Picture a supply chain where goods move continuously across the country, less constrained by driver fatigue, rigid schedules, and mandatory rest periods. Trucks that don’t get drowsy at 2 a.m., don’t miss braking cues, and don’t sit idle simply because a human operator has reached the end of a shift. The result could be fewer accidents, faster deliveries, and lower costs on everything from groceries to construction materials. The future of American freight is already taking shape in the form of autonomous trucking. But it will arrive only if policymakers refuse to let special interests use regulation to freeze yesterday’s labor model into law. Recommended Stories That tactic is not new. For decades, transportation unions have sought rules requiring more workers than the work itself demands. In the railroad industry, the practice was long known as “featherbedding” — the use of labor rules to preserve jobs even when technology or changing operations made them unnecessary. The same impulse resurfaced after the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio, derailment triggered a national political fight over rail safety. Labor-backed proposals in Washington would require minimum railroad crew sizes regardless of operational need, even after investigators found the derailment was caused by equipment failure, not crew size. RUSSIA’S DRONE INVASION AND THE GRIM REALITIES OF REMOTE COMBAT: ‘IT’S GONNA KILL YOU’ Now the same strategy is being deployed against autonomous trucking. Lawmakers in multiple states are considering “driver-in” mandates for autonomous trucks, which would require a human operator to remain behind the wheel even when the vehicle is capable of driving itself. Supporters frame the policy as a safety measure. But the politics surrounding these bills reveal the deeper purpose: protecting incumbent jobs from technological change. The Teamsters have been explicit about the nationwide campaign. In Maryland, Teamsters locals testified in support of HB 1447,