[00:04] Bryan Hyde: This is a Powering America special briefing. I'm Brian Hyde. Opposition is growing to the proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, an approximately $85 billion transaction that would create America's first coast-to-coast freight railroad. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern say a combined system would improve service, eliminate delays between railroads, open thousands of single-line shipping routes, And move more freight from highways onto rail. But reporting from farm country today, the Lone Star Standard, Dauphin News, the Houston Republic, and the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition shows a widening group of opponents challenging those claims. State attorneys general, rail workers, agricultural organizations, manufacturers, freight customers, and competing railroads warned that the merger could reduce competition, increase shipping costs, threaten jobs, and leave American businesses with fewer transportation choices. Today we examine who is opposing the merger and why. The proposed transaction would unite Union Pacific's western network with Norfolk Southern's eastern system. Together, the railroads would operate more than 50,000 miles of track across 43 states. Before that can happen, the merger must be approved by the Federal Surface Transportation Board, commonly called the STB. The board's rules establish a demanding standard for major railroad mergers. The applicants must demonstrate that their transaction would serve the public interest and enhance competition, not merely preserve the competition that exists today. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern argued that their largely complementary networks could be joined without eliminating many directly competing routes. They say a single railroad could move freight across the country without handing trains or cargo to another carrier at major interchange points. According to the companies, that would reduce delays, improve reliability, lower costs, and make freight rail more competitive with trucking. Opponents say the relevant question is not simply whether the 2 networks overlap. They argue that competition also exists when shippers can choose which Western railroad will receive freight arriving from an Eastern carrier, or which Eastern railroad will complete a shipment originating in the West. A merger, they warn, could eliminate some of that bargaining power. Much of the organized opposition is being coordinated through the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition. According to the coalition's official membership list, its current members are the Agricultural Retailers Association, the Alliance for Chemical Distribution, the American Chemistry Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, BNSF Railway, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, or CPKC, the National Industrial Transportation League, the Transportation Communications Union, known as TCU/IAM, IAM District 19, the Teamsters Rail Conference, the Fertilizer Institute, and the Vinyl Institute. Those 13 organizations represent agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals, transportation, freight customers, railroads, and organized labor. Although their interests differ, all are united in opposition to the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger. The coalition argues that the transaction would give one railroad control over nearly half of American rail traffic, reduce transportation choices, and weaken the resilience of the national supply chain. Concern about the merger has also reached state attorneys general. Farm Country Iowa reports that attorneys general of Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee asked the U.S. Department of Justice to closely scrutinize the proposal and oppose it if the evidence demonstrates that it would harm competition. In their joint letter to the Justice Department, the 7 attorneys general argued that the merger is unnecessary and could undermine the competitive and efficient rail service available to American shippers. They are primarily concerned about farmers, manufacturers, and other businesses that depend on rail transportation and cannot easily shift their freight to trucks. They also question whether Union Pacific's proposed customer protections would adequately prevent rate increases or preserve access to competing railroads. The attorneys general asked the Justice Department to use its antitrust expertise as the Surface Transportation Board evaluates the deal. Separately, the Lone Star-Standard reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office raised additional concerns in its own filing with the STB. Texas has not formally opposed the merger, but its antitrust division warned regulators against approving a transaction likely to increase rates for any group of shippers. The Texas filing argues that lower prices for some customers would not necessarily offset higher prices for others. It says any efficiencies claimed by Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern should be verifiable and should directly benefit the customers who might otherwise be harmed. According to the Lone Star Standard, the filing also examined the railroad's proposed committed gateway pricing program. A simulation cited by Texas indicated that approximately half of the Texas shippers included in the model could face higher costs under that program. That estimate applies only to the customers and shipments studied, not to every rail customer in the state. Texas also raised the possibility of a competitive foreclosure. That can occur when a merged company gains the ability to limit a competitor's access to routes, interchange points, terminals, or other resources needed to serve customers. Agricultural organizations are another major source of opposition. Farm Country Ohio reports that the National Grain and Feed Association has asked the Surface Transportation Board to reject the merger. The association represents companies involved in the storage, processing, handling, and transportation of grain, animal feed, and other agricultural products. NGFA President and CEO Mike Seyffart says the organization has reached its decision after an extensive review. Its conclusion is that the proposed merger has not met the federal requirement to enhance competition. The same report says the Ohio Agribusiness Association has also come out against the transaction. Farmers, grain elevators, feed producers, and agricultural retailers often depend on railroads to move large volumes over long distances. For many facilities, trucking is not an efficient or affordable substitute. Some agricultural businesses are served by only one railroad. Others depend on interchange competition—the ability to connect with different carriers at gateways across the rail network. Opponents fear that combining Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern would reduce those options and give the merged railroad greater control over rates. and service. Any additional transportation costs could then travel through the supply chain affecting farms, processors, manufacturers, retailers, and ultimately consumers. The United Sugar Producers and Refiners Cooperative provides a specific example of how that could happen. Dauphin News reports that the farmer-owned cooperative distributes sugar to businesses across the United States. Much of its production is located west of the Mississippi River at facilities in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wyoming, while many of its customers are in the East. That means a significant amount of its sugar must travel across more than one railroad's territory. In a filing with the Surface Transportation Board, the cooperative warned that the merger could reduce competition, increase its transportation expenses, and raise prices for consumer products made with sugar, including candy, cereal, and beverages. According to Dauphin News, the cooperative cited shipments serving Hershey, Pennsylvania. Today, competing rail routings can give sugar suppliers different ways to reach that market. The cooperative says that if Union Pacific absorbs Norfolk Southern, the combined railroad could control both ends of an important competing route. That could reduce the merged company's incentive to offer competitive rates through interchange points such as Chicago. The cooperative says it raised these concerns directly with Union Pacific after the railroad asked it to support the merger. It ultimately urged the STB to reject the transaction. Rail labor is also playing a prominent role in the opposition. In a September 4th announcement, the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition reported that the Transportation Communications Union and IAM District 19 had joined the coalition. The 2 organizations are part of the IAM Rail Division and represent thousands of railroad workers. They say rail consolidation has historically been followed by job reductions, facility closures, contracting out, and the movement of work away from communities that depend on railroad employment. Their concerns include job security, seniority rights, workplace safety, possible facility closures, and the future of communities supported by good railroad jobs. The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Teamsters Rail Conference are also coalition members. The Teamsters Rail Conference includes the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division. The Houston Republic reports that unions representing thousands of workers have warned the merger could affect jobs, safety, service, and shipping costs. Not every railroad union opposes the deal. Several labor organizations have supported it after Union Pacific made commitments intended to protect union employment. Opposing unions contend those promises do not resolve every concern. They say workers could still be required to transfer hundreds of miles to keep their positions. They also worry about work being contracted out, facilities being closed, or rail lines being sold or leased to smaller operators with different pay and employment practices. These unions are calling for enforceable protections covering workers, their jobs, and their communities, not assurances that could be narrowed after the merger receives approval. Public opinion may present another challenge for the 2 railroads. An April 2026 poll released by the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition showed that 55% of likely midterm election voters initially opposed the merger when they first heard about it. But that number increased to 71% opposition once the respondents heard additional information and arguments about the transaction. The poll also found that majorities expected the merger to increase the cost of goods shipped by rail, raise food prices, and increase shipping expenses for businesses. About half believed the transaction would reduce railway competition and lead to job losses. The Surface Transportation Board will have to determine whether those promised benefits are achievable. whether they require a merger, and whether the proposed customer and worker protections are sufficient. The debate ultimately comes down to a fundamental question: would a single coast-to-coast railroad create more meaningful competition or give one company too much power over the movement of American goods? Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern see an integrated national network capable of competing more effectively with trucking. Opponents see fewer choices for shippers, higher rates for customers with limited alternatives, additional pressure on railroad workers, and further consolidation in an industry already controlled by a small number of major carriers. The Surface Transportation Board has not approved the merger. Its review will examine the companies' economic projections, operating plans, labor commitments, customer protections, and the transaction's likely effect on rail competition. As that process moves forward, opposition is becoming broader, better organized, and more vocal. State officials, agricultural organizations, manufacturers, freight customers, competing railroads, and labor unions are all asking regulators to apply the highest possible standard. Their message is clear: before allowing the creation of America's largest railroad, federal regulators must determine who would receive the promised benefits, and who could be left paying the price? This has been a Powering America special briefing. I'm Brian Hyde. Thank you for listening.