120th Congress puts fleet funding, tariffs and AI in play

By Marcus Bennett

The 120th Congress will be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2027, with Democrats controlling both chambers while Donald Trump remains president, creating divided government. No appropriation, freight-rate change or capacity figure came with that outlook, so policy exposure cannot yet become a shipping-cost forecast.

What does divided government change for fleets?

At Holman's Drive26 customer conference in Hollywood, Florida, Trey McKenzie, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president for government affairs, explained how election results could affect fleets heading into 2027 and beyond. He said Democratic control permits changes, but divided government makes their scale and timing uncertain.

Holman industry relations manager Peter Nogalo said fleets cannot base investment decisions on election cycles: “These big swings hit harder than they used to. How do businesses manage that big swing? And how do they know where to invest?” Political whiplash leaves fleets preparing for regulatory implementation, execution or reversal.

Democrats have pledged to investigate corruption during the Trump administration, sharpening the split. McKenzie questioned whether Congress could investigate while negotiating with Trump. He described Trump as a seasoned negotiator and “deal maker,” recalling The Apprentice, and asked whether he would pursue quick bipartisan wins or lean more on executive authority.

For shippers, carriers and forwarders, the discussion offered no TEU, tonnage, $/FEU, capacity-percentage or contract-rate forecast. Exposure is indirect: funding affects construction fleets, road use adds wear, and changing rules can increase compliance work. The panel quantified none of those effects.

Where does federal funding reach fleets?

McKenzie identified the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill, also called the BUILD America 250 Act, among Congress's first transportation tests. It authorizes infrastructure funding nationwide, including rail. No dollar value, project list or schedule followed, and the “250” label did not supply an appropriation figure.

Construction companies need fleet vehicles for infrastructure work, while non-construction fleets travel roads and absorb maintenance costs. For shippers with construction exposure, funding is an indirect source of truck demand; for carriers, vehicle wear is a direct cost. The panel supplied no lane volume, truck count or tonnage estimate.

Congress will next turn to aviation funding through the Federal Aviation Administration, McKenzie said. He identified no appropriation, approval date or affected operator. A funding headline alone cannot establish aircraft availability, transport capacity or cost.

What could oversight and AI rules change?

Between funding approvals, McKenzie expects Democratic investigations and oversight within the Department of Transportation, especially regulations and grant funding. He named no regulation, hearing or grant amount, leaving fleet operators with uncertainty over requirements and public grants.

McKenzie also urged attention to AI regulation and standards. The Chamber's priority, he said, is rules for deployers rather than developers or systems themselves. State rules could therefore determine how interstate fleet operators use the technology.

“If we have 50 different states adopting different standards on how you can use this technology, it's going to significantly pivot the adoption of it,” McKenzie said. Divergent standards can force multistate fleets into separate operating practices and raise administrative costs, but he disclosed no state, rule or deadline.

Tariffs largely defined the first year of Trump's second term, McKenzie said. The initial shock has subsided and many tariffs have been modified, yet they still affect U.S. businesses. Post-midterm changes remain uncertain, while repealing Canadian tariffs has drawn bipartisan support.

The panel identified no current tariff rate, covered fleet input or cost-sharing arrangement. For carriers and forwarders, tariffs remain an unresolved cost variable, not a known capacity change. Canada was the only cross-border market mentioned, with no implementation schedule.

Nogalo asked whether Congress would renew the EV push, whether tariffs would rise or fall, and whether the Iran conflict would wind down enough to ease prices at the pump. No fuel-price forecast or EV spending figure accompanied those questions.

What can fleets control before 2027?

McKenzie's one-word prescription was to diversify. He said successful businesses the Chamber represents pursue multiple options and can activate them when conditions favor it. Fleet plans or trials included EVs, natural gas and hydrogen. He supplied no technology mix, capital cost or payback period.

Powertrain diversity does not guarantee lower transport cost. It gives fleets options to respond to shifts in fuel prices or powertrain policy, but the discussion supplied no cost-per-mile comparison among electricity, natural gas and hydrogen.

Kevin Tynan, director of research at the Presidio Group, recommended using available tools and technology to improve profitability and optimize operations, calling it a low-hanging-fruit strategy. He said that gives companies control over net and operating profit while policy remains unsettled.

Tynan named no software platform, savings amount or implementation cost, so this remains an operating lever, not a measurable margin promise. Even McKenzie and Tynan lack all the answers; the practical case is to act on known levers while preserving choices.

Through 2027, policy will depend on whether Congress can negotiate with Trump, what money follows the BUILD America 250 Act and Federal Aviation Administration funding, whether DOT oversight changes grants or rules, and whether states converge on AI standards.

Until measures produce dollar amounts and deadlines, no defensible freight-rate or capacity forecast follows. Fleets with tested powertrain and operating options face less exposure than those betting on one political outcome.