Doug Marcello
Plaintiff attorneys have a seminar title for your safety data. They call it a treasure trove.
At their conferences and webinars, they teach each other exactly what data trucking companies generate, how to obtain it through discovery, and how to make it admissible at trial. They study your telematics systems, your electronic control modules, your collision avoidance alerts, your driver performance platforms. They know what you have, often better than you do.
The goal of all of this education is straightforward: leverage your own data against you. Take the information you collected to operate more safely and use it to construct the narrative that your company represents a systemic threat to community safety — the Reptile Theory strategy we covered in Part 5 of this series.
The trucking industry’s most common response to this reality has been what I call the Discovery Fallacy.
The Discovery Fallacy
The Discovery Fallacy is the belief that if you don’t look at your data, you won’t have to turn it over. That avoiding analysis is the same as avoiding exposure. That ignorance of your own safety record is a litigation strategy.
It is not. It is the opposite.
The data exists whether you look at it or not. Your telematics system is recording. Your ECM is logging. Your collision avoidance system is generating alerts. Your communication platform is archiving. None of that stops because your safety department decided not to build a formal analysis program.
What the Discovery Fallacy actually produces is the worst possible outcome: plaintiff attorneys discover data you never reviewed, surface patterns you never identified, and present to a jury evidence that your company had warning signals it never acted on. The narrative that creates — the picture of an organization that generates safety data it deliberately ignores — is precisely the systemic indifference argument that Reptile Theory is designed to exploit.
You do not choose whether your data exists. You choose whether you get there first.
The Alternative: The Identify-Analyze-Manage-Enforce Framework
The carriers that have transformed their data from a liability into a defense asset did not do it by generating less data or avoiding analysis. They did it by implementing a systematic approach to their own safety information — one that creates a documented record of organizational competence that defeats the systemic failure narrative before it can be constructed.
The framework has four steps. They are sequential and interdependent. Skipping any one of them produces a partial record that is worse than no record at all.
Step 1: Identify — Know What You Have
The starting point sounds obvious: know what data your operation generates. In practice, many carriers do not have a clear answer to this question until after an accident, when they are working with counsel and accident reconstructionists to determine what records exist and what they contain.
Your data landscape likely includes: telematics systems capturing location, speed, and route data; electronic control module records including hard brakes, rapid deceleration, and engine performance; collision avoidance and lane departure system alerts; dashcam footage, both forward and driver-facing; communication and dispatch records; driver performance and safety scoring data from any platform you use; hours of service and ELD records; drug and alcohol testing records; and training documentation.
Each system generates a different type of record. Each type of record has different preservation implications, different discovery exposure, and different evidentiary potential — for both sides. You cannot manage what you have not identified. The first step is a complete data inventory: what systems are running, what they capture, how long records are retained, and who has access to them.
Conduct this inventory before the accident. After the accident, everything you learn about your data landscape is potentially discoverable and potentially harmful.
Step 2: Analyze — Which Data Relates to Maximum Risks
Once you know what data you have, the second step is understanding what it tells you about your specific operation’s risk profile. This is where many carriers stop — they have the data but they have not translated it into operational intelligence.
Different operations generate different primary risk signals. A carrier running long-haul routes on I-80 through Nebraska is going to see a different leading indicator of crash potential than a carrier making urban deliveries on the George Washington Bridge corridor into New York. Speeding on open highway is a different risk profile than hard braking in dense urban traffic. Know which indicators are most predictive of accident potential for your specific routes, loads, and driver population.
This analysis serves two purposes simultaneously. Operationally, it tells you where to focus your safety management attention. For litigation defense, it establishes that your company conducted a genuine, data-driven assessment of its safety risk — not a generic compliance exercise, but a specific analysis of the conditions most likely to produce harm in your operation. That documented analytical process is evidence of organizational competence that directly defeats the Reptile Theory systemic failure argument.
The analysis should be documented. The methodology should be defensible. The conclusions should be specific to your operation and updated as your routes, fleet, and driver population change.
Step 3: Manage — Monitor and Respond
Identifying and analyzing your data creates knowledge. Managing it creates defense.
Management means establishing ongoing monitoring of the key indicators you have identified as most predictive of accident potential in your operation — and taking documented action when those indicators exceed the thresholds you have set. This is the step that transforms your data from a static record into an active safety management system.
The critical word is documented. Monitoring that does not generate records of what was observed and what action was taken is monitoring is difficult to defend. When plaintiff counsel asks — and they will ask — whether your company reviewed its safety data and responded to warning signs, the answer needs to be supported by a paper trail that shows exactly what was reviewed, when, by whom, and what happened as a result.
This is also where the DataQs reform we covered in the series becomes relevant internally. Just as you need to manage and challenge your external FMCSA safety record, you need to manage and respond to the internal signals your own systems generate. The carrier whose records show a pattern of identifying risk indicators and addressing them before accidents occur is the carrier with a fundamentally different litigation posture than one whose records show warning signs that were never acted on.
The documented management record is the most powerful single defense asset you can build. It answers the Reptile Theory’s central argument — that your company ignored warning signs — with objective evidence that you did not.
Step 4: Enforce — The Hardest Step
The fourth step is where safety data management becomes genuine organizational accountability — and where many carriers struggle.
Enforcement means acting on what your data tells you about individual drivers. It means coaching, retraining, and when necessary, disciplinary action or termination based on documented performance data. In a tight driver market, these are difficult decisions. The temptation to look past warning signs from a driver you need on the road is understandable.
But consider the calculus. Your best drivers — the ones with clean records, who follow your safety protocols, who drive defensively and professionally — are generating revenue and building your reputation. How many safe miles do they have to run to pay for one bad actor’s nuclear verdict? And the more serious question: will that one bad actor, left unchecked because the driver market is tight, be an existential threat to your business?
Documented enforcement is not just a safety practice. It is the final piece of the litigation defense. It shows that when your data identified a problem, your organization acted. That documented accountability — the coaching sessions, the performance improvement plans, the terminations when warranted — is the evidentiary record that defeats the argument that your company knew about dangerous driver behavior and did nothing.
The absence of documented enforcement, by contrast, is one of the most damaging things plaintiff counsel can surface. A driver with a history of speeding alerts, hard brake events, and collision avoidance triggers who is still on the road at the time of an accident — without any documented response to those indicators — is a Reptile Theory case waiting to happen.
The Choice
The Data Dilemma comes down to a single decision that every trucking company makes, either explicitly or by default.
You can get ahead of your data — identify what you have, analyze what it means, manage the key indicators, and enforce accountability when the data demands it. You create the narrative: a safety-focused organization that uses data proactively, responds to warning signs systematically, and holds itself accountable to the standards it sets.
Or you can abdicate the narrative to plaintiff attorneys. They will find your data. They will analyze it. They will identify your warning signs. And they will present it to a jury in the worst possible light — as evidence that your company had every opportunity to prevent what happened and chose not to.
The data is there. The question is who tells the story.
The DENUCLEARIZATION Connection
The Data Dilemma is Part 6 of the DENUCLEARIZATION series because it sits at the center of everything we have covered. The Reptile Theory (Part 5) requires a systemic failure narrative — your unmanaged safety data is the raw material. The DataQs reform (news reactive, two weeks ago) addressed your external FMCSA safety record. This week addresses your internal safety data. The Motus piece addressed your regulatory compliance record. All three records — external safety data, internal operational data, and regulatory profile — contribute to the organizational narrative that plaintiff attorneys construct and that a proactive carrier can defeat.
The defense that wins is built before the accident. The data management framework is how you build it.
Alex Lockie
With Roadcheck under way and spot rates hitting unheard-of new highs, and cut-rate carriers either chased out of the industry or simply shy around inspectors, Overdrive asked New Hampshire State Police the question likely on lots of truckers’ minds: Why not do Roadcheck every week?
That got a chuckle, at least.
NHSP’s Lieutenant Thomas Conlon, leader of Troop G of the truck enforcement branch, said “we’re out here every day, every week” but that Roadcheck “is when we try to really clear the schedules to make sure we have an increased presence.”
This year, Roadcheck’s focused on two things: Load securement and hours of service violations. The latter of which comes against a backdrop of widespread, turbocharged ELD cheating.
On April 1, a new out-of-service code took effect that differentiated between old-school false logs (like using personal conveyance to advance a load) to new-school entire fabrications, like calling an overseas office to hack the backend and produce spotless logs.
While Overdrive Chief Editor Todd Dills found inspectors in Tennessee and Wisconsin sharing a veritable how-to on ways to spot this new generation of cheats, inspectors in New England were a little less in-the-know, or maybe just a little more humble.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chief Derek Barrs “did a fantastic job” addressing ELD cheating on CBS News’ viral 60 Minutes story, said NHSP Sergeant Anthony Cattabriga. “But enforcement folks, we’re behind the curve on this.”
“Just like everything else with tech,” he added, industry gets it first, then enforcement figures it out later.
Basically, Cattabriga admitted that hacked logs aren’t easy to spot roadside.
“It takes detective work for us to follow through and figure out is this an actual factual or some sort of chameleon log,” he said, referring to the revolving door self-certified ELDs, which might simply rebrand after getting shut out of FMCSA’s registry.
FMCSA said it’s solved the problem of self-certified ELDs for now, and has been well on the way toward an ELD-registry clean-up. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance also has new in-depth guidance on how to catch the new generation of ELD cheats, but many rank-and-file troopers for now are still learning.
At a weigh station in Vermont, inspectors mostly agreed, saying it’s difficult, if not impossible, for inspectors to catch false logs like that.
Cattabriga said he’d seen hotshots running two ELD apps and caught them before, but he didn’t have an answer for how exactly to catch full-on ELD fabricators.
One inspector outside of New Hampshire explained that the one edge officers have roadside is that since ELD cheating with fabricated logs isn’t a criminal offense, just a ticket, the burden of proof is somewhat lower.
Rather than “probable cause,” an inspector writing a violation for HOS fabrication only needs “reasonable suspicion.”
Imagine a driver showing up to the scales with bloodshot eyes and a still-cold half-empty energy drink in the cupholder. This driver’s logs show he’s got nearly a full set of hours and just emerged from the sleeper berth.
Officers would know to double check. If digging through the cab, officers found a fuel receipt showing that driver had been in New Haven, Connecticut, four hours prior, and they were now in Lebanon, New Hampshire, a violation under 395.8 e(2) could be in order. That’s reasonable suspicion.
This kind of ELD manipulation had resulted in hundreds of violations with just a couple weeks’ worth of data in Overdrive‘s sister company RigDig‘s internal accounting, current as of roughly mid-April.
Over the first weeks of last month, the following states were making the biggest dent, with California, Washington, Ohio and South Dakota just behind them recording violation numbers in the double digits.
Those aren’t big numbers by any means. With just more than six weeks in the book as an OOS condition, enforcement will likely only get tougher from here.
What’s new at Roadcheck?
This also represented the first Roadcheck in a decade with English Language Proficiency violations generating a mandatory OOS order, and the first under FMCSA’s “aggressive” new administrator.
Conlon said ELP violations in New Hampshire were “not an everyday occurrence,” but certainly something that happened. Overdrive‘s RigDig analysis shows New Hampshire recorded just 14 ELP OOS violations in 2026 through mid-April.
As for those OOS orders resulting in drivers actually taken off the road, Conlon said New Hampshire simply documents the order, and doesn’t babysit the driver, as is often the case.
[Related: Why state police are letting drivers placed OOS for English violations go free]
Tucked away in a sparsely populated corner of the country, the state doesn’t really see a lot of non-domiciled CDLs or non-English speakers. New Hampshire is one of just seven states that never opted-in to issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
FMCSA has put a new emphasis on documentation. Inspectors now have been asked to document more and more about their interactions with carriers, in an effort to create the kind of paper trail the agency can use to shut down chameleon carriers and some of those “scofflaws” who might not even have rolled this week, according to another inspector.
Overall, inspectors in New England on this rainy day at Roadcheck had almost entirely positive things to say about local carriers, whom Conlon referred to as “partners.”
“I would say the vast majority of truckers and carriers we interact with are trying to do the right thing to keep the highway safe,” he said, “but there’s always certain elements that skip steps on purpose, or try to make as quick a buck as possible. But for the most part, this is a very safety-oriented industry.”
Tyson Fisher
When it comes to expanding truck parking, states have been telling the federal government, “Show me the money!” How does more than $1 billion sound?
Although that amount has not yet been allocated, nearly $1.2 billion is on the table. That money comes from three different bills, all of which use language similar to that of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, including prohibitions on paid-parking projects.
One of those bills, a $1.2 trillion spending package, is a done deal. Signed into law in February, that bill set aside $200 million for truck parking expansion. Just a few months later, the Department of Transportation is already getting the ball rolling to dole out that money.
On Tuesday, June 9, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced more than $600 million in infrastructure funding. That includes the $200 million for truck parking from the spending package. The remaining dollars come from previous bills, including the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Now, the federal government is accepting applications due July 15 so it can disburse those funds. The relatively quick turnaround will get truck parking projects moving forward sooner rather than later.
“From our thriving commercial space industry to our hardworking truck drivers, the Trump Administration is delivering for the American people,” Duffy said in a statement. “We are moving at the Speed of Trump to prioritize critical infrastructure needs in grants, move federal dollars out the door, and start turning dirt.”
While states and other public entities try to get a piece of that pie, there may be a much bigger pie ahead.
Currently, a new highway bill awaits a full House vote. In that bill is a near carbon copy of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, which would allocate $750 million to parking expansion projects over five years.
“If the next surface transportation reauthorization fails to provide dedicated funding for truck parking, but authorizes even a single penny of funding for new initiatives, OOIDA will use every tool it has to ensure the legislation is defeated,” the Association wrote in 2025. “Based on a history of strong bipartisan support for the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, we are confident the House will again agree this crisis requires federal leadership to solve. Together, we can deliver a key victory for hundreds of thousands of truckers across the country.”
The highway bill still needs to clear both the House and the Senate. During that process, the truck parking provision could be modified or eliminated.
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee advanced a funding bill for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD). That bill also includes $200 million for truck parking expansion projects.
If the highway and THUD bills both make it to the finish line as is, that would mean an additional $950 million in funding for truck parking. That’s on top of the $200 million already underway from the spending package in February.
Anything can happen between now and when those bills are signed into law, but 2026 could be a milestone year for publicly available truck parking.
Jenna Hume
Key takeaways
- Cargo theft losses in 2025 surged to $725M, with confirmed incidents rising and the true impact likely much higher.
- Thieves are using strategic scams, including “Trojan horse” drivers, email infiltration, and double-brokering scheme adjustments.
- Point of pickup remains the weakest link, where high turnover and limited training increase exposure to theft.
168387569 | Vitpho | Dreamstime.com
2025 was a good year for cargo thieves and, consequently, a bad year for the supply chain and the trucking industry. According to Verisk CargoNet, estimated losses rose by 60% to approximately $725 million, though the true figure is likely 10 to 15 times higher. Confirmed cargo thefts rose 18% year over year from 2,243 to 2,646.
CargoNet
The potential silver lining here is that cargo theft awareness is on the rise. According to Andrey Drotenko, president of strategic relations for Verified Carrier, awareness of strategic theft has increased in the industry as such incidents have become increasingly relevant. And this includes best practices to prevent strategic theft.
But cargo thieves are constantly evolving. So far in 2026, cargo theft experts have noted new scams, trends, weaknesses, and more.
Trojan horse scam exploits trucking vetting systems
In response to other cargo theft schemes, the trucking industry has cracked down on verifying the legitimacy of carriers. Unfortunately, in this chess match of cargo theft, the thieves have adjusted accordingly. Freight brokers and fleets are vetting carriers, but can they realistically vet every single truck driver?
“The bad guys, instead of trying to pass through some of these vetting platforms that are out there, send one of their crew members to go work as a driver at a legitimate trucking company,” Scott Cornell, chief risk officer for SPG Cargo & Logistics and chair of TAPA Americas, explained. “So now that the trucking company is a completely legitimate company, they would pass through the vetting process of any of these platforms, no issue-type scenario.”
The driver then hauls loads while communicating with their fellow thieves until a load they want comes up. The driver parks somewhere on their route, walks away, and the thieves swoop in to steal the cargo.
According to Cornell, the truck driver in these situations is often fired for leaving the cargo unsupervised in a breach of protocol. This is what the thieves want, so the driver can get hired somewhere else, and the cycle of theft can continue.
Unaware that they were being used to bypass vetting platforms, the trucking company believes it was a straight theft, when in fact it was a strategic theft. The Trojan horse scam doesn’t become clear until the driver and/or their equipment are connected to past thefts and firings. Experts have just begun to investigate and identify this particular scam.
To prevent this type of theft, Cornell says trucking companies should conduct thorough background checks on drivers. For freight brokers, Cornell recommends requesting drivers who have been employed for more than six months for high-value loads. There are also new and emerging technologies that can help verify drivers at the point of pickup as well as their equipment.
Verified Carrier
Emerging 2026 cargo theft trends reshape freight security risks
So far in 2026, there are a few other cargo theft trends emerging that the industry needs to be aware of.
Cargo thieves use hacking and email infiltration to intercept freight
Technology is not new to cargo thieves, but the sophistication of their technological theft attempts, especially via email, is increasing.
“The level of sophistication right now is increasing, whether [cargo thieves] are trying to have a domain name that looks exactly the same or going a step further and hacking into computers to where they can essentially have a team-viewer level access of what you’re doing,” Drotenko said. “And then they could go and do things from your computer, as if they’re you, and then delete any trace of emails or anything that they did … And I think that’s a new level of sophistication that in this industry hasn’t been a trend, and we’re seeing more of it.”
Cornell also emphasized increased email infiltration efforts from cargo thieves. Thieves are accessing a carrier’s email, intercepting communications, creating their own email address within the carrier’s email, and then bidding on loads. This method has also been used by thieves to commit double-brokering scams and circumvent traditional prevention methods.
Point of pickup remains top vulnerability
Cargo is at its most vulnerable at the point of pickup, a situation that hasn’t improved so far this year.
“The weakest link, though, is still going to be at the point of pickup,” Drotenko explained. “That’s where you have the highest turnover. Those people aren’t the ones who are going out to the conferences; they’re not the ones learning about the latest trends or what to look for.”
Drotenko emphasized the importance of training employees who are primarily at the point of pickup on current cargo theft trends and how to protect themselves from these scams.
Tight freight capacity challenges cargo theft prevention practices
Trucking has seen a tight freight market in 2026, as the U.S. economy has suffered and global unrest continues. For Drotenko, this raises concerns about the industry remembering and following through on cargo theft prevention best practices.
“At the end of the day, when you’re between a rock and a hard place in a tight market, you just don’t have the luxury of getting to say no to a lot of carriers to find a good one,” he explained.
Still, he encourages continuing strong vetting and verification practices, even as capacity tightens.
Overexposure of theft prevention tactics risks aiding cargo criminals
The trucking industry has made great strides in becoming more knowledgeable about cargo theft and sharing insights between fleets, brokers, and carriers, but how this information is shared has become increasingly important.
“The industry has a habit of posting its solutions on social media,” Cornell said. “The intent is good; the intent is ‘we want to help each other prevent theft.’ The problem is the bad guys keep an eye on us. They watch us, and they know what we do. And I think this is a perfect example of how they make adjustments.”
Truckers News Staff
Last week we asked, “During orientation, what single problem makes you question whether you should stay with this fleet?”
- 36.63% said, “Pay or bonuses explained differently than before.”
- 27.72% said, “Orientation is disorganized or changes last minute.”
- 23.76% said, “Hometime described differently than before.”
- 11.88% said, “I find out I won’t be getting my truck or getting on the road. when I expected.”
Last week we asked, “What improvement would make you most likely to complete more online applications?”
- 44.23% said, “Shorter first step with only basic information.”
- 40.38% said, “Being able to auto‑fill past job history/documents.”
- 15.38% said, “Having a recruiter finish the full app with me later.”
Last week we asked, “When you see a new trucking job ad, which one detail makes you believe it’s worth your time to look closer?”
- 44.44% said, “Clear weekly pay examples (not just CPM).”\
- 25.25% said, “Exact hometime schedule (days home, days out).”
- 20.2% sad, “Clear description of freight and routes.”
- 10.1% said, “Actual driver quotes.”
Last week we asked: “What is the main thing that turns a “maybe I’ll look around” feeling into “I am now applying for other driving jobs”?
- 48.99% said, “My paycheck drops and stays down.”
- 24.83% said, “My dispatcher/office changes how they treat me.”
- 19.46% said, “Company changes a policy that hurts drivers.”
- 6.71% said, “My home time gets cut back.”
Last week we asked, “If a job ad lists a pay range, where do you expect your weekly pay to fall?”
- 53.21% said, “At the top of the range.”
- 30.13% said, “Somewhere in the middle.”
- 8.97% said, “Below the range they advertised.”
- 7.69% said, “Near the bottom of the range.”
Last week we asked, “When a recruiter first calls you about a driving job, what is most likely to make you decide to end the call early?”
- 38.37% said: “They sound like they’re reading a script.”
- 30.31% said: “They won’t give a straight answer about pay.”
- 15.7% said: “They won’t give a straight answer about home time.”
- 15.12% said: “They talk over me and don’t let me ask questions.”
Employers could be unaware that a recent hire fraudulently ‘passed’ a previous drug or alcohol test to get back behind the wheel of a massive semitruck
Jacob Burg
A federal database built to flag and remove drunk and drugged truckers from U.S. highways used the equivalent of an “honor system” as its last line of defense between a family in a minivan and a substance addict steering an 80,000-pound mass of steel.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) launched its Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse in early 2020 to improve road safety by providing employers, law enforcement, and state agencies with real-time information on substance-use violations by commercial drivers.
Truckers caught driving while under the influence, or violating the Transportation Department’s alcohol and substance regulations, are flagged in the system with a “prohibited” status and must complete a return-to-duty process to reinstate their commercial driver’s licenses.
But what if a current alcoholic or drug addict could immediately get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to simply check off a box inside the database, rather than complete and pass follow-up drug or alcohol testing?
That’s how Brandon Blackburn, 34, was able to get back on the road, he told The Epoch Times. Blackburn was arrested last year on charges of driving while impaired in a construction zone with cocaine in his possession, according to the Prentiss County Sheriff’s Department.
Blackburn said his “prohibited” status was cleared by another man who simultaneously runs a trucking company and advertises his “substance abuse professional” services across a network of trucking-related Facebook groups.
According to Blackburn and evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times, Blackburn and others appear to operate within a network of actors who have been exploiting loopholes in federal rules to illegitimately clear “prohibited” commercial drivers in the federal Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.
This was revealed by evidence presented in a multiseries investigation by Rob Carpenter of FreightWaves, a news outlet focused on the global supply chain. The Epoch Times reviewed the evidence collected by FreightWaves, independently verified each facet of the story, and interviewed Blackburn, who confirmed that the scheme worked for him and others.
Trucks drive away from the Port of Long Beach, Calif., on May 15, 2026. Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, truckers flagged as “prohibited” after impaired driving must complete a return-to-duty process to regain their commercial licenses, but some can reportedly get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to check a box in the database. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times
Blackburn admitted to The Epoch Times that he cleared drivers who had been flagged with drug or alcohol violations even though he didn’t have the necessary certification to do so. He claimed some of the people he helped had their licenses incorrectly flagged in the system, and said he was trying to help truckers and veterans in need.
Blackburn describes himself as a small player across a network of actors that operates like a multilevel marketing scheme. He claimed that several others are much more prolific and are still operating.
“We’ve never seen anything like this before. It sent shockwaves through our industry,” Jo McGuire, executive director of the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, told The Epoch Times.
The implications are not just grave for road safety, but also for employers who rely on the clearinghouse to avoid hiring drivers who may be at a higher risk of bringing on a multimillion-dollar court settlement in the event of a serious highway accident.
This is how the scheme proliferated in plain sight, and why, despite new and upcoming rule changes to the certification process in the clearinghouse, employers may be unaware they’re hiring a potentially dangerous driver.
A sign in front of a business advertises driver job openings in Elk Grove Village, Ill., on April 3, 2026. Scott Olson/Getty Images
The Scheme Explained
Once a driver is caught driving under the influence, or is flagged after testing positive for drugs or alcohol, his or her license receives a “prohibited” status from the clearinghouse.
Examples of drug and alcohol violations include having a blood alcohol level of 0.04 or greater while on duty for “safety-sensitive” operations and using any prohibited drugs.
Even driving with sealed alcohol containers in the cab, as long as they are not part of the driver’s shipment, counts as an alcohol violation.
In late 2024, the FMCSA updated the clearinghouse to immediately downgrade a commercial driver’s license once the driver received a “prohibited” flag, forcing him to start the return-to-duty process to get back on the road.
As part of the return-to-duty process, a driver typically works with his employer to select a substance abuse professional who provides an initial assessment and offers education and treatment recommendations. The process involves six steps, with the driver needing to pass a drug or alcohol test on step five before completing a follow-up testing plan in step six.
The way the federal agency designed the database was critical for how the scheme unfolded. Step five only requires a testing date, rather than a copy of a negative drug or alcohol test. The driver’s employer is responsible for verifying the results and entering the date of the negative test.
However, drivers without current or prospective employers may register accounts in the clearinghouse as owner-operators and can designate third-party administrators to complete that part of the process.
A student truck driver makes flash cards for his commercial driver’s license exam while taking a class in California on Nov. 15, 2021. Jae C. Hong/File/AP Photo
This is how the scheme proliferated, based on the evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times. Employers, substance abuse professionals, and third-party administrators were only required to self-certify in the clearinghouse database. No identity verification was involved in the process.
By law, a substance abuse professional must be a licensed physician, social worker, psychologist, certified employee assistance professional, certified drug and alcohol counselor, or state-licensed or certified marriage and family therapist.
But since the clearinghouse allowed users to self-certify, anyone could check the box without having the credentials. The same was true for third-party administrators.
Based on evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times, Blackburn and others appear to have been operating in the clearinghouse with multirole accounts, including as substance abuse professionals, third-party administrators, and employers.
Some Facebook users who publicly advertised Blackburn’s services mentioned being out of work when they began the return-to-duty process, meaning they would have had to use a third-party administrator to verify and submit the date for a negative test result.
Several online databases exist for legitimate substance abuse professionals who work with the Transportation Department, including NAADAC’s directory and SAPList.com. Blackburn could not be found on either database.
U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington on July 31, 2023. In late 2024, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration updated the Clearinghouse to immediately downgrade a commercial driver’s license once the driver received a “prohibited” flag, forcing them to start the return-to-duty process to get back on the road. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
Blackburn said it’s easy to circumvent the prescribed clearinghouse process from a basic Google search. He told The Epoch Times that he got involved after seeing the scheme persist from the moment the clearinghouse was launched.
It operates like a multilevel marketing, or “pyramid,” scheme, Blackburn said. If you see a user in one of several related Facebook groups advertise helping drivers with the return-to-duty process, and they mention a particular person they worked with, that person is taking a cut.
Multiple users advertising return-to-duty services mentioned Blackburn and others based on hundreds of public Facebook comments that were reviewed for this story.
Blackburn insists he has stopped, but claims the others have not. He said he was struggling with a drug problem, relapsed last year, and that was the reason for his arrest.
Blackburn said he charged around $100 for his services and never more than $150. The entire return-to-duty program with a legitimate substance abuse professional can cost between $1,000 and $3,000 when evaluations, education, treatment, and tests are included.
A total of 368,984 violations have been reported to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse since its launch, according to its most recent monthly summary report.
That tally includes 360,107 drug violations and 8,877 alcohol violations. The drug violations include the use of marijuana (206,394), cocaine (57,075), methamphetamine (29,017), and a long list of synthetic opioids.
As of Jan. 2, 328,431 drivers had been reported to the database with at least one drug or alcohol violation. Of those, 202,345 remain in “prohibited” status with their licenses still downgraded.
The report said 85,136 have completed the full return-to-duty process. Based on evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times and FreightWaves, Blackburn may have cleared hundreds of drivers, though he now insists it was less than 100.
Drivers undergo a sobriety test at a Los Angeles Police Department police DUI checkpoint in Reseda, Calif., on April 13, 2018. As part of the return-to-duty process, a driver typically works with their employer to select a substance abuse professional who provides an initial assessment and offers education and treatment recommendations. Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images
Based on the evidence reviewed for this story, including public Facebook advertisements, there may be dozens of people who improperly cleared drivers through the return-to-duty process. If others were operating at a similar scale, the number of improperly cleared drivers could be significant relative to those who completed the process legitimately.
Blackburn told The Epoch Times that there are at least 100.
“As consumers, we all want to make sure that doctors and pilots and anybody we depend on as a society has attained and maintained that credential through legitimate means,” Jeff Burkhardt, senior director of operations at trucker training provider Ancora Education, told The Epoch Times.
“There needs to be the commensurate level of oversight and accountability for each one of those components [of return-to-duty] in order for the whole apparatus to work.”
The FMCSA did not respond to a request for comment
.
Emergency officials stand over a crash scene, including a wrecked police motorcycle, after a suspected drunk driver struck spectators during the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade in Stillwater, Okla., on Oct. 24, 2015. The vehicle killed three people and injured at least 22 before the Oklahoma State–Kansas football game. J Pat Carter/Getty Images
Legal Nightmare
As FreightWaves pointed out in its three-part investigation into clearinghouse fraud, the legal implications for employers are grave.
If an employer hires a driver who worked with an illegitimate substance abuse professional or third-party administrator, that could create liability for both the driver and employer, personal injury attorney Doug Burnetti told The Epoch Times.
That liability exposure remains for employers even if the driver was inaccurately or fraudulently cleared, according to Daniel Setareh of Setareh Law APLC.
“The risk isn’t theoretical. It shows up as catastrophic crashes,” Setareh told The Epoch Times.
“From a civil liability standpoint, if a carrier’s driver was cleared through one of those facilities and later causes a crash, that fraudulent documentation doesn’t protect the carrier—it may actually deepen their exposure.”
These litigation risks persist despite the FMCSA making a critical change last month to the clearinghouse certification process.
Now, all new clearinghouse users must complete identity verification to register as substance abuse professionals, third-party administrators, employers, and medical review officers. They must provide proof of the required credentials with IDEMIA, a company used by the Department of Homeland Security for identity verification at U.S. airports.
The FMCSA said that existing users will be required to complete the same process at a later date.
“By strengthening identity verification, we are closing gaps that could be exploited by bad actors, protecting the integrity of the data, and reinforcing confidence across the entire commercial driver safety industry,” FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs said in a statement on April 27.
The change closes the self-certification loophole that fueled the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse fraud. It does not, however, remove the liability risk of a trucker with an active license who may have been improperly cleared from “prohibited” status before the change went into effect.
“If you’re out there on the roadways with your child and you don’t know whether a truck driver driving next to you is under the influence of anything or not, that’s terrifying,” McGuire said.
