Congress threatens to strip highway funds from states that use speed cameras

What it does

This bill penalizes states that operate automated speed cameras by withholding 10% of their federal highway funding each year, unless the state certifies that no jurisdiction within it uses such systems. States may still operate speed cameras in school zones during school hours and active construction zones under specified conditions. The bill effectively bans automated speed enforcement nationwide by making it financially prohibitive for states to permit it.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a conditional federal funding penalty tied to state adoption of a specific enforcement technology. It is functionally a mandate disguised as a funding condition—states must choose between automated speed enforcement and highway dollars.

What the text implies

• The 10% highway funding penalty applies to ALL federal apportionments under section 104, meaning states lose money for road maintenance, bridge repair, and safety projects unrelated to speed enforcement—a blunt fiscal weapon that may harm public infrastructure in states that choose to keep automated systems.
• The bill's exception for school and work zones creates a carve-out that may incentivize states to reclassify or expand zone designations to preserve automated enforcement, potentially undermining the bill's stated intent.
• Federal DOT audit authority to verify state certifications creates a new compliance and documentation burden on state transportation agencies, with no appropriation specified to fund the audits.
• The bill does not address existing revenue streams from automated enforcement citations; states may face budget shortfalls if they eliminate systems that currently fund local traffic safety programs.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill restricts a traffic enforcement tool that some argue improves public safety (particularly in school zones) while others view as privacy-invasive and revenue-driven. Citizens in states that rely on automated enforcement for safety may face reduced traffic safety measures; citizens concerned about surveillance and automated ticketing gain protection. The 10% highway funding penalty is a blunt instrument that could harm road maintenance and safety projects unrelated to speed enforcement.

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), State governors, State and local jurisdictions, Federal Highway Administration (implied)

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 4 Republicans.

• Sep 16, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 16, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $249,240 in lobbying spend. A filing names 12 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Pat Harrigan, the sponsor, reported $403,925 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• National Asphalt Pavement Association — $249,240 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 23, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.