Vehicle Miles Traveled Taxes Need Not Invade Drivers’ Privacy

Americans are not unreasonable to worry about an unconstitutional surveillance program under the guise of a VMT tax, but a properly designed VMT tax need not invade drivers’ privacy. This critical distinction lies at the heart of the ongoing debate surrounding a potential paradigm shift in how the nation’s vital transportation infrastructure is financed. As both the federal Highway Trust Fund and state road programs continue to face significant shortfalls, policymakers are increasingly compelled to explore alternative funding mechanisms beyond the traditional gasoline tax, which has proven unsustainable in the face of evolving automotive technology and consumer behavior.

The Accelerating Crisis in Road Funding

For decades, the primary funding mechanism for U.S. roads and bridges has been the federal and state gasoline taxes. Enacted federally in 1956 with the creation of the Highway Trust Fund, these excise taxes, levied per gallon of fuel sold, were designed as a direct user fee: those who use the roads by purchasing fuel contribute to their maintenance and expansion. This system worked effectively for much of the 20th century, providing a relatively stable and predictable revenue stream.

However, the efficacy of the gas tax has eroded significantly over the past two decades, leading to a deepening crisis in transportation funding. Several key factors contribute to this decline:

1. Increased Fuel Efficiency: Modern vehicles are far more fuel-efficient than their predecessors. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have driven innovation, meaning drivers travel more miles on less fuel. This translates to fewer gallons purchased and, consequently, less gas tax revenue collected per mile driven.
2. Rise of Electric Vehicles (EVs): The accelerating adoption of electric vehicles, which consume no gasoline, poses an existential threat to the gas tax model. While EVs offer significant environmental benefits and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, they contribute nothing to the fuel tax revenue stream, even as they utilize and contribute to the wear and tear on public roads. According to the Edison Electric Institute, EV sales in the U.S. are projected to reach 3.5 million annually by 2025, a trend that will further exacerbate the funding gap.
3. Inflation and Stagnant Tax Rates: The federal gas tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon has not been increased since 1993. State gas tax rates have also largely failed to keep pace with inflation and the rising costs of construction, maintenance, and materials. The purchasing power of these fixed per-gallon taxes has diminished dramatically over time, leading to a real-dollar decrease in revenue.
4. Aging Infrastructure and Growing Demand: Concurrently, the demand for road usage continues to grow, and the nation’s existing infrastructure, much of it built in the mid-20th century, is aging and in desperate need of repair and modernization. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has consistently given U.S. infrastructure low grades, estimating a multi-trillion-dollar investment gap.

These combined pressures have left the Highway Trust Fund facing chronic deficits, often requiring transfers from the general fund to remain solvent, a practice that undermines the user-fee principle. State road programs are in similar predicaments, with many exploring various surcharges, registration fees for EVs, or other temporary fixes that fail to address the fundamental structural flaw in current funding.

The Case for a VMT Tax: Efficiency, Equity, and Future-Proofing

In this context, a VMT tax emerges as a more efficient and equitable user fee for the roads. Instead of charging per gallon of fuel, a VMT tax directly charges drivers per mile they travel on government-maintained roads. This simple shift offers several compelling advantages:

• Direct User Fee: A VMT tax directly aligns the cost of road usage with the actual use. Drivers pay for the miles they drive, making it a truer "user fee" than the gas tax, which is increasingly disconnected from actual road wear.
• Efficiency: By adjusting the charge based on vehicle weight, a VMT tax can accurately reflect the amount of damage a vehicle inflicts on the road network. Heavier vehicles cause disproportionately more wear and tear, and a weight-adjusted VMT can ensure they contribute their fair share. This establishes a neutral and direct user fee.
• Neutrality: Unlike the gas tax, a VMT tax is technology-agnostic. It doesn’t unduly favor one type of engine over another. Electric vehicles, hybrids, and traditional internal combustion engine vehicles would all contribute based on their road usage, eliminating the current disparity where EV drivers often pay less into road funds. This also avoids the need for a patchwork of additional taxes or fees, such as retail delivery fees or rental car taxes, which can disproportionately burden specific sectors or types of driving.
• Transparency: What could be more transparent than establishing a clear price per mile? The current system often obfuscates the true cost of roads by spreading the burden across numerous taxes and fees, some of which may even subsidize environmental programs under the guise of transportation funding. A VMT tax offers clarity and accountability.
• Stability and Future-Proofing: A VMT tax is largely future-proof. As vehicle technology continues to evolve—whether with more efficient gas engines, advanced electric powertrains, or even hydrogen fuel cells—the VMT tax remains relevant. No updates would be needed to accommodate new vehicle types, ensuring a stable and reliable funding stream for generations to come.

Despite its principled design, its demonstrated capacity in modeling to fund roads, and existing pilot programs proving administrative feasibility, the VMT tax faces substantial opposition. The crux of this resistance lies in deeply held concerns about driver privacy.

The Privacy Paradox: Public Mistrust and Government Surveillance

The strongest opposition to a VMT tax stems from the fear that it could evolve into a government surveillance program, tracking individual movements and violating personal liberties. This concern was notably articulated by Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), who posted on X (formerly Twitter) in response to analysis on VMT viability:

"Vehicle Miles Driven (VMT) taxes require the government to surveil movements and violates individual privacy. This may be implemented in states like California, and some have argued that other states should follow. No dice."

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) November 18, 2025

Governor DeSantis’s statement resonates with a significant portion of the public, reflecting a broader skepticism towards government data collection. This public wariness is not unfounded, as a landscape of existing and escalating privacy transgressions against drivers already exists.

Ongoing Transgressions Against Drivers’ Privacy

The public’s apprehension regarding a VMT tax-related monitoring program is understandable given the current climate of widespread data collection from vehicles and the deployment of surveillance technologies.

1. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs): The proliferation of ALPR cameras is perhaps the most visible and controversial example. These cameras automatically scan every license plate within their field of view, recording not only the plate number but also the date, time, and location. This data is then stored in vast, searchable databases, often shared among law enforcement agencies and even private entities.

   • Scale of Deployment: Projects like DeFlock, an open-source mapping initiative, have documented nearly 100,000 ALPR cameras across the U.S. Law enforcement agencies, toll authorities, and even private parking companies utilize them.
   • "Predictive Policing": The U.S. Border Patrol, for instance, has been documented using ALPR data for AI-powered "predictive policing," raising serious civil liberties concerns about warrantless mass surveillance.
   • Legal Challenges: The mass network of domestic surveillance created by ALPRs has sparked significant backlash. Organizations like the Institute for Justice’s "Plate Privacy Project" are actively challenging these violations in court, arguing that they constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
   • Irony in Florida: While Governor DeSantis voiced strong opposition to VMT surveillance, Florida’s own Toll-By-Plate system, which supplements its SunPass (EZ-pass) program for the state’s extensive toll roads, heavily relies on ALPR cameras. DeFlock identified over 5,000 ALPR cameras in Florida, ranking it fifth nationwide in cameras per road mile. This highlights the existing reliance on such technology for current transportation operations, even in states vocal about privacy.

2. The Vehicle "Kill Switch" Mandate: Further privacy concerns were ignited by a provision in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), specifically Section 24220. This mandate requires new vehicles to incorporate advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology, which can "passively monitor the performance of a driver" and prevent vehicle operation if impairment is detected.

   • Intent vs. Perception: While the stated intent is to enhance public safety by reducing impaired driving fatalities, the provision immediately drew criticism for its potential as a "kill switch" or an invasive surveillance tool.
   • Implementation Delays: The exact implementation mechanism remains unclear and has been delayed once already, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tasked with developing the necessary standards. If implemented, this mandate would add to the growing list of ways vehicles can track and potentially control their drivers.

3. Manufacturer Data Collection: Beyond government mandates, modern vehicles themselves are increasingly sophisticated data collection hubs. Telematics systems, infotainment units, and various sensors gather vast amounts of data on driving behavior, location, vehicle diagnostics, and even biometric information. This data, often transmitted wirelessly, is used by auto manufacturers for various purposes, including warranty claims, maintenance alerts, and even sold to third-party data brokers. Reports have highlighted how readily this data is collected and shared, further contributing to a sense of pervasive surveillance.

Amidst this complex landscape of vehicle-centered privacy violations, it is entirely reasonable for the public to be skeptical of any new monitoring program. However, it is crucial to understand that a VMT tax, by its very nature, is not and legally could not be a monitoring program designed to track individual movements.

Designing a Privacy-Conscious VMT Tax

Rather than simply grandstanding on social media, policymakers should proactively design VMT policies with robust respect for privacy. This approach is not only ethical but also pragmatic, as it is essential for garnering public support and avoiding legal challenges to what is increasingly recognized as the optimal way to fund government roads.

A VMT tax does not inherently require invading drivers’ privacy or tracking their locations or driving patterns. It does not need to know where, when, how, or why driving occurs. Fundamentally, it requires precisely one piece of information: the total miles driven on government roads within a specific jurisdiction. This information can be supplied to the government through multiple privacy-preserving methods:

1. Odometer Readings: This is the simplest and most privacy-friendly method. Drivers would periodically report their vehicle’s odometer reading, much like some states require for vehicle registration or emissions testing.

   • Verification: To prevent fraud, verification could involve photographic evidence of the odometer, occasional random inspections, or reports from authorized service centers during routine maintenance.
   • Exemptions: To account for miles driven on private roads or outside the applicable jurisdiction (e.g., across state lines), a standard exemption for non-chargeable miles could be provided. Drivers could then have the option to provide documentation (e.g., GPS logs from a personal device, if they choose) for any non-taxable driving in excess of that standard exemption.
   • Pilot Program Success: The Washington state pilot program, for instance, demonstrated that reporting odometer readings, particularly with an accompanying photograph, is a perfectly viable and publicly accepted way of facilitating a VMT tax.

2. Voluntary Location-Based Reporting via Third-Party Commercial Account Managers (CAMs): While location tracking should never be required, governments can offer location-based reporting as an opt-in option, especially for drivers who prefer convenience or who might benefit from variable pricing (e.g., congestion charges).

   • Data Anonymization and Security: The key to privacy in this model is the use of a third-party commercial account manager (CAM). These CAMs would collect the granular location and mileage data through in-vehicle devices or smartphone apps. Crucially, they would be responsible for securing, anonymizing, and aggregating this data.
   • Limited Information Sharing: Only the aggregated, total mileage (and potentially the specific jurisdiction for variable pricing) would be shared with the taxing authority, never the individual driver’s specific routes or real-time location. This model is analogous to existing voluntary driving monitoring programs offered by insurance companies, where millions of Americans already opt-in to track their driving behavior for potential discounts. These systems use in-vehicle devices paired with phone apps to track speed, acceleration, deceleration, and adherence to rules, far more data than a VMT tax requires.
   • State Pilot Experiences: California has extensively piloted programs utilizing multiple CAMs and various location-tracking tools, alongside odometer readings. Their findings consistently suggest the viability of VMT, with a strong emphasis on data security and privacy. Oregon’s OReGO program, operational since 2015, similarly offers a choice of reporting methods, including GPS devices managed by third parties or simple odometer reporting. This choice empowers drivers to select the method that best suits their privacy preferences.

Lessons from State Pilot Programs

Several states have moved beyond theoretical discussions to conduct practical VMT pilot programs, providing valuable insights into administrative feasibility, public acceptance, and privacy considerations:

• Oregon (OReGO): As the first state to implement a voluntary VMT program (OReGO) in 2015, Oregon has offered participants a choice between GPS-enabled devices (managed by third-party providers who aggregate data before sending it to the state) or simple odometer reporting. OReGO has demonstrated that a voluntary, choice-based system can work, albeit with slow adoption rates initially.
• Washington: The Washington State Transportation Commission conducted a significant road usage charge pilot, concluding in 2020. Their findings highlighted the administrative feasibility of various reporting methods, including odometer readings, and underscored the importance of public education and trust-building for successful implementation.
• California: California has conducted multiple extensive pilot programs (California Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee) testing a range of technologies, from GPS devices to smartphone applications and odometer reporting. These pilots have consistently focused on robust data privacy and security protocols, proving the technical viability of collecting mileage data without compromising individual privacy when designed correctly. Their reports emphasize the importance of third-party data management and clear privacy policies.
• Utah, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii: These states and others have also explored or conducted smaller-scale VMT pilots or studies, often confirming the administrative viability and highlighting the necessity of addressing privacy concerns head-on through transparent design and public engagement.

Broader Implications and The Path Forward

The debate over VMT taxes transcends mere funding mechanisms; it touches upon fundamental questions of equity, economic efficiency, and the balance between public good and individual liberty.

• Equity Considerations: Critics sometimes argue that VMT taxes could disproportionately affect rural drivers, who often travel more miles due to longer commutes and limited public transportation options. However, a well-designed VMT system can incorporate mechanisms to address this, such as tiered rates, rebates for low-income households, or even exemptions for specific types of essential travel. Conversely, VMT offers a pathway for congestion pricing in urban areas, which can improve traffic flow and reduce environmental impact while distributing costs more fairly to those who contribute most to congestion.
• Economic Efficiency: By tying costs directly to usage, VMT taxes could encourage more efficient driving habits, potentially reducing unnecessary travel and contributing to lower carbon emissions. It creates a clearer economic signal for road use, which is currently distorted by the gas tax.
• Public Trust and Constitutional Safeguards: The ultimate success of a VMT tax hinges on public trust. Policymakers must move beyond superficial assurances and implement concrete, legally binding privacy protections. This includes strong data encryption, strict limits on data retention, clear prohibitions against sharing personal travel data with law enforcement without a warrant, and independent audits of data security practices. The constitutional "go-ahead" will almost certainly depend on the rigor of these privacy safeguards, as any perceived or actual government surveillance would face swift legal challenges.

In conclusion, while the public is justifiably wary of government surveillance programs—a concern underscored by the existing proliferation of ALPRs and other vehicle-centric data collection—Vehicle Miles Traveled taxes do not inherently require such surveillance. Policymakers who are committed to designing VMT tax regimes that strictly adhere to privacy-by-design principles are far more likely to garner both public consent and the necessary constitutional approval. This thoughtful approach is not merely a political nicety but a fundamental requirement to ensure that the nation’s transportation systems receive sufficient, reliable, and principled funding in the coming decades, adapting to technological advancements without sacrificing individual liberties. The future of American infrastructure funding depends on successfully navigating this complex but crucial intersection of finance and privacy.