Federal highway funds now tied to state traffic obstruction enforcement
H.R. 3880 — Clear the ROADS Act · Filed by Bill Huizenga (R-MI) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 10% of federal highway funding from states that do not make 'reasonable efforts' to prohibit non-governmental actors from knowingly and recklessly obstructing traffic on federal highways in ways that endanger public safety. The Secretary must certify state compliance by October 1 each year or the funding penalty takes effect; states must comply by the first October 1 after the Secretary issues implementing regulations or after the state holds a legislative session, whichever is later.
Why we flagged it
The bill uses federal highway apportionment as a compliance lever to incentivize state enforcement of traffic obstruction laws. It is a conditional-funding statute, not a direct prohibition or subsidy, and operates through certification and withholding rather than criminal or civil penalties.
What the text implies
- The term 'reasonable efforts' is undefined in the bill itself and will be defined by Secretary regulation (due within 180 days). This creates a gap between enactment and enforceability, and the Secretary's regulatory interpretation will effectively set the compliance bar — a significant delegation of standard-setting to the executive branch.
- The 10% withholding applies to 'each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 104(b)' — the bill does not restate what those paragraphs fund, so the actual scope of the penalty depends on reading the cited statute. If those paragraphs cover all federal highway apportionments, the penalty is severe; if they cover only a subset, the leverage is weaker.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Citizens benefit from potential reduction in dangerous roadway obstruction and improved traffic safety. However, the standard is vague ('reasonable efforts,' 'reckless obstruction'), creating uncertainty about enforcement and potential for federal overreach into state traffic law; the 10% funding penalty is severe and may harm road maintenance in compliant states if the Secretary's certification process is arbitrary or politically motivated.