Key Takeaways - ‘Freedom Car’ concept criticized. The proposal aims to block mandates for automated and connected vehicles, but lacks substance. - Historical irony noted. The 2002 ‘FreedomCAR’ pushed hydrogen tech, while the 2026 version opposes tech mandates. - Automakers hold the power. Without legislation, companies can decide vehicle connectivity, limiting consumer choice. - Insurance companies’ role. Insurers could make non-tracked vehicles impractical by pushing for data collection. A letter from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to the six senators steering the highway bill is ping-ponging around news feeds this week. Buried in it is one phrase we just have to talk about: “Freedom Car.” The Freedom Car concept is broadly a good one, but the way it’s being pitched is short-sighted at best and backwards at worst. What Is the “Freedom Car”? This is not a new Dodge trim level or a pitch for a government-subsidized American version of East Germany’s Trabant—though there is still some irony in Secretary Duffy’s presentation. This is also not a proposed law or specific regulation. It’s a line item in a wish list of ideas. I’ll copy-paste the exact language of what was written right here. In Appendix A, under the heading Protecting Consumer Choice, Duffy wrote the following: “Freedom Car – Right to Drive Disconnected and Non-Automated: Prohibit any Federal, State, tribal, or local authority from mandating that vehicles sold or operated on public roads be equipped with automated driving systems or be capable of transmitting data wirelessly.” Then it’s mentioned again in the body on page three: “Protecting Consumer Choice: We must protect the right of Americans to purchase and drive traditional vehicles by prohibiting any mandates that would require vehicles to be capable of wireless data transmission or automated driving.” Republicans Also Pitched ‘FreedomCAR’ in 2002 Here’s the irony I alluded