Sponsors (3)
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Last progress June 10, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 10, 2025 by Bill Huizenga
Creates a new federal rule that lets the Secretary of Transportation withhold 10% of certain federal highway funds from any State that does not take steps to stop private individuals from knowingly and recklessly blocking lawful vehicle travel on Federal-aid highways in ways that endanger public safety. The Secretary must issue implementing regulations within 180 days and will certify annually (by October 1) whether each State met the requirement; if not certified, the 10% withholding applies to specified highway apportionments.
Adds a new section 180 to title 23, United States Code, titled "Roadway obstruction," establishing the statutory framework described in this section.
Requires the Secretary of Transportation to withhold, beginning not later than the first October 1 after required regulations are issued or after a State has held a legislative session (whichever is later) and each October 1 thereafter, an amount equal to 10 percent of the funds to be apportioned to a State on that date under each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of 23 U.S.C. §104(b), unless the Secretary has certified on or before that date that the State has met the subsection (b) requirement.
Defines the State compliance requirement: a State meets the requirement if the Secretary determines the State has made reasonable efforts to prohibit individuals who are not performing work on behalf of a Federal, State, or local government from knowingly and recklessly obstructing lawful vehicle transportation on Federal-aid highways in the State in a manner that endangers the safety or health of the public.
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations necessary to carry out new section 180 not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section.
Makes a clerical amendment to the analysis (table of contents) for title 23, United States Code by adding an entry for the new section.
States: Directly affected. States that receive Federal-aid highway apportionments must take steps to prevent private individuals from knowingly and recklessly blocking lawful vehicle travel on Federal-aid highways or face a 10% reduction in specified federal highway funds each October 1. This creates financial and administrative pressure on State transportation and law enforcement agencies to change policies, enforcement priorities, or crowd-control practices.
Road users and the general public: Motorists, commuters, and businesses that rely on timely highway travel are likely to benefit from stronger state action to reduce deliberate roadway blockages and related public-safety risks. Disruptions caused by obstructions may decline if states act to prevent them.
Law enforcement and first responders: State and local law enforcement will face increased expectations to prevent and clear unlawful blockages, potentially requiring reallocation of personnel, training, or new operational protocols; first responders may experience improved roadway access but also new coordination demands.
Protesters and civil-society actors: Individuals and groups engaging in demonstrations that involve blocking highways may be directly affected; the policy could reduce some forms of direct-action protest or shift tactics, and could raise constitutional and civil-liberties concerns leading to legal challenges.
Federal DOT administration: The Department of Transportation will incur administrative work to write regulations, set certification standards, review State compliance, and manage withholding and recapture of funds.
Fiscal effects: A 10% withholding of certain apportionments can be material for some States’ transportation budgets and may accelerate compliance efforts. Because the law requires States to act but does not provide new federal funds to cover those actions, States may bear additional costs (an unfunded mandate).
Legal and political risks: The statute places policy choices and compliance definitions in the Secretary's hands, which may lead to litigation over definitions (e.g., what counts as "knowingly and recklessly"), certification criteria, and interactions with rights of assembly. The measure may also affect federal-state relations and prompt debate about conditional federal funding.