Recent legislative efforts in Congress around the federal regulation of autonomous vehicles can be better understood within the context of previous efforts in 2017 and 2018 to develop a federal regulatory framework. Despite the SELF DRIVE Act (H.R. 3388) passing the House unanimously, the Senate version of the bill, the AV START Act (S. 1885), did not make it to the floor. Understanding the concerns that led to the death of the bill is key to understanding potential opposition to the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 (H.R. 7390).

While the context has changed in the past eight years, other factors remain the same. A key difference between 2018 and 2026 is that autonomation has moved from testing phases to real-world operations. Existing deployments will be used by advocates both for and against federal legislation to shape the conversation about both (1) whether or not there is a need to move from a patchwork of state-by-state regulations towards a federal framework and (2) what language is necessary to ensure safety and accountability in a federal framework. The debate will also likely be shaped by NHTSA’s continued AV regulatory actions, executive branch priorities, and surface transportation reauthorization priorities and timing.

The Rise and Fall of the First AV Legislative Efforts

In July 2017, Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) introduced the first iteration of the SELF-DRIVE Act (H.R. 3388) to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. With attention largely focused on the ongoing effort to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the bill garnered little attention at first and passed out of both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the full House unanimously. However, as the bill moved through the House, opposition began to organize around consumer protection concerns and the impact of preempting state and local regulations.

In September 2017, Sens. John Thune (R-SD), Gary Peters (D-MI), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the AV START Act (S. 1885) which unanimously passed through the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

The bills broad preemption language became an issue of growing concern during Senate discussions. Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) and former Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), then Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Thune in support of the bill but emphasized the need to clarify that states and localities would maintain the ability to enforce traffic safety laws for autonomous vehicles. The SELF-DRIVE Act preempted any local or state policies that would place “unreasonable restrictions” on the deployment of autonomous vehicles. Initially, the AV START used the same preemption language but was amended to hinge preemption on manufacturers submitting safety evaluation reports (SER) to NHTSA. Democrats also raised concerns about the impact of autonomous trucking on labor and were strongly opposed to any language around trucking in the bill.

Sen. Thune and Sen. Peters desired to pass AV START through the full Senate in late 2017 to begin conferencing with the House in 2018. As concerns mounted, particularly from safety advocates, cities, and trial attorneys, the hopes of moving the bill quickly and quietly through unanimous consent faded, and the bill never made it to the Senate floor.

Opposition to the bill was led by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). California was an early innovator in autonomous technology, which made Sen. Feinstein’s opposition notable. On the other hand, California’s aggressive approach to consumer protection, product safety and vehicle regulation meant the state had much to be concerned about regarding the broad language on preemption. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Mark Udall (D-NW) joined Sen. Feinstein’s opposition and in March 2018, those Senators sent a public letter of opposition to the bill citing concerns about preemption, cybersecurity, and consumer protection. The Senators were also concerned about exemptions from existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) standards and a lack of defined timelines for the creation of new FMVSS regulations. During Senate negotiations, organized opposition also emerged from trial lawyers concerned about binding arbitration agreements. Bicycle and pedestrian groups opposed the bill over concerns of a lack of safety measures for vulnerable road users.

In response to the opposition, still seeking to get the bill to the Senate floor before the end of the year, an updated draft of AV Start was shared with members in December 2018. The draft provided timelines for FMVSS standards and updates, clarified language around preemption and legal liabilities, and called for studies on cybersecurity measures and vulnerable road users. The draft also updated and clarified definitions in line with USDOT’s October 2018 report, “Automated Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for the Future of Transportation” and added in the descriptor “passenger” throughout the bill to assuage concerns about impacts on organizing trucking labor.

Despite these updates, Sens. Feinstein, Blumenthal, and Markey maintained their opposition. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a lead sponsor of the SELF DRIVE Act, also raised concerns about the new AV START draft and opposed efforts to “rush it through by attaching it to a must-pass, end-of-year spending bill.” Given the strong opposition, some Senators discussed attaching the bill to the omnibus spending package. However, the continuing resolution passed the Senate without AV START as Senators focused on the funding dispute over Trump’s boarder wall. By the end of 2018, Sen. Thune shared that AV START officially would not make it through the 115^th Congress.

A Quiet 2021 Effort

In late 2019, efforts around a federal AV regulatory bill began again. Staff from the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee shared draft language related to the creation of a Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council within NHTSA and expanding FMVSS expectations and in February 2020 the House E&C Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Committee held a hearing on autonomous vehicles as more portions of the draft legislation were released.

In June 2021, Rep. Latta introduced the second version of SELF-DRIVE Act (H.R. 3711) Act. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection Commerce. Components of the bill were also referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and the Committee on Education and Labor. The bill did not have the same energy as when the first AV START was introduced during the initial hype cycle for autonomous vehicles and did not move through committee.

The Second Wave

In February 2026, Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) introduced the third iteration of the SELF DRIVE Act (H.R. 7390) following circulation of a draft version of the legislation in January 2026. The House Energy and Commerce Committee discussed the legislation in January, and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee discussed federal autonomous vehicle legislation in February.

The current SELF DRIVE Act preempts state and local regulations that prohibit or partially prohibit deployment of autonomous vehicles so long as manufacturers develop a safety case. The legislation would also create a National Automated Vehicle Safety Data Repository, a formalization of NHTSA SGO 2021-01. The repository would record crash data; the bill also prohibits state and local agencies from requiring duplicative reporting from companies.

A key difference between the 2017/2018 efforts and the contemporary moment is the increase in autonomous vehicle deployments. In 2018, autonomous vehicle companies were testing autonomous vehicles on roadways, but no company was operating commercial services with autonomous vehicles. Today, autonomous rideshare is an option for residents in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Phoenix. Autonomous trucking has also become a reality. More autonomous vehicle operators are coming into the market, and the number of deployment and testing locations has expanded. These deployments have increased attention around autonomous vehicles. As the map for deployments expands, so too does the number of lawmakers who will hear from constituents about them.

During January and February hearings on autonomous vehicles, lawmakers frequently mentioned the “patchwork” for legislation that exists due to a lack of a uniform federal regulatory framework and the ability for states and come cities to have their own unique regulations shaping standards around autonomous vehicle testing and operations. On the one hand the deployments of autonomous rideshare in multiple cities with differing legislation, the desire from companies for interstate autonomous trucking, and resistance from some locations for deployments (such as New York City) highlight the challenges of this patchwork. At the same time, the ability for deployments to grow without a federal regulatory framework shows that the lack of legislation from Congress is not entirely prohibitive of the industry’s growth.

For advocates of the legislation, existing deployments provide on-the-ground data and experiences that were not available in 2018 to highlight the safety and practicality of deployments. At the same time, deployments have not been perfect and have highlighted challenges, such as Cruise leaving the market following a pedestrian fatality, difficulties between first responders and autonomous vehicles, and recently vehicles stopping during a power outage in San Francisco. Opponents will likely use these failures as evidence to justify localized control. Supporters will use the same failures as evidence to create a federal framework of shared standards across state lines.

In a February 2026 hearing, Sen. Ed Markey–a key opponent of AV START in 2018–raised questions about remote operations, specifically in regard to international remote operators. This was followed by Sen.  Markey releasing a March 2026 report on remote operations. The report criticized AV companies for a lack of transparency but also raised concerns about a lack of federal standards governing operations and said policymakers must create clear safety benchmarks. Similar to in 2018, this report exemplifies that opponents to SELF-DRIVE may not inherently be against a federal framework or autonomous technologies but rather have specific concerns about the specific language of the legislation. In addition to new concerns like international remote operation, key points of contention including impact on the freight workforce, preemption, and NHTSA enforcement abilities have already come up in hearings. Utilizing lessons learned from the 2018 effort like addressing concerns over clear language will be key to the potential success of federal legislation.

Similar to how some proponents of AV START sought to attach the bill to the CR, there has been some discussion around attaching AV legislation to surface transportation reauthorization. This may force some members into support, but including a bill in reauthorization would require strong support from leadership. During a January 2026 Senate hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said reauthorization is the perfect opportunity for the inclusion of AV language, but Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said the issue must be addressed separately. It is also unclear that a reauthorization package will move through Congress this year.

Another consideration for the movement of federal AVs legislation is the executive branch. The 2017 legislative effort occurred under the first Trump Administration during which USDOT published a number of federal autonomous vehicle frameworks which informed congressional efforts. The second Trump Administration’s USDOT has emphasized its support of continued federal efforts. At the National AV Safety Forum in March, NHTSA and White House officials shared their desire for federal regulations to enable innovation and growth in the autonomous vehicle industry without compromising safety. NHTSA is continuously updating the FMVSS to better fit autonomous vehicles, and USDOT is anticipating the release of a National AV Strategy.

These efforts from NHTSA (within its existing authority and staffing capacity) will likely continue with or without congressional changes. At the same time, White House and USDOT political appointments may push Congressional Republicans to move forward on efforts and may provide specific recommendations in the upcoming framework.

As new deployments and executive branch priorities bring increased attention to autonomous vehicles, policymakers on the Hill will likely continue to consider their role in the safe expansion of this technology. Support for a federal framework for AVs does not fall on traditional party lines, but there are a number of issues that intersect with the existing interests of lawmakers including labor, roadway safety, and international competition. Advocates should be mindful of where past legislative efforts failed to better shape the current legislative effort. The most effective legislative effort will likely be informed by the on-the-ground realities of deployments, active engagement and compromise with opponents, and the needs and shortfalls of existing safety enforcement and data sharing requirements.