R Magic Brow

Nearly five years ago, Congress ordered the federal government to develop technology that could prevent you from operating your vehicle if the car determines that you are impaired.But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — the agency responsible for deciding how that technology must work — has yet to issue regulations. It hasn't even formally proposed them.As NHTSA itself noted, stopping a vehicle in a traffic lane could create 'significant unintended consequences.'And now the NHTSA has acknowledged the problem that should concern every driver: The technology isn't reliable enough.In a February report to Congress, NHTSA said current impaired-driving detection systems have yet to demonstrate the precision, speed, and reliability necessary for a federal mandate. The agency said current detection technology around the legal alcohol limit has an “unacceptably high” error rate.How high are the stakes?NHTSA estimates Americans take roughly 227 billion driving trips annually. According to the agency, even technology that achieved 99.9% detection accuracy could still produce millions to tens of millions of instances each year in which a system either incorrectly prevents or limits a sober driver from operating a vehicle — or fails to stop an impaired driver.That is the part of the so-called “kill switch” debate that deserves much more attention.Road killIn 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by President Joe Biden on November 15 of that year. Section 24220 directed the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, to establish a federal motor-vehicle safety standard requiring advanced drunk- and impaired-driving prevention technology in new passenger vehicles.The stated goal is obvious and worthwhile: preventing deaths and injuries caused by impaired driving. Nobody is arguing that drunk driving is acceptable, and nobody wants innocent people hurt by someone who should not be behind the wheel.The question is what happens when the government requires a machine to decide whether you should be allowed to drive.Section 24220 contemplates technology that can passively monitor driver performance and identify possible impairment, detect a driver's blood alcohol concentration at or above the legal limit, or combine the two approaches.Then comes the important part. The technology must be capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation when impairment is detected.That is considerably more consequential than another warning light on the dashboard.Moving violationCritics call Section 24220 the “kill-switch law.” The term is provocative, so let's be precise about what the law does and doesn't say.It does not create a universal remote-control button that allows the police or federal government to shut down every American's car. It does not prescribe one camera, one algorithm, or one specific technology. And it does not require a vehicle suddenly to switch itself off while traveling down the interstate.The final federal standard — if and when NHTSA can devise one — will determine how the requirement actually works.But the law explicitly calls for technology capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation, and NHTSA is already studying what should happen once impairment has supposedly been detected.The agency acknowledges that preventing a vehicle from moving before a trip begins is one thing. Intervening after the vehicle is moving is considerably more dangerous. As NHTSA itself noted, stopping a vehicle in a traffic lane could create “significant unintended consequences.”You think?Wrong turnThis is where the debate stops being theoretical. Suppose the system determines that you are impaired when you're sober. Can you override it? How quickly?What happens when you're trying to get to work? Pick up your child? Reach a medical appointment? Respond to an emergency?NHTSA says it is trying to minimize false positives that could restrict sober drivers. But its latest report also acknowledges that it currently knows of no technology that comes close to the necessary accuracy while minimizing both false positives and false negatives.Most of the technologies it reviewed remain in early stages of research and development or were not designed for use inside production vehicles.Passive breath and touch sensors are still being developed. Camera-based driver-monitoring systems may use eye movements, facial characteristics, or vehicle behavior to infer impairment. NHTSA is still working on something even more fundamental: how to create objective tests proving that these technologies work reliably enough to become a federal safety standard.In plain English, Congress ordered the mandate before regulators had a proven technology capable of fulfilling it.U-turn?Congress originally directed NHTSA to issue the final standard by November 15, 2024.That didn't happen.The law allows the Department of Transportation additional time if the secretary determines that a standard meeting of federal motor-vehicle safety requirements cannot yet be issued. NHTSA has continued its research and reporting to Congress instead.As of 2026, the government's regulatory agenda still lists advanced impaired-driving technology at the pre-rule stage. NHTSA is analyzing the comments it received after its 2024 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.There is therefore no date on which every new car suddenly acquires this technology. There isn't yet a final standard to comply with.Once a final rule eventually is issued, the law generally calls for the requirement to take effect two to three years later.That gives regulators time. They should use it.RELATED: Welcome to the new traffic stop, where it's your word against AI's NurPhoto/Getty ImagesNo blank checkDrunk driving kills people. Technology that reliably prevents an intoxicated driver from taking a car onto the road could save lives.But a congressional mandate doesn't make immature technology reliable.NHTSA's own research now confirms the central problem. A system empowered to restrict vehicle operation must operate with extraordinary accuracy because even a tiny error rate multiplied across hundreds of billions of trips can create an enormous number of mistakes.Before Washington requires this technology in every new passenger vehicle, drivers deserve answers.What exactly will trigger an intervention? What will the vehicle do? What happens if the system detects supposed impairment after you're already moving? Can a sober driver override a false reading? How will manufacturers prove their systems work? Who is responsible when they don't?Nobody wants a drunk driver on the road. Nobody wants to end up in “kill-switch jail” because the computer got it wrong either.

Former ESPN reporter Britt McHenry was reportedly forced to resign from the State Department after a bizarre confrontation caught on video at an NBA game.Videos obtained by TMZ show McHenry at the Washington Wizards game on Wednesday tossing a drink at a fan and then blowing a kiss at the fan twice as she leaves the section.'It was an unfortunate situation, and that's why drinks were thrown.'A source familiar with the matter told Page Six that McHenry was asked to resign as press adviser for the U.S. State Department on Thursday and that she had just been promoted to another position earlier that day."She was promoted and fired within 24 hours," the source said to Page Six.A spokesperson for the State Department told Page Six the department would not comment on internal personnel matters.YouTuber Andrew Fenichel posted a video saying that he was with McHenry at the game and claimed that the other fan had been making misogynistic and inappropriate jokes about the players."It was an unfortunate situation, and that's why drinks were thrown," he said.He said that McHenry ended up leaving and that he watched the rest of the game from another section.Fenichel also felt the need to explain that he is "not MAGA" despite his friendship with McHenry.Other witnesses told Page Six the rowdy fan tossed a drink at McHenry first and that fans then booed and chanted, "Get her out!"RELATED: Fox Nation's Britt McHenry reveals that she has a brain tumor McHenry claimed in 2017 that she was fired from ESPN over her conservative views and later sued Fox News over alleged repeated sexual harassment from a co-host. They settled the case, and she left Fox Nation.The Wizards won the home opening game 128 to 116.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Illegal aliens do not have due process rights that entitle them to bond hearings during deportation proceedings, according to a pivotal ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.The Trump administration has been fast-tracking removal proceedings in order to fulfill the president's promise of mass deportations.'Big win in the Fifth Circuit on mandatory detention for illegal aliens, a principle codified in 1996 legislation but ignored by the deep state for decades.'That effort got a significant boost from a split ruling Friday that found illegal immigrants are not due their Fifth Amendment rights because they have not been admitted into the United States.The lawsuit arose out of the detentions of three illegal aliens in Texas who were refused a bond hearing. None had criminal histories, according to the American Immigration Council.Judge Cory Wilson wrote the majority opinion in the 10 to 7 ruling. "Because Petitioners have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided before they may be detained pending removal," Wilson wrote."Big win in the Fifth Circuit on mandatory detention for illegal aliens, a principle codified in 1996 legislation but ignored by the deep state for decades," responded James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. Politico called it the "most consequential ruling yet" in support of the president's deportations plan.The American Immigration Council called the decision an "affront" to the Constitution.RELATED: Federal court SLAPS down New York and hands victory to Trump and ICE "The principle at stake here is simple: If the government wants to detain someone, it has to explain why depriving them of their liberty is necessary," said AIC litigation attorney Rebecca Cassler."And anyone who is detained has the right to ask a judge for review of that detention. Instead, this ruling allows the government to lock people up when detention plainly serves no purpose, and without any way to challenge it," she added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

From WNBA players leaving the court before the national anthem to LeBron James stretching through it — BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock sees a troubling pattern in professional basketball.“This has been a bit of a tradition in the WNBA — teams not being on the court for the national anthem," Whitlock explains, noting that while they have a list of excuses as to why they skip it, he believes it doesn’t actually have anything to do with them.“The predominant number of WNBA players and teams do not want to be on the court during the national anthem. That’s been going on since Colin Kaepernick, since it became a fad and a trend. I think it’s a mistake,” he says.And LeBron James has been doing it as well. “LeBron James has a little tradition of his own that is getting more attention at the beginning of this NBA season because Game 1, night one in Madison Square Garden, his new team, the Philadelphia 76ers, are playing at Madison Square Garden against the defending champions,” Whitlock explains."During the national anthem," LeBron has been “doing some sort of stretching routine, some sort of golf-swing routine, some sort of free-throw or jump-shot routine during the national anthem.”While Whitlock notes that as an older man, LeBron likely does need more warm-up time, he also believes “there’s something bigger going on.”“What we’re seeing from LeBron James, what we’ve seen and have seen from the WNBA, is a lack of gratitude,” he says, explaining that this points to a lack of wisdom.“As you get wise, you understand the routine of the national anthem. And you understand the mentality of gratitude. The Bible is a story that should hammer home to people like, man, we got a lot to be grateful for. No matter what country we’re living in, we have a lot to be grateful for,” Whitlock says.And you don’t have to agree with everything the country has done in order to be grateful for what it has given you.“We have a lot to be grateful for,” Whitlock says, “but when you live in a secular society, people aren’t filled with gratitude.”Rather, he says, “they’re filled with complaint.”“And even someone like LeBron James, who was born to a single mother, who — the mother was 16 years old — born in the ghetto, born into poverty, not knowing his father, was able to rise up to be a billionaire with a wife, with three kids, live in mansions scattered all across America, all across the globe,” he explains.And Whitlock believes they’re sending out a “smoke signal” in order to let "black people that have a complaint with America" know they’re “on their side.”“And so,” he says, “instead of expressing gratitude of any kind during those two minutes, they got to let off a complaint.”Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.