Red Light Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to compel states to cease issuing driver's licenses and identification cards to undocumented immigrants by leveraging a complete withholding of major federal highway funding.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that states which have laws or policies allowing individuals unlawfully present in the United States to obtain a driver's license or other identification card will have 100% of their federal highway funds withheld. Specifically, funds apportioned under the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, and Highway Safety Improvement Program would be affected. Withheld funds would then be redistributed to states that are compliant with the federal policy.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill strengthens immigration enforcement, ensures that only legal residents possess state-issued identification, and prevents potential security risks associated with undocumented individuals having official IDs. They believe it discourages illegal immigration, upholds the rule of law, and ensures consistency across states regarding identification for non-citizens.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that withholding 100% of highway funds would jeopardize critical infrastructure projects, harm state economies, and create unsafe roads by potentially increasing the number of uninsured and unlicensed drivers. They argue that providing IDs to all residents, regardless of immigration status, improves public safety, economic integration, and law enforcement's ability to identify individuals.
The bill is very short and its core mechanism is clearly stated, making it highly accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2, adding new section 180 to title 23, United States Code.
Withholding of Federal Highway Funds from Noncompliant States
This provision mandates that any state with a law or policy allowing individuals unlawfully present in the United States to obtain a driver's license or identification card will have 100% of its federal highway funds withheld. These funds specifically come from the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, and Highway Safety Improvement Program. The withholding begins on October 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, with provisions for funds to be released if a state becomes compliant and for withheld funds to be redistributed to compliant states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a necessary tool to enforce federal immigration law and discourage states from undermining national security and immigration policies. They believe it ensures consistency across states regarding identification for non-citizens and protects the integrity of official documents.
Critics contend
Critics argue that this provision is an overreach of federal power, coercing states on matters traditionally within their purview. They contend that withholding highway funds would severely harm public safety and economic activity by degrading infrastructure, rather than effectively addressing immigration concerns.
Tradeoffs
The bill creates a tension between states' rights to set their own identification policies and the federal government's interest in immigration enforcement. It also balances the perceived benefits of restricting IDs for undocumented individuals against the potential negative impacts on state infrastructure and public safety from reduced highway funding.
Defines "identification card" by reference to section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, which broadly covers personal identification documents, including driver's licenses, state identification cards, and other similar documents.
Section 2, adding new section 180(a)(1) to title 23, United States Code.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions across federal statutes. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using an existing, established definition ensures legal clarity and consistency across federal statutes regarding what constitutes an "identification card," avoiding ambiguity.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions can make a bill less self-contained and harder for the average reader to fully comprehend without additional legal research, potentially obscuring the full scope of the bill's impact.
Estimated impact: Ensures a broad interpretation of "identification card," encompassing all forms of state-issued personal identification that could be provided to unlawfully present aliens, thereby maximizing the scope of state policies targeted by the bill.