• FMCSA Training Provider Registry crackdown accelerates: hundreds removed and thousands flagged—see how ELDT enforcement is reshaping CDL training nationwide.
• FMCSA training provider removals now invalidate post‑removal instruction—use our quick checks to verify a school before you enroll or hire.
• Inside the 2025 shift: from slow starts to mass notices, audits, and a practical roadmap for CDL school compliance and carrier due diligence.

FMCSA’s 2025 crackdown removed 244 training providers from the TPR. Pruning the registry enables deeper audits of active training programs.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has significantly intensified its oversight of commercial driver training in a positive push for safety. In a matter of months, the agency moved from only a handful of actions to removing hundreds of truck driver training providers from its Training Provider Registry (TPR). This sweeping crackdown on the removal of FMCSA-approved training providers aims to weed out substandard or non‑compliant CDL training programs nationwide. The momentum is notable: as of late 2025, 244 training providers have been expelled from the registry for failing to meet federal standards. FMCSA officials, under new leadership, are finally acting on long‑standing concerns that lax enforcement was allowing “bad actor” schools to persist.

“As of late 2025, 244 training providers have been expelled from the TPR—signaling a decisive shift in ELDT oversight.”

For more news and updates on FMCSA’s safety initiatives and oversight actions, check out our FMCSA news section.

The Training Provider Registry was introduced in 2022 as part of the Entry‑Level Driver Training (ELDT) rules to improve highway safety. The ELDT regulations require that anyone seeking a commercial driver’s license (CDL) or specific endorsements must train with an FMCSA‑registered provider listed in the TPR before taking their CDL skills or knowledge test. In practice, this means new drivers can only get licensed after completing approved coursework and behind‑the‑wheel instruction from a listed school. Training providers self‑certify that they meet federal curriculum and safety standards and are subject to removal if they fail to maintain those qualifications. Until recently, however, enforcement of these requirements was minimal—prompting industry backlash and calls for reform.

For additional insights into the ELDT program and training standards, explore our Entry-Level Driver Training coverage.

Inside the FMCSA Training Provider Registry Crackdown

How Enforcement Evolved from 2022 to 2025

ELDT requires training with an FMCSA‑registered provider before CDL testing.

After the ELDT mandate took effect in February 2022, the FMCSA’s initial enforcement of the Training Provider Registry was slow and highly limited. For the first few years, very few training providers were actually removed from the TPR for non‑compliance. This stands in stark contrast to the thousands of providers that rushed to register under the new rule. The lack of enforcement soon became obvious: reports of “CDL mills”—unscrupulous schools skimping on training—continued to surface, yet the registry remained essentially unchanged.

Slow Start: Few Early Removals Despite ELDT Mandate

From 2022 through 2024, the FMCSA rarely exercised its authority to remove subpar training providers. According to industry associations, only four providers were removed from the TPR in the first couple of years, despite numerous complaints and known issues. Three of those four removals were carried out under emergency conditions for egregious violations—meaning that, aside from immediate threats, almost no routine enforcement occurred.

Additionally, about 25 schools had received official notices of proposed removal by early 2025, but none of those cases had been finalized as removals at that time. In other words, even when the FMCSA flagged a school as a problem, it had not been following through to remove it from the list. This lack of follow‑through baffled state licensing agencies (which reported many of these bad actors) and undermined the integrity of the new driver training system.

The minimal early action caused frustration and alarm within the trucking education community. The ELDT rule was supposed to guarantee uniform, high‑quality training, but weak enforcement meant “bad actor” schools continued operating unchecked. Many such schools allegedly exploited students, taking their tuition but leaving them unprepared for the CDL exams or unsafe behind the wheel. Legitimate truck driving schools, both private and public, grew concerned that these substandard programs were tarnishing the industry’s reputation and jeopardizing public safety by putting inadequately trained drivers on the road. For additional insights into truck driver training standards and programs, explore our Truck Driver Training coverage.

Industry and Association Calls for Action

Facing criticism from all sides, regulators were compelled to act. Multiple trucking organizations had raised red flags about the lack of enforcement in the ELDT program.

What Prompted FMCSA’s Crackdown on Training Providers?

Carriers must confirm that training occurred while the provider was in good standing. Any instruction delivered after a provider’s removal is considered invalid.

In April 2025, the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) and the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools (NAPFTDS) submitted a joint letter to federal officials underscoring the urgent need for more vigorous enforcement of the TPR. They highlighted the alarming fact that FMCSA had removed only four providers since 2023, and that twenty‑five more had been formally notified of problems with none actually removed as of that date.

This lack of action, the letter argued, undermines the entire driver training system and leaves both students and the motoring public at risk. The associations urged FMCSA to take bold steps to enhance oversight of the registry, warning that without decisive action, fraudulent and substandard schools would continue to endanger trainees and highway safety.

The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Owner‑Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) soon added their voices. ATA’s leadership warned that gaps in oversight, enforcement, and qualification requirements threaten safety on the nation’s highways. In an October 2025 letter to Congress, ATA made recommendations to boost driver standards—including a call to expedite the removal of non‑compliant training providers from FMCSA’s registry.

Likewise, in October, OOIDA told lawmakers that FMCSA has the authority to act, but so far only a handful of schools had been removed or even recommended for removal, a situation it called unacceptable. OOIDA urged Congress to ensure that FMCSA takes aggressive action to eliminate both non‑compliant and inadequate training programs quickly. This broad industry pressure—from training schools, large carriers, and independent driver groups alike—set the stage for FMCSA’s renewed enforcement effort.

For more news on trucking compliance and safety regulations, explore our safety regulations coverage.

Stepped‑Up Oversight in 2025: Hundreds Face Removal

In mid‑2025, FMCSA’s enforcement approach dramatically shifted. Under the leadership of a new TPR program administrator, Derek Barrs, the agency set out to clean up the registry and remove schools that weren’t meeting requirements. Initial signs of this shift appeared by June 2025, when officials quietly removed nearly 60 providers from the TPR. This was a massive jump from the virtually static numbers earlier. Many of these first removals seemed to target inactive or defunct programs.

In fact, industry observers noted that a large share of the 57 providers delisted by June were from just a few states—Michigan, Rhode Island, Ohio, and North Carolina—suggesting that those states had been actively reporting outdated or non‑compliant schools to FMCSA. Some removed entries were actually fleet‑operated training programs or community colleges that had long since dropped their CDL courses, and even a few providers that requested to come off the registry voluntarily ended up listed as involuntarily removed by FMCSA. This sweeping of “low‑hanging fruit” hinted that FMCSA was serious about pruning the registry, even if the initial wave was essentially about clearing out dormant listings.

Mass Notices Trigger a Wave of Removals

Students should verify a school’s TPR status before enrolling or taking a test.

The real crackdown unfolded in the fall of 2025. FMCSA conducted a comprehensive review of its roster of over 8,000 registered training providers and identified an alarming number that had likely fallen out of compliance. In late September 2025, the agency announced it had reclassified more than 2,685 providers to “proposed removal” status. The immediate reason: these entities had failed to complete a required biennial review of their registration details, a basic compliance step for staying on the registry.

FMCSA sent notices giving these providers 30 days to update their information or face removal. At the same time, the agency issued inactivity notices to 10,471 providers (covering 17,153 training locations), warning that they must train students or otherwise take corrective action to maintain active status. This massive outreach was effectively a final wake‑up call to any school that might exist only on paper or had fallen short of TPR requirements.

“The number of removed providers skyrocketed from 94 to 244 in a matter of weeks—an unprecedented sweep compared to prior years.”

When the 30‑day grace period elapsed in October 2025, FMCSA followed through. Hundreds of training providers were formally removed from the registry for failing to respond or meet the standards in a timely manner. Those expelled included many outfits that likely never updated their curricula or weren’t actually training any drivers despite being listed. Even after this purge, more than 2,600 entities remained in “proposed removal” status as of late October, indicating that further delistings were on the horizon for providers that failed to remedy their shortcomings.

FMCSA’s aggressive action in late 2025 represents a new era of oversight for the ELDT program. Agency officials have stated that these steps are intended to ensure the registry contains only legitimate, high‑quality programs as we advance. By shrinking the registry to a more manageable size, FMCSA aims to begin conducting deeper audits of the remaining active training providers—something that was practically impossible when thousands of unvetted schools clogged the list. It is worth noting that enforcement procedures still include due process—providers receive notice and can contest removals—but the recent wave shows FMCSA is willing to act once grace periods expire.

10,471 providers received inactivity notices across 17,153 locations. More than 2,600 providers remain in proposed-removal status heading into 2026.

Importantly, this crackdown has been welcomed by the trucking education community. CVTA, which had long pushed for more accountability, called the latest removals a modest but noteworthy step toward ensuring only qualified and compliant schools remain in the system. While that ultimate goal is still very far away, the association noted a modest step forward and appreciated FMCSA’s partnership in policing the integrity of entry‑level driver training.

CVTA pledged to continue working with FMCSA and state authorities to root out fraud and poor‑quality programs. FMCSA officials, for their part, have indicated this is just the beginning of an ongoing initiative to safeguard the training of new truck drivers through regular monitoring and enforcement. For more coverage on regulatory compliance efforts in trucking, visit our compliance news section.

What Does This Mean for Drivers, Schools, and Carriers?

For CDL applicants and new drivers, the crackdown is a double‑edged sword. On one hand, it protects aspiring truckers from “diploma mill” schools that might have taken their money and provided subpar training. With FMCSA now actively removing such schools, prospective students can have more confidence that any provider listed on the TPR is thoroughly vetted. On the other hand, a trainee could find that a school they enrolled in has been suddenly removed from the registry. What happens then? If a training provider receives a notice of proposed removal, they must inform all current and scheduled students of the situation.

“A provider that gets fully removed cannot submit proof of training completion to the registry—meaning its recent graduates won’t have their required certification on file and likely won’t be allowed to take the CDL test.”

For drivers preparing for the CDL exam, read more on CDL test requirements and resources. The practical advice for drivers is to do some homework before signing up for a CDL course: check the FMCSA’s public listings of providers that have received a notice of proposed removal or have already been removed, available on the TPR website. If a school appears on those lists—or if it has no recent record of training activity—a student should find a different, compliant provider to avoid headaches or retraining.

Legitimate truck driving schools and training providers stand to benefit in the long run from this enforcement sweep. Removing unethical or substandard competitors will help level the playing field and uphold the professional credibility of the training industry. Nonetheless, all training providers are now on notice that they must rigorously maintain compliance with ELDT standards and TPR requirements. This includes not only delivering the mandated curriculum and behind‑the‑wheel hours, but also meeting administrative obligations such as biennial audits and the timely submission of trainee records.

Due process still applies, but FMCSA acts once grace periods expire.

Schools that neglect these duties—even inadvertently—could find themselves quickly proposed for removal in the next rounds of FMCSA’s enforcement. For reputable schools, the crackdown offers reassurance that fly‑by‑night operations will not undercut their commitment to quality. For marginal operators, it serves as a final warning to shape up or be shut down.

Motor carriers and the trucking industry at large have welcomed mainly the Training Provider Registry cleanup, viewing it as a way to improve safety outcomes. Carriers depend on CDL training schools to provide competent new drivers. When poorly trained drivers slip through, carriers can face higher crash risks, liability, and costs. With FMCSA filtering out disreputable schools, carriers can have more confidence that new CDL holders truly meet baseline skill standards. In fact, significant trucking associations like ATA have formally supported these efforts—urging regulators to accelerate the removal of non‑compliant trainers as part of strengthening driver qualifications.

Carriers should still practice due diligence in hiring, of course, by verifying that incoming drivers completed training at a registered, in‑good‑standing provider. Some large motor carriers operate their own CDL training academies, and those programs, too, must heed the rules or risk being removed from the TPR. The recent purge even included a few carrier‑run schools that had gone inactive or failed to update their status. In the future, carriers can expect FMCSA to be more proactive in this arena. For example, if a pattern emerges showing that drivers from a particular school are especially unsafe or unprepared, that school could land on the agency’s radar for investigation and possible removal.

Overall, the heightened enforcement of the FMCSA Training Provider Registry is a pivotal development for the U.S. trucking industry. It closes a loophole that allowed unqualified drivers to obtain CDLs through substandard training, thereby increasing highway risks. By strengthening compliance, FMCSA’s actions align with the broader push from industry stakeholders and regulators to improve truck safety and driver professionalism. There are still challenges ahead—with over 2,600 providers in the queue for potential removal, the process of vetting and culling the registry will continue into 2026.

But if this momentum continues, the end result will be a more trustworthy training ecosystem. New drivers will receive the thorough education they need, honest training schools will thrive without unfair competition, and carriers will gain a more reliably skilled entry‑level workforce. It’s a positive shift that, while still in its early stages, marks significant progress toward the original goal of ELDT: making America’s roads safer by ensuring every truck driver behind the wheel has been properly trained. For more insights into developments across the trucking industry, check out our trucking industry coverage.

Key Developments — FMCSA Training Provider Registry Crackdown (2025)

• Total removals surged from 94 to 244 in October 2025 after FMCSA’s enforcement sweep.
• 2,600+ providers remain in proposed‑removal status for failing the required biennial review (with 30‑day cure periods issued).
• Inactivity notices were sent to 10,471 providers spanning 17,153 locations; non‑responders face delisting.
• Regulatory basis: Under 49 CFR § 380.721, providers may be removed for failing to maintain qualifications, refusing to participate in audits, or for material deficiencies.
• Training validity rule: Instruction delivered after a provider’s removal date is invalid; affected students may need to retrain with a compliant provider to test.
• Student protections: Providers in proposed‑removal status must notify all current and scheduled students.
• Provider playbook: Keep ELDT curriculum current, document BTW hours, submit trainee records promptly, and complete the biennial review on time.
• Carrier actions: Verify a driver’s TPR status upon training completion and adjust recruiting pipelines to avoid licensing delays.
• Outlook: Expect continued audits and additional removals into 2026, with a leaner, higher‑integrity registry as inactive listings are purged.

Explore Official Resources and Industry Perspectives on FMCSA TPR Removals

• Understand the federal removal standard at 49 CFR § 380.721 (eCFR) — Removal from the Training Provider Registry.
• Review FMCSA’s Q&A on removal factors at § 380.721 — Factors considered for removal (FMCSA).
• See FMCSA’s current delisted schools at Removed Training Providers (TPR).
• Monitor pending enforcement actions at Providers in Proposed Removal (TPR).
• Get an official overview of requirements at Entry‑Level Driver Training (ELDT) — FMCSA.
• Read the governing rulemaking at Minimum Training Requirements for Entry‑Level CMV Operators (Federal Register, 2016).
• Check the compliance timeline history at ELDT Compliance Date Extension (Federal Register, 2021).
• Download the official curriculum outline at ELDT Curriculum Summary (PDF, TPR).
• Review what providers must do to stay compliant at Training Provider Registry — Provider Requirements (TPR FAQ).
• Locate an approved training program at Search the Training Provider Registry.
• See the national carriers’ viewpoint at the ATA Letter to Congress on strengthening ELDT enforcement (Oct. 2025).
• Read the training schools’ perspective on the CVTA statement welcoming more vigorous TPR enforcement.