I love magazines, always have. They don’t weigh much, and require no batteries. You can leave them sitting around and not worry too much about someone stealing your copy. And, thanks to you, TBB subscribers, we still print 12 issues a year; that’s increasingly unusual in this digital age. It’s gratifying to me, personally, that when I finally ease into semi-retirement next year that, despite the imminent demise of magazines that’s been predicted for the last 15 or 20 years, TBB is alive and well.

Of course, there’s a ‘but’ coming—but it’s nothing tragic. Just an annoyance that’s part of having a magazine that prides itself on keeping up with the news.

No sooner was the June edition all laid out and just about ready to go to the printer, two somewhat important stories broke.

The news that an FET repeal bill had been introduced in the U.S. Senate was particularly galling, since we already have a roundup in this month’s magazine that puts a slight America 250 spin on the tax’s long, long history on ‘taxation despite representation’ and not being able to get rid of this troublesome assessment on new trucks and trailers.

So, to update before you get to Page 28: U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) on June 2 introduced the Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act to go along with the version that was introduced in the House last year.

Supporters continue to make the same arguments that make a lot of sense—but, ultimately, get nowhere: By adding as much as $15,000 to $30,000 to the cost of a new heavy truck, trailer, semitrailer chassis, or tractor, the tax makes it more expensive for trucking companies to modernize their fleets. Additionally, it creates an incentive to keep older vehicles on the road longer, slowing the adoption of newer trucks that are safer and more fuel-efficient.

“Repealing this tax is a simple step that can help the American trucking industry and consumers,” said Young. “This tax hurts the small businesses and independent truckers that are the core of American trucking, and it promotes the usage of older, less efficient

American Truck Dealers weighed in as well.

“The 12 percent Federal Excise Tax is outdated, inefficient, and punitive—to both dealers and fleets,” said ATD Chairman and President and CEO of Advantage Truck Group Kevin Holmes. “As we face challenges from tariff volatility and the ever-changing regulatory landscape, it is critical to reassess burdensome tax policies like the FET. Eliminating these barriers to fleet turnover will promote economic growth and lead to cleaner, safer trucks on America’s streets and highways.”

Of course, as NTDA President Gwen Brown notes in the feature story, FET brings too much money to the Highway Trust Fund to just get rid of it. But Congress hasn’t even touched the tax on gas and diesel that is the major source of funding for federal roads and bridges since the Clinton administration.

So while FET repeal is still important, a number of long-time supporters such as NTDA have put it on the backburner while pursuing other policy goals for this Congress.

“Unfortunately, issues surrounding highway infrastructure, the FET, and transportation funding often fail to capture significant political attention, making it unlikely that a comprehensive reauthorization bill will pass in 2026,” Brown told TBB.

Trailer trade tussle

Also in early June, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its preliminary finding that the governments of China and Mexico unfairly subsidize their van-type trailer industries. Commerce calculated countervailing duties ranging from 82.3% to 128.7% for trailers from China and 1.9% to 1.95% for trailers from Mexico.

The American Trailer Manufacturers Coalition—a coalition of U.S. trailer producers Great Dane LLC, Stoughton Trailers LLC, and Wabash Corporation—brought the action, and called the preliminary finding  the first step towards introducing fairness in the U.S. van-type trailer market.”

Of note, at the coalition's request, Commerce is no longer investigating Canadian subsidies. The department will, however, apply the Chinese countervailing duties against Chinese trailers and subassemblies shipped to the United States through Canada. 

"When foreign governments prop up exports, U.S. companies and workers pay the price," said Robert E. DeFrancesco, trade counsel to the coalition and a partner in the International Trade Practice at Wiley. "The Commerce Department's decision helps counter these unfair practices in Mexico, where Commerce recently found that the largest producer also received subsidies for a related product, and China, where the primary trailer producer is part of a Chinese, state-owned entity."

So, at the risk of being a hypocrite, I invite TBB magazine readers to keep an eye on the website (and subscribe to our weekly newsletter, if you haven’t already) as the final determinations roll out in coming months.

And, of course, we’ll have the story in detail here later in the year.