By Jacob Ross, Security Specialist · Last updated June 18, 2026
California is the #1 state for cargo theft — 38% of all U.S. cargo-theft incidents in 2025, up from 32% a year earlier — as national losses hit a record ~$725 million (+60%). (Sources: Overhaul via FreightWaves, 2025; CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
Cargo theft set records in 2025 — not because there were more hits, but because thieves are stealing bigger, higher-value loads and using identity-based, cyber-enabled tactics. Below are 25+ statistics — each dated and linked to its source — on the scale, the methods, where it happens (California first), and what actually reduces it.
📌 Source note (read before citing a cargo-theft number). Two figures get conflated online: CargoNet/Verisk’s “recorded direct losses” (~$455M in 2024 → ~$725M in 2025) and NICB’s broader “value of stolen cargo,” which surpassed $1 billion as early as 2023 — different metrics and different years. We keep them separate and dated. CargoNet’s 2025 data is full calendar-year, released January 21, 2026.
The scale: a record year
- ~$725 million — estimated U.S./Canada cargo-theft losses in 2025, a 60% jump over the prior year. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- ~$454.9 million — the 2024 figure (itself a record at the time). (CargoNet, via Risk & Insurance, 2024)
- 2,646 confirmed cargo-theft incidents in 2025, up 18% from 2,243 in 2024. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- ~3,594 total supply-chain crime events in 2025 — essentially flat vs. 3,607 in 2024. Translation: roughly the same number of hits, far more money lost — thieves are going after higher-value freight. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- $273,990 — the average value of a single cargo theft in 2025, up 36% from $202,364 in 2024. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025; corrob. Insurance Journal, 2026)
- The longer arc: cargo-crime incidents hit an all-time high in 2024 (~3,625, +27% over 2023), and the broader value of stolen cargo surpassed $1 billion as early as 2023 (a separate, wider estimate). (CargoNet & NICB, via Carrier Management, 2025)
What’s stolen — and how the playbook changed
- Food & beverage is the #1 stolen commodity: 708 thefts in 2025, up 47%. Easy to resell, hard to trace. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Metal theft rose 77%, driven by demand for copper. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Enterprise computing and cryptocurrency-mining hardware are now top-tier targets — a shift away from consumer electronics. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Strategic cargo theft grew nearly 1,500% from 2022 to 2024 — the defining shift from smash-and-grab to organized, deception-based crime. (Travelers)
- Fictitious pickups exploded — from an average of ~66 a year (2012–2022) to 576 in 2023 — as criminals create fraudulent carrier identities to drive loads away “legally.” (CargoNet, 2023)
- How strategic theft works: identity theft, fictitious pickups, and double-brokering — “tricking shippers and brokers into unwittingly handing over their own goods,” rather than breaking in. (Travelers)
Where it happens: California is the epicenter
- California = the #1 state, 38% of all U.S. cargo-theft incidents in 2025 — up from 32% in 2024 (of 2,576 U.S. thefts in Overhaul’s dataset). (Overhaul via FreightWaves, 2025)
- California and Texas together account for 58% of U.S. cargo theft; Texas is #2 at 20%. (Overhaul via FreightWaves, 2025)
- California logged 1,218 cargo-theft incidents — the most of any state (in CargoNet’s separate count of 2,646 confirmed U.S./Canada thefts). (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- The map is shifting inland: Los Angeles County fell 11%, but Kern County jumped 82% and San Joaquin County 44% — crime moving from the LA basin toward Central Valley logistics hubs. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- It’s spreading nationally too: New Jersey +50%, Indiana +30%, Pennsylvania +24% in 2025. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Warehouses and distribution centers are the #1 targeted location for cargo theft. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- In one detailed analysis, 41% of cargo theft occurred while goods sat in warehouse storage, and 16% in an unsecured parking lot — i.e., most freight is stolen at rest, on the lot or dock. (Overhaul, U.S. & Canada H1-2024 report, via Trade Risk Guaranty)
The cost — and who absorbs it
- $273,990 — the average loss per cargo-theft event in 2025 (see above) — borne by shippers, carriers, and their insurers, before downstream costs (delays, lost contracts, higher premiums). (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Reefer and high-value loads raise the stakes — food & beverage alone drove 708 thefts (above), and a single high-value trailer can carry six figures of goods. (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025)
- Insider risk compounds it: organizations lose an estimated 5% of revenue to occupational fraud each year, and the typical scheme runs ~12 months before it’s caught — relevant because strategic cargo theft often relies on inside information about schedules and dock assignments. (occupational fraud, all sectors — ACFE 2024 Report to the Nations)
What actually reduces cargo theft
The data points to one conclusion: because most freight is stolen at rest — in warehouse storage (41%) and on unsecured lots (16%) — the highest-leverage move is hardening those physical points with actively monitored security, not just more cameras.
- The evidence on monitoring is clear: actively monitored video is associated with a meaningful crime reduction (~13–15%, and ~34% when layered with other measures), while passive, record-only cameras show no statistically significant effect. (Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas, 2019 — authors’ summary)
- Match the defense to the data: strategic/fictitious-pickup theft is defeated at the dock (verify carrier identity, control pickups), while theft-at-rest is defeated on the yard and in storage.
For a warehouse or distribution operation, that means a layered program: live video monitoring with trained agents who watch the docks and yard in real time, issue voice-down warnings, and alert and coordinate with law enforcement as an incident unfolds; remote surveillance trailers for staging lots and truck yards with no fixed power; and security patrol services for a visible presence after hours. Guardian builds this into full security for warehouses and distribution center security programs across California. (See also our California retail theft statistics.)
Cite this page
Found these numbers useful? You’re welcome to cite or link this page. Suggested citation:
Guardian Integrated Security. “Cargo Theft Statistics (2026).” guardianintegratedsecurity.com, last updated June 18, 2026. https://www.guardianintegratedsecurity.com/cargo-theft-statistics/
Frequently asked questions
How much does cargo theft cost?
U.S./Canada cargo-theft losses hit a record ~$725 million in 2025 — a 60% jump from ~$455 million in 2024 — and the average theft now tops $273,990, up 36% in a year (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025). A separate, broader NICB estimate put the total value of stolen cargo above $1 billion as early as 2023.
Which state has the most cargo theft?
California — the #1 state, accounting for 38% of all U.S. cargo-theft incidents in 2025, up from 32% the year before. California and Texas together make up 58% (Overhaul via FreightWaves, 2025).
Where does cargo theft physically happen?
Mostly while freight is at rest. Warehouses and distribution centers are the #1 targeted location, and one detailed analysis found 41% of cargo theft occurred in warehouse storage and 16% on unsecured parking lots (CargoNet/Verisk, 2025; Overhaul, H1-2024).
How do you prevent cargo theft at a warehouse or yard?
Layer the defenses where freight sits: actively monitored video (record-only cameras show no statistically significant crime effect; monitored systems do — Piza et al., 2019), surveillance coverage of yards and staging lots, after-hours patrol, and strict carrier-identity verification at the dock to stop fictitious pickups.
Sources
CargoNet / Verisk (2025 + 2023 theft-trends releases) · Overhaul (via FreightWaves 2025 and Trade Risk Guaranty, H1-2024) · Risk & Insurance (2024 losses) · Insurance Journal (2026) · Carrier Management (2025) · Travelers (strategic cargo theft) · ACFE 2024 Report to the Nations (occupational fraud) · Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas (2019, monitored-vs-passive). Individual figures are linked inline.
