What is the federal statutes section that will mandate remote kill switches in cars

1. What the statute actually says — a rulemaking command, not a serialized gadget

The language frequently cited is Section 24220 of the IIJA, which gives the federal government authority to require new vehicles be equipped with “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” and sets a timeline for issuing a regulatory standard, but it does not itself describe a particular hardware “kill switch” or grant law‑enforcement remote shutoff powers in statutory text ^{[1] [2]}. Multiple fact checks and reporting note the law creates an obligation for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (or DOT) to prescribe a standard, meaning the specifics would be defined in later rulemaking rather than in the IIJA statute itself ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Why the phrase “kill switch” became shorthand — interpretation, fear, and policy framing

Journalists, advocacy groups, and political opponents have condensed the IIJA’s broad rulemaking mandate into the shorthand “kill switch” to express concerns about remote‑disable capability and surveillance; various outlets and state party resolutions explicitly point to Section 24220 as the source of that mandate ^{[4] [5]}. Fact‑checking outlets and mainstream coverage emphasize that the statute’s text does not spell out law‑enforcement kill switches and that the timeline and final content of any standard remain subject to DOT rulemaking, public comment, and potential legal challenge ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Where policy, politics, and industry converge — the contested rulemaking path

Because Section 24220 triggered a regulatory process rather than immediate hardware requirements, Congress and stakeholders have continued political and legislative fights — bills titled “No Kill Switches in Cars Act” and other repeal or defunding attempts have been introduced in the 118th and 119th Congresses to block or repeal a DOT‑mandated standard ^{[7] [3] [8]}. Opponents frame the provision as rushed and influenced by industry, with some critics pointing to heavy insurance‑industry lobbying as a possible motive, while proponents point to public‑safety goals around impaired driving; these competing narratives shape how the statutory hook has been portrayed in public debate ^[5].

4. The legal and technical reality: rule first, specification later

Reporting and fact checks stress that no federal motor vehicle safety standard currently mandates the technology — the IIJA’s Section 24220 merely starts the clock for DOT rulemaking and leaves crucial details open, including whether systems would be passive, active, in‑car sensors, or remotely controllable, and what definitions of “impairment” would apply ^{[2] [3]}. That distinction matters legally: a statute that requires an agency to make a rule is different from a statute that prescribes the technical mechanism and who may activate it, and agencies must follow administrative procedure and can be constrained by Congress, courts, and public comment in how they implement Section 24220 ^[2].

5. Current status and practical takeaway

As of the reporting compiled here, the statutory citation to point to when people say “the federal law requires kill switches” is Section 24220 of the IIJA, but the direct mandate often described in commentary — a federal standard already requiring remote kill switches in passenger cars — is inaccurate: the statutory text triggers a DOT rulemaking process and no finalized federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring the described technology has been prescribed ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Congressional proposals to repeal or block the prospective mandate remain active, underscoring that the issue is as much political and regulatory as it is statutory ^{[7] [8]}.