<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Third-party logistics operator C.H.</div>

<div>Third-party logistics operator C.H. Robinson expanded its net profit 5.4 percent in the second quarter to $97.2 million as strong growth in international business offset pressures from rising prices in domestic trucking. Gross revenue soared 27.4 percent to $2.5 million. But net revenue from the company&amp;rsquo;s core truck brokerage slipped 2.4 percent, with tighter capacity in the truck margin raising costs and cutting into C.H. Robinson&amp;rsquo;s margins. Truck volume grew 18 percent over the same quarter a year ago and the pressure on profit margins reflected the difficulty operators in the domestic shipping market are having in keeping up with...

Third-party logistics operator C.H. Robinson expanded its net profit 5.4 percent in the second quarter to $97.2 million as strong growth in international business offset pressures from rising prices in domestic trucking. Gross revenue soared 27.4 percent to $2.5 million. But net revenue from the company&rsquo;s core truck brokerage slipped 2.4 percent, with tighter capacity in the truck margin raising costs and cutting into C.H. Robinson&rsquo;s margins. Truck volume grew 18 percent over the same quarter a year ago and the pressure on profit margins reflected the difficulty operators in the domestic shipping market are having in keeping up with growing freight demand amid tighter capacity and rising prices. &ldquo;Gross margin fluctuations in the past couple of years have had a significant impact on our results,&rdquo; CEO John Wiehoff said in a conference call with investment analysts. C.H. Robinson&rsquo;s truckload costs grew 11.4 percent in the quarter over last year, exluding fuel, while prices it was able to pass along to customers grew 5 percent. Wiehoff said the truck market pricing accelerated during the quarter, growing 2 percent in April, 5 percent in May and 9 percent in June. The margin pressure in the domestic market was partly offset by strong expansion in international operations, where the company operates as a forwarder. C.H. Robinson said its ocean freight net revenue grew 11.8 percent while the air forwarding net revenue jumped 45.5 percent. Those segments make up less than 10 percent of the company&rsquo;s overall net revenue, however.

Trucking News

Truck brokers

C.H. Robinson Net Profit Grows to $97.2 Million

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend. </div>

Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026-27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until (TPM26) to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, mid-size and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1-4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. <h3>Shippers’ market </h3>The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soft-demand-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-overwhelms-carriers-gri-attempt-6109240">softer demand</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-lunar-new-year-demand-to-give-trans-pac-market-first-test-of-2026-6149869">falling spot rates</a>, no significant surge in imports is projected in March when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. ”That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the (big retailers).” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners, but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year on year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year on year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” <h3>Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand </h3>But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the mid-size and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026-27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until (TPM26) to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, mid-size and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1-4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. Shippers’ market The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to softer demand and falling spot rates , no significant surge in imports is projected in March when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. ”That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the (big retailers).” A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners, but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year on year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year on year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the mid-size and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.</div>

While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.

<div class="phx-topic">Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="34e4b5a5-cecc-482c-a37d-4885fe5a1a41"></dynamic-object></div>Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lofty-reliability-goals-for-gemini-alliance-hang-on-key-service-assumptions-5214653">Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate</a> across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. <h3>Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules </h3>On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/severe-winter-storm-disrupts-north-europe-port-inland-operations-6148334">freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations</a> in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c0cf790c-877b-46ec-8a01-15b3418a614a"></dynamic-object></div>“Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-inks-order-for-six-dual-fuel-lng-ships-with-india-yard-6172333">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. “Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.</div>

The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">did not have the authority</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/">published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve</a> found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. <h3>What’s next? </h3>The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. <h3>Other tariff mechanisms available </h3>In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include so-called Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. What’s next? The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. Other tariff mechanisms available In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include so-called Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Port News

Supply chain

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.</div>

Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-payment-provider-acquires-advent-emodal-5905331">buying Advent eModal in December 2024</a>, a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” <h3>System handles ‘double moves’ </h3>Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for six of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since buying Advent eModal in December 2024 , a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” System handles ‘double moves’ Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for six of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Logistics Technology News

Drayage

North American ports

Marine terminals

CargoSprint acquires key appointment scheduling tool for LA-LB dray carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.</div>

Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">federal crackdown</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan &amp; Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. <h3>Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too </h3>The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. <h3>What can a shipper do </h3>Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the federal crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan & Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. What can a shipper do Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Truckload

Trucking labor

Surface

Truckload shippers look to minimize growing regulatory risks

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Flatbed

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Rail News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case