Will NHTSA's Anti-Drunk-Driving Tech Mandate Survive 2025?
Back in January 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) calling for a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that would mandate impaired-driving detection systems in every new passenger vehicle sold in the United States. Born from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (passed in late 2021), the proposal aimed to combat the 13,000-plus annual deaths caused by alcohol-impaired driving with passive detection systems built directly into cars.
Now it's June 2025 and we're still waiting.
Eighteen thousand public comments later, with no clear implementation update. No final rule. No rollout plan. Just a quick review behind the scenes as political priorities shift in Washington.
The timing couldn't be more uncertain. President Donald Trump, now returned to office, has a deeply personal disdain for alcohol due to the death of his brother, Fred Trump, Jr., who in 1981 at the age of 42, died from a heart attack caused by his alcohol use. President Trump has also championed deregulation and railed against federal overreach in the private sector. The question now hanging over this initiative is: Will his administration kill the mandate, slow-walk it or push forward with modifications?
NHTSA's early 2024 filing didn't propose a specific technology. It proposed a performance standard. This would allow automakers to choose from a range of solutions:
Breath-based alcohol interlocks.
Touch sensors.
Driver monitoring systems using cameras.
Behavioral analytics for drowsiness or distraction.
NHTSA even broadened the scope beyond alcohol. its notice expanded coverage to include drowsy and distracted driving, arguably more common and complicated to regulate. This drew both praise and criticism. Critics argued that detection methods for drowsiness and distraction vary too widely to be regulated with a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Right now, NHTSA is in the rule review phase. With a presidential transition, it's unclear whether the proposal will move forward. Key issues include:
Cost to OEMs and consumers.
False positives and liability concerns.
Privacy and surveillance fears.
Implementation feasibility by 2026.
Although GM publicly stated it's ready to implement impairment-detection tech, other manufacturers have been quieter. As of mid-2025, no formal regulation has been issued — just public comment summaries, stakeholder meetings and ongoing reviews.
While the proposed FMVSS applies only to new passenger vehicles, fleets should monitor the regulatory horizon.
CDL holders face stricter standards than the general public. Under 49 CFR 392.5, a CDL driver operating a vehicle over 26,001 pounds can be put out of service for any detectable alcohol. The Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit for commercial drivers is 0.04%, half that of the general public. Any measurable alcohol during on-duty status, even if below 0.04, can lead to immediate enforcement action.
As detection systems evolve, especially as litigation pressures grow, fleets may face pressure to adopt similar tech voluntarily. Dashcams, biometric sensors and driver wellness programs are already laying the groundwork. The insurance market may not wait for a mandate.
The future of this rule rests on three pivots:
Will NHTSA push a final rule before the 2026 target implementation date?
Will the Trump administration support, delay or strike it down?
Will automakers begin adopting the tech regardless, due to liability and market pressure?
There's no clear answer yet. What is clear is that drunk driving deaths are still rising, and both the public and private sectors are actively seeking solutions. Whether this takes the form of federal mandates, OEM-led features or fleet-driven initiatives, the road to real-time impairment detection is already paved; it's just a question of who gets there first and how.
We may be watching the beginning of one of the most controversial vehicle safety regulations in decades or the quiet death of another ambitious government mandate. Either way, fleets and safety managers would do well to prepare, because the margin for error in impaired driving is evaporating fast and technology is watching.
The post Will NHTSA's Anti-Drunk-Driving Tech Mandate Survive 2025? appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
‘Always a peacemaker': How Trump decided to hold off on striking Iran
By most accounts, President Donald Trump's attention for the past week has been consumed by the spiraling crisis playing out between Israel and Iran. In between meetings in Canada on Monday, he peppered aides for constant updates. He has spent more time in the basement Situation Room this week than at any point so far in his new presidency. So it was somewhat jarring Wednesday when the president emerged from the South Portico — not to provide an update on his crisis consultations, but to oversee the installation of two nearly 100-foot flagpoles. 'These are the best poles anywhere in the country, or in the world, actually. They're tapered. They have the nice top,' the president told a clutch of reporters and workmen. 'It's a very exciting project to me.' The break from his Iran meetings lasted about an hour, a moment for the president to literally touch grass on the South Lawn amid the most consequential period of decision-making of his term so far. A day later, the president decided not to decide. He dictated a statement to his press secretary Karoline Leavitt announcing he would hold off ordering a strike on Iran for up to two weeks to see if a diplomatic resolution was possible. The decision was revealed after another meeting in the Situation Room, where the president has spent much of this week reviewing attack plans and quizzing officials about the potential consequences of each. After steadily ratcheting up his martial rhetoric – including issuing an urgent warning to evacuate the 10 million residents of Iran's capital – Trump's deferment provides the president some breathing room as he continues to work through options presented by his military officials over the past several days. It also allows more time for the divergent factions of his own party to make their case directly to the president for and against a strike, as they have been urgently doing since it became clear Trump was seriously considering dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. The president has refused to pick a side in public and spent the last week alternating between militaristic threats issued on social media and private concerns that a military strike he orders could drag the US into prolonged war. Around the Situation Room table, he has relied principally on his CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to discuss his options, according to people familiar with the matter. His foreign envoy Steve Witkoff has been corresponding with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to determine if room exists to restart the diplomacy that had been deadlocked before Israel began its campaign last week. Other officials have been publicly sidelined. Twice this week, Trump has dismissed assessments previously offered by his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about the state of Iran's program to develop a nuclear weapon. Gabbard testified in March that the US intelligence community had assessed Iran was not building such a weapon; Trump flatly and publicly disputed that Friday. 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong,' Trump told reporters in New Jersey, asking the reporter who in the intelligence community had said that. Told that it was Gabbard, Trump responded, 'She's wrong.' Yet as he weighs taking action that could have consequences for years to come, Trump appears to be relying mostly on his own instincts, which this week told him to hit pause on ordering a strike that could alter global geopolitics for years to come. When top national security officials told Trump during a meeting at Camp David earlier this month that Israel was prepared to imminently strike inside Iran, it wasn't necessarily a surprise. Trump's advisers had been preparing for months for the possibility Israel could seize upon a moment of Iranian weakness — its regional proxies have been decimated over the past year — to launch a direct assault. Trump's team arrived at Camp David having already drawn up options for potential US involvement. According to people familiar with the matter, his advisers resolved differences between themselves in advance before presenting possible plans to the president. From the mountainside presidential retreat, Trump also spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the president he intended to begin a campaign in Iran imminently. Ten days later, with the Israeli campaign now in full swing, Trump was meeting in Canada with top American allies from the Group of 7, who hoped to decipher from him what the American plan was going forward. In closed-door meetings, leaders from Europe tried to ascertain whether Trump was inclined to order up a US strike on Fordow, the underground nuclear facility that has been the focus of attention for American war planners, western officials said. They also tried to convince a begrudging Trump to sign on to a joint statement, which urged that 'the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.' Trump did not reveal his hand, either in private sessions with individual leaders or over dinner at the Kananaskis Country Golf Course, the western officials said. Instead, he left the summit early, leaving his counterparts in the Canadian Rockies and returning to Washington to deal with the matter himself. By midweek, with only vague signs from Iran that it was willing to restart talks, Trump's patience appeared to wearing thin for finding a diplomatic solution. And many of his allies believed he was on the verge of ordering a strike on Iran. 'It's very late, you know?' he said at Wednesday's flagpole event, the heat causing his forehead to glisten. 'It's very late to be talking.' In private meetings that day, Trump appeared convinced of the necessity of taking out the Fordow facility, according to people familiar with the conversations. And he said in public only the United States has the firepower to do it. 'We are the only ones who have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I am going to do it,' Trump said after coming back inside from his flag raising. 'I have been asked about it by everybody but I haven't made a decision.' He was speaking from the Oval Office, where he'd gathered players from the Italian soccer club Juventus to stand behind him. They mostly acted as a fidgeting backdrop to Trump's question-and-answer session on his Iran decision-making. At one point, Trump turned to the players amid a discussion of the B-2 stealth bomber — the only jet that could carry a bunker-busting bomb to destroy Iran's underground enrichment facility. 'You can be stealthy — you'll never lose, right?' he asked the team members, none of whom responded. 'It was a bit weird. When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of, like… I just want to play football, man,' one of the players, Timothy Weah, said afterward. Amid the string of events, Trump continued to weigh the choices in front of him, and remained worried about a longer-term war. And he continued to receive messages from all sides of his political coalition, which has been divided over the wisdom of launching a strike that could embroil the US in a war for years to come. He's taken repeated calls from GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a prominent voice in support of striking Iran who described the president as 'very focused, very calm' after a Tuesday night phone call. 'I feel like when he says no nukes for Iran, he means it,' Graham said the next day. 'He gave them a chance for diplomacy. I think they made a miscalculation when it comes to President Trump.' One of the most prominent voices opposing a strike, his onetime top strategist Steve Bannon, was at the White House midday Thursday for a lunch with the president that had been rescheduled from several weeks ago. He revealed nothing of his conversation with Trump on his 'War Room' show later Thursday. But a day earlier, he told a roundtable that getting involved in a drawn-out conflict with Iran would amount to repeating a historic mistake. 'My mantra right now: The Israelis have to finish what they started,' he said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' For Trump, the swirl of options, opinions and advice is nothing new. He has faced the Iran decision much as he has most every other major choice of his presidency, by soliciting advice and trying to arrive at a solution that will please the widest swath of his supporters. The answer this time may not be as simple, nor does Trump hold all the cards in a conflict that is playing out across the world. Israel's decision to launch strikes a week ago — while not a surprise to the president — still came against his public entreaties to hold off. And in Iran, he is confronting an adversary with a long history of hardening its positions under pressure from the United States. As he was arriving Friday at his home in New Jersey, Trump said it would be hard to ask Netanyahu to ease up on strikes on Iran in order to pursue diplomacy, given Israel's success in the conflict so far. And he said the two-week window he set a day earlier was the maximum period of time he would allow for diplomacy to work, reserving the option of ordering a strike before that time is up. The president couldn't say whether the decision now in front of him is the biggest he'd face as president. But as he tries to find the balance between ending Iran's nuclear ambitions and keeping the US from war, he did offer an evaluation of what he wanted his legacy to be on the other side. 'Always a peacemaker,' he said. 'That doesn't mean — sometimes, you need some toughness to make peace. But always a peacemaker.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Frantically Tries to Stop MAGA Civil War Over Iran
Donald Trump is trying to stave off a MAGA civil war over America's involvement in the Middle East that threatens to tear apart his conservative base. After the president abruptly left the G7 in Canada to meet with his national security team in Washington, the White House went into overdrive to assuage 'America First' die-hards who are angered that the U.S. could be dragged into Israel's battle against Iran. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he posted on Truth Social on Tuesday, calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender." 'He is an easy target, but is safe there - we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' As tensions simmered, Vice President J.D. Vance took to social media to talk up the 'remarkable restraint' the president had shown in trying to keep American troops and citizens safe. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared on Fox News to assure people there had been no change in the military's defense posture in the region. On social media, Trump's rapid response team posted video after video to demonstrate that he 'has always been consistent' on Iran. And at the White House, his communications team fired off a press release documenting 15 times that Trump stated Iran 'cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon'. The messaging efforts point to the dilemma Trump faces as he tries to balance his support for Israel with ongoing demands from within his base to avoid another war in the Middle East. Having come to office promising no more 'endless wars,' Trump must now decide whether to help Israel destroy a deeply buried Iranian nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow using a 30,000 pound U.S. bomb known as a 'bunker buster'. But such a move would risk any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal Trump has been pursuing and further divide the very base that got him elected. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' Trump said on Tuesday. 'Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived and manufactured 'stuff'. Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.' Others in MAGA, however, are not convinced of America's ongoing role. Carlson, a former Fox News host, entered the fray last week, calling Trump complicit and suggesting that the administration 'drop Israel [and] let them fight their own wars.' This led to Trump suggesting on Monday that he was irrelevant now that he no longer had his own television show, which in turn, led to Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene siding with Carlson. 'Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before,' she said. Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk had earlier warned the issue could cause 'a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' MAGA activist Jack Posobiec agreed, saying that 'a direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' But Vance's lengthy post on X sought to de-escalate tensions. Noting the 'crazy stuff' that was being put out on social media, he said that Trump had been 'amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,' Vance added. 'That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Leavitt Gets Skewered on Trump's Bogus ‘Two-Week Deadlines'
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took heat from a reporter after announcing that President Donald Trump had punted on whether to attack Iran, giving himself a two-week deadline to decide. The reporter pointed out to Leavitt that Trump has previously given himself two-week deadlines on other major decisions, particularly related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and then failed to meet them. 'He's used this phrase about two weeks several times, in terms of 'We expect a two-week deadline,' and then you give another two-week deadline,' the reporter said. 'How can we be sure that he's gonna stick to this one, making a decision on Iran?' Leavitt's first response was to blame Joe Biden, saying that 'these are two different global conflicts that the president inherited from our previous, incompetent president.' Eventually Leavitt suggested that Trump's tendency to push his own self-assigned deadlines comes from his desire to broker peace. 'The last time the president said two weeks, you saw [Russia and Ukraine] have direct negotiations for the first time in years,' Leavitt said. 'The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution to the problems and the global conflicts in this world,' she added. 'He is a peace-maker-in-chief, he is the peace-through-strength president. If there is a chance for diplomacy, the president will grab it. But he is not afraid to use strength, I will add.' Questions about how Trump will handle the conflict between Israel and Iran have swirled over the last week, and the president has yet to give a straight answer. The prospect of the U.S. joining the conflict on Israel's behalf has divided the president's MAGA supporters. The last two-week deadline Trump set came on May 28, with regard to determining whether Russian President Vladimir Putin actually wants peace against Ukraine. It came and passed last week with no acknowledgment from the president. On April 24, Trump used the two-week line to evade a reporter's question about aid to Ukraine. Three days later, asked whether he trusted Putin, the president said, 'We'll let you know in two weeks.' And on May 19, Trump was asked whether Ukraine had done enough to foster negotiations. 'I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now because I can't say yes or no,' Trump said. Trump's penchant for backing off of big decisions during his second term has led to the rise of the acronym TACO, short for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' It went mainstream after Trump repeatedly lowered his steep tariff on China. The president hates the acronym, as he made clear to a reporter who asked him about in May. 'Don't ever say what you said,' Trump told the reporter. 'That's a nasty question.'
