Is this correct?

There are chains on the back of that truck, the tires are pushed against the back of the trailer.

 

I think what he's talking about is the chains on the back of trailer/front of load are pulling toward the front. It also appears that the chains on the front of trailer/back of load are also pulling toward the front. It's not that good of a pic, but if that's the case, it is wrong.

 

I don't see any securement points above axle 3 on the trailer, probably why there isn't rearward pressure. But, that is a flip axle so you would think it would have D rings by the tail lights. Also. I am not 100% sure the chains at the rear of the rock truck are pulling forward. I have already secured wheeled vehicles by tightening the chain across the face of the tire. I wish there were more pictures.

 

The back of the trailer is acting as a bulkhead so that could eliminate the need for chains pulling forward. Between the weight of the vehicle and the chains pulling it down it'd be hard to imagine that thing jumping that step and rolling off the back.

I'm interested to see what the folks at the FMCSA and DOT would say about it too though.

 

If chains on both ends are pulling toward to back, that's not good in my book.

I've honestly never looked at the securement requirements in the book. I just look at a load, figure what needs to be done to keep the load on the trailer, and chain accordingly. I've always done it this way and never had a problem with the man.

 

Some of these threads are not very wise.
If you're going to take photos of load securement for public berating, get clear, concise, and several angles.
Posting a blurry picture and questioning something that you clearly state you have little understanding of, has the potential to create a backlash you should be quite weary of.

caveat: I cannot clearly see the securement so I cannot comment one way or another, I'm playing Devils Advocate.

This line of questioning, from someone without the requisite knowledge and experience to pose questions in an accusatory manner, ala something like @scottied67 and his bobblehead videos that he posts on the internet making blanket statements and questioning the legality of what someone is doing, which was perfectly legal, has the potential to open yourself and your company up to significant legal action and consequences.

Once again, I cannot tell if this load is secured properly or not, and as stated by the OP neither can he.
Now imagine this, some inquisitive fellow unknowingly to me, videos me traveling down the road with a forestry machine loaded on my rail. I can, and have on several occasions for the entertainment value, put 14-1/2" chains on an 80k lb payload with only 2 visible from the road. Yes, it literally looks like there is only 2 chains on the grapple, and nothing on the actual machine! Now imagine this inquisitive fellow posts said video on YouTube asking the world exactly "What in the heck is this guy doing hauling this load down the highway with NO chains on?"
And this fellow happens to get a clear shot of the name on my door.
I work for a very large publicly traded company.
They DO NOT like bad press.
And somebody from my office sees said door image and video, and forwards said video to the Safety Dept and Head Office.
Let's say Head Office decides being questioned in the media for something that doesn't "appear" safe and decides to terminate me for said "publicity".

Understand that if this scenario played out;
-I have an attorney on retainer
-I have the financial wherewithal
-I would have significant financial repercussion claims
-To successfully sue; You, Your Company, the hosting website (if it continued to host and protect originators of such thread(s))

It would be an extremely unpleasant conversation if I was photographed or videoed without my knowledge or consent, and publicly questioned in such circumstances by someone lacking said experience or knowledge to ask such questions.

Asking questions for the purposes of learning and gaining knowledge is fine.
Asking questions, with accusations, without the proper "evidence" to support such accusations is something you should perhaps think twice about.

 

Fair point HH, at least the picture did not reveal the trucking company.