Most Americans have no idea that Congress is a step closer to making a dangerous decision: allowing bigger, heavier tractor-trailers onto the roads they use every day.
The proposal sounds technical, which is exactly why it may escape public notice. But buried in the highway bill in Congress is a plan to let states raise the federal truck-weight limit on interstate highways from 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds. That is an extra 5.5 tons per truck.
Supporters downplay the dangerous proposal, referring to it as a “pilot project,” but a 10-year program open to all states is not a pilot. It is a nationwide experiment conducted on motorists, truck drivers, bridges, and taxpayers. The proposal has already cleared a key House committee and is on its way to the full House for a vote and also to the Senate.
The case against this idea is not complicated. Heavier trucks are harder to stop, harder to control, more punishing in crashes, and more damaging to infrastructure. Congress doesn’t need a decade of wrecks and bridge damage to learn what common sense and existing evidence already reveal.
Even without added weight, fatal crashes involving large trucks have risen sharply since 2013. Now lawmakers are considering putting even heavier trucks onto the same roads used by commuters, school buses, vacationing families, and first responders.
The safety argument is crystal clear. The U.S. Department of Transportation studied heavier trucks and warned against changing current limits. Its 2016 review found that six-axle trucks weighing up to 91,000 pounds had a 47% higher crash rate in Washington state than trucks at the current weight limit. Trucks over 80,000 pounds also had higher out-of-service rates and higher brake-violation rates.
Similar findings about the dangers of bigger trucks come from the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Brakes, tires, suspension systems, and motorists in general all face greater strain when a truck carries thousands of additional pounds. In a crash, physics does not negotiate. When an 80,000-pound truck collides with a passenger vehicle, the consequences are often catastrophic. Adding 11,000 pounds increases the risk that injuries become fatalities.
Rollover risk is another concern. Heavier trucks often carry cargo stacked vertically, raising the center of gravity and making the vehicle less stable. That matters on ramps, in high winds, during sudden maneuvers, and on rural roads where shoulders are narrow.
Then there is the infrastructure cost, which would land on the public instead of the companies that stand to benefit from heavier trucks. Trucks do not load and unload on interstates — every trip requires travel on local infrastructure. Many local bridges were built decades ago, maintained by local governments that are already struggling to keep up with repair backlogs.
A 2025 analysis by the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks found that more than 68,600 local bridges are not rated to safely accommodate 91,000-pound trucks. Replacing those bridges would cost an estimated $78.7 billion. A small group of freight interests would get to move more weight per trip while everyone else pays for damaged bridges.
Opposition to the idea is expansive. Law enforcement organizations have raised safety concerns. These include International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the National Troopers Coalition.
Professional truck drivers and groups representing big-rig operators are opposed to heavier-truck proposals. County officials, public works professionals, and local engineers across all 50 states have warned that their roads and bridges cannot absorb the added burden.
HOW A COAST-TO-COAST RAILROAD COULD CHANGE AMERICAN LIVES
The breadth of opposition should matter. The people who patrol crash scenes, drive these trucks, inspect bridges and manage local road budgets are telling Congress the same thing: do not make trucks heavier in the name of convenience for a narrow slice of the shipping lobby.
Congress should reject this so-called pilot project before it becomes another federal law paid for by local taxpayers and, worst of all, by families exposed to greater dangers. Lawmakers should not gamble with public safety by treating American motorists as guinea pigs.
Steven Casstevens is a past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. He currently serves on the law enforcement board for the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.