End DWI Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 2788

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Transportation and Public Works

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-09: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Last Updated

2026-06-03T08:06:42Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "End Driving While Intoxicated Act of 2025" (H.R. 2788) aims to reduce drunk driving fatalities and recidivism by establishing a national standard that requires states to mandate ignition interlock devices (devices installed in vehicles that prevent the engine from starting if the driver has alcohol on their breath) for people convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI). It uses federal highway funding as an incentive for states to adopt and enforce this standard.

Key Provisions

• Findings Section: Highlights data on rising DWI deaths (e.g., one death every 39 minutes, a 14% increase from 2020-2021), the effectiveness of ignition interlocks in reducing repeat offenses by up to 70%, current adoption in 31 states and D.C., and risks from polysubstance impairment (e.g., alcohol combined with drugs like THC in 44% of fatal crashes in one study).
• National Standard (New Section 180 in Title 23, U.S. Code):
• States must enact and enforce a law requiring DWI offenders to drive only vehicles with an ignition interlock for at least 180 days, unless a special exception applies (e.g., operating an employer's vehicle without ownership interest).
• The interlock period can occur during license suspension, after conviction, or both, as decided by the state.
• Offenders must remain violation-free (e.g., no failed breath tests, tampering, or circumvention) for a state-determined period before removal.
• Funding Withholding Mechanism:
• Starting October 1, 2026 (for fiscal year 2027), the U.S. Secretary of Transportation withholds 3% of a state's federal highway apportionments under sections 104(b)(1) and (2) if non-compliant.
• Increases to 5% withholding from October 1, 2027, onward.
• Withheld funds remain available for up to three fiscal years; if the state complies within that time, funds are released and available for three more years (unused funds lapse after that).
• After September 30, 2028, non-compliant withheld funds are permanently lost.
• Definitions:
• Driving while intoxicated (DWI): As defined in existing federal law (sections 164 and 405 of title 23), generally meaning operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Ignition interlock: A breath-testing device linked to a vehicle's ignition, per federal regulations.
• Other terms like "motor vehicle," "special exception," and "violation" are defined or left to state law.
• Amendments:
• Adds the new section to chapter 1 of title 23, U.S. Code, with clerical updates.
• Conforming changes to sections 164(a)(6) and 405(d)(6), such as replacing "or controlled" with "operated" for vehicle restrictions and removing certain phrases to align with the new standard.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a new federal mandate in title 23, U.S. Code, tying highway funding to state DWI laws, which previously relied on voluntary state adoption or less stringent incentives.
• Expands ignition interlock requirements beyond repeat offenders (already incentivized in some federal programs) to all DWI offenders, with a minimum 180-day period.
• Modifies language in existing DWI penalty sections (e.g., sections 164 and 405) to focus on vehicles "operated" rather than "registered, owned, or leased," simplifying enforcement and broadening application.
• Shifts from optional grants (e.g., under section 405) to punitive withholding of core highway funds, creating stronger federal leverage over state policies.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: State departments of transportation and motor vehicles will face pressure to update laws and enforcement, potentially increasing administrative costs for monitoring interlocks and compliance reporting to the federal government (e.g., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). The U.S. Department of Transportation gains authority to withhold and redistribute funds.
• On Citizens: DWI offenders may face restricted driving options, higher costs for interlock installation/maintenance (typically $100-200/month, though not specified in the bill), and reduced recidivism, leading to fewer alcohol-related crashes. The public could see decreased DWI fatalities (currently over 13,000 annually), improving road safety, especially for vulnerable groups like pedestrians and polysubstance-impaired drivers.
• On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic highway safety and state-level enforcement.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• States and Local Governments: Primary targets, as non-compliance risks losing federal highway funds (billions annually apportioned under title 23), affecting infrastructure projects.
• DWI Offenders: Individuals convicted of DWI, who must comply with interlock mandates or lose driving privileges.
• Law Enforcement and Courts: Police, judges, and probation officers responsible for enforcing interlock requirements and handling violations.
• Safety Advocates and Victims' Groups: Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which supported the bill's findings, stand to benefit from reduced fatalities.
• Vehicle Owners and Manufacturers: Those installing/maintaining interlocks; employers providing vehicles to workers under exceptions.
• Federal Agencies: U.S. Department of Transportation and NHTSA, tasked with oversight and fund management.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens federal uniformity in DWI prevention under the Highway Safety Act framework but allows state flexibility in implementation (e.g., exception definitions, violation periods), potentially leading to varied enforcement nationwide. Definitions tie to existing regulations, minimizing ambiguity.
• Constitutional: Relies on Congress's spending power to condition federal funds on state actions, a common approach upheld in cases like South Dakota v. Dole (1987) for highway funding tied to drinking age. No apparent First Amendment or due process issues, though states could challenge withholdings as coercive if penalties are deemed excessive.
• Political: Bipartisan introduction (by Reps. Mann, Pappas, Smith, and Raskin) signals broad support for public safety, but may spark debates on federal overreach into state criminal justice. Could influence future traffic safety bills by setting a precedent for funding-based mandates on issues like drug-impaired driving.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Cosponsors (14)

Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1], Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6], Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4], Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-09: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
• 2025-04-09: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
• 2025-04-09: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-09: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• End Driving While Intoxicated Act of 2025 — issued 2025-04-09 — PDF (8 pages)