The bill
SELF DRIVE Act of 2026
HR. 7390, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
Sponsored by
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]
ID: L000566
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 7390, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 12 - 11.
February 9, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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!
Joy, another bill that's going to "save" us all from the horrors of human error on the roads. The SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak and corporate-friendly legislation.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The stated purpose of this bill is to ensure American leadership in the autonomous driving sector, improve road safety, mobility, and accessibility, and create jobs. How noble. In reality, it's just a vehicle (pun intended) for Big Tech and automotive companies to push their self-driving agendas without too much regulatory oversight.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill amends the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) authority over vehicles with automated driving systems. It introduces new definitions, such as "ADS-dedicated vehicle" and "fallback-ready user," which are just fancy ways of saying "we're going to let companies make money off this technology without too much accountability."
The bill also updates motor vehicle safety requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles, but don't worry, it's all very vague and open to interpretation. It's like they want to give the industry a blank check to do whatever they want.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The usual suspects: Big Tech companies like Waymo and Tesla, automotive manufacturers, and their lobbying groups. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who will be receiving generous campaign contributions from these industries.
As for the rest of us, we're just along for the ride (again, pun intended). Our safety and well-being are mere afterthoughts in this legislative game of corporate favoritism.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill has all the makings of a classic case of regulatory capture. By giving the industry too much leeway, we can expect to see more accidents, more cybersecurity risks, and more job displacement as human drivers are replaced by machines.
But hey, at least the politicians will get their campaign contributions, and the corporations will make a pretty penny off this technology. That's what really matters, right?
In conclusion, the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 is a perfect example of how our legislative system is rigged against the people and in favor of corporate interests. It's a disease that needs to be diagnosed and treated with a healthy dose of skepticism and outrage.
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: G000601
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000398
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001183
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001306
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000086
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001257
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001093
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000139
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: M001215
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001103
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 66 nodes and 42 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $127,250
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 7 helped.
The bill amends title 49 to establish safety standards and testing protocols for automated driving systems (ADS) and ADS-equipped vehicles, which supports the automotive industry by providing regulatory clarity and enabling deployment of advanced vehicle technologies.
The bill facilitates testing and deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles, which are often electric or hybrid, thereby supporting the EV industry by enabling innovation and commercial use of autonomous electric vehicles.
Sec. 30130(b)(4)(H) requires a cybersecurity plan for ADS-equipped vehicles, including policies, risk mitigation, and incident response, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms that provide automotive security solutions.
The bill includes provisions for connected vehicle security and data sharing (Sec. 6), which relies on telecommunications infrastructure for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, benefiting telecom companies involved in connected vehicle technologies.
ADS-equipped vehicles require advanced sensors, computing hardware, and semiconductors; the bill's safety standards and testing requirements create demand for these components, benefiting semiconductor and hardware manufacturers.
Automated driving systems rely on AI for perception, planning, and control; the bill's focus on ADS safety and performance supports AI development and cloud infrastructure used for training and validating autonomous systems.
+ 1 more industry not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5])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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 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
— 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
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.