FMCSA Administrator Barrs has come out of the gate with a strong enforcement focus. He has, rightly so, been applauded for his efforts to rid the industry of fraudsters and hold to account the least safe among us. Unfortunately, a recent proposed rule, seeking to codify a 2025 DOT enforcement memo, may be making his job more difficult.

DOT’s May 2025 “Rule on Rules” NPRM is framed as a transparency and due-process reform for agency rulemaking and enforcement. But one provision buried in the proposal could have a meaningful effect on how aggressively enforcement personnel pursue cases. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow regulated parties to challenge whether enforcement personnel violated procedural requirements. If they have, the proposal suggests the result could be the exclusion of certain evidence or factual findings, a requirement to restart the enforcement action, or even administrative discipline for the investigator, including being removed from the case or recommending administrative discipline for the personnel involved.

That’s a significant development that could chill morale at a moment when investigators are drowning in workload and are being asked to take on even more. Investigators and enforcement attorneys routinely defend their cases on the merits. What’s new here is the explicit possibility that a procedural mistake could trigger internal discipline, raising the professional stakes, and potentially resulting in less aggressive enforcement.

Indeed, the enforcement memo means this dynamic may already be at play. A look at recent enforcement data may be our canary in the coal mine.  FMCSA’s FY 2025 activities published on their website show a 65% reduction in closed enforcement cases (3,959 in 2024 compared with 1,367 in 2025). Digging a little deeper into the data shows a 73% decline in the number of investigations that resulted in a conditional safety rating and an 81% decrease in unsatisfactory ratings. The charts below show that, overall, investigations were far less likely to result in negative safety ratings.

Protections for regulated parties are an important part of a fair enforcement system. Many would argue that it is a fundamental American ideal. But the NPRM also introduces a new reality for investigators: their own professional exposure becomes part of the enforcement calculus.

And when enforcement personnel are personally at greater risk, the result can sometimes be fewer, or more cautious, cases.