Freight Capacity Falling Faster Than Demand — Signs of a Market Rebound?

The U.S. trucking market is showing a major shift, truckload capacity is shrinking faster than freight demand.After months of market imbalance, new data suggests that many small carriers are exiting the market, while shippers are still moving steady freight volumes.

What’s Happening in the Market

According to FreightWaves and other logistics data sources, the Outbound Tender Volume Index (OTVI) dropped to its lowest point for October in years. At the same time, the number of active carriers and available trucks continues to decline, signaling a tightening market ahead of the holiday season.

In simple terms, there are fewer trucks chasing roughly the same amount of freight.

What This Means for Carriers and Owner-Operators

For many small fleets and independent drivers, the past year has been brutal. High fuel prices, maintenance costs, and falling spot rates pushed thousands of operators out of business. Now, with capacity shrinking, those who remain might finally see some rate recovery and better load opportunities in the coming weeks.

If this trend continues, we could see:

• Gradual increase in spot market rates, especially for dry van and flatbed freight.

• Higher utilization for remaining carriers.

• Shippers beginning to lock in capacity early for the holiday season.

  
  

How Hotshot and Flatbed Operators Can Benefit

For hotshot and flatbed drivers, this shift can be an advantage.Many brokers are already reporting tighter availability for specialized loads. Now is the time to:

• Strengthen relationships with brokers and direct shippers.

• Focus on high-value and time-sensitive freight.

• Keep equipment in top condition to capitalize on increased demand.

  
  

What’s Next for the Trucking Industry

While no one can predict exactly how long this capacity contraction will last, it’s clear that market balance is returning. As weaker carriers exit and freight volumes remain stable, rates are likely to stabilize or even rise slightly heading into 2026.

The New 25% Tariff Impact on Trucking: What It Means for U.S. Logistics

The U.S. trucking and logistics industry has entered a new phase of uncertainty following President Trump’s announcement of a 25% Tariff Impact on Trucking medium and heavy duty trucks, effective November 1, 2025. While the move aims to strengthen domestic manufacturing, it has sparked widespread concern among logistics professionals, supply chain planners, and trade analysts.

Industry experts warn that the tariffs could raise costs, disrupt supply chains, and provoke retaliatory measures from trade partners, ultimately reshaping freight markets and inventory strategies across North America.

According to analysts at S&P Global Mobility, truck prices could rise up to 9% as manufacturers and fleets absorb tariff related costs. This increase may ripple through logistics networks, pushing up freight rates and operational expenses.

Many truck manufacturers rely on global supply chains that stretch from Mexico and Canada to Europe and Asia. Components such as engines, transmissions, and electronics are often imported even for trucks assembled in the U.S. As a result, the new tariffs could indirectly impact domestic production as well.

Fleet operators already dealing with high fuel prices and insurance costs may face steeper financing challenges, as higher Tariff Impact on Trucking prices extend replacement cycles and slow capital investment.

Retaliation and Global Trade Tensions

The new tariffs risk reigniting trade tensions between the U.S. and key partners. Early signals from Mexico and the European Union suggest retaliatory tariffs could target U.S.-made auto parts, agricultural products, or industrial equipment.

Such measures could increase costs for exporters and dampen demand for U.S. goods abroad. In the worst-case scenario, this may trigger a tit for tat trade cycle reminiscent of the 2018 – 2019 tariff disputes.

As C.H. Robinson notes in its October Freight Market Update, “Tariff volatility creates unpredictable sourcing costs and disrupts established logistics flows. Companies are being forced to revisit contracts, renegotiate rates, and rethink their supplier base.”

Freight Market Consequences

Tariffs on imported trucks come at a fragile time for the freight industry. Class 8 truck orders have already dropped by more than 10% year over year, according to ACT Research, as fleets cautiously manage costs amid declining freight volumes.

Logistics providers are bracing for capacity tightening, as fleets delay truck replacements to avoid higher costs. The reduced availability of newer trucks could lead to increased maintenance downtime and lower efficiency.

Additionally, the tariff shock is expected to fuel short term volatility in truckload (TL) and less-than-truckload (LTL) markets, as carriers adjust pricing models to reflect new operating costs.

The Road Ahead

The trucking industry sits at the crossroads of policy and commerce. While the administration’s tariff move may offer protection to U.S. manufacturers, it comes at a time when supply chains are still recovering from pandemic era shocks, labor shortages, and energy inflation.

In the coming months, the focus will shift from policy announcements to practical consequences who absorbs the costs, who adapts fastest, and who gets left behind.

As both S&P Global and C.H. Robinson point out, the real test for logistics professionals will be agility: the ability to reconfigure networks, diversify partners, and keep goods flowing even as the rules of trade shift beneath them.

“Ban the Bait & Switch” — Why Congress Needs to Kill Predatory Lease‑Purchase Deals in Trucking

“I was promised ownership.”That line shows up in too many stories from truckers stuck in “lease‑to‑own” schemes and U.S. Rep. Julia Brownley (D‑CA) is saying enough is enough.

On September 23, 2025, reported that Brownley introduced the Predatory Truck Leasing Prevention Act (H.R. 5423), a deceptively short 3‑page bill aimed squarely at what she calls exploitative lease‑purchase contracts that prey on owner‑operator drivers.

What’s wrong with these “lease‑purchase” deals?

A quick breakdown:

• The motor carrier (or an affiliate) owns the truck and leases it to a driver who must operate exclusively for that carrier.

• The driver is told: make the payments, run your routes, and eventually you’ll “own” the truck.

• But in practice, many drivers never reach ownership. They end up in crippling debt, with low pay, and no real equity.

• The schemes often deny drivers freedom to shop around, negotiate better deals, or walk away the carrier maintains control.

• Because of how contracts are structured, these arrangements may be a form of disguising what is really an employment relationship without benefits i.e. “employee misclassification.”

In the report by the Truck Leasing Task Force (created under the FMCSA during the Biden administration), these lease schemes were called “irredeemable tools of fraud and driver oppression.” Their investigation urged Congress to ban such programs outright, or at least regulate them tightly.

What does Brownley’s bill do and not?

Here’s the meat:

• It mandates that the U.S. Department of Transportation create regulations within one year of the law’s passage to prohibit predatory lease‑purchase programs.

• It defines “predatory commercial motor vehicle lease‑purchase agreement program” in specific terms: these are arrangements where the carrier controls the driver’s work, compensation, debt, and the driver gains little to no equity over time.

• It ties the “predatory” status not just to the written contract but to how the carrier practices recruitment, operations, tax, and financial structures.

But it does not (at least in its current form):

• Prescribe precise penalties or enforcement mechanisms beyond directing DOT to regulate.

• Guarantee full federal oversight of every lease i.e., if Congress doesn’t ban these schemes outright, the alternative is regulation and oversight (which is always weaker than an outright ban).

• 
  

Who’s backing it and who’s pushing back?

Supporters:

• OOIDA (Owner‑Operator Independent Drivers Association) Their president, Todd Spencer, called these programs “scams that dangle the promise of ownership but leave drivers broke, trapped in debt, and kicked to the curb with nothing to show for it.”

• Teamsters Union Their General President Sean M. O’Brien stated: “Predatory truck leasing arrangements target decent hardworking people looking for careers … only to lead them to financial ruin.”

• The Task Force report itself, backed by the FMCSA and DOT oversight, recommends such reforms.

  
  

Potential obstacles:

• In a “deregulatory climate,” some in Congress may balk at giving DOT more regulatory power.

• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which might be a natural partner for oversight, has been weakened under past and current administrations.

• Some carriers will fight their business models rely on squeezing profit from drivers who can’t fight back.

• 
  

Bottom line this is fight time for drivers

Brownley’s bill isn’t a silver bullet it leaves much to interpretation and enforcement. But it is the first real congressional salvo to outlaw these schemes that have hoodwinked drivers for decades.

If you drive under a lease‑purchase deal, or have for years, this is your moment:

1. Contact your Congressman / Congresswoman and ask them to support H.R. 5423.

2. Share your story show how these deals destroyed your finances and dreams.

3. Push for stricter language ask that any final law demand strong enforcement, auditing, stiff penalties, and driver recourse, not just vague guidelines.

   
   

You can’t beat a system unless you shine a light on it. If Congress won’t act, carriers will keep playing the bait‑and‑switch.