Trump administration wants to cut FMCSA workforce by 7%
WASHINGTON — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 reveals plans to reduce the agency's workforce by approximately 7% while the agency requests a slight increase in funding.
Published this week by the U.S. Department of Transportation to help appropriators in Congress establish next year's funding bills, the request cuts FMCSA's overall workforce by 89 'full-time equivalent' positions – a measure that accounts for part-time positions – while seeking a funding increase of roughly 2%, to $927 million, over last year's enacted budget of $909 million.
Adding another $135 million in advance appropriations from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, FMCSA's budget estimate for FY26 increases to over $1 billion.
'This budget provides the necessary resources for FMCSA's dedicated workforce to uphold our safety mandate effectively and efficiently, focusing on core responsibilities, modernizing critical systems, and applying common sense principles to regulatory oversight,' according to the budget's overview.
Most of the workforce cuts are slated to occur at FMCSA's headquarters in Washington. Remaining unchanged, according to the proposal, are the 852 positions within FMCSA's Office of Safety, which accounts for over 75% of the agency's 1,118 full-time-equivalent workforce.
The Office of Safety manages all FMCSA field staff and is responsible for carrying out safety programs aimed at preventing crashes, fatalities and injuries involving commercial truck drivers.
The budget request also gives a breakdown of FMCSA plans and priorities for the upcoming year, with many of those important to truck drivers being overseen by the agency's Office of Research and Registration. Among them, as outlined by FMCSA:
Fraud prevention: Refining the identity proofing and business verification services, ensuring they are well integrated with the new FMCSA Registration System.
FMCSA Customer Contact Center: Continue expansion under the direction of the FMCSA Customer Service Division to provide one-stop and one-phone-number customer support to the trucking industry. The division will continue to provide an increasing level of customer service and support to the more than 30,000 weekly customer engagements.
Broker and Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility Rule: Continue to develop the policies and procedures to oversee the implementation of the Broker and Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility Rule – to be overseen by the Broker Transparency Rule – that takes effect in calendar year 2025 and 2026.
Modernized registration system: The Registration Division will oversee the deployment and sustainment of the new modernized federal registration system, called Motus, in calendar year 2025 and beyond. The division will also be developing the policies and procedures for the new registration fraud team.
Vetting expansion: The Vetting Division will experience a significant increase in workload upon the deployment of the new registration system. The new system will screen all applications for reincarnation behavior (attempting to avoid sanctions by obtaining a new DOT number under a different company name), flagging more applications for vetting than today. The division will continue the expansion of the vetting operations to ensure every application type is properly vetted and applicants are fit, willing and able to comply with FMCSA policies and regulations.
Crash data analytics: Expand the collection of crash data elements reported by states and merge this collection with other data sources to identify the factors involved in large truck crashes. The division will analyze crash data by carrier type, size, commodity and age of new-entrant drivers to develop varying intervention strategies.
Feds taking another look at truck-broker contract rules
DOT's deregulation barrage raises compliance concerns for trucking
VIDEO: Drivers voice frustrations with FMCSA enforcement
CPAC wants Trump to overhaul FMCSA's waiver regime
Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.
The post Trump administration wants to cut FMCSA workforce by 7% appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Acrisure Announces Pricing of Notes Offering
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., June 06, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Acrisure, LLC (the "Company") and Acrisure Finance, Inc. (together with the Company, the "Issuers") announced today the pricing of $550,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 6.750% secured senior notes due 2032 (the "notes"). The Issuers intend to use a portion of the net proceeds from the notes offering, together with the proceeds from a new tranche of refinancing term loans in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $1,343,000,000, the proceeds from a new tranche of incremental term loans in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $457,000,000, and cash on hand, to refinance all outstanding 2024 Repricing Term B-1 Loans (as defined in the First Lien Credit Agreement, dated November 22, 2016 (as amended, restated, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement")), repay all outstanding Revolving Credit Loans (as defined in the Credit Agreement), fund future acquisitions and pay related fees and expenses. The notes are expected to be issued at an issue price of 100% and will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed, jointly and severally, on a senior secured basis by Acrisure Intermediate, Inc. and each of its existing and future wholly-owned domestic restricted subsidiaries to the extent such subsidiary guarantees the Company's senior secured credit facilities, existing secured notes and existing unsecured notes. The notes offering is expected to close on June 20, 2025, subject to customary closing conditions. The notes have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), any state securities laws or the securities laws of any other jurisdiction and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration. Accordingly, the notes are being offered and sold only to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers in accordance with Rule 144A under the Securities Act and outside the United States in reliance on Regulation S under the Securities Act. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any security and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful. About Acrisure A global fintech leader, Acrisure empowers millions of ambitious businesses and individuals with the right solutions to grow boldly forward. Bringing cutting-edge technology and top-tier human support together, it connects clients with customized solutions across a range of insurance, reinsurance, payroll, benefits, cybersecurity, real estate services – and beyond. In the last eleven years, Acrisure has grown in revenue from $38 million to almost $5 billion and employs over 19,000 colleagues in 23 countries. And this is just the beginning. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains "forward-looking statements" which are subject to certain risks, trends and uncertainties. In particular, statements made that are not historical facts may be forward-looking statements. Words such as "should," "may," "will," "anticipates," "expects," "intends," "plans," "believes," "seeks," "estimates," "contemplates" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results projected, expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements include statements regarding the intention to issue new notes and to use offering proceeds to repay outstanding debt and fund acquisitions. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements. View source version on Contacts Analyst Inquiries:Kent SnyderV.P., Finance & Capital Markets(616) 510-5293ksnyder@ Media Inquiries: Kate Dillon(646) 818-9115kdillon@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
UPI
13 hours ago
- UPI
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
