The End Driving While Intoxicated Act of 2025 establishes a national standard requiring states to mandate ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders or face federal highway funding penalties.
Tracey Mann
Representative
KS-1
The End Driving While Intoxicated Act of 2025 aims to combat rising drunk driving fatalities by establishing a national standard for ignition interlock devices (IIDs). This bill mandates that states require DWI offenders to use IIDs for a minimum of 180 days or face penalties involving the withholding of federal highway funds. The legislation seeks to leverage the proven effectiveness of IIDs in reducing repeat offenses across the country.
New Federal Mandate Forces States to Install Ignition Interlocks for DWI Offenders or Lose Highway Cash
The “End Driving While Intoxicated Act of 2025” is straightforward: it aims to stop drunk driving by mandating the use of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) nationwide. Starting October 1, 2026 (Fiscal Year 2027), every state must require drivers convicted of DWI to restrict their driving to vehicles equipped with an IID for a minimum of 180 days. If a state hasn’t put this law in place and started enforcing it by that deadline, the federal government will withhold 3% of its federal highway funding—that penalty jumps to 5% the following year if the state remains non-compliant. This is a classic federal carrot-and-stick approach, only this time the stick is taking away money for road repairs and infrastructure projects.
The Highway Fund Hostage Situation
This bill uses federal highway money as leverage, a move that affects everyone, not just those convicted of DWI. The logic here is that if a state doesn't comply with the IID mandate, the federal government will penalize the state by withholding funds meant for essential road maintenance and construction. For a state that relies heavily on these funds for major projects—like fixing that perpetually potholed stretch of interstate you drive every day—losing 3% or 5% is a significant hit. The bill does offer a lifeline: states can get the withheld funds back if they comply later, but if they wait too long (past September 30, 2028, for early withheld funds), that money is gone forever. Essentially, the federal government is saying, "You either adopt our public safety policy, or your roads suffer."
The Real Cost of the Interlock
The core of the bill is the IID requirement, which studies show is highly effective at reducing repeat offenses. For first-time and repeat DWI offenders, this means a mandatory 180-day period where their vehicle won't start unless they blow into a device that confirms they are sober. While the bill doesn’t explicitly mention costs, the financial burden of installation, monthly leasing, and monitoring of these devices falls directly on the offender. This can easily run into hundreds or even thousands of dollars over the required six-month period, adding a substantial economic penalty to the legal one.
Loopholes and Local Control
One interesting point is that the bill gives states the power to define what counts as a “violation” of the IID requirement and what constitutes a “special exception.” This is where the rubber meets the road on enforcement. For example, a state could create a very narrow definition of a violation, making it harder to get caught tampering with the device, or they could create overly broad exceptions—like allowing people to drive company vehicles without an IID for work purposes—that could undermine the effectiveness of the national standard. While the federal government sets the 180-day minimum, the real-world impact will depend heavily on how each state uses this definitional wiggle room.