The Clear the Reckless Obstructions And Dangers on Streets Act adds a new pathway to withhold federal highway funding from states that fail to curb obstructions on roadways. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 10% of apportioned funds on October 1 each year until the state is certified as meeting the new requirement.
That requirement hinges on the state taking reasonable steps to prohibit individuals not performing government work from knowingly and recklessly obstructing lawful vehicle transportation on Federal-aid highways in a manner that endangers public safety or health. The Secretary must publish implementing regulations within 180 days of enactment to define what counts as “reasonable efforts.” A clerical amendment adds a new section (180) to the analysis of Chapter 1 of title 23 to reflect the new roadway-obstruction provision.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new Section 180 in Title 23 establishing a withholding mechanism: 10% of a state's federal highway apportionments are withheld until the state is certified as meeting the obstruction-prohibition standard. Regulations necessary to implement the section must be issued within 180 days of enactment.
Who It Affects
States and their Departments of Transportation, Federal-aid highway programs, and road users who rely on safe, unobstructed roadways. Federal and state transportation officials will implement and enforce the standard.
Why It Matters
It establishes a concrete funding lever to incentivize states to curb obstructive behaviors that endanger the traveling public, potentially improving road safety and reliability of federal highway investments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new rule to Title 23 that ties funding to states’ efforts to prevent obstruction on federal highways. Beginning on October 1 after the required regulations are in place, or after a state’s legislature session ends—whichever is later—the Secretary of Transportation will withhold 10% of the funds a state would receive from certain federal highway programs until that state demonstrates compliance with the new obstruction-prohibition standard.
The standard requires states to make reasonable efforts to prevent individuals who are not performing government work from knowingly and recklessly obstructing lawful vehicle transportation in a way that endangers the public. To implement this, the Secretary must issue regulations within 180 days of enactment.
The bill also adds a clerical amendment to the Title 23 analysis to reflect the new section. In practice, this creates a fiscal incentive for states to address roadway obstructions and clarifies that funding can be withheld if they do not take steps to reduce dangerous blockages on federally funded roads.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new Section 180 in Title 23 mandating a 10% withholding of federal highway apportionments for non-compliance.
Compliance hinges on states taking reasonable steps to prohibit obstructions by non-government workers on Federal-aid highways that endanger safety.
Regulations to implement the new section must be issued within 180 days of enactment.
Withholding starts on October 1 after regulations are issued or after the state’s legislative session ends, whichever is later.
A clerical amendment adds 180 to the Title 23 analysis for administrative completeness.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Roadway obstruction—withholding of apportionments for non-compliance
This section adds a new pathway to withhold a portion of federal highway funding if a state has not met the obstruction-prohibition requirement. Beginning on the first October 1 after the necessary regulations are issued (or after the state’s legislative session ends, whichever is later), the Secretary of Transportation must withhold 10% of the funds apportioned to the state under predefined federal highway programs until the state is certified as meeting the standard. This creates a continuing annual incentive for states to actively curb unsafe obstructions on Federal-aid highways.
Requirement to prohibit obstruction
A state is considered to meet the requirement if the Secretary determines it has made reasonable efforts to prohibit individuals not performing government work from knowingly and recklessly obstructing lawful vehicle transportation on Federal-aid highways within the state in a manner that endangers safety or health. The scope is intentionally broad to cover obstructive actions that could threaten the public, and certification is the trigger for lifting the withholding.
Clerical amendment
The analysis for Chapter 1 of Title 23 is amended by adding a new entry: 180. Roadway obstruction. This is a clerical update to reflect the new statutory provision and ensure the analysis aligns with the added section.
Rulemaking
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary of Transportation must issue regulations necessary to carry out Section 180. These rules will define what constitutes “reasonable efforts,” the process for certification, and any procedures for monitoring and enforcement by states and federal authorities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Departments of Transportation that implement and enforce obstruction-prohibition policies, reducing the risk of fund withholding and improving corridor safety.
- Road users and commuters on Federal-aid highways who experience fewer disruptive and dangerous obstructions.
- Federal Department of Transportation and its regional offices, which gain a clear funding incentive to enforce safety standards on federally funded roads.
- Public safety agencies and highway safety professionals who benefit from safer, more reliable travel along major highways.
- Policy analysts and planners who can point to a measurable funding-conditional lever for safety improvements.
Who Bears the Cost
- States that do not comply face a 10% reduction in eligible apportionments, impacting budgets and ongoing projects.
- State DOTs and local governments may incur administrative and compliance costs to develop and implement obstruction-prohibition measures.
- Federal and state agencies may bear transitional costs associated with rulemaking and enforcement activities to implement the new standard.
- Some highway projects in non-compliant states could be delayed or scaled back due to reduced funding until compliance is certified.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a strong safety objective with the practical realities of state budgets and enforcement capacity. The policy uses a powerful fiscal lever to compel action, but the “reasonable efforts” standard and the transition to new regulations may create compliance challenges and potential funding volatility for states, raising questions about uniformity, timelines, and unintended funding gaps.
The bill leverages federal funding to drive state action on roadway obstructions. While the objective—improving safety on Federal-aid highways—is straightforward, the standard for ‘reasonable efforts’ is undefined until regulations are issued, creating initial ambiguity for states and enforcement agencies.
The reliance on funding as a compliance mechanism could place tighter budgets on states already managing complex highway programs. Additionally, the interplay between state autonomy and federal conditionality raises questions about equity across states with varying resources and enforcement capabilities.
The rulemaking process will need to translate the broad safety goal into implementable criteria, measurement methodologies, and transparent oversight to avoid uneven application.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.