← Back to Blog
Trucking News

Trucking News: September 25, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

Trucking News: September 25, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

Trucking News Briefing — September 25, 2026

Today’s trucking news points to a market moving in two directions at once. Freight conditions may be improving for some segments, but many small carriers are still dealing with weak cash flow, high operating costs, and limited room for mistakes. At the same time, regulators are preparing changes that could affect driver qualification, roadside enforcement, and day-to-day compliance.

16 Trucking Companies File Chapter 7 or 11 Bankruptcy in 30 Days

Sixteen trucking companies reportedly filed for Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy during the past 30 days, highlighting how uneven the recovery remains. Chapter 7 generally means a company is winding down and liquidating assets, while Chapter 11 gives a business a chance to reorganize under court protection. Both outcomes can disrupt drivers, customers, brokers, lenders, and equipment suppliers.

For small carriers, the warning is not simply that bankruptcies are increasing. It is that a carrier can remain busy and still run out of cash. Slow-paying customers, fuel purchases, repairs, insurance, payroll, and truck payments all have to be covered before revenue becomes usable profit. Owner-operators should monitor days-to-pay, unpaid detention, fuel spending, and maintenance reserves rather than judging the business by loaded miles alone. A basic cash-flow review through a TMS such as VAU0’s TMS resources can help identify trouble before a missed payment becomes a crisis.

The most important lesson from the bankruptcy filings is simple: freight volume does not protect a carrier from a cash-flow failure. Profitability and liquidity have to be managed separately.

Trucking Stocks Draw Attention as the Industry Shows Signs of Improvement

A Yahoo Finance report highlighted three trucking-related stocks for investors to watch as the industry shows signs of strengthening. Stock-market interest often reflects expectations for better freight demand, improved pricing, tighter capacity, or stronger margins. It does not mean every carrier is already seeing those benefits on the road.

Publicly traded fleets have advantages that many small carriers do not, including broader customer bases, purchasing power, access to capital, and the ability to spread technology and administrative costs across thousands of trucks. Small fleets should treat the stock discussion as a market signal, not as a reason to chase volume. Watch the underlying indicators: contract and spot rates, tender rejection activity, diesel costs, used-truck prices, and the amount of time equipment sits empty. If larger fleets are becoming more optimistic, that may eventually support rates, but pricing power still depends on the lane and freight type.

U.S. Trucking Market Moves From Freight Recession Toward a Capacity Crisis

An analysis from Mexico Business News describes the U.S. trucking market as shifting from a freight recession toward a potential capacity crisis. The industry has spent much of the downturn working through excess capacity, weak rates, and carrier exits. If demand improves while bankruptcies and business closures continue removing trucks, the balance can change quickly.

That shift could create better opportunities for carriers with reliable equipment and disciplined operations, but it may also bring more volatility. Shippers may face tighter capacity, while carriers could see stronger rates on certain lanes and more negotiating leverage. Small carriers should avoid assuming that every market will recover at the same speed. A regional manufacturing lane may tighten before long-haul dry van freight, and seasonal demand can create temporary spikes that do not justify permanent cost increases.

Carriers should use this period to improve their operating data. Track revenue per truck, loaded and empty miles, accessorial recovery, customer concentration, and maintenance cost per mile. Better data helps an owner decide whether to add equipment, replace an aging truck, or simply protect cash until the recovery is clearer.

Truckers Support FMCSA Proposal to Strengthen English-Proficiency Enforcement

Truckers are expressing support for a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposal that would give enforcement more authority when a commercial driver cannot meet English-language proficiency requirements. English proficiency rules already exist, but the proposal is aimed at making violations more consistent and meaningful during inspections and enforcement actions.

For carriers, the practical issue is preparation and consistency. Drivers must be able to understand and respond to official questions, read traffic signs, communicate during inspections, and understand safety-related instructions. A carrier that treats language qualification as a paperwork item could face preventable roadside problems, especially if enforcement standards become more direct.

Small fleets should review how drivers are evaluated during onboarding and whether qualification records are complete. Dispatchers should also avoid placing drivers in situations where communication problems create safety or compliance risks. The VAU0 compliance resources can support a broader review of driver files, training records, and recurring qualification checks. The goal should not be to create unnecessary barriers; it should be to make sure every driver can safely perform the communication duties required by the job.

FMCSA’s 2026 Regulatory Agenda: Rules Trucking Companies Should Watch

FleetOwner outlined several FMCSA regulatory items to watch in the agency’s 2026 agenda. Regulatory agendas are not the same as final rules, and timelines can change, but they provide an early look at where compliance work may be headed. For carriers, the value is in preparing before a proposal becomes an urgent implementation project.

Potential changes involving driver qualification, safety enforcement, electronic records, equipment standards, and operating requirements can affect staffing, training, insurance, and administrative workload. A rule that appears minor on paper may require updates to forms, dispatch procedures, driver handbooks, or internal audits. Small carriers often feel these changes more sharply because the owner, safety manager, and operations manager may all be the same person.

Do not wait for a final effective date to organize records. Keep driver qualification files current, review inspection results for repeat issues, and maintain a calendar for renewals and required reviews. Carriers using digital tools should confirm that their TMS and compliance workflows can store documentation and produce it quickly when needed. Early preparation is usually cheaper than rushing to correct missing records after enforcement begins.

What carriers should do this week

  • Review the next 30 days of cash needs, including fuel, payroll, insurance, truck payments, repairs, and taxes.
  • Audit customer payment performance and follow up on unpaid detention, layover, lumper, and other accessorial charges.
  • Check every driver’s qualification file, medical documentation, training records, and English-proficiency readiness.
  • Track lane-level rates, empty miles, utilization, and maintenance cost before adding trucks or accepting lower-margin freight.
  • Follow FMCSA developments and update company procedures early instead of waiting for a final compliance deadline.
← Back to Blog For Carriers →
Why We Built ESSE Instead of Buying Another TMS | ESSE Blog
Our Story

Why we built ESSE instead of buying another TMS

In 2022, we were running a small fleet and spending approximately $400 per truck per month on software. TMS license, ELD subscription, e-sign service, separate accounting integration. Four different logins. Four different monthly invoices. Four different support teams to call when something didn't work.

None of it talked to each other without manual data entry.

The software evaluation that changed everything

We spent three months evaluating every major TMS and fleet management system on the market. AscendTMS, McLeod, Motive, EZLogz, KeepTruckin, TruckingOffice, Axon. We signed up for demos, trials, and in two cases, paid for actual subscriptions to test them properly.

What we found was consistent across almost all of them: the software was built by people who had never dispatched a truck. You could tell immediately. The terminology was slightly wrong. The workflows assumed steps that no real dispatcher would take. The ELD and TMS were always separate systems that "integrated" — meaning they sometimes shared data, if you configured things correctly, and the configuration broke whenever either vendor pushed an update.

"The best way to evaluate trucking software is to use it under real pressure. Not in a demo. Not in a test environment. On a real load, with a real deadline, when a broker is calling every 30 minutes for an update."

The specific things that were broken

Without naming specific vendors: one major TMS required five screen transitions to update a load status. Not five clicks — five full page navigations. On a mobile browser from a truck stop, that meant 45 seconds to tell a broker the truck was loaded. Another system had beautiful analytics dashboards but couldn't tell you, in real time, how many hours of drive time your driver had remaining without navigating to a separate compliance module.

The ELD market was worse. Most ELD systems were designed to satisfy FMCSA's technical requirements — which they did — while making the user experience as painful as possible. Drivers hated them. When drivers hate their tools, they find workarounds. Workarounds create compliance risk.

The moment we decided to build

The decision was made on a Tuesday afternoon when our dispatcher spent 40 minutes re-entering data from a rate confirmation PDF that our ELD had already captured in a different system. The information existed. It was digital. It lived in three different places that didn't talk to each other, and a human was manually transferring it between systems.

That's not a technology problem. That's a lack of ambition problem. Nobody had decided to solve it because the existing systems were profitable enough without solving it.

What we decided to build instead

One platform. ELD and TMS as the same system, not integrations. AI that reads rate confirmation PDFs so dispatchers don't have to. A dispatcher — eventually an AI dispatcher — that covers nights and weekends so loads don't get missed. E-sign built in, not bolted on.

And priced at zero through 2026, because the goal was to prove the product worked before asking carriers to pay for it.

Two years in: did it work?

The Rate Con AI has a 95%+ accuracy rate on standard broker formats. ERETH ELD passed FMCSA's technical certification. Our AI dispatchers book real loads for real carriers after hours. The carrier dashboard still occasionally has a minor bug — we fix them the same day they're reported.

Would we have been better off just using an existing system and focusing on freight? Financially, in the short term, probably yes. But we would have kept paying $400 per truck per month for software that we knew was mediocre. And we would have missed the opportunity to build something that actually works the way the industry needs it to work.

We don't regret it.

← Back to Blog Next: Our first AI broker call →