Why the Monthly Payment Is the Wrong Number to Focus On

The monthly payment is a cash flow number. It tells you whether you can keep the lights on week to week. It tells you almost nothing about what the truck actually costs.

What the truck actually costs is the purchase price plus every dollar of interest you pay from your first payment to your last. That number, the total cost of the loan, is what you need to know before you sign anything. On a typical owner-operator truck loan in the current market, the total interest paid over the life of a 60-month term can represent 20 to 30 percent of the purchase price on top of what you owe for the truck itself. On a longer term or at a higher rate, it can exceed 35 percent. Those are not small numbers on a $75,000 purchase.

The calculation to produce this number is not complicated. It requires the purchase price, the interest rate expressed as APR, the loan term in months, and about five minutes with a spreadsheet or an online amortization calculator. What it requires first is understanding why the interest is structured the way it is.

What Amortization Actually Means

Every standard truck loan uses a structure called amortization, which means the total debt is divided into equal monthly payments across the loan term, with each payment covering a portion of principal, the amount you borrowed, and a portion of interest, the lender’s charge for lending it to you. The payment amount stays the same every month. What changes is the split between principal and interest inside each payment.

In the early months of the loan, the outstanding balance is high. Because interest is calculated as a percentage of the outstanding balance, the interest component of each payment is large and the principal component is small. As you pay down the balance, the interest portion shrinks and the principal portion grows, until in the final months of a well-structured loan the payments are almost entirely principal.

This is what finance professionals mean when they say a loan is front-loaded with interest. It is not a trick or a deception. It is the mathematical consequence of charging interest on an outstanding balance that is large at the start and small at the end. RateGenius, which publishes educational material on loan amortization, describes it this way: payments made toward a newer loan direct more money toward interest. As the term goes on, less and less goes toward interest and more goes toward paying down the balance.

The practical implication for an owner-operator is this: if you sell the truck or trade it in two years into a five-year loan, you have paid two years of payments but reduced the principal balance by far less than two-fifths of the loan amount, because a disproportionate share of your first two years of payments went to interest. You have not built equity at the pace the payment count might suggest.

The Calculation, Worked in Plain Numbers

Walk through a specific example so the math is concrete rather than abstract.

A used 2022 Kenworth T680 priced at $75,000. Down payment of $10,000, so the financed amount is $65,000. Interest rate of 9 percent APR, a rate in the current range for an owner-operator with established authority and decent credit, as documented by our May 2026 analysis of the commercial truck financing market. Loan term of 60 months.

The monthly payment on those terms is $1,349. The dealer or lender will tell you this number confidently and move on to discussing the truck.

Here is what they will not tell you unless you ask. Over 60 payments of $1,349, you will pay a total of $80,940 to retire the loan. You borrowed $65,000. The difference, $15,940, is the total interest paid. Add your $10,000 down payment and the total cash you spent to own that truck is $90,940. The truck cost $75,000 on the sticker. It cost you $90,940 to acquire. That is a 21 percent premium over the purchase price paid purely in financing cost.

Now change one variable. Extend the term to 84 months, which some lenders offer on commercial truck loans, asCrestmont Capital’s 2026 commercial truck financing guide confirms is available. The monthly payment drops to $1,031. Dealers love this conversation because the lower payment makes the purchase feel more affordable. Here is what happens to the total cost. Over 84 payments of $1,031, you pay $86,604. Subtract the $65,000 principal and total interest paid is $21,604. The truck that cost $80,940 all-in at 60 months now costs $96,604 all-in at 84 months. You are paying $5,664 more to own the same truck and get a smaller monthly payment. That trade is sometimes the right one for cash flow management. It should be made deliberately, with the total cost in front of you, not because the monthly payment felt more comfortable.

Why the First Payment Is Almost Entirely Interest

On the $65,000 loan at 9 percent APR, the monthly interest rate is 0.75 percent (9 divided by 12). In month one, your interest charge is 0.75 percent of $65,000, which equals $487.50. Your payment is $1,349. The principal paid in month one is $1,349 minus $487.50, which equals $861.50. Your outstanding balance after the first payment is $65,000 minus $861.50, which is $64,138.50.

You made a $1,349 payment and reduced the balance by $861.50. The other $487.50 went to the lender as the cost of having borrowed the money for that month. This ratio improves over time as the balance falls. By month 30, at the midpoint of the 60-month term, your outstanding balance is approximately $35,000. The monthly interest charge at that point is 0.75 percent of $35,000, which is $262.50. The principal portion of your payment has grown to $1,086.50. In the final month, nearly all of your payment is principal and the interest component is a few dollars.

The Bankrate mortgage amortization guide documents the same structure across all amortizing loans: interest payments are front-loaded, meaning it takes a significant amount of time to reduce the principal and build equity. The math is identical whether the loan is a mortgage, a car loan, or a commercial truck loan. The lender is not doing anything improper. This is simply how amortizing loans work, and an operator who does not understand it will consistently overestimate how much equity they have built after the first year or two of payments.

APR Versus the Stated Interest Rate: The Gap That Costs Money

The annual percentage rate and the interest rate are related but not the same number, and the difference matters when comparing loan offers.

The interest rate is the cost of borrowing expressed as a percentage of the principal per year. It does not include fees. The APR includes the interest rate plus any lender fees, origination charges, and required costs of the loan expressed as an annualized percentage. By law, lenders must disclose the APR under the Truth in Lending Act, which makes it the correct comparison point between competing loan offers.

A lender advertising an 8.5 percent interest rate on a truck loan with a $1,500 origination fee and $500 in documentation charges has an effective cost higher than 8.5 percent. The APR, which includes those fees amortized over the loan term, might be 9.2 percent. Another lender advertising 9.0 percent with no fees has an APR of 9.0 percent. The first lender looks cheaper on the headline rate and is actually more expensive on a full-term comparison.

As our commercial truck financing analysis states directly: several lenders in the commercial truck space advertise an interest rate rather than an APR. Always ask for the APR and always compare offers using APR on identical loan amounts and terms, not the monthly payment or the stated interest rate.

The Credit People’s 2026 commercial truck loan guide adds the instruction to ask each lender for a full APR breakdown including all fees, then compare quotes side by side using identical down payment and term assumptions. A side-by-side APR comparison on the same loan structure eliminates the noise of different term lengths and fee structures that can make a more expensive loan appear competitive.

The Counterintuitive Truth: Bigger Loans Often Cost Less Per Dollar Borrowed

Here is the data point most owner-operators have never considered, and it changes how you think about the buy-versus-save-and-pay-cash decision.

Lenders have fixed costs to underwrite, process, and service a loan regardless of its size. An origination review, a title search, document preparation, and ongoing servicing infrastructure cost roughly the same whether the loan is $15,000 or $75,000. On a $15,000 loan, those fixed costs represent a larger percentage of the loan amount, and the lender’s margin on a smaller loan is thinner. Both factors push rates higher on smaller loan amounts.

The Credit People’s current rate analysis confirms this dynamic directly: specialty lenders charge APRs between 7 and 12 percent or higher for sub-prime credit, with rates typically lower for larger loan amounts and strong collateral. Truckers Finance’s 2026 owner-operator financing guide notes that operators in the prime bracket with two or more years in business see rates between 7 and 12 percent, while startup operations pay 15 to 22 percent, and the collateral value of the truck is a primary underwriting input.

In practical terms, an owner-operator financing a $15,000 truck at a specialty lender with limited credit history may be quoted 18 to 22 percent APR. The same operator financing a $65,000 truck with a stronger collateral position may qualify for 11 to 14 percent APR. The monthly payment on the more expensive truck is higher, but the total interest as a percentage of the loan amount is lower. The cost per dollar borrowed is less on the larger loan.

This does not mean buying a more expensive truck is always better. It means the assumption that a cheaper truck is automatically the lower-cost financial decision ignores the rate differential that financing cost creates at different loan amounts and collateral levels. Both scenarios need to be calculated on total cost, not purchase price or monthly payment.

How to Run the Calculation Yourself

Every operator who finances equipment should run this calculation before signing. It requires four inputs and five minutes.

The first input is the financed amount, which is purchase price minus down payment. The second is the APR, confirmed in writing from the lender, not the stated interest rate. The third is the loan term in months. The fourth is a free online amortization calculator, of which dozens exist. The U.S. government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau maintains a free loan calculator and a detailed explanation of amortization schedules. Any major bank or financial education site has a comparable tool.

Plug in the four numbers and the calculator produces three outputs: the monthly payment, the total amount paid over the full term, and the total interest paid. The total amount paid minus the principal equals the total interest. That is the number to compare across loan offers, not the monthly payment.

A concrete comparison between two offers on the same truck makes the method obvious. Offer A: $65,000 financed at 9.0 percent APR for 60 months. Monthly payment $1,349. Total paid $80,940. Total interest $15,940. Offer B: $65,000 financed at 10.5 percent APR for 60 months. Monthly payment $1,397. Total paid $83,820. Total interest $18,820. Offer B costs $2,880 more in total interest over the life of the loan. The monthly payment difference is $48. An operator focused only on the monthly payment might consider both offers essentially equivalent. An operator who ran the total interest calculation knows Offer A is $2,880 cheaper and takes Offer A.

Prepayment and the Equity Question

One corollary of understanding amortization is understanding what happens when you pay extra toward principal.

Every extra dollar you pay above the required monthly payment goes directly toward principal reduction, not interest. Because future interest charges are calculated on the remaining balance, reducing the principal faster reduces every subsequent interest charge. An owner-operator who pays $200 extra per month toward principal on a 60-month loan does not just pay the loan off faster. They reduce the total interest paid across the remaining term because every future month’s interest charge is lower.

Before making extra principal payments, confirm that your loan has no prepayment penalty. Some commercial truck loans, particularly from specialty lenders and certain dealer-affiliated finance companies, carry prepayment penalties that can offset the savings from early payoff. The Nasdaq explanation of the Rule of 78, a front-loading method some lenders still use, describes specifically how this structure can result in less savings than anticipated when a loan is paid off early. Ask the lender explicitly whether the loan carries a prepayment penalty and whether the interest calculation method is standard amortization or Rule of 78. Standard amortization with no prepayment penalty is the structure you want.

The Trade-In Trap

Understanding amortization also clarifies why trading a truck in the early years of a loan frequently produces a situation called being upside down, where you owe more on the loan than the truck is worth as a trade.

A truck financed at $65,000 with $10,000 down has a loan balance of roughly $59,000 after 12 monthly payments on a 60-month term, because front-loaded amortization means the first year of payments reduced principal by only about $6,000. If that truck’s market value has depreciated from $75,000 to $60,000 in the first year, the owner-operator is essentially even. If the market has softened or the truck has accumulated significant miles, the trade value may be below the loan balance, meaning they need cash to close the gap or they roll the negative equity into a new loan at a higher balance.

ACT Research, which tracks used Class 8 equipment values, documented that same-dealer used Class 8 sales averaged $57,135 in December 2025. Values have been under pressure through the freight recession period. An operator who bought at the top of the market, financed heavily, and now wants to trade is often looking at a gap between trade value and loan payoff that requires cash or a larger new loan to close. Understanding the amortization schedule of the existing loan before entering a trade negotiation is how you know what that gap is before you sit across from the dealer.

For Fleet Owners: The Total Interest Budget Across Multiple Units

At the fleet level, the total interest calculation across all financed units is a planning input that belongs in the annual budget with the same precision as fuel cost or insurance premium.

A fleet carrying four financed trucks, each with a $65,000 loan balance at 9 percent APR on 60-month terms, has a total interest obligation of roughly $63,760 over the remaining terms of those loans. That is the cost of the capital structure, not the truck payments. Understanding it at this level allows a fleet owner to evaluate whether refinancing at a lower rate if credit has improved, making lump-sum principal payments in high-cash-flow periods to reduce future interest, or restructuring terms on renewal are financially justified decisions.

ATRI’s 2025 Operational Costs report put truck and trailer payments at 39 cents per mile in 2024, the highest ever recorded in ATRI’s dataset, up 8.3 percent from 2023. For a fleet running 120,000 miles per truck per year, that is $46,800 per truck in annual equipment payment cost. The interest component embedded in that number, which varies based on each truck’s specific loan terms, is the portion that can be reduced through better financing decisions. The payment is fixed once the loan is signed. The decision that determines how much interest is, happens before you sign.

Frequently Submitted Questions

The dealer offered me 0 percent financing on a newer used truck. Is that actually free money?

Rarely. Zero percent financing on commercial equipment is almost always either a manufacturer incentive program that applies only to new trucks from specific OEMs, a promotional rate that requires excellent credit and a short loan term, or a situation where the purchase price has been adjusted upward to offset the financing subsidy. A dealer who offers 0 percent and is not obligated to provide it by a manufacturer incentive program is recovering the foregone interest somewhere in the transaction, most commonly in the purchase price. The test is simple: ask for the purchase price and terms in writing, then ask what the purchase price would be for a cash transaction or a conventionally financed transaction at market rate. If the cash price is lower than the 0 percent financed price, the financing is not free. The interest is embedded in the purchase price. Calculate total cost paid under each scenario and compare them directly.

I’m two years into a 60-month loan. Does it make sense to refinance if I can get a lower rate?

Run the numbers before deciding. Refinancing resets the amortization clock on the remaining balance, which has two effects. First, if the new loan has a lower APR, you reduce the interest cost on the remaining principal. Second, if the new loan has a longer term than your remaining original term, you may extend the period of front-loaded interest and pay more in total even at a lower rate. The correct comparison is total interest paid over the remaining original term versus total interest paid under the new loan’s full term. If refinancing at a lower rate with the same remaining term produces meaningfully lower total interest, it is worth the cost of closing. If the new loan stretches the term to lower the monthly payment, the total interest comparison may favor staying on the original loan. Get the amortization calculation on both scenarios before making the call.

The lender is quoting me a factor rate instead of an APR. How do I convert that?

A factor rate is common in short-term commercial financing and some equipment financing structures. It is expressed as a decimal multiplier rather than a percentage. A factor rate of 1.25 on a $30,000 loan means you will repay $30,000 multiplied by 1.25, which is $37,500 total. The $7,500 difference is the total cost of the financing. To convert a factor rate to an approximate APR for comparison purposes, divide the total financing cost by the loan amount, divide by the loan term in years, and multiply by 100. A factor rate of 1.25 on a 12-month term approximates a 25 percent APR. On an 18-month term, the same factor rate approximates roughly 16.7 percent APR. Factor rates are most common in short-term working capital products and are generally more expensive than conventional amortizing truck loans when converted to APR equivalents. If a lender is quoting a factor rate on a long-term truck purchase, ask explicitly for the APR equivalent so you can compare it against conventional financing. Never accept a factor rate product without understanding what the equivalent APR is.

The post The Number the Dealer Shows You Is Not What the Truck Costs: How to Calculate the Real Price of Financing appeared first on FreightWaves.

The housing market continues to serve as a persistent drag on freight demand, presenting a major obstacle for transportation and logistics operators. 

While a booming heavy-industrial sector has shielded certain segments, the broader housing affordability crisis is actively suppressing volumes across multiple shipping modes, including dry van, flatbed, rail carload and rail intermodal.

According to a recent SONAR Sitrep report, high interest rates and tight housing turnover are starving carriers of the residential construction and retail shipment volumes that historically drive freight market recoveries.

Truckload capacity squeezed by less housing starts

U.S. Census data shows that total housing starts fell 2.8% month-over-month in April 2026 to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) of 1.465 million, down 0.9% year-over-year. 

Behind the headline figures, however, lies a deeper divergence that disproportionately hurts freight volume:

• Single-Family Starts Plunge: Single-family starts –which generate significantly more building materials freight per unit– plunged 9.0% MoM in April to 930,000 units.
• Multifamily Surge Masking Softness: Conversely, multifamily starts rose 14.3% MoM to 529,000 annualized units. Because multifamily buildings are far less material-intensive per unit, this surge does little to rescue lagging flatbed or rail demand.

Mode-specific squeezes

The lack of residential construction and lagging existing home sales have sent shockwaves through regional shipping corridors from open-decks to boxcars:

• Standard flatbed freight is undergoing a severe split. Traditional building materials (lumber, drywall and roofing) are incredibly soft. However, heavy industrial, data center builds and utility construction are booming. This industrial strength pushed overall flatbed tender rejections (STRIF.USA) past 40% in April 2026 and drove the Flatbed Truckload Volume Index (STVIF.USA) up an average of 48% YoY as of June 2026.
• Rail traffic for forest and lumber products is depressed. Weekly primary forest products rail carloads (RTOFP.USA) plummeted 32% year-over-year to just 788 weekly carloads as of May 23. On Q1 2026 earnings calls, Class I railroad CSX Corporation explicitly pointed out that housing affordability was “a real headwind,” with its forest products segment volumes sliding 9% year-over-year.

Macro real estate trends support the split

Broader industrial real estate developments echo the split between sluggish consumer housing and high-flying industrial infrastructure. According to Link Logistics –one of the nation’s largest industrial real estate operators managing roughly half a billion square feet of warehouse space– the oversupply correction of 2024 has run its course. 

The industrial real estate market is tightening rapidly, favoring last-mile owner-operators. National warehouse availability has also dropped for the first time since 2021 as the national construction pipeline contracted by 35%. 

Additionally, the massive artificial intelligence infrastructure buildout is fueling conventional warehouse demand and logistic spillover in the millions of square feet, according to Link Logistics executive Glenn Wylie.

Don’t get caught off guard

Discover the full ground-level logistics impact of the residential construction squeeze on dry van, open-deck flatbed, and rail volumes. Sign up for SONAR today or request a demo here to read the full Sitrep and access our library of freight intelligence reports.

[Access via SONAR] | [Access via FreightWaves Market Monitor]

Understanding the granular relationship between interest rates, regional permit pipelines and mode-specific freight demand is critical for any transportation professional aiming to capture the emerging market recovery.

The post SONAR Sitrep: Housing affordability drags down key freight sectors appeared first on FreightWaves.

Federal agents and Texas state troopers rescued 39 suspected undocumented migrants from a locked tractor-trailer moments before it was engulfed in flames following a pursuit near the Falfurrias Border Patrol checkpoint Thursday night.

According to U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Patrol Agent Jared Ashby, the incident began at approximately 8:36 p.m. Thursday when a tractor-trailer approached the Falfurrias Border Patrol Checkpoint in Encino, Texas. During an immigration inspection, a Border Patrol K-9 alerted the trailer.

Rather than stop for further inspection, the driver allegedly fled the checkpoint.

“Despite deflated tires, the suspect continued driving until the tractor caught fire,” Ashby said in a post on X.

Ashby said Border Patrol agents and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers were able to force open the locked trailer and rescue the suspected undocumented migrants before the tractor and trailer were consumed by flames. All occupants were medically screened for injuries before being taken into custody.

The pursuit ended near Linn, a rural community in Hidalgo County along U.S. Highway 281, about 46 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border crossing in Pharr, Texas. 

The incident forced the closure of southbound lanes on the highway, one of the primary freight corridors connecting the Rio Grande Valley with the rest of Texas. Authorities later reopened the roadway.

Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra posted on social media Thursday night that the truck was involved in a human smuggling incident and was being pursued by law enforcement when it caught fire approximately six miles north of Linn. 

The blaze drew a large response from local firefighters and law enforcement agencies. The sheriff’s office provided a photograph showing the trailer heavily damaged by fire while emergency crews worked to extinguish the flames. No serious injuries have been reported.

The post Migrants rescued from burning trailer after South Texas smuggling chase  appeared first on FreightWaves.

California’s attempt to impose its own meal and rest breaks on drivers–already blocked for truckers several years ago–has taken another hit, this time for bus drivers.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday said the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for bus drivers preempts the meal and rest breaks (MRB) of California. 

It’s the second time the Ninth Circuit has struck down a regulation on HOS promulgated by the Golden State. In 2021, in a case brought by the Teamsters, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued  a ruling similar to what was handed down Thursday. But that ruling impacted truck drivers, not those piloting a bus.

In the most recent case, the state of California was the petitioner to the Ninth Circuit.  

Differences between truckers and bus drivers

Federal hours of service rules for bus drivers are not identical to those of truck drivers. A “passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver”–which is how the rules describe a bus driver–is limited to no more than 10 consecutive hours of driving and an on-duty limit of 15 hours.

HOS rules for trucks are that a driver can not be on duty for more than 14 hours, of which 11 can be behind the wheel. But a driver can not be behind the wheel for more than eight consecutive hours without taking a 30-minute break.

The California rest break rule for bus drivers is that “an employee working more than five hours is entitled to a meal period of not less than 30 minutes,” according to the Ninth Circuit’s summary of the rule. 

There are other provisions in the California law that mandate a second meal break and 10-minute rest periods. 

FMCSA first checked in on California in 2018

A 2018 decision by FMCSA found that California’s meal and rest period rules for truck drivers were preempted by federal regulations. The subsequent litigation with the Teamsters resulted in the Ninth Circuit ruling that “California’s MRB rules were within (FMCSA’s) preemption authority,” according to the most recent court recap of previous action. 

It’s a straight line from that decision to the ruling on bus drivers, the court said. “Our prior decision in Teamsters largely forecloses (California’s) arguments, and we otherwise reject their claims,” the Ninth Circuit said.

The court summed up, and knocked down, California’s arguments.  One was a technical argument on the definition of the preemption authority being limited to rules on safety, rather than a law of general applicability. 

‘General applicability’

The latter argument proved relevant to trucking in the state because it was the Ninth Circuit that found in 2021 that independent contractor law AB5 was a “law of general applicability” as applied to trucking, and wasn’t therefore preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. That decision overturned an earlier injunction against AB5 being implemented against California trucking, and kicked off the process that ultimately led to AB5 being fully implemented in the state’s trucking sector.

Other arguments made by California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is likely to be the state’s next governor, but shot down by the Ninth Circuit, include an argument that California’s rule to have bus drivers take a mid-shift break can’t be found in federal regulations, so the state’s rule does not conflict with any federal standard. The court’s response: “Although it is true that federal HOS regulations do not require that drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles take a mid-shift break, they still dictate how long a driver may remain on duty before a mandatory off-duty period.”

The court also held the California rules would create a “significant operational burden.”

“The administrative record is replete with commentary about the negative effects of California’s MRB rules upon passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle operations,” the court wrote in its opinion. “These include comments about the disruptive and costly nature of complying with California’s MRB rules, as well as the difficulty of maintaining scheduled operations.”

More articles by John Kingston

Texas court nixes shipper liability in Home Depot/Werner case

Carrier Nussbaum sets driver pay increase; others popping up more quietly

Amazon scores big win at NLRB over whether it’s a joint employer with DSPs

The post California’s meal break rule for bus drivers shot down by federal court appeared first on FreightWaves.

A California woman is asking federal regulators to temporarily restore commercial driver’s license eligibility for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, setting up a new chapter in the ongoing debate over immigration status and access to trucking and transportation jobs.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced Tuesday that it has received an exemption request from Jenifer Sanchez Vilchis seeking permission for states to issue Class B passenger-vehicle commercial driver’s licenses to DACA recipients who hold valid Employment Authorization Documents. 

The agency is accepting public comments through July 2 before deciding whether to grant or deny the request.

According to the Federal Register notice, Sanchez Vilchis is seeking an immediate temporary exemption that would allow state driver licensing agencies to issue Class B CDLs to DACA holders under the same conditions as other individuals authorized to work in the U.S.

FMCSA said it will review Sanchez Vilchis’ application, safety analyses and public comments before determining whether granting the exemption would provide a level of safety equivalent to or greater than existing regulations. The agency has authority under federal law to grant exemptions from motor carrier safety regulations on a case-by-case basis.

If approved, the exemption could provide a temporary pathway for DACA recipients seeking Class B commercial driving jobs while federal regulators continue implementing the broader overhaul of non-domiciled CDL requirements.

Related: They Grew Up Here, They Work Here – What the CDL Fight Over DACA Really Means for Trucking

The petition arrives just months after FMCSA implemented stricter eligibility standards for non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses.

In February, FMCSA finalized regulations requiring states to limit non-domiciled CDL issuance to foreign nationals who can provide specific forms of lawful immigration documentation, including certain H-2A agricultural worker visas, H-2B temporary worker visas and E-2 treaty investor visas. The rule took effect March 16 and excluded most DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing non-domiciled commercial driving credentials.

Under the current rules, DACA recipients generally do not meet FMCSA’s definition of lawful immigration status for purposes of obtaining a non-domiciled CDL, despite possessing federal employment authorization documents that allow them to legally work in the U.S.

The issue has become increasingly significant as states across the country reevaluate their non-domiciled CDL programs.

Ohio officials recently announced they are reviewing approximately 5,000 commercial driver’s licenses held by non-permanent U.S. residents as part of a broader effort to verify compliance with revised federal standards. California, Washington, Colorado and Pennsylvania have also paused or reassessed portions of their non-domiciled CDL programs amid heightened federal scrutiny.

Related: Ohio reviews 5,000 nonresident CDLs amid federal compliance crackdown

Texas recently resumed issuing non-domiciled CDLs to temporary agricultural workers holding H-2A visas after receiving federal approval, but state officials said eligibility remains limited under FMCSA’s revised rules. 

Federal regulators estimate roughly 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders currently exist nationwide, with approximately 194,000 expected to become ineligible to renew as licenses expire under the new requirements.

The broader crackdown on commercial driving credentials and immigration-related compliance has coincided with intensified enforcement actions involving foreign commercial drivers. More than 3,000 Mexican truck drivers have reportedly lost authorization to enter the U.S in recent months as federal agencies increased enforcement of cabotage and visa regulations, according to industry officials in Mexico.

The debate surrounding DACA recipients and commercial driving jobs has drawn growing attention within the trucking industry.

DACA, created in 2012, provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to certain individuals brought to the U.S. as children. 

According to recent industry analysis, more than 500,000 people currently hold active DACA status nationwide, many of whom have spent most of their lives in the U.S. and possess valid federal employment authorization documents.

Related: Thousands of Mexican truckers lose US visas over cabotage violations

The post CDL fight reignites as DACA recipient petitions FMCSA appeared first on FreightWaves.

The big increase in truck transportation jobs reported last month reversed itself in May, leading to a level of employment that is only slightly higher than it was two months ago.

The May jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported truck transportation jobs at 1,424,800. That’s down 4,400 jobs from a slightly revised April figure.

The revision in April numbers still puts it up 4,900 jobs from March, which also was revised slightly. 

The end result is that truck transportation employment in May was just 500 jobs more than in March, after an April report–along with anecdotal and actual reports of more hiring and a tightening market for drivers–that seemed to suggest a continuing upward move in employment was possible.

But May’s employment number for truck transportation was down 2,400 jobs from where it stood at the end of last year. It’s also down almost 23,000 jobs from May 2025.

Jump in warehouse jobs

Warehouse jobs posted their fourth straight month of higher numbers. The increase of 6,400 jobs was the largest single one-month gain since May 2024, when the data showed three consecutive months with warehouse job gains in excess of 7,000 jobs.

Total warehouse jobs of 1,824,400 were still well below the 1,875,300 jobs from a year ago. The all-time high number in that category is 1,939,300 jobs in March 2022.

Trucking numbers look stronger by sectors

Mazen Danaf, the principal economist at Uber Freight (NYSE: UBER), looked under the hood at the specific sector numbers, which are on a one-month lag.

He said March totals for long-distance truckload employment was up 2,600 in March and 1,990 in April. “This growth has narrowed the year-over-year decrease to -2%, potentially signaling the onset of a recovery phase that may take several quarters,” he said.

Danaf, in an email to FreightWaves, said the recovery in trucking capacity that began after the first blast of the pandemic took “multiple quarters” in 2021 to reach its highest number. 

“Consequently, shippers should remain cautious when viewing these employment upticks, as overall levels stay critically low relative to the past decade,” he said. 

Strong numbers overall

The truck transportation decline comes against the backdrop of a strong monthly report overall. 

Aaron Terrazas, an independent economist who has worked in trucking, said the total jobs report of a gain of 172,000 in employment is the third month with such a report. And, as he said, “three months makes a trend.”

“We have now had three consecutive Job Reports that look great in the initial print, and keep looking better as time goes by,” he said in an email to FreightWaves. “Payroll gains came in well above forecasts, the unemployment rate remained stable even as new grads began entering into the job market, and payrolls for the prior two months were revised upward.”

Transportation overall was “lackluster,” Terrazas said. He noted that the trucking jobs were a reversal of April’s gains and cited the two-month high in warehouse jobs. 

Air transportation jobs were down 8,700 jobs, which Terrazas said was likely the result of the shutdown of Spirit Airlines.

“With headline job market stats this strong, there is really no compelling case for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates,” Terrazas said. “Inflation has trended higher in both top line and core categories; the job market is rebounding despite those headwinds. The Fed’s mandate looks past sector-specific payroll softness, as long as the headline numbers chug along.”

Despite the drop in truck transportation employment, David Spencer, vice president of market intelligence at Arrive Logistics, said fundamental conditions in the trucking sector have not changed.

“Capacity remains constrained as carriers struggle with high fuel prices and a shifting regulatory landscape,” Spencer said in an email to FreightWaves. “Increased pressure on cabotage enforcement as of late and the recent SCOTUS ruling on broker liability are the most recent examples of how the challenges continue to develop for carriers and drivers.”

Spencer also said the flat employment levels over the last few months could be a sign that employers are gun-shy. “Many businesses find it unsustainable to add staff after years of minimal rate growth and continuous increases in operating costs, especially with inflation fears casting doubt on the stability of future demand,” he said. 

In other data from the BLS report:

• Earnings and hours for production and non-supervisory employees in truck transportation continued to rise in April, setting yet another record. Wages grew to $32.41 per hour, but average hours worked fell to 40.5 from 41.1 in March. That data is on a one-month lag compared to the report of total employment.
• Hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees at warehouses was $25.98. That’s also a record. That figure rarely declines month-to-month, but it does occasionally happen.
• Rail employment rose slightly, to 149,600 jobs from 149,400 jobs. It still remains well below levels from a year ago, when employment totaled 155,400 jobs.

More articles by John Kingston

Texas court nixes shipper liability in Home Depot/Werner case

Carrier Nussbaum sets driver pay increase; others popping up more quietly

Amazon scores big win at NLRB over whether it’s a joint employer with DSPs

The post Up, then down: drop in trucking jobs in May mostly wipes out gain from April  appeared first on FreightWaves.

A growing clamor over the rollout of the Motus registration system by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has led to two statements issued by the agency, with notable differences in tone and approach in the pair of missives.

Motus is a new single entry point for a wide variety of interactions with registration systems and other FMCSA tools needed by the trucking community. It launched May 14. 

But complaints and comments in social media have quickly made it clear the rollout has not been going well. And in the past week, the agency responded with its two statements.

(An email sent by FreightWaves to FMCSA had not been responded to by publication time).

One of the memos obtained by FreightWaves is a more standard sort of explanation and subtle apology that might be expected from a government agency.

“FMCSA is aware of issues affecting registrants and industry stakeholders following the launch of the Motus registration system,” the memo said. “We recognize that these issues have created challenges for members of the commercial motor vehicle industry who rely on our registration systems.”

It went on to say that “resolving these issues is an absolute priority for the agency.”

FMCSA also said it is setting priorities. The most immediate goals, according to the memo, have “focused resources on addressing issues affecting insurance filings and operating authority status.”

“Customers should begin to see improvements in these areas soon as system updates and corrective actions are implemented,” the memo said. “Changes have already been made to correct the identity verification and first-time login processes.”

Praise from Barrs

A note sent to various trucking “stakeholders” by FMCSA administrator Derek Barrs had a notably different approach.

The Barrs memo doesn’t even make reference to the difficulties being encountered by Motus users until the fourth paragraph.

Before that, Barrs hails the Motus rollout as a “major agency milestone.”

“This is a vital tool for accountability,” Barrs writes. “For too long, bad actors, scammers, and fraudulent brokers have exploited loopholes in our systems, undercutting honest American truckers and compromising safety on our highways.”

Launching Motus was “an extraordinary feat of heavy lifting that involved transferring more than three decades of data across multiple legacy systems to process millions of motor carriers into one unified powerhouse platform,” Barrs writes. “In the first week alone, the system successfully received 120,000 new user applications, processed over 10,000 regulated entity applications, and helped more than 13,000 motor carriers claim their USDOT numbers.”

‘Minor issues’

After that review of the Motus launch, Barrs addresses the industry complaints, which he describes as “minor technical issues.”

“The unprecedented, massive wave of engagement we’ve seen over the last few days proves we are winning this fight, and our engineering teams are on the ground right now, working around the clock,” Barrs said.  FMCSA personnel  are working to “crush” the minor issues,” Barrs said. 

Barrs’ note links to a web page where users can submit a ticket to request help. It appears to be the page that was online prior to Motus. There also is a link to the Motus Resources Hub, which also dates back to before the rollout and its subsequent problems.

“We are incredibly proud of this historic modernization effort and confident that Motus is delivering the secure, efficient, and powerhouse registration experience our industry has earned,” Barrs says.

P. Sean Garney, co-director at Scopelitis Transportation Consulting who has worked with clients navigating the Motus system, said FMCSA had communicated well prior to the launch in instructing users on the main steps to get into the system, such as checking a users’ login.gov credentials and updating their MCS-150 form, also known as the  Motor Carrier Identification Report.

“But there’s a second part, which is about linking your DOT number, and I just thought that communication around that was challenging,” Garney said in an interview with FreighWaves. 

“We had a lot of carriers just trying to get into a system that wouldn’t let them in, or trying to link their DOT number though the system couldn’t identify their email address as being the correct one,” Garney added. “So yeah, we’ve been trying to work with a lot of carriers to help them out. There is just not a lot that we can do.”

An end may not be coming soon

Garney did not express optimism that an end to the problems is near. “I don’t have a good sense that they’re getting any closer to fixing this,” he said. 

He added that he was concerned a break in the normal upcoming schedule for posting Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) scores could mean FMCSA is shifting technical resources over to fixing the issues with Motus, impacting other FMCSA offerings. That could be a sign of the magnitude of the problems Motus is facing.

The early messaging from FMCSA, according to Garney, was “if you absolutely don’t have to interact with this system, meaning you don’t have insurance that’s expiring or you don’t have to update your MCS 150, then wait.”

Stay off it if you don’t need to be on it

But Garney said that message did not continue, which may have driven traffic to the Motus site that didn’t need to be on the system. 

Garney said some of Scopelitils’ clients have told him they’d been on the phone for hours with FMCSA. When he asks what they are trying to do in their interaction with the agency, the response is often some task that does not need to be accomplished now.

“I ask them, is there a reason you need to do that today?” Garney said. “My advice is just that if you don’t have a need to interact with it right now, I would wait. You have to  believe they’re working to fix it.”

Barrs, in his note, said something similar. “If your account is already in good standing and you don’t need to make immediate administrative changes, you can beat the rush by waiting to log in over the coming weeks as the initial excitement levels out,” he said.

More articles by John Kingston

S&P Global warns of looming problems at Odyssey as it cuts rating

Carrier Nussbaum sets driver pay increase; others popping up more quietly

Amazon scores big win at NLRB over whether it’s a joint employer with DSPs

The post FMCSA responds 2X to ongoing problems with Motus rollout appeared first on FreightWaves.