This bill adds a new section to Title 23 that ties part of a State’s federal highway apportionment to its driver‑licensing and data‑sharing laws. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 50 percent of the amounts a State is otherwise required to receive under two enumerated apportionment paragraphs in section 104(b) if, as of the first day of a fiscal year beginning in 2027, the State does not have a law prohibiting issuance of a driver’s license or commercial driver’s license to people who cannot show proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency, and if the State bars collection or transfer of immigration enforcement information.
The measure also requires the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security to determine which States comply and to publish a public, online database showing each State’s status. The bill therefore links federal transport dollars to state immigration‑related policies, creating immediate operational and budgetary choices for Departments of Motor Vehicles, state legislatures, and transportation planners — and raising practical questions about document standards, data privacy, and the effect on ongoing highway projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new §180 in Title 23 that requires withholding 50% of the amounts apportioned under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 23 U.S.C. §104(b) from any State that, on the first day of each fiscal year beginning in FY2027, lacks a statute forbidding issuance of driver or commercial driver licenses to individuals without proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence or that restricts collection/transmission of immigration enforcement information.
Who It Affects
State legislatures that set driver‑licensing rules, state DMVs and Departments of Transportation that administer licensing and federal grants, federal immigration agencies that will receive more state data, and communities that rely on state-issued credentials for driving and identification.
Why It Matters
It conditions critical highway funding on state immigration policy, creating a high‑stakes compliance choice for States and potentially redirecting billions in federal transportation dollars if enforced; it also creates a public reporting obligation that changes how driver and detention information are shared and published.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a single new statutory section into Title 23 of the U.S. Code. That section operates on two linked tracks: (1) a funding penalty and (2) a set of state law requirements tied to driver licensing and information sharing.
On the funding side, the Secretary of Transportation must withhold half of the amount a State would otherwise be apportioned under two specified paragraphs of section 104(b) each fiscal year if the State fails to meet the statutory conditions. The withholding is assessed on the first day of each fiscal year starting in 2027 based on the State’s compliance status at that moment.
On the requirements side, the bill obliges States to have in place a law that expressly prohibits issuing a driver’s license or a commercial driver’s license to anyone who cannot present proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence. It also strips out protections some States use to prevent local or State entities from collecting, sending, or receiving immigration enforcement information — effectively forbidding so‑called sanctuary rules that block cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The provision is written to cover both conventional driver’s licenses and commercial credentials.The bill also assigns two federal agencies — the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security — responsibility for determining whether each State complies and for maintaining a publicly accessible online database that lists each State’s compliance status. The text defines “immigration enforcement information” narrowly to include an individual’s citizenship or immigration status and the date, time, and location of releases from detention, jail, or prison.
The bill does not define specific documentary standards for “proof” of citizenship or lawful permanent residence, nor does it set out an administrative review or remediation process for States that lose funding.Operationally, the statute forces immediate administrative changes at state DMVs: verification protocols, recordkeeping, staff training, and new interfaces for sharing data with federal immigration agencies. For Departments of Transportation, the statutory withholding can affect ongoing project budgets and contract awards if a State’s compliance status leads to a sudden reduction in apportioned funds at the start of a fiscal year.
The public database requirement adds transparency but raises questions about what records will be published, how often the determinations will be updated, and who will enforce accuracy or correct errors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must withhold 50% of the amount required to be apportioned to a State under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 23 U.S.C. §104(b) on the first day of each fiscal year beginning FY2027 if the State is noncompliant.
To be compliant a State must have a statute prohibiting issuance of any driver’s license or commercial driver’s license to persons without proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status.
The statute bars States from prohibiting or restricting local or State entities or officials from collecting, sending, or receiving 'immigration enforcement information.', The Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security share responsibility for determining compliance and must maintain a publicly available online database showing each State’s status.
The bill defines 'immigration enforcement information' to include a person’s citizenship or immigration status and the date, time, and location of any release from detention, jail, or prison.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s short titles: the 'Stop Aliens From Evading Driving Laws Act' and the 'SAFE Driving Laws Act.' This is purely nominative and has no operative effect on compliance, enforcement, or funding mechanisms.
Annual withholding tied to compliance
Imposes the financial mechanism: a 50 percent withholding of the amounts a State must be apportioned under two specified paragraphs of 23 U.S.C. §104(b) if the State fails to satisfy subsection (b) on the first day of each fiscal year beginning in 2027. Practically, the provision makes compliance a recurring, calendar‑based determination rather than a one‑time penalty and shifts the timing risk to states at the start of each fiscal year.
State law requirements on licensing and data sharing
Specifies what counts as compliance: a statutory prohibition on issuing any driver’s license or commercial driver’s license to individuals who do not have proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence, and an express ban on state or local rules that prevent entities or officials from collecting or transferring immigration enforcement information to DHS. This section reaches both substantive licensing standards and limits on local noncooperation policies, so States must change statutes that create limited licenses or sanctuary protections to avoid losing funds.
Compliance determinations, public database, and definitions
Directs DOT and DHS to evaluate each State’s compliance and to post a publicly available database with each State’s status. It also defines 'immigration enforcement information' to mean citizenship or immigration status and the date, time, and location of any release from custody. The provision does not prescribe review procedures, appeal rights, or how often the database must be updated, leaving those operational details to agency implementation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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
- Federal immigration enforcement agencies (DHS, ICE) — gain clearer legal footing and increased access to driver and release‑related data that can be used for immigration investigations and custody tracking.
- States that already require citizenship or LPR documentation for licenses — avoid the administrative upheaval and funding risk because their existing statutes already meet the bill’s compliance standard.
- Identity‑verification vendors and IT contractors — prospective demand for document‑validation systems, DMV workflow upgrades, and secure data‑sharing interfaces will increase if States adopt stricter proof‑of‑status regimes.
- Drivers with U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency in States that change laws to comply — may see more uniform credential standards and potentially reduced fraud concerns in licensing rolls.
Who Bears the Cost
- States that issue driver credentials to noncitizens without full citizenship/LPR proof — face potential loss of half of certain annual apportionments and must choose between changing state law or accepting substantial funding cuts.
- State and local motor vehicle agencies — must implement new verification processes, staff training, and secure data transfers; these are immediate administrative costs with uncertain federal reimbursement.
- Transportation projects and contracted vendors in noncompliant States — could face delayed or canceled projects if apportioned funds are withheld, harming construction schedules and local economies.
- Undocumented immigrant communities — will lose access to state driver’s licenses in jurisdictions that change laws, increasing the likelihood of unlicensed driving and related enforcement risks.
- Privacy advocates and individuals whose custody release data become part of public compliance reporting — bear risks from broader dissemination of sensitive personal information absent detailed controls.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the federal government’s interest in enforcing immigration laws and obtaining immigration‑related data against States’ authority to set driver‑licensing policy and to protect mobility, privacy, and local public‑safety objectives; it uses the leverage of highway dollars to resolve that policy dispute, trading federal enforcement access for potential harm to state transportation programs and individual privacy.
The bill leaves several implementation matters unresolved and creates trade‑offs that cut across constitutional, operational, and privacy domains. It ties withholding to apportionments under two enumerated paragraphs of §104(b) but does not specify how withheld amounts interact with existing contracts, grant obligations, or project schedules; a State could lose funding at the fiscal year boundary even if projects were mid‑award.
The statute also fails to define what counts as acceptable 'proof' of citizenship or lawful permanent residence, so States will need to develop documentary standards and verification procedures rapidly, with attendant training and system costs. Agencies designated to determine compliance (DOT and DHS) must create processes for evaluation, correction, and updating the public database though the bill does not prescribe timelines, error correction mechanisms, or appeals.
The public database and the statutory definition of 'immigration enforcement information' raise data‑privacy and operational questions. Publishing compliance status is clear, but the bill’s definitional language reaches personally sensitive records — including release dates, times, and locations from detention facilities — without specifying safeguards, redaction standards, or access controls.
That creates risks of misidentification, data misuse, and burdens on agencies to secure information while meeting transparency obligations. Finally, conditioning highway funds on state immigration policy reintroduces the federal‑state coercion debate in a transportation context, forcing States to weigh public safety and mobility interests against potentially large budgetary penalties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.