This bill adds a new certification requirement for any motor carrier, subcontractor, or owner-operator that bids on or performs surface transportation of Department of Defense freight: carriers must certify, after reasonable inquiry, they are not owned, controlled by, or have significant business relationships with entities on the statutory list of Chinese military companies and must require the same from downstream contractors. False certifications expose carriers to suspension, debarment, and criminal penalties for false statements.
Separately, the bill directs the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—working with the Department of Defense—to build a Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry of approved motor carriers. Inclusion requires valid FMCSA authority, compliance with DoD carrier standards, ownership and personnel screening for foreign-adversary ties, and periodic revetting.
One year after enactment carriers not on the registry may not bid on or perform DoD freight contracts, subject to narrow waivers for exigent circumstances. The legislation centralizes security vetting for defense freight but delegates key definitions and operational details to DoD regulation, creating a short implementation timeline and compliance costs for carriers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill (1) requires covered carriers to submit a certification that they lack ownership, control, or significant business ties to Chinese military companies (and to flow that requirement to subcontractors) and (2) establishes a Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry maintained by FMCSA in coordination with DoD, with enhanced vetting and periodic revetting.
Who It Affects
The requirements apply to motor carriers, prime contractors, subcontractors, and owner-operators at all tiers that seek to transport Department of Defense freight. FMCSA and DoD will carry new administrative and vetting responsibilities; companies on the DoD freight roster and their subcontracting networks will face new documentation and screening obligations.
Why It Matters
The measure centralizes defense freight security screening and conditions access to DoD freight on passing national-security vetting. For carriers it transforms DoD logistics access into a credentialing exercise—likely raising compliance costs and changing subcontracting relationships—while aiming to reduce the risk of adversary influence in defense supply chains.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill has two parallel tracks: a certification rule inserted into title 10 for DoD freight contracts, and a new registry under title 49 administered by FMCSA in coordination with DoD. The title 10 provision bars DoD freight contracts from being awarded to any covered carrier unless the carrier files a certification asserting, after reasonable inquiry, that it is not owned or controlled by, and does not have ‘‘significant business relationships’’ with, entities on the statutory Chinese military companies list.
The certification must also commit the certifying carrier to obtain the same statement from any subcontractor or owner-operator it uses. Prime contractors must put the certification requirement into subcontracts and leases, and carriers must keep certification records for five years.
The bill makes false certifications a serious enforcement risk: knowingly false statements expose carriers to suspension or debarment from DoD contracting and to prosecution under the federal false-statement statute (18 U.S.C. 1001). The Secretary of Defense must issue implementing regulations for these certification rules within 180 days, which will define reasonable inquiry, the contours of ‘‘significant business relationships,’’ and integration into existing DoD carrier approval processes.On the FMCSA side, the statute requires establishment of a Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry within one year of enactment.
To be listed a carrier must hold FMCSA operating authority, meet applicable DoD carrier-qualification standards, pass enhanced national-security vetting (including ownership and control screening for entities on the Chinese military companies list and any other foreign-adversary entities the Secretary designates), verify that drivers and personnel with access to DoD freight meet security standards comparable to TWIC or similar Federal programs, and submit to revetting at least every two years. FMCSA must create a streamlined application process but coordinate with existing DoD approval systems.Finally, the statute conditions bidding and performance on registry inclusion: beginning one year after enactment, motor carriers not on the registry may not bid on or perform DoD freight contracts, although the Secretary of Defense can grant waivers for exigent circumstances.
The text leaves several operational choices to the agencies—most notably the regulatory definition of ‘‘significant business relationships,’’ the scope of required background checks, and how waivers will be managed—while imposing firm short deadlines for rulemaking and registry creation that will accelerate implementation and initial compliance costs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of Defense must issue implementing regulations for the certification requirement within 180 days of enactment, including what constitutes ‘reasonable inquiry.’, Covered carriers must retain records of certifications for at least five years and flow the certification requirement to all subcontractors and owner-operators at every tier.
Knowingly making a false certification triggers suspension or debarment from DoD contracting and exposure to civil penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements).
The Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry must be established within one year, requires enhanced vetting (ownership screening against the Chinese military companies list and comparable security checks for drivers), and requires revetting at least once every two years.
Starting one year after enactment, carriers not included in the registry may not bid on or perform DoD freight contracts, although the Secretary of Defense may grant waivers for exigent circumstances.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: the 'Trucking Security and CCP Disclosure Act of 2026.' This is purely titular and sets the framing for the bill’s focus on Chinese military companies and disclosure obligations.
Carrier certification on foreign-adversary ties
Adds a new statutory certification requirement for any motor carrier, subcontractor, or owner-operator performing DoD surface-transportation contracts. The carrier must state, after reasonable inquiry, that it is not owned, controlled by, or in significant business relationships with entities on the DoD-maintained list of Chinese military companies; and must require the same certification from downstream contractors. Practically, this compels carriers to institute onboarding questionnaires, vendor diligence, or contractual representations and warranties to meet the 'reasonable inquiry' standard once DoD issues its regulations.
Flow-down, recordkeeping, penalties, and implementation timeline
Prime contractors must insert the certification obligation into subcontracts and leases, and covered carriers must keep certification records for at least five years—creating a traceable audit trail for DoD. The statute designates false certifications as grounds for suspension/debarment and exposure to penalties under section 1001 of title 18, making noncompliance a high-risk commercial and criminal exposure. The Secretary of Defense must promulgate implementing rules within 180 days, which will determine how stringent 'reasonable inquiry' and 'significant business relationships' are in practice.
Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry establishment
Directs FMCSA, coordinating with DoD, to establish a Secure Defense Freight Carrier Registry within one year. The registry is a prequalification list: FMCSA inclusion requires valid operating authority, DoD carrier-qualification compliance, enhanced national-security vetting for ownership/controls ties to the Chinese military companies list or other designated foreign-adversary entities, and driver/personnel screening comparable to TWIC. FMCSA must create a streamlined application but integrate with existing DoD systems, effectively turning registry inclusion into a credential for accessing DoD freight.
Conditioning DoD freight contracts on registry inclusion, with narrow waivers
Beginning one year after enactment, motor carriers not on the registry may not bid on or perform DoD freight contracts, although the Secretary of Defense may issue waivers for exigent circumstances. That creates a hard gate to DoD business tied to administrative credentialing; the waiver authority is the statutory safety valve but is discretionary and undefined, which could create operational uncertainty during surges or emergencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Defense contracting officers — gain a centralized credential (the registry) and standardized certifications to reduce risk from carriers with adversary ties and to streamline vetting decisions.
- National security and supply-chain risk teams — receive clearer statutory authority to exclude carriers with specified foreign-adversary relationships and a legal basis for demanding documentation from vendors.
- Carriers that already meet stringent security and ownership standards — obtain competitive advantage through registry inclusion and secured access to DoD freight opportunities.
- Prime contractors that build compliant subcontractor chains — reduce downstream exposure by requiring flow-down certifications and keeping auditable records.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and independent owner-operators — will face compliance costs to provide certifications, undergo vetting comparable to TWIC, and may lose access to DoD freight if excluded or unable to meet administrative demands.
- Motor carriers with complex ownership or international business portfolios — will need due-diligence processes to identify 'significant business relationships' and may be excluded pending agency rulemaking, disrupting existing logistics networks.
- FMCSA and Department of Defense — must stand up and operate the registry, create vetting processes, and manage applications, revetting, and waivers within the statutory deadlines, creating administrative and budgetary burdens.
- Prime contractors — may face delays, increased contracting compliance overhead, and the need to audit and manage large subcontractor networks to ensure certifications are collected and retained for five years.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between tightening national-security controls on who may handle DoD freight and preserving a resilient, competitive logistics base: stricter vetting reduces risk of foreign-adversary influence but raises compliance costs, narrows the pool of available carriers, and concentrates administrative burden on agencies and small operators—making the security gains contingent on implementation choices that could themselves degrade logistics capacity.
The bill delegates key definitional and operational choices to DoD and FMCSA regulations while imposing tight statutory deadlines. That combination creates two implementation risks: agencies must rapidly define 'reasonable inquiry' and 'significant business relationships' (terms that can materially change who qualifies), and they must operationalize vetting and revetting pipelines for thousands of carriers within a year.
Those decisions will determine whether the rules are administrable or produce bottlenecks that constrain defense logistics.
The waiver authority for exigent circumstances is a practical necessity but is undeveloped: frequent or broad use of waivers could undermine the statutory security objective, while narrow waiver standards risk operational rigidity during surge operations. There is also a trade-off between intensive personnel screening (which improves security posture) and privacy, labor, and retention impacts on drivers—requiring agencies to balance national-security vetting against workforce feasibility.
Finally, reliance on the Chinese military companies list and discretionary foreign-adversary designations raises questions about how long-standing commercial relationships will be treated and the bill’s interaction with export-control, sanctions, and procurement fairness rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.