In the face of unprecedented traffic deaths, NHTSA needs systemic reform

With a persistently high traffic fatality rate and its seemingly intractable habit of failing to meet congressionally-mandated deadlines, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is desperately in need of reform.

There’s a proposal floating around to do just that, though the proposal is limited to the safety grant side of NHTSA, which accounts for about 80% of the agency’s funding. NHTSA distributes safety grants to state Highway Safety Offices through two programs – “Highway Safety Programs” under 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 402 and “National Priority Safety Programs” under 23 U.S.C. § 405 – referred to in the shorthand of 402 and 405. In 2025, more than $777 million was distributed through the 402 and 405 programs.

The 405 program was created to respond to specific traffic safety concerns, consolidating several programs previously created by Congress to address issues like drunk driving, seat belt use, and motorcycle helmets in 2012’s transportation bill. Nonmotorized safety was added in 2015’s transportation bill. There are currently eight specific priorities under the 405 program and each priority comes with its own eligibility criteria, eligible uses, and other policy elements.

NHTSA reports annually on states’ use of 405 funds for 11 grant types. In 2026, four grant types had participation rates of over 90%, three grant types had participation rates between 60% and 90%, and four grant types had participation rates under 35%. The grants with the highest rates of participation include seat belts, impaired driving, information systems, and nonmotorized safety. The grants with the lowest rates of participation include alcohol ignition interlock laws, 24-7 sobriety programs, and driver and officer safety education intended to reduce violence during traffic stops. Any funds available under 405 that are not used by states due to a lack of participation are made available to use under the 402 program.

The reform proposal, which would have to be approved by Congress, would do a number of things in order to reduce administrative burdens, and perhaps to improve traffic safety:

1. All 405 grants would be eliminated, including all of their policy elements created for specific purposes by Congress over several decades. 405 grant types would be replaced with subsections in the 402 program that would ensure a similar amount of funding goes to the same types of traffic safety issues.
2. State eligibility under the new 402 subsections would be determined in the same way for every traffic safety issue, rather than the specific ways chosen by Congress in the past. The one eligibility criteria would be whether a state’s performance on that traffic safety issue resulted in a higher traffic death rate for that issue than the national average.
3. Instead of pursuing specific uses of funds strategically chosen by Congress, states would only be required to “implement effective programs to improve the safety” for each traffic safety issue.

There is no defending NHTSA’s status quo. The traffic safety outcomes of the United States are far worse than our international peers. NHTSA often is on the receiving end of negative reports from the Government Accountability Office and other watchdog groups, and it often fails to make timely and evidence-based decisions about congressionally-mandated actions. We are still waiting for a basic website required by Congress in 2021 under 402(n)(2) so that we can search how states are using NHTSA’s funds. Despite good intentions, it is understandable that states did not apply for driver and officer safety education grants intended to reduce violence during traffic stops when the amount available would be less than $100,000 per state if every state applied.

However, the reform proposal is not worthy of support. 

1. It replaces the specific strategies present in the 405 program with no policy whatsoever beyond trusting the states. If you’re looking for federal leadership on traffic safety, you will not find it in this proposal.
2. By limiting eligibility to states doing worse than the national average on safety, it will provide incentives for states to have worse outcomes and narrow the reach of existing programs. For the nonmotorized safety grant types, the proposed changes would mean 20 states, or 60% of those receiving funds, would no longer be eligible for 405 grants to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety.
3. By replacing specific program uses with a vague “implement effective programs to improve the safety” for each traffic safety issue, it will make specific programs less appealing and broader traffic safety efforts, such as law enforcement, more appealing. While we do not know where NHTSA grants currently go – because it lacks a website with a searchable database of grant uses – most data points towards it going to law enforcement. While that may be effective in some cases, specific programs such as child seat fitting, bicycle and pedestrian-related education programs, and the promotion of specific types of laws that require greater coordination may lose out in a future where there is no incentive to think beyond enforcement.

NHTSA is absolutely in need of reform. It is an ineffective agency on both its grantmaking and its vehicle safety sides. But, this proposal is not a path forward. It is an abdication of leadership when we need leadership on traffic safety.

Effective leadership would start with the premise that traffic deaths are not acceptable. Effective leadership would base a strategy on that goal of zero traffic deaths, rather than simply try to get grants out the door. Effective leadership would recognize the interconnectedness of changing behaviors on the roads and how we design and build the roads, not leaving traffic safety to enforcement alone.  

In the short term, we are partnering with other organizations focused on traffic safety to push back on this proposal. We believe there are simpler ways to reduce the administrative burden that don’t require giving state Governor Highway Safety Offices a blank check, undoing decades of policymaking without a new direction. We have signaled our willingness to work with Congress on more practical solutions.

In the long term, NHTSA needs structural reform. Fundamentally, the wall between behavioral traffic safety and roadway design must be torn down. We have to get education, engineering, and enforcement working in the same direction to have any chance at the goal of zero traffic deaths. The proposed reform doesn’t address that issue, and doesn’t include a strategy for how we achieve that change systemically, and that is why it is not worthy of support.