Duffy’s Safety Overhaul: A Bipartisan Rift Over Road‑Safety Policy
Sean Duffy, the US transport secretary, has launched a sweeping re‑evaluation of federal road‑safety policy that has set alarm bells ringing across the political spectrum. In a press conference in Philadelphia on 24 October 2025, Duffy announced that the Department of Transportation (USDOT) would “take a closer look” at programmes previously championed by the Biden administration. The secretary framed the move as a return to “sound economic principles” and “pro‑economic growth priorities”, claiming that $1.73 billion in grants had been redirected from “DEI bike lanes and climate‑change projects” toward roads, bridges and ports.
The shift has not been without controversy. Barbara McCann, a former USDOT official who spent more than a decade crafting road‑safety policy under several administrations, retired in January 2025 just as Donald Trump’s second term began. She now says the department’s new direction amounts to “typical bullying behaviour”. “You pick someone who’s vulnerable and attack them,” McCann observed. “They decided that bicyclists are vulnerable and that they could use that as a political wedge. It didn’t seem to have anything to do with actual safety.” Her concerns echo those of a broad coalition of safety advocates, former officials and researchers who argue that the removal of evidence‑based countermeasures could make America’s roads deadlier.
Removing Proven Counter‑measures: From Bike Lanes to Speed Cameras
In the wake of Duffy’s inaugural orders, the department’s website was purged of a list of “proven safety countermeasures” that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had long promoted. The removed items included protected bike lanes, “road diets” that reduce car lanes to accommodate cyclists and buses, and three speed‑management tools: automated camera enforcement, variable speed limits and red‑light cameras. Pages detailing pedestrian and cyclist safety were also deleted, replaced by a vague statement that safety “may be included to the extent practicable”.
The purge has drawn sharp criticism from experts who point to data showing that these interventions save lives. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) notes that speed cameras are “really effective at bringing down serious injuries and fatalities”. Yet the federal government no longer promotes them, leaving states and cities to fend for themselves. The loss of the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), a comprehensive database of crash statistics that was taken offline last year, compounds the problem. While the FHWA claims the site was “down for a few months while we updated guidebooks”, the data remain unavailable, hampering research and policy development.
Targeting Immigrant Truck Drivers: A Safety Rationale or Political Signal?
Duffy’s agenda extends beyond infrastructure. Earlier this year the department issued a rule that bars non‑citizens and non‑permanent residents from obtaining or renewing commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs). The stated aim is to tighten licensing standards and align them with federal immigration enforcement, citing “dangerous foreign drivers”. The AFL‑CIO, America’s largest labour federation, responded with a letter to Congress arguing that the rule is “guided by the Trump administration’s nationwide effort to target immigrants, not by data‑based safety goals”. Their analysis shows that immigrant CDL holders were involved in fatal collisions at a lower rate than native‑born drivers, suggesting the new policy could actually increase risk.
Transportation scholar David Zipper points out that the department’s own data contradict its safety narrative. In 2025, 17 fatal crashes involving “non‑domiciled” CDL holders resulted in 30 deaths—only 0.08 % of the total road fatalities that year. Critics argue that the rule’s political overtones are unmistakable, echoing a broader anti‑immigrant thrust that treats vulnerable groups as scapegoats. As Jesus Barajas of the University of California, Davis, notes, “We know that the safety problem is a problem of equity because it tends to be communities of color and low‑income communities that are most affected.” By sidelining equity considerations, the administration, he warns, is placing additional strain on those already at risk.
Local Success Stories Undermined, Global Standing Compromised
The consequences of the federal rollback are already visible at the municipal level. Hoboken, New Jersey, a city of roughly 60 000 residents, has recorded zero traffic fatalities for more than nine years after implementing protected bike lanes, reducing car lanes and lowering speed limits on its streets. Similarly, New York City recorded its lowest death toll in 2025 since the city began tracking crashes in 1910, crediting the expansion of protected bike lanes, pedestrianised zones, speed cameras and focused police enforcement. Yet Duffy’s department has limited funding for these very tools, dismissing bike infrastructure as “crap” and a “DEI pet project” of former secretary Pete Buttigieg.
The retreat from evidence‑based safety measures also damages America’s standing on the world stage. In July 2025, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution urging member states to halve global road deaths by 2030. The vote was 162‑1, with the United States the sole opponent. US delegates labelled the resolution “a backdoor vehicle to enforce global climate pacts and top‑down environmental restrictions on freedom of mobility”. This isolation underscores a growing perception that US policy is driven more by ideological posturing than by a commitment to public safety.
Why it Matters
The decisions being made at the USDOT under Secretary Sean Duffy have far‑reaching implications that extend well beyond the nation’s highways. By dismantling proven safety programmes, targeting immigrant drivers and sidelining equity‑focused planning, the administration is reshaping a system that touches every American—commuters, cyclists, pedestrians and the most vulnerable road users alike. The evidence that safer roads require deliberate investment in infrastructure, technology and inclusive policy is overwhelming, yet the current trajectory prioritizes a narrow, car‑centric vision of “freedom to drive”. If states and cities abandon the scientific consensus and follow the federal rollback, the human cost could rise dramatically, erasing decades of progress and widening existing disparities in traffic fatalities. Moreover, America’s retreat from the UN’s global road‑safety pledge isolates it from a broad international consensus, potentially undermining future cooperation on transport safety and climate resilience. In short, the ideological overhaul of US transport policy threatens not only the safety of its own citizens but also its credibility as a leader in global efforts to make mobility safer for all.