- Republican rivals accused Michigan gubernatorial candidate John James of supporting ‘kill switches’ for US cars
- James didn’t vote for the mandate in the US House but opposed an amendment that would have stripped funding for implementation
- He has repeatedly said he opposes the prospective anti-drunk-driving technology at issue
A way to prevent drunk driving deaths or an Orwellian overreach? The promise of anti-drunk-driving technology in future US vehicles has prompted a war of words in Michigan’s gubernatorial election.
US Rep. John James is being attacked by his Republican primary opponents, including businessman Perry Johnson and former attorney general Mike Cox, who allege he supported a so-called “kill switch mandate” in Congress.
An ad from Johnson calls James “Johnny Killswitch” and suggests the law will “allow the government and AI to take control of your car, starting next year.”
Utilizing AI-assisted imagery itself, the ad depicts a panicked woman attempting to start her car as a hooded man approaches, only for her car to intone “heart rate elevated — kill switch activated” and fail to start as the man begins to punch her window.
James suggests critics are lying about his record and that he opposes the technology too. The truth is a little complicated.
Here are the facts.
The ‘kill switch’ in question
Five years ago, Congress instructed regulators to eventually require new vehicles to come installed with technologies that can determine if a person is impaired and prevent them from driving. It’s still a work in progress.
To anti-drunk-driving advocates, it’s a revolutionary intervention that could be the solution to ending drunk driving, which killed nearly 12,000 people in the US in 2024. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a traffic safety group, said they polled the issue and found most Americans support it.
But to critics, the mandate is stoking fears of government overreach via an unsound technology that could prevent cars from being driven in a crucial moment — or as some have conspiratorially suggested, to allow the government to remotely shut down cars.
Assertions that the new rules could give the government in effect a remote control to block cars from starting are not accurate. And regardless, at present it seems the technology isn’t yet there to make the law’s mandate a reality.
James’ alleged support for the rule, on other hand, is a little more complicated.
James’ record
The initial mandate was part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by then-President Joe Biden. James had not yet been elected to Congress at the time, so he did not vote for the law.
But his critics point to a vote this year in late January as evidence he supports the vehicle technology.
US Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky sought to strip funding for the initiative through a spending bill, but his proposed amendment failed in the House after 211 Democrats and 57 Republicans — including James — voted against it.
Cox has noted that all other Republicans in Michigan’s congressional delegation voted in favor of Massie’s amendment, which is accurate.
“John James stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats instead, against his own party, in favor of further government control and intrusion into every facet of your life,” Cox said.
But James defended his “no” vote at the time on social media by saying President Donald Trump had asked Republicans to vote “for HIS funding bills as is, WITHOUT any amendments.”
He pointed to a Jan. 22 statement of administrative policy issued two days earlier by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget saying Trump would likely sign the spending bill if presented to him in its current form. The statement did not explicitly object to potential amendments.
James added that he trusted Trump to “not allow silly mandates in our auto manufacturers, or an absurd kill switch.”
James later co-sponsored a bill, the “No Kill Switches in Cars Act,” that would specifically repeal the mandate. The measure was introduced in February 2025, and James signed on as a co-sponsor more recently, in late April 2026.
The bottom line: James didn’t vote for the ‘kill switch’ mandate — he wasn’t in Congress yet — but he later voted against a proposed amendment to an unrelated spending bill that would have stripped funding for implementation. He said he did so to pass a spending plan that Trump supported.
What the campaigns are saying now
James’ explanations have done little to quiet critics.
“The political consequences are catching up with him and John James is suddenly trying to distance himself from the very mandate he helped protect,” Brian Szmytke, an adviser for Johnson’s campaign, told Bridge in a statement.
“John James can try to change his story, but he can’t change his vote.”
James’ campaign has accused Johnson of lying about his position. Asked to comment on this story, his campaign pointed to a letter James wrote to editors of The Detroit News.
“I never voted for a vehicle ‘kill switch’ mandate. That is false,” James wrote.
“…What I did vote for was funding for President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to secure our border, support ICE, support CBP, and keep America safe.”
The technology may not be ready
Johnson’s ad claims “the government and AI” will be able to take control of cars starting next year. But actual implementation of the law does not appear imminent, and there’s no evidence artificial intelligence will be involved.
The 2021 law required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to write and implement new rules requiring automakers to install “passive” anti-drunk-driving technology in all new cars.
The new systems have to either “monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired” or “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than” the legal limit.
If a driver is deemed drunk or impaired, then the system would have to “prevent or limit” the operation of the vehicle.
What exactly that will look like in new vehicles isn’t yet known.
The law asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to finalize a rule on the technology, but it allowed for a three-year extension. To date, no draft rule has been publicly released.
The obstacle may be technological. Two 2024 reports from NHTSA reviewed available methods to detect impairment and “documented some promising technologies” but not any “commercially available technology that detects driver alcohol impairment accurately and passively.”
While Michigan requires some drivers who repeatedly drive drunk to install ignition interlock devices on their cars — which forces drivers to pass a breathalyzer test to start their car — that’s an active technology, and whatever’s implemented under the law must be passive.
Some suggestions have included cameras inside the vehicle that watch the driver’s movements, or air quality sensors that detect alcohol on the breath. The NHTSA and an auto industry group collaborated to form the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, but it appears whatever devices have been developed by the group are not yet up to snuff.
But none of them are ready for a widespread rollout, at least according to the NHTSA, which notes “detection technology around the legal limit continues to have an error rate that would be unacceptably high.”
“Even a 99.9% detection accuracy level could result in millions to tens of millions of instances each year” where sober drivers are locked out of their cars or it fails to stop a drunk driver, the NHTSA said in a February policy brief. No existing technology gets close to that level of accuracy.
The agency did not provide Congress with a timeline for implementing the mandate. In December 2024, Mothers Against Drunk Driving — which had pushed for the requirement — said it was “deeply disappointed” by the lack of progress.
MADD didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Bridge.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
