Why the freight industry is going to Washington

In a recent episode of the Fraud Watch podcast, I sat down with Dale Prax Strategic Fraud Advisor for Truckstop. com, to break down how bad actors are entering the system and why that conversation is now moving to Washington, DC.

What came through clearly in that discussion is that the challenge is not only the incidents themselves, but how the system allows them to occur. In May, leaders from across the freight industry, vetting platforms and fraud prevention, are meeting with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and members of Congress.

The focus is not on responding after something goes wrong, but on understanding how bad actors get into the system in the first place. As we got deeper into the discussion, Prax made it clear that the failure point is not the load. It is the entry point. The freight industry was built for speed, with low barriers to entry designed to keep freight moving.

That structure worked when trust and long-standing relationships carried more weight. Today, it creates exposure at the onboarding level, where identity is not always deeply verified. In practical terms, access can be obtained for a few hundred dollars, often within days.

The barrier to entry can be lower than that of many regulated trades, including becoming a licensed barber in some states. On paper, everything may appear legitimate, but the system is validating documents rather than confirming the individual behind them. where the gaps start Once access is granted, the rest of the process assumes legitimacy.

Freight is tendered, communication begins, and control changes hands. By the time inconsistencies appear, the load is already moving, which limits the available response. Fraud does not require bypassing the system. It operates within it. The scale of the system makes consistent oversight difficult.

There are roughly 327,000 motor carriers operating today, along with tens of thousands of brokers and freight forwarders. Oversight is handled by approximately 350 federal officers, making comprehensive review unrealistic. At the current pace, it would take decades to fully inspect and rate all companies, and about 94% do not have a safety rating.

Data inconsistencies add to the challenge. More than 177,000 companies show conflicting authority status depending on the system being used. In some cases, systems that should align do not communicate, creating uncertainty at critical decision points. Regulatory frameworks exist, but enforcement cannot keep pace with the rate of entry and activity.

The system often relies on assumptions where verification is needed, and accountability tends to come after the fact. tools help, but they don’t fix the problem The industry has responded by building tools to improve visibility.

Vetting platforms, monitoring systems, and risk detection tools have helped identify issues more quickly and provide better insight into potential risk. These tools are valuable, but they do not address the core issue. In our conversation, fraud was described as often being the result of process breakdowns rather than technology failures.

Missed steps, incomplete verification, and decisions made without full context create openings. Technology can support stronger decisions, but it does not replace the need for consistent processes. There is also a structural limitation. Many platforms operate independently and do not consistently share data. This creates gaps between systems.

As Prax described, bad actors move between platforms and take advantage of these seams. If one system identifies an issue and another does not, the risk continues to move rather than being eliminated. why the industry is going to Washington When we discussed the trip to Washington, DC, Prax made an important distinction.

This is not a general group of industry leaders meeting with government officials. It is a specific group of competitors made up of people from onboarding, vetting, and compliance, those working directly with identity, authority, and access on a daily basis. That distinction matters because the focus is not on what happens after a problem occurs.

It is on how companies get into the system in the first place. The issue sits at the foundation, and no single company can address it alone. The purpose of the meeting is not just alignment but understanding where responsibility sits across the system. Both sides are working within real limitations.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration does not have the ability to verify identity in real time across every entry point, which is the reality of operating at this scale. At the same time, the industry has developed capabilities that allow for real-time identity checks, affiliation mapping, and early risk detection.

The gap exists because neither side controls the full solution. Another key issue is the lack of coordination between platforms. The gaps are not only between the industry and the government. They also exist between onboarding and vetting systems them