Commentary and Analysis
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an office within the Labor Department, was busy during the first year of the Trump 2.0 Administration undoing some of the actions that were taken during the Biden years. As we look at OSHA’s plans for 2026 and beyond, the agency is expected to take a closer look at the independence of state plan agencies, which are responsible for enforcement of federal OSHA regulations for roughly half the country—as long as the federal government approves.
One big change from the Biden years is that OSHA is now willing to supply guidance letters to employers who request advice on how to handle certain issues, a practice the previous Administration ceased as soon as they took over. Employers could benefit from taking a glance at the agency’s recent report summarizing the advice it has been providing.
This also represents a change in philosophy. In general, OSHA under Republican administrations tends to regard one of its primary responsibilities as helping employers be safer, while Democrats seek to rely on punitive measures to get employers in line, especially when it comes to those whom unions are trying to organize.
Another employment issue expected to continue this year is the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) high-profile campaign targeting the granting of interstate commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to operators of trucks and busses who are illegal immigrants and who cannot comprehend English.
The campaign has been fueled by several high-profile truck and bus accidents involving barely trained immigrant drivers who were unable to speak and read English. The televised reports of this situation thrust the issue directly into center of the highly emotional public debate over illegal immigration.
Most of the controversy has arisen because the actual licensing of these drivers is handled directly by state governments operating under standards set by the federal government, which they have flouted or were incapable of adhering to. Trump officials have not been shy about provoking public conflicts with governors from states that have resisted the Administration’s reform efforts, which include threatening states with the loss of federal highway funds if these issues are not addressed to DOT’s liking.
The Trump Administration also has extended the ongoing controversy to the hiring of foreign domiciled drivers, improper recordkeeping and fraudulent CDL activities at the state level. DOT will continue to examine state licensing programs and target what it believes are phony truck driver training schools.
The war of words with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who apparently has eyes set on the Democratic nomination for President in 2028, heated up to the point that his state is refusing to cancel the licenses of more than 17,000 CDL holders licensed by the state that Trump’s DOT says are not qualified. As usual, the issue is not expected to be resolved until the courts have had their say.
Federal government reports show that nationwide about 9,000 drivers have been removed from service because of these kinds of license violations. Anecdotal reports say this has led to fleets paying higher wages, but some of the pressure the loss of those drivers may have caused was relieved because small—and some not so small—trucking companies have continued to go out of business.
What may add to transportation costs is the fact that fleet operators can anticipate new, stricter standards for driver training. The Administration believes the current standards are much too weak, according to remarks made in mid-December by Derek Barrs, administrator of DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). For example, at present the federal training standards do not include a minimum number of behind-the-wheel training hours, something that has been sharply criticized by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
But employers need to keep an eye on developments closer to home, particularly when it comes to the burgeoning world of state laws. On the horizon are continued aggressive employment law agendas pursued by some states, especially those controlled by Democrats, like California and New York.
The heated rhetoric and dramatic political gestures engaged in by both sides of the ideological spectrum at every level can be expected only to heat up as we get closer to Election Day 2026.
