford the "optional" safety features? (Smirk) I'm sure that's exactly what the authors of this bill had in mind – more government control and less freedom for Americans.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't safety important?" Of course it is! However, do we really need the federal government dictating how car manufacturers design their vehicles? (Scoffs) That's just not how free markets work. This bill is a perfect example of how the liberal elites in Congress think they know better than the rest of us.

So, there you have it – another attempt by the deep state to strangle American innovation and freedom. Stay vigilant, folks! We can't let them get away with this one.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they care about the well-being of their constituents while actually serving the interests of their corporate overlords.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safety is Not For Sale Act (HR 7372) claims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. How noble. The real purpose, however, is to create a new regulatory framework that will benefit the auto industry's bottom line while giving the illusion of prioritizing consumer safety.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits manufacturers from bundling safety features with non-safety features, requiring them to be sold separately or as standard trim equipment. It also mandates clear disclosure of the cost of optional safety features. Because, you know, consumers are just too stupid to figure it out themselves.

Oh, and let's not forget the enforcement mechanism: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gets to police this new regulation, because we all know how effective they've been in regulating corporate America. *eyeroll*

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

* Auto manufacturers: They'll pretend to be outraged by these "onerous" regulations while secretly rejoicing at the opportunity to create new revenue streams. * Consumers: The ones who will actually be affected by this bill, but let's be real, they're just pawns in this game. They'll get to pay more for safety features they might not even want or need. * Lobbyists: The real winners here, as they'll get to "advise" lawmakers on how to craft the perfect regulation that benefits their clients.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely lead to:

* Increased costs for consumers, as manufacturers pass on the costs of compliance to buyers. * More regulatory capture, as the auto industry uses its lobbying muscle to shape the FTC's enforcement priorities. * A false sense of security among consumers, who will think they're getting safer cars when in reality, they're just paying more for features they might not need.

In conclusion, HR 7372 is a classic example of legislative theater, designed to make lawmakers look good while serving the interests of their corporate donors. It's a bill that says, "We care about your safety, but only if it doesn't hurt our bottom line."

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

**Bill Summary: HR 7372 - Safety is Not For Sale Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safety is Not For Sale Act aims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features, making them more accessible and affordable for consumers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Prohibits the sale or lease of optional safety features unless they are offered separately from non-safety features or as standard trim equipment. * Requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the cost of optional safety features separately from any non-safety features. * Empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce these provisions and treat violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices. * Allows states to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents for violations, with the FTC having the right to intervene.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Motor vehicle manufacturers * Consumers purchasing motor vehicles * State attorneys general and other authorized state officials * Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Increased transparency and accessibility of lifesaving safety features for consumers, potentially reducing the number of accidents and fatalities on the road. * Potential cost savings for consumers who can purchase safety features separately from luxury or convenience features. * Enhanced enforcement powers for the FTC and state attorneys general to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive sales practices. * Possible impact on the motor vehicle industry's business models and pricing strategies, as manufacturers may need to adjust their packaging and pricing of safety features.

Overall, the Safety is Not For Sale Act aims to promote road safety by making lifesaving features more accessible and affordable for consumers. The bill's provisions and enforcement mechanisms are designed to ensure that safety features are not bundled with luxury or convenience features, allowing consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, the Safety is Not For Sale Act (HR 7372). I'll give you the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features. In other words, car manufacturers can't bundle essential safety features with non-essential stuff like heated seats or navigation systems. The goal is to make sure people have access to critical safety features without having to break the bank.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill prohibits car manufacturers from selling optional safety features as part of a package deal with non-safety features. They must offer these safety features separately, clearly disclose their cost, and provide them as standard trim equipment if possible. This provision takes effect 180 days after the bill is enacted.

Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this rule, treating any violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act. States can also bring civil actions against manufacturers that don't comply, and they may recover costs and attorney fees if they prevail.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main parties affected by this bill are:

* Car manufacturers: They'll need to change their sales practices to offer safety features separately from non-safety features. * Consumers: People buying cars will have more transparency about the cost of essential safety features, making it easier for them to make informed decisions. * States: State attorneys general can bring civil actions against manufacturers that don't comply with this rule.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some far-reaching implications:

* Increased transparency and fairness in car sales: By separating safety features from non-safety features, consumers will have a clearer understanding of what they're paying for. * Improved road safety: With more people having access to essential safety features, we can expect a reduction in accidents and fatalities on the roads. * Potential impact on car manufacturers' business models: Companies may need to adjust their pricing strategies and sales tactics to comply with this new rule.

Overall, this bill is all about promoting transparency, fairness, and road safety. It's a chill way to make sure people have access to essential safety features without getting ripped off.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 7372 - Safety is Not For Sale Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Safety is Not For Sale Act aims to ensure that lifesaving motor vehicle safety features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features, making them more accessible to consumers. The bill seeks to prohibit the bundling of safety features with non-safety features, requiring manufacturers to offer them separately or as standard trim equipment.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces a new prohibition on certain sales practices, specifically targeting the bundling of optional safety features with non-safety features. Manufacturers will be required to:

1. Offer optional safety features for sale or lease separately from any non-safety feature. 2. Clearly and conspicuously disclose the cost of the optional safety feature separately from any non-safety feature.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this provision, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act. States will also have the authority to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents for violations of this provision.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects:

1. Motor vehicle manufacturers: Required to change their sales practices and offer safety features separately. 2. Consumers: Will have greater access to lifesaving safety features without being forced to purchase bundled convenience and luxury features. 3. State attorneys general: Authorized to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents for violations.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Safety is Not For Sale Act has the potential to:

1. Increase consumer access to lifesaving safety features, potentially reducing road fatalities and injuries. 2. Change the business model of motor vehicle manufacturers, who may need to adapt to new sales practices. 3. Create a more transparent market for consumers, allowing them to make informed purchasing decisions.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no explicit mentions of PACs or industry lobby groups in the bill text, it is likely that organizations such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and consumer advocacy groups like the Consumer Federation of America may have influenced the development of this legislation. The Automotive Trade Association International (ATAI) and other industry groups may also be impacted by the changes to sales practices.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest** The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by the automotive industry. However, there is no clear evidence of committee capture or conflicts of interest in this specific legislation.

In conclusion, the Safety is Not For Sale Act aims to promote consumer safety and transparency in the motor vehicle market. While it may have significant implications for manufacturers and consumers alike, its impact will depend on effective enforcement by the FTC and state attorneys general.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$82,625

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$13,225

Committees

Individuals

$69,400

No PAC contributions found

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

3 transactions

$6,600

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$1,825

HOLMDEL FUNERAL HOME

1 transaction

$500

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$500

HIGHLANDS DEMOCRATIC CLUB

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

MARINO, ROBERT

3 transactions

$13,300

GOODSTEIN, DEBBIE

2 transactions

$6,600

HEALEY, PATRICK J.

1 transaction

$3,300

SINGH, JASPREET

1 transaction

$3,300

O'KELLEY, BRAD

1 transaction

$3,300

BOYADJIAN, NISHAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARONSON, LAUREN

1 transaction

$3,300

OBERHELMAN, DIANE

1 transaction

$3,300

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

1 transaction

$3,300

BRENNER, DEAN R.

1 transaction

$3,300

HEREDIA, GEOFF

1 transaction

$3,300

GRAHAM, JOHN F X

1 transaction

$3,300

TSAI, TENNY

1 transaction

$3,300

PARKER, FAITH

1 transaction

$3,300

PETKANICS, DONNA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALEXANDER, STACEY

1 transaction

$3,300

ELMENDORF, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 61 nodes and 30 connections (79 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,625

Top Donors - Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) prohibits offering optional safety features unless sold separately from non-safety features or as standard trim equipment, imposing new regulatory requirements on vehicle manufacturers and dealers, which could increase costs and affect sales practices in the automotive industry.

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: 65%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section prioritize vehicle safety and seek to reduce cost barriers that prevent consumers from accessing safer vehicles or safety features. The bill’s focus on unbundling and transparently pricing safety features aligns with Project 2025’s concern that regulations like CAFE standards raise vehicle prices and discourage adoption of newer, safer technologies."

Key themes:vehicle safetyconsumer affordabilityregulatory transparencysafety feature accesscost barriers

— 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

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section prioritize vehicle safety and consumer transparency, but the bill focuses on unbundling safety features while Project 2025 emphasizes automated vehicle integration, regulatory reform, and spectrum allocation, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:vehicle safetyconsumer transparencysafety-first priorityregulatory oversight

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section aim to make safer vehicles more affordable and accessible to consumers, though they address different mechanisms—unbundling safety features versus opposing costly fuel‑economy/EV mandates that raise vehicle prices."

Key themes:vehicle safetyaffordabilityconsumer accessregulatory oversight

— 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

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section concern vehicle safety and consumer protection, but the bill’s focus on unbundling safety features and FTC enforcement does not align with Project 2025’s priorities of fuel economy standards, revoking California’s waiver, and refocusing FHWA on highway infrastructure."

Key themes:vehicle safetyconsumer protectionDepartment of Transportation oversight

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on making vehicle safety features separately available and transparent to consumers, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes refocusing the FHWA on highway maintenance, reducing federal involvement in local infrastructure, and preempting state regulations like California's waiver. The only tangential connection is a general concern for transportation safety, but the specific objectives and mechanisms do not overlap significantly."

Key themes:transportation safetyfederal oversightconsumer protection

— 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions. — 630 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise AVIATION Americans value the ability to travel safely and inexpensively by air. In the United States, the private sector has developed the world’s safest, most effective passenger and cargo air transport networks. Current policies threaten to undo that legacy and to strangle the development of new technologies such as drones and “advanced air mobility,” including small aircraft to serve as air taxis or to conduct quiet vertical flights. Starting in the 1970s, deregulation and increased competition turned air travel from a luxury to an affordable travel option enjoyed by most Americans. The United States has four major airlines, each with roughly 20 percent of the domestic market. They compete with each other over the vast majority of routes. Several smaller carriers provide additional competition and other options for travelers. The current Administration’s policies are self-contradictory. In order to pla- cate specific labor groups, the Biden Administration not only opposes the growth of the major airlines, which would reduce the price of air travel, but also opposes measures—such as low-fare foreign competition and joint ventures of smaller U.S. carriers—that would increase competition. Another problematic area is aviation consumer protection. Congress has autho- rized DOT to prohibit specific “unfair and deceptive practices” in the airline industry after undertaking a hearing process—authority exercised by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection within the General Counsel’s Office. Beginning with the Obama Administration, this authority has been used to justify broad new regulations—in the name of achieving “fair” competition—that would impose burdensome disclosure mandates and other costly requirements without a sufficient process for gathering supporting evidence. The Trump Administration reformed the process for issuing such “unfair and deceptive practices” rules,9 but the Biden Administration promptly reversed those reforms.10 A new Administration should restore them. In general, the next Administration should focus its efforts on making air travel more affordable and abundant, increasing safety, increasing competition to benefit the flying public, and removing obstacles to the rapid deployment of emerging aviation technologies that hold the promise of improved safety, compe- tition, opportunity, and growth. To achieve a more level playing field and increase options for the traveling public, the next Administration should: l Publicly indicate that a new Administration would support joint- venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers. l Review foreign ownership and control limitations and, if necessary, work with Congress to change existing statutes. Worldwide investors

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. Pallone, Frank

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2407 State Route 71, Suite 1, in Spring Lake, New Jersey, as the James J. Howard Post Office.

119/hr/1431

To redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.

119/hr/249

Secure Space Act of 2025

119/hr/2458

Back to All Bills