SB 315, the “AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025,” would direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule requiring AM radio access in passenger motor vehicles. The rule would require that vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States include as standard equipment a device capable of receiving AM broadcast stations and playing their content, and that access be easily available to drivers. Manufacturers could satisfy the requirement by installing devices that receive digital audio AM broadcasts as well. The bill also requires interim labeling for vehicles sold before the rule takes effect if they do not include AM reception, and it bars manufacturers from charging a separate fee or surcharge for AM access during that interim period.
The bill would also preempt state and local laws on access to AM broadcast stations in passenger vehicles, meaning states and political subdivisions could not impose their own requirements in this area after enactment. Enforcement would be handled through existing motor vehicle safety penalty and injunction provisions under title 49 of the U.S. Code. In addition to the mandate, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to study emergency alert dissemination, including the role of AM radio in the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), and to brief and report to Congress on findings and recommendations. The Secretary of Transportation would also have to provide periodic five-year reports on the rule’s impacts and possible technological changes to improve emergency alerts.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s sponsorship is strongly supportive and bipartisan. The measure was introduced with a large group of Senate cosponsors from both parties, suggesting broad interest in preserving AM radio access in vehicles. The bill was reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee with an amendment, which indicates committee-level support and some refinement of the original text rather than outright opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the policy rationale for mandating AM radio in modern vehicles, especially given the costs and design choices for automakers and the availability of other emergency communication technologies. The bill itself anticipates that debate by requiring a GAO study on whether other IPAWS technologies can reliably reach the public, including at night, and by allowing a longer compliance period for smaller manufacturers. Another likely issue is federal preemption of state and local requirements, which removes room for states to set their own vehicle-access standards for AM radio.
Impact
The bill would add a new federal motor vehicle equipment requirement under the Secretary of Transportation’s authority, effectively creating a nationwide standard for AM radio access in passenger vehicles. It would affect manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles sold, imported, or shipped in interstate commerce in the United States, and it would preempt any conflicting state or local laws on AM radio access in passenger vehicles. It also ties enforcement to existing federal civil penalty and injunctive mechanisms under title 49, and it creates new reporting and study obligations for GAO and the Department of Transportation related to emergency alerting and public safety.
Sentiment
Overall sentiment appears favorable and bipartisan. The bill was introduced by a large cross-party coalition of senators and was reported out of committee with an amendment, which suggests the concept has substantial support. The framing of the bill emphasizes public safety, emergency alerts, and preserving a familiar broadcast medium, which likely contributes to its positive reception among supporters.
Contention
The central controversy is whether federal law should require AM radio in all passenger vehicles, particularly as automakers increasingly rely on digital infotainment systems and other communications technologies. Supporters appear to view AM radio as an important, resilient emergency alert tool and a way to preserve access to public information, while skeptics may question whether the mandate is necessary or technologically outdated. Additional contention may arise over the compliance timeline for manufacturers, the interim labeling and no-surcharge rules, and the bill’s express preemption of state and local requirements.