The Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026, authored by a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers, seeks a permanent ban for Chinese-made vehicles and connected automotive technologies. The legislation, which sets its sights on issues related to national security, automotive manufacturing, supply chains, connected-vehicle data, and competition, is sponsored in the Senate by Senators Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich), and in the House by Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.). The legislation builds on previous federal actions related to connected vehicles and related technologies.

The legislation would apply not just to entire vehicles. The proposed restrictions would also span connected-vehicle hardware, software, data systems, manufacturing, imports, sales, and other links in the automotive supply chain related to the designated foreign adversaries. China leads the legislation; proposed provisions also apply to Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Advocates say the restrictions are necessary to safeguard American manufacturing, jobs, classified information, and national security – but the larger discussion also involves vehicle accessibility and affordability, trade policy, and the future of automotive innovation.

1. Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026

The Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026 is a broad federal bill aimed at establishing statutory limits on certain foreign-connected automotive technologies in the US. The Senate bill was introduced by Senators Bernie Moreno and Elissa Slotkin; the House companion was introduced by Representatives John Moolenaar and Debbie Dingell. Focused heavily on China-based vehicles and related technologies, the legislation treats the issue as an economic security concern and not just a matter of individual vehicle imports, with the bill seeking to limit multiple phases of the automotive supply chain from manufacturing and importing to software, hardware, and connected data systems. The policy approach is directed at drawing statutory lines in the sand around technologies that the lawmakers suspect could pose security or economic dangers for the US.

Connected Vehicle Bill Basics:

• Bipartisan Senate legislation
• House companion introduced
• Chinese vehicles targeted
• Connected technology included
• National security concerns highlighted

The legislation follows earlier federal actions involving connected vehicles and seeks to place those restrictions into federal law. Supporters describe this approach as a way to provide clearer and more permanent rules for automakers, technology companies, suppliers, and other businesses involved in the automotive sector. The bill has also attracted support from several domestic automakers, labor organizations, trade groups, and materials suppliers. At the same time, the legislation remains part of an ongoing policy debate involving automotive competition, manufacturing, data security, and consumer costs. The proposal therefore reaches beyond the question of individual Chinese vehicles and into broader discussions about how connected-car technology should be regulated when it is associated with foreign adversary countries.

2. Proposed Ban on Foreign Adversary Vehicles

A key provision in the bill is a proposed ban on vehicles linked to foreign adversary countries The legislation specifically names China, Russia, North Korea and Iran in the proposed ban on the import, manufacture, sale and operation of vehicles linked to those countries. The bill also mentions joint ventures and corporate entities in those countries that would be owned or controlled by foreign adversary nations. That would make the proposed framework more expansive than simply listing the country of where a car is assembled, and would establish restrictions around ownership, control, technology and other links across the entire automobile manufacturing supply chain, supporters of the legislation say.

Proposed Market Restrictions:

• Vehicle imports targeted
• Manufacturing restrictions proposed
• Sales restrictions included
• Foreign control addressed
• Multiple adversary nations covered

The bill would, therefore, establish a far wider set of restrictions than simply requiring an import tariff or individual vehicle ban. The scope of this approach is, according to the bill’s authors, meant to cover the entire lifespan of a connected vehicle-from factory to sell, to carport and public highway. The authors claim the structure is needed to stop foreign-linked technologies from reaching US roads via other business arrangements, and the bill covers connected vehicle software and hardware-which means that even certain components or systems could also be subject to the restrictions. This would result in a regulatory approach that targets not only whole vehicles but the technologies that enable connected vehicles to move, sense, and connect.

3. Connected Vehicle Software and Hardware

The measure aims to go further than just full vehicles to connected vehicle software, hardware and data systems. Vehicle companies are increasingly using connected technology in their cars, and the bill includes restrictions on software and electronic hardware, said John Costello, vice president for global innovation policy at the Information Technology Industry Council. The legislation applies to anything developed in China or other foreign adversary countries that “can be used in, or in connection with, a covered vehicle or covered vessel,” indicating that software and hardware are also included in the restrictions. The inclusion of software and hardware takes into account the technology infrastructure behind connected vehicles, Costello said.

Connected Technology Controls:

• Vehicle software included
• Hardware restrictions proposed
• Data systems addressed
• Connected technology scrutinized
• Supply chains covered

The proposed restrictions would affect multiple layers of the automotive technology ecosystem. Hardware, software, and data systems can form interconnected parts of a modern vehicle, so lawmakers supporting the bill argue that regulating only the completed vehicle would leave potential gaps. The legislation therefore seeks to establish restrictions throughout the supply chain. Supporters describe this as necessary for keeping connected technologies used on American roads free from foreign adversary influence. The measure’s broader approach also means that automotive companies and suppliers would need to evaluate where important technologies originate and how corporate ownership or control is structured. This makes connected technology security a central component of the proposed legislation rather than a secondary issue.

4. Department of Commerce Enforcement Powers

The Connected Vehicle Security Act sets up the department to play a key part in enforcement of the new standards. Under the act, the department would be empowered to name, search and prohibit high-risk vehicle devices, components or commercial transactions that could threaten the economy or national security. These enforcement provisions are aimed at stopping tainted products and kit from getting into U.S. supply chains, not only directing the department to track finished vehicles. The department would also be tasked with tracking vehicles’ technologies, components and transactions, in keeping with the bill’s focus on securing not only completed vehicles but related technology.

Commerce Department Enforcement Role:

• Identify high-risk technologies
• Inspect vehicle components
• Review commercial transactions
• Block prohibited equipment
• Protect supply chains

The enforcement framework as drafted would allow the federal government to take actions against technologies covered by the law, including, potentially, inspecting commercial transactions and parts before they are installed in vehicles on American roads. This would help mitigate the risk that unapproved equipment could slip into supply chains unnoticed. By giving Commerce, the agency charged with regulating trade and technology, a central role, the legislation would extend automotive regulation along lines already familiar to international businesses that do business with the federal government. The stated goal expressed by lawmakers backing the bill is to prevent connected technologies on America’s roads from posing the economic or security concerns the law seeks to address.

5. Phased Implementation Timeline

The Connected Vehicle Security Act would impose the regulations over time, rather than immediately. While the Connected Vehicle Security Act proposes restrictions on software and vehicles starting in 2027, restrictions on hardware would be implemented in 2030. This delay would give domestic industry the space and time to build up different supply routes and change over to the new standards, while also satisfying the framework created in the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Connected Vehicles rule. A lag between the regulations would help account for the fact that automotive supply chains are complicated, and importing foreign-linked technologies may take time and require substantial thought.

Proposed Implementation Schedule:

• Vehicle restrictions in 2027
• Software restrictions in 2027
• Hardware restrictions in 2030
• Alternative suppliers needed
• Phased industry transition

The proposed timeline would give manufacturers, suppliers, and technology companies time to identify alternative sources and reorganize affected portions of their supply chains. This is particularly important because connected vehicles rely on numerous electronic systems and software components. A sudden prohibition could require companies to make rapid changes, while a phased approach provides additional time for planning. The distinction between the 2027 vehicle and software restrictions and the 2030 hardware restrictions also creates separate stages for industry compliance. The schedule therefore represents an attempt to combine the proposed security restrictions with a transition period for companies that would need to adjust their automotive supply networks.

6. Economic and National Security Arguments

Supporters of the Legislation Supporters of the bill cited two main reasons for the restrictions they proposed: economic security and national security. For example, Senator Bernie Moreno maintained that the American auto industry is an integral part of the country’s industrial economy, and the competition from Chinese state subsidies and pricing practices could put pressure on American manufacturers. Likewise, Senator Elissa Slotkin argued that Chinese connected vehicles pose both an economic and a security challenge, specifically citing connected technologies’ ability to collect information. These arguments combine concerns about the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry with concerns about cybersecurity.

Security and Economic Concerns:

• Domestic manufacturing protection
• Automotive supply chain security
• Connected data concerns
• Chinese subsidies questioned
• National security focus

Also within the economic portion of the debate are questions over foreign, subsidized manufacturers’ ability to compete against American firms. Those in favor contend that state-supported production and prices could keep American manufacturers and workers under pressure. Concerns for the security argument revolve around data connected vehicles could potentially collect and transmit while using American roads, a point pushed by lawmakers and security bodies backing the legislation. But the legislation also crosses over into the realm of customer affordability as the lower price of the vehicles could be appealing to people with limited finances, leading to a wider policy discussion over security, industrial strategy, prices, competition and affordability.

7. Labor and Domestic Manufacturing Support

Labor groups have been joining the coalition of supporters backing the bill. UAW President Shawn Fain has contended that US national and economic security “rests in supporting a viable and competitive American auto industry and in creating and protecting real U.S. auto jobs.” Under the labor rationale posited by supporters, restrictions on vehicles and technology linked to foreign interests could bolster US manufacturing capacity and promote investment in US automakers’ facilities and workers. The bill has also garnered backing from big domestic automakers, General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, and American Honda, also noted in the data provided above, with specific attention to US manufacturing, fair competition and secure automotive supply chains.

American Industry Support:

• UAW support expressed
• Domestic jobs emphasized
• GM backs legislation
• Ford supports measure
• Honda supports framework

Support from labor and automotive companies reflects the broader industrial implications of the proposed legislation. UAW leadership has connected the bill to domestic manufacturing, worker standards, and investment in American production. General Motors has stated that it supports policies designed to protect American manufacturing and the competitiveness of U.S. automakers. Ford and Stellantis have also expressed support for the legislative effort, while American Honda has highlighted the importance of a fair and competitive marketplace. These positions show that the legislation has attracted support from several parts of the domestic automotive industry. At the same time, the final shape of the policy would determine how companies and workers are affected as the legislation moves through the legislative process.

8. Automakers and Industry Groups Respond

The legislation has backing from several large automakers and other groups representing interests within the global auto industry who worry about China’s rising automotive manufacturing and connected vehicle security capacity. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the automotive industry group representing companies that sell cars in the United States, has highlighted the issue of China’s rapid growth in automotive and battery manufacturing. Its leadership has urged for a policy that creates level playing field conditions, while also noting that the specific provisions matter and endorsing the overall goal. However, this demonstrates the complex reaction of the automotive industry, in that automakers are not only seeking safeguards from foreign market barriers but also a practical framework of rules for an interconnected global supply chain.

Industry Policy Concerns:

• Automaker support growing
• Fair competition emphasized
• Supply chains affected
• Chinese manufacturing expansion
• Policy details remain important

Other industry groups have also pointed to the need for a robust and secure auto supply chain. The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has made the case that U.S. automaker health and the health of the auto industry are linked directly to production of domestically made steel. On their end, vehicle manufacturing restrictions could reverberate through materials producers, testing laboratories, manufacturing plants and beyond. The industry groups’ counterpoint positions the legislation as a supply-chain concern rather than limited to automotive retailing; how Congress would choose to define the restrictions, exemptions, ownership restrictions and the scope of the rules of the road will influence exactly how broadly manufacturers and suppliers are affected.

9. Chinese Automakers and Global Competition

The U.S. restrictions are proposed amid a broader expansion by Chinese automakers. BYD, Geely and Chery are among the brands that have expanded in Europe as well as Central and South American markets, the material notes. Models like the BYD Dolphin Surf and Geely EX5 point to the expanding field of Chinese offerings. Advocates of the Connected Vehicle Security Act contend the broader expansion underscores the need for America to set standards before Chinese automakers increase their stake in the U.S. market, in issues including pricing, subsidies, manufacturing capacity and connected car tech.

Global Chinese Auto Expansion:

• BYD expanding internationally
• Geely entering overseas markets
• Chery increasing exports
• Global pricing pressure
• U.S. market restrictions proposed

The international situation also contributes to the broader debate over automotive competitiveness. Supporters of the legislation argue that Chinese manufacturers have used substantial state support and aggressive pricing strategies to expand internationally. They contend that similar competitive pressure could affect American manufacturing if Chinese vehicles gain broad access to the U.S. market. The Chinese embassy in Washington, however, has criticized the approach and urged the United States to avoid what it described as an overextension of the concept of national security. This provides an important counterpoint to the arguments made by supporters of the legislation. The debate therefore includes competing views about trade, competition, national security, and the appropriate role of government in automotive markets.

10. Future of U.S. Automotive Trade Policy

The Connected Vehicle Security Act is a piece of a larger argument over how the United States should approach automotive trade, connected vehicle technology and foreign investment. The legislation aims to make the restrictions permanently statutory, rather than relying on administrative or executive action, which would offer manufacturers and suppliers more certainty and provide a durable policy framework for supply chain planning, the supporters say. The legislation also arrives as the administration and Congress grapple with how to manage a new era of global auto competition, connected vehicles and supply chains, and how to strike a balance between market access and economic and national security concerns, beyond just Chinese vehicles.

U.S. Auto Policy Priorities:

• Permanent rules proposed
• Supply chains being reconsidered
• Connected technology regulated
• Foreign investment examined
• Trade policy evolving

How the legislation proceeds through Congress, and what ends up in whatever final legislation is passed, will be key. The statutory guardrails that supporters want around foreign-linked automotive technology are only part of the policy discussion here, which also covers matters like consumer prices, trade, manufacturing and access to digital technology, not to mention the possible economic impact on US automakers. Industry groups have already highlighted how the specifics of whatever final framework emerges will matter for them. The proposal is thus more than just a policy for deciding how to design the industry going forward, but a crucial debate about the near future of the US automobile industry itself.