White House AI Crackdown on CDL Mills Faces Major Setback

FMCSA reinstates some CDL schools after emergency removal from federal registry

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is restoring some commercial driver training schools to the federal Training Provider Registry after removing more than 110 providers in August as part of a broad crackdown on alleged fraud and English-language compliance violations.

The removals were announced through a joint effort involving the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. Federal officials said the schools were associated with more than 5,000 drivers who had received English language proficiency violations.

However, the agency’s enforcement approach has drawn legal challenges and criticism from school owners who say FMCSA relied on inaccurate or incomplete data. At least six schools have been reinstated, and sources familiar with the administrative process said roughly 20 providers have contested their emergency shutdown orders.

The dispute centers partly on what federal rules require CDL schools to teach in English. In its Aug. 31 shutdown letter, FMCSA acknowledged that the Entry-Level Driver Training regulations do not require training instruction itself to be delivered in English.

“While FMCSA’s regulations do not require that ELDT instructions be provided in English, the regulations do require training providers to provide theory instruction about ELP and require [behind-the-wheel] driver-trainees to certify they will comply with the qualification standards, including ELP,” the agency wrote.

ELP refers to the federal requirement that commercial drivers be able to communicate in English sufficiently to understand traffic signs, respond to official inquiries and perform required duties safely. The rule applies to drivers, but the regulations do not expressly state that every training lesson must be conducted in English.

According to sources close to the administrative process, FMCSA used data analysis tools to identify drivers cited for English-language violations and trace those drivers back to the schools that trained them. Those sources said the effort involved artificial intelligence and was undertaken at the request of the White House task force.

FMCSA and the White House had not immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the enforcement process. The Department of Transportation later disputed the characterization of the technology in a response published separately.

School owners challenge the shutdowns

Eli Soler Negrin, owner of Soler & Soler CDL School in Miami, said his school was removed from the registry in August despite later receiving a letter stating that an agency audit found no wrongdoing.

Negrin said his school graduates about 500 students annually. The shutdown forced the school to refund students and temporarily stop providing ELDT instruction, although Florida’s rules allowed it to continue conducting third-party CDL skills tests.

He appealed the decision and said FMCSA reinstated the school after the agency’s 10-day period to provide supporting evidence expired. Soler & Soler has since returned to the Training Provider Registry, and Negrin said former students have gradually returned.

Other schools have also challenged their removals. Start CDL, a New Jersey training provider, sued FMCSA, alleging that the agency attributed English-language violations to students who had attended different schools. The lawsuit also states that Start CDL passed an FMCSA audit in July, shortly before the emergency removal.

A federal court ordered FMCSA to respond to a show-cause order concerning jurisdiction. Other schools listed in the Aug. 31 removal notice have also been restored to the registry.

Concerns about the enforcement method

Some training providers and industry observers have questioned whether a school should be shut down solely because a set number of its former students later received roadside English-language violations. A roadside violation is an enforcement allegation unless it is fully adjudicated, and the violation does not necessarily establish that the school failed to provide compliant training.

The approach also creates a potential advantage for newer providers. Schools that have not yet graduated enough drivers to produce a large enforcement record may not trigger the same data threshold, regardless of the quality of their instruction.

At the same time, concerns about inadequate CDL training remain significant. One online provider cited in the dispute advertises a Class A course costing $25 and taking about two hours. The existence of a short, inexpensive course does not by itself establish a regulatory violation, but it illustrates the range of providers now operating in the ELDT market.

Under the current system, training providers can largely self-certify their qualifications before joining the Training Provider Registry. That structure has been criticized by parts of the trucking industry, which say stronger screening is needed to prevent schools from enrolling students without providing meaningful instruction.

FMCSA proposes tighter registry requirements

In September, FMCSA requested emergency action to revise the Training Provider Registry process. The proposal would require providers to submit documentation showing compliance with ELDT requirements before being approved, rather than relying primarily on self-certification.

The Commercial Vehicle Training Association supported the proposal, saying it would help end the self-certification system and improve oversight of training providers. The organization has advocated for such changes since 2022.

DOT has said its broader enforcement campaign has removed tens of thousands of drivers for failing English-language requirements, prompted states to cancel licenses issued improperly to foreign drivers and led to the removal of thousands of training providers from the registry.

For professional drivers, the issue carries consequences beyond the schools involved. Poor training can place inexperienced drivers, carriers and the motoring public at risk. But the reinstatements and pending legal challenges show that enforcement also must be based on accurate records, clearly defined rules and a fair opportunity for providers to contest agency decisions.