This bill mandates the withholding of federal highway funds from states that fail to adequately prevent dangerous, non-governmental obstructions on their roadways.
Bill Huizenga
Representative
MI-4
The Clear the ROADS Act mandates that states actively prevent dangerous and reckless obstruction of federal-aid highways by non-government actors. If a state fails to demonstrate a good-faith effort to clear these hazards, the federal government will begin withholding 10% of its federal highway funds. The Secretary of Transportation is tasked with establishing the necessary rules to implement this requirement.
Clear the ROADS Act Threatens 10% Highway Funds for States That Don't Crack Down on Traffic Blockades
The newly introduced Clear the Reckless Obstructions And Dangers on Streets Act, or the Clear the ROADS Act, is a direct attempt by the federal government to force states to deal with dangerous traffic blockades. The bill states that if the Secretary of Transportation decides a state isn’t making a “real effort” to stop non-government folks from “deliberately and carelessly blocking traffic” on federal-aid highways—in a way that risks public safety—that state could lose a serious chunk of its federal highway funding. Specifically, 10 percent of key federal highway money will be withheld until the state complies. The Secretary has 180 days to write the rules on what exactly counts as a “real effort” and what constitutes dangerous blocking.
The Highway Fund Hammer
This bill uses the classic federal strategy: mandate compliance or face a massive budget cut. Think about your state’s road maintenance, bridge repairs, and major infrastructure projects—a lot of that is paid for with federal highway dollars. Losing 10 percent isn't pocket change; it’s enough to sideline major projects or delay critical repairs. For busy commuters and supply chain drivers, this could mean longer waits for road improvements or potentially less safe infrastructure down the line if state budgets have to plug that 10 percent gap. This provision, found in Section 2, is the bill’s entire enforcement mechanism, making the Secretary of Transportation the ultimate judge of state compliance.
Defining "Real Effort" and "Careless Blocking"
Here’s where things get murky. The bill relies on subjective language like “real effort” and “deliberately and carelessly blocking traffic.” What happens if a state passes a law but doesn't enforce it to the Secretary’s satisfaction? What if a group of protestors sits down on an interstate for 15 minutes? Does that qualify as “carelessly blocking traffic” enough to trigger the penalty? The Secretary’s rulemaking process over the next six months will be critical, as it will define the line between legitimate protest and a fund-cutting offense. For people who rely on public demonstration as a tool for change, this bill raises serious questions about the federal government potentially penalizing states based on how they handle politically sensitive disruptions.
The Real-World Impact on State Budgets
For state DOTs (Departments of Transportation), this is a major headache. They now have to worry about the Secretary's opinion of their traffic enforcement, which is usually a local police matter. Imagine a state that heavily relies on federal funding for its road projects. If they are deemed non-compliant, that 10 percent cut (mandated in Section 2) could force them to divert state tax dollars—money that might have been earmarked for schools or healthcare—just to finish a planned highway interchange. The bill essentially pushes the financial burden of managing potentially dangerous roadway protests and blockades onto state infrastructure budgets, which ultimately impacts every taxpayer and road user in that state.