LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – For Republican gubernatorial candidates Perry Johnson and Rep. John James, the latest campaign spat isn’t about taxes, immigration, or even Gretchen Whitmer. It’s about a so-called “kill switch” in your car.
The dispute centers on a Biden-era federal requirement directing regulators to develop technology capable of detecting impaired drivers and preventing them from operating a vehicle. Critics have dubbed it a “kill switch,” warning it could eventually open the door to government monitoring or control of vehicles. Supporters say it’s simply an anti-drunk-driving measure intended to save lives.
How we got here.
MORE NEWS: UAW Backs Benson for Governor, El-Sayed for U.S. Senate
The controversy traces back to the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed by President Joe Biden in November 2021.
Buried within the massive infrastructure package was a provision directing federal regulators to establish standards for “advanced impaired driving prevention technology” in future vehicles. The technology is intended to detect driver impairment and prevent operation of a vehicle. In the legislation, it defines “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as a system that includes future vehicles with technology capable of monitoring drivers for signs of impairment or detecting when a driver’s blood alcohol content exceeds the legal limit. If impairment is detected, the system would be designed to prevent or restrict operation of the vehicle.
Regulators are still developing the rules, and the mandate has not yet been fully implemented. If the mandate moves forward, implementation would likely begin with the 2027–2028 model year vehicles. NHTSA’s (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) March 2026 report to Congress states that current detection tech has unacceptably high error rates. Even 99.9% accuracy could lead to millions of false positives/negatives annually. No technology fully meets the passive, reliable criteria for both alcohol detection and broader impairment monitoring.
Those concerns have fueled criticism of the mandate from conservatives and civil liberties advocates, who argue the technology could be unreliable, intrusive, or vulnerable to misuse. But John James did not vote for that law. At the time Congress passed the infrastructure bill in 2021, James wasn’t even in Congress. He didn’t take office until January 2023 after winning Michigan’s 10th Congressional District seat.
Perry Johnson: James helped keep It alive.
During a recent appearance on The Steve Gruber Show, Johnson blasted the mandate as “anti- American” and one of the worst laws ever passed.
“The whole idea is very, very simple. America was founded on the principle of freedom,” Johnson said. “You start taking away people’s freedoms, and you’re starting to take away the entire heart of America.”
Johnson argued that Congress had a chance to stop implementation of the mandate earlier this year but that James sided against those efforts. “We had a chance to kill it,” Johnson told Gruber. “Every single one wanted to kill it, except for John James.”
MORE NEWS: Chinese-Linked Gotion Wants Taxpayers to Pay the Price for Failed Megasite
That’s where the voting record enters the picture.
What James actually voted on.
In January 2026, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie offered an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to implement or enforce the impaired-driving technology mandate created by the 2021 law. The amendment failed 164-268.
James voted against Massie’s amendment, effectively voting to keep the funding bill intact rather than adopt language that would have blocked funds from being used to implement the mandate. However, Johnson’s claim that “every single one” wanted to kill it isn’t entirely accurate. While a majority of House Republicans supported the amendment, 57 Republican representatives voted against it. However, James was the only Republican member of Michigan’s congressional delegation to vote against it.
Critics, including Johnson, point to that vote as evidence James helped preserve the mandate. But James argues that’s not what happened.
James: “Perry Johnson’s a liar.”
When Gruber confronted James with Johnson’s criticism during a recent appearance on his show, the congressman didn’t exactly respond with a Hallmark card.
“First of all, Perry Johnson’s a liar. I never voted for a kill switch bill,” James said.
James said his January vote was for Department of Homeland Security funding requested by the Trump administration and against what he described as a “poison pill” amendment offered by Massie.
“I voted for Trump’s Department of Homeland Security funding at the White House’s request,” James said. “I voted against a Never Trump poison pill led by Thomas Massie amendment intended to derail the American president’s agenda.”
James argued that his vote was about supporting the broader funding package backed by the Trump administration, not the impaired-driving technology mandate itself. Although Massie’s amendment specifically targeted funding for implementation of the mandate, James contends it was viewed by House leadership and the White House as a measure that could disrupt the administration’s legislative agenda, which is why he voted against it.
James has also pointed to his later actions to kill the kill switch mandate calling it “Orwellian” and intrusive.
The vote to kill the kill switch.
After criticism erupted over the January vote, James became a co-sponsor of the No Kill Switches in Cars Act, legislation introduced at the end of April that is aimed at repealing the federal mandate altogether. In announcing his support, James declared: “I do not support the vehicle kill switch mandate and I never will.”
During his Gruber interview, James highlighted that legislation as proof of his position, saying, ”I’m the first Michigan congressman to lead this effort.”
So who’s telling the truth?
Both campaigns are selectively highlighting pieces of the same story. Johnson is correct that James voted against Massie’s January amendment that would have blocked federal funding tied to implementation of the mandate.
James is correct that he never voted for the original 2021 infrastructure bill that created the mandate because he wasn’t in Congress at the time. He is also correct that he later co-sponsored legislation seeking to eliminate the requirement entirely.
In other words, James didn’t vote to create the “kill switch,” but he did vote against an amendment that critics say would have helped stop it before later supporting legislation to repeal it.
Welcome to campaign season, where politicians spend as much time arguing about what a vote meant as they do casting the vote in the first place.
