Conflicting Claims as War with Iran Enters Critical Phase
Congressional ag leaders, others talk policy at Agri-Pulse confab
| LINKS |
Link: Trump Steps Back from Iran Energy Threat as Markets Force a Pause
Link: Trump/Xi Summit Reset Sharpens Focus on Ag Deliverables
Beyond Soybeans
Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, March 21
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, March 21
| Updates: Policy/News/Markets, March 24, 2026 |
| UP FRONT |
TOP STORIES
— Trump/Iran messaging clash clouds outlook — Conflicting claims over “talks” vs. denials point to indirect backchannel diplomacy, with the next five days critical for whether a ceasefire window materializes
— Russia curbs fertilizer exports — Nitrogen restrictions ahead of spring planting tighten global supply and add upward pressure on input costs amid Iran-driven energy disruptions
— States sue USDA over funding conditions — Democratic AGs challenge new policy mandates tied to aid, warning of legal violations and potential SNAP disruptions
— Bipartisan push targets livestock market concentration research — Smith and Grassley bill would direct USDA to study economic impacts of consolidation in cattle processing, with eye toward farm bill inclusion
FINANCIAL MARKETS
— Global markets cautious — Equities trade unevenly as investors balance diplomatic signals against persistent energy shock risks
— U.S. equities rebound — Major indexes post strongest gains in weeks on de-escalation optimism
— Volatility remains elevated — VIX still ~30% above pre-war levels, reflecting entrenched geopolitical risk
— Markets question Trump signals — Investors trade policy patterns over headlines as gold loses safe-haven role and cash dominates
— Smithfield earnings beat — Strong packaged meat demand and at-home consumption trends lift results and outlook
AG MARKETS
— Mixed commodity performance — Corn and wheat lower; soy complex mixed; cattle higher as broader macro and input pressures persist
FARM POLICY
— Boozman pushes aid and demand — Senate Ag chair calls for immediate support, E15 expansion, and domestic market focus while protecting small refineries
— Thompson centers farm bill on markets — House Ag chair emphasizes exports, processing, and nutrition programs as demand drivers
— Klobuchar warns of “perfect storm” — Ranking Democrat flags tariffs, fertilizer costs, and trade instability while urging bipartisan action
FARM ECONOMY
— Margins under pressure — Farm Bureau warns input costs and geopolitical shocks are creating unsustainable economics, calling for demand growth and structural changes
— Farm Bureau chief economist John Newton talks about a possible fertilizer reserve — The pros and cons of establishing one and what it could entail
ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY
— Oil rebounds on supply fears — Prices rise as Iran denies talks and Hormuz disruptions persist, keeping risk premium intact
— Oil plunges on diplomacy signal — Five-day strike delay triggers sharp selloff, though underlying supply constraints remain
— Zeldin signals RFS rule by end of month — EPA chief pushes deregulation, faster approvals, and biofuels policy rollout by month-end
TRADE POLICY
— USTR chief ag negotiator Callahan touts tariff-driven gains — Administration highlights bilateral deals, market access wins, and narrowing ag trade deficit
CONGRESS
— Mullin confirmed as DHS secretary — Senate installs Trump ally amid shutdown and escalating immigration policy fight
FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY
— Surgeon general nominee stalls — GOP concerns over vaccines and qualifications put Trump pick in jeopardy
POLITICS & ELECTIONS
— Generational reset looms over U.S. politics — Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal, warns the 2028 cycle will mark a historic break from decades of political dominance by familiar figures, as Baby Boomers give way to Gen X and Millennials amid sweeping congressional retirements and uncertainty in both parties’ presidential fields
WEATHER
— Mixed U.S. outlook — Snow in Upper Great Lakes and Northeast; record heat across interior West
| TOP STORIES — “We’re talking.” “No, we’re not.” — Making sense of the Trump/Iran contradictionA breakdown of conflicting claims as the four-week-old war enters a critical phase If you’ve been following the news about the U.S./Iran conflict and come away more confused than informed, you’re not alone. In the span of a single Monday morning, President Trump declared a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran — and Iran declared there had been no diplomacy at all. Here is what we know, what we don’t, and why the contradiction may matter less than it appears. How we got here. The war now in its fourth week did not begin suddenly. Negotiations between the U.S. and Iran had been ongoing since April 2025, when Trump sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and set a 60-day deadline for a nuclear agreement. After that deadline passed without a deal, Israel attacked Iran, igniting the broader conflict. In late February 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Khamenei along with other senior Iranian officials. Subsequent strikes damaged military bases, government facilities, schools, hospitals, and cultural heritage sites. In retaliation, Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at targets in Israel and at U.S. military bases across the region, and closed the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway through which roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes. What Trump said. On Monday, Trump posted in all caps on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. and Iran had held “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.” He instructed the Department of Defense to postpone all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days, pending the outcome of ongoing talks. Speaking to reporters, Trump said Iran wants “to make a deal,” and claimed his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had conducted talks on Sunday into the evening. He said the U.S. had been speaking with a “respected” Iranian leader, though he did not name who that was. This announcement immediately moved markets. Stocks rose and energy prices dived as investors bet that Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could soon end. What Iran said. Tehran’s response was swift and categorical. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on social media that “no negotiations have been held with the U.S.,” accusing Trump of using the idea of talks to “manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the U.S. and Israel are trapped.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei also denied any discussions had taken place, though he acknowledged that “messages have been received from some friendly countries regarding the US’s request for negotiations.” Iranian state television, meanwhile, framed the situation differently — claiming that Trump had “backed down following Iran’s firm warning,” casting the postponement of strikes as a capitulation rather than a diplomatic opening. So who is telling the truth? Possibly both — and possibly neither, depending on how you define “negotiations.” CNN reported that multiple sources familiar with the matter confirmed there were no direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran since the outbreak of the war, despite Trump’s claims. However, the denials from Iran were carefully worded and did not actually refute that messages had been passed back and forth between the two sides through intermediaries. Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Oman are all actively involved in mediation efforts, with diplomatic work aimed at both reaching a ceasefire and securing safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Two regional sources said the U.S. had shared a 15-point list of expectations for Iran via Pakistan, though it was unclear whether Iran had agreed to any of the terms — and one report said several points would be “next to impossible” for Iran to accept. In short: indirect, back-channel communication appears to be happening. Whether that constitutes “negotiations” is a matter of framing — and both sides have strong incentives to frame it differently. Why each side says what it says. Trump’s incentives to declare talks are real. The war has become enormously costly. The head of the International Energy Agency warned that the global economy faces a “major, major threat” from the disruption to oil and gas flows, describing the situation as worse than the combined oil crises of 1973 and 1979. Iran’s incentives to deny talks are equally real. For Tehran, publicly sitting down with Washington — the country that killed their Supreme Leader and bombed their cities — would look like weakness before their own population and regional allies. Iran had also warned that if Trump carried out his threat to strike power plants, it would completely shut down the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation. Framing any pause in U.S. strikes as Iran forcing a “retreat” preserves Iranian credibility at home. A reason for cautious optimism — and caution. Egyptian officials said there is an active effort to lay the groundwork for a 30-to-60-day ceasefire or detente to prevent Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — both hit by Iranian strikes — from entering the conflict directly and widening the war further. But observers urge skepticism. Twice in the past year, Washington and Tehran were entering diplomatic talks when the U.S. and Israel launched surprise strikes on Iran. That history has severely damaged Iranian trust in any American commitment to negotiations. Trump’s own statements reflected this ambiguity. Just days earlier, he had dismissed the idea of talks, saying of Iran’s leadership: “All of their leaders are dead, as far as we know. We don’t know who we’re dealing with.” On Friday he said he didn’t want a ceasefire. By Sunday night, his envoys were apparently holding conversations with someone on the Iranian side. Bottom Line: The picture that emerges is less a clean “talks vs. no talks” binary and more a murky middle ground: messages flowing through third-party countries, both sides testing whether the other is serious, and neither willing to formally acknowledge what is happening for fear of looking weak. Despite Iran’s public denials, the likelihood of Iran refusing a genuine offer from Trump is “remote” — provided there are guarantees against future aggression and a path toward a lasting deal. The next five days — the window Trump set before his postponement expires — will likely clarify whether this is a genuine diplomatic opening or another false dawn in a conflict that has already cost thousands of lives and shaken the global economy. — Russia moves to lock down nitrogen fertilizer supply ahead of spring plantingExport license freeze underscores tightening global supply as Iran conflict constrains production flexibility Russia has imposed new restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer exports, halting outbound flows of key products such as ammonium nitrate through April 21 in a bid to secure domestic supply during the critical spring planting season, according to the Agriculture Ministry, as reported by Reuters. The move — effective March 21 — suspends all previously issued export licenses for ammonium nitrate and blocks new approvals, with limited exceptions carved out for government-backed contracts. Officials said the decision is aimed squarely at ensuring uninterrupted fertilizer availability for Russian farmers as fieldwork ramps up. “In the context of growing export demand… the suspension… will allow prioritizing the needs of the domestic market,” the ministry said. Global supply strain meets geopolitical shock. The restriction comes at a time when global fertilizer markets are already under pressure from the war involving Iran, which has disrupted energy and input flows critical to nitrogen production. Russia, one of the world’s largest fertilizer exporters, acknowledged it lacks the capacity to significantly boost output in the near term — amplifying concerns about tightening global supply. Nitrogen fertilizers are highly dependent on natural gas, and the broader energy volatility tied to Middle East tensions is compounding production constraints across Europe and Asia. With Russia now effectively removing incremental export volumes from the market, global buyers may face intensified competition for available supply. Market implications: higher prices, shifting acreage risk. For agricultural markets, the timing is significant. The spring application window is a key determinant of crop mix decisions, particularly in major importing regions. Any sustained increase in nitrogen prices could:• Push farmers toward less fertilizer-intensive crops such as soybeans• Squeeze margins where input costs outpace commodity price gains• Accelerate already rising global fertilizer benchmarks, including U.S. Gulf and NOLA barge values The restriction also reinforces a broader trend: governments are increasingly prioritizing domestic food and input security over global trade flows, particularly amid geopolitical instability. Bottom Line: Russia’s export curb is less about immediate scarcity and more about reinforcing a tightening system. With limited capacity to raise production and ongoing disruptions tied to the Iran conflict, the policy adds another bullish layer to global fertilizer markets just as peak demand season begins. — States sue USDA over funding conditions tied to social policy mandatesCoalition of Democratic attorneys general argues requirements on gender identity, immigration, and athletics threaten SNAP and violate federal law A coalition of attorneys general from 20 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed suit against the Trump administration, challenging a recent USDA directive that conditions federal aid on compliance with policies related to “gender ideology,” immigration enforcement, and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls. The lawsuit contends the USDA is attempting to leverage billions of dollars in federal funding — including support for nutrition programs — to compel states to adopt federal policy positions outside the agency’s statutory authority. At the center of the dispute is whether USDA can impose such conditions on funding streams that are traditionally governed by congressional authorization and longstanding administrative rules. State officials argue the requirements are, in some cases, so vaguely defined that compliance is effectively unfeasible, creating legal uncertainty for state agencies administering programs. That ambiguity, they claim, violates federal administrative law standards and undermines states’ ability to reliably deliver benefits. The complaint seeks a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the directive while the case proceeds, warning that failure to act could disrupt a wide range of programs — most notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to millions of low-income Americans. The case sets up a significant legal test of federal authority to attach policy conditions to funding, with potential implications not only for USDA-administered programs but also for broader intergovernmental funding relationships. — Bipartisan push targets livestock market concentration researchSmith and Grassley bill would direct USDA to study economic impacts of consolidation in cattle processing, with eye toward farm bill inclusion Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at examining the economic consequences of consolidation in the livestock sector, particularly within cattle processing. The bill — first reported by Politico — would direct USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to conduct a comprehensive study on competition in the cattle processing industry, where a small number of firms control a dominant share of capacity. Lawmakers are positioning the measure for inclusion in the research title of the next farm bill, signaling growing bipartisan concern over market concentration and its downstream effects on both producers and consumers. Quote of note: “Just a handful of large companies dominate the meat and poultry processing industry, which means higher prices for consumers and shrinking earnings for farmers,” Smith said in a statement, underscoring the dual political appeal of the issue — farm income pressure and consumer price sensitivity. Grassley, a long-time critic of consolidation in agriculture, has repeatedly pushed for greater transparency and enforcement in livestock markets, and the new proposal builds on that effort by grounding future policy debates in USDA-backed economic analysis. The move comes amid heightened scrutiny of the “Big Four” meatpackers — which collectively control roughly 80% of U.S. beef processing — and ongoing policy debates tied to the farm bill, antitrust enforcement, and supply chain resilience. If adopted, the ERS study could shape future legislative or regulatory efforts targeting competition, pricing dynamics, and market access in the livestock sector. |
| FINANCIAL MARKETS |
— Equities today: Global markets traded unevenly in cautious sessions as investors weighed conflicting developments out of the Middle East against the lingering risk of a broader energy shock. The push-and-pull between tentative diplomatic signals and continued threats to regional energy infrastructure left traders reluctant to extend risk positions.
In Asia, Japan +1.4%. Hong Kong +2.8%. China +1.8%. India +1.9%.
In Europe, at midday, London flat. Paris -0.2%. Frankfurt -0.2%.
Wall Street futures were largely muted following a sharp rally in U.S. equities in the prior session, when optimism around potential de-escalation briefly lifted sentiment. That momentum stalled as markets reassessed the durability of any diplomatic progress, particularly with ongoing volatility in oil and refined product markets.
Energy remains the central transmission channel for market anxiety. Even as crude prices have pulled back from recent highs, the risk of renewed supply disruptions — particularly through key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz — continues to underpin inflation concerns and limit upside across equities and bonds. Investors are increasingly pricing in a scenario where energy markets remain structurally tight, even if near-term tensions ebb.
The result is a fragmented global picture: equities in some regions are stabilizing after recent losses, while others remain under pressure amid rising yields and persistent inflation fears tied to energy costs.
Currency markets have also reflected the uncertainty, with the dollar holding firm as a relative safe haven despite shifting expectations around global growth.
Bottom Line: markets are no longer reacting to a single directional narrative. Instead, they are oscillating between relief rallies tied to diplomatic headlines and renewed caution driven by the underlying risk of a sustained energy shock, keeping volatility elevated across asset classes.
— Equities yesterday: The Dow and S&P 500 both had their best one-day performance since Feb. 6. The Nasdaq has its best day since March 9.
| Equity Index | Closing Price March 23 | Point Difference from March 20 | % Difference from March 20 |
| Dow | 46,208.47 | +631.00 | +1.38% |
| Nasdaq | 21,946.76 | +299.15 | +1.38% |
| S&P 500 | 6,581.00 | +74.52 | +1.15% |
— Volatility stays elevated as war premium persists in markets
VIX remains sharply higher despite recent pullbacks in oil and equities, signaling lingering geopolitical risk
The Cboe Volatility Index (VIX) — Wall Street’s primary gauge of market fear — remains elevated, still up roughly 30% since the onset of the Iran conflict, underscoring how deeply geopolitical risk is embedded in current market pricing.
Even as oil prices have pulled back sharply and U.S. equities have staged a rebound on signs of diplomatic engagement, the persistently high VIX suggests investors are continuing to hedge against abrupt reversals. Options markets are pricing in the potential for renewed escalation, particularly given ongoing uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian threats to regional energy infrastructure, and the fragile nature of the current diplomatic window.
The divergence between falling crude prices and elevated volatility highlights a market that is stabilizing on the surface but remains structurally fragile underneath. Traders appear unwilling to fully unwind risk protections, reflecting concerns that the five-day pause in potential U.S. military action may only delay — rather than resolve — broader conflict dynamics.
In practical terms, the elevated VIX is keeping equity risk premiums high, tightening financial conditions at the margin, and reinforcing cross-asset volatility — from energy to currencies to global bond yields — as markets remain highly sensitive to headlines out of the Middle East.
— Markets question Trump signals — gold loses its safe-haven shine
FT analysis highlights growing skepticism toward presidential messaging as investors rotate away from traditional hedges like gold and into cash and equities
Financial markets are increasingly treating President Donald Trump’s geopolitical messaging — particularly around Iran — as fluid rather than definitive, a dynamic underscored in recent Financial Times analysis and reinforced by broader market behavior.
At the core: investors are no longer fully “believing the president” at face value — they are trading the pattern.
Markets price a pattern, not the policy. The FT’s markets commentary points to a growing recognition that Trump’s strategy often involves escalation followed by partial retreat — a cycle markets are now anticipating rather than reacting to.
That dynamic was visible this week:
• Equities surged after Trump announced a five-day delay in strikes on Iran
• Oil prices plunged sharply on perceived de-escalation
• Risk assets rebounded despite conflicting signals from Tehran
Markets are effectively discounting the durability of hardline rhetoric, pricing in a higher probability of reversal or tactical pause.
The result is a shift from binary “risk-on / risk-off” trading to event-driven volatility trading, where credibility and follow-through matter as much as policy itself.
Gold: from safe haven to liquidity source. Perhaps the clearest signal of this shift — and a central theme in the FT analysis — is gold’s breakdown as a reliable hedge. Instead of rallying during geopolitical stress, gold has:
• Fallen sharply, entering bear-market territory (down ~20%+)
• Logged its worst weekly drop in over a decade
• Continued declining even amid war escalation and uncertainty
This flips the traditional playbook. Rather than acting as a haven, gold is being:
• Sold to raise liquidity during volatility
• Pressured by a stronger U.S. dollar
• Undermined by rising interest rate expectations, which reduce the appeal of non-yielding assets
In short: gold is behaving less like insurance and more like a risk asset under stress.
The real “safe haven”: cash. Another key takeaway is that investors are redefining safety. Instead of gold or even long-duration bonds, flows are moving toward:
• Money market funds (near-record ~$8 trillion in assets)
• Short-duration, yield-bearing instruments
This reflects a market that is:
• Concerned about inflation staying elevated
• Less confident in imminent Fed rate cuts
• More focused on liquidity and optionality than traditional hedges
Bottom Line: The FT’s core message aligns with what markets are now signaling in real time:
• Investors are no longer reacting mechanically to geopolitical headlines; they are pricing presidential credibility and behavioral patterns.
• Gold’s failure as a haven underscores a deeper shift: in a world of inflation shocks and policy uncertainty, liquidity is king.
• The broader implication: markets are stabilizing not because risks are fading — but because participants increasingly believe policy escalation may not be sustained.
That recalibration — more than any single headline — is now driving global asset prices.
— Smithfield tops estimates as packaged meats demand holds firm
At-home eating trends and holiday protein demand boost sales and margins, while acquisition strategy signals further growth
Smithfield Foods exceeded Wall Street expectations for fourth-quarter sales and profit, underscoring the resilience of U.S. consumer demand for packaged meats even as broader household budgets remain under pressure. Shares of the pork processor rose nearly 4% in premarket trading following the earnings release.
The company reported quarterly sales of $4.23 billion, up 7% year over year and above analyst expectations of $4.14 billion, according to LSEG data. Adjusted earnings came in at 83 cents per share, well ahead of the 68 cents analysts had projected.
Performance was driven largely by continued strength in Smithfield’s packaged meats segment — its core profit engine — where sales rose 4.3% in the quarter. Fresh pork sales also posted modest growth, increasing 2.1%.
Demand trends reflected a broader shift in consumer behavior. With the cost of living still elevated, more Americans are opting to cook at home rather than dine out, boosting grocery purchases of protein staples. That dynamic was especially evident during the holiday season, when shoppers leaned into pork and processed meats for traditional meals, supporting higher volumes despite ongoing financial strain.
Smithfield also pointed to operational efficiencies and cost-saving measures as contributors to improved margins.
Looking ahead, CEO Shane Smith signaled confidence in continued expansion, emphasizing the company’s packaged meats portfolio as the primary growth driver. Smithfield expects full-year sales growth in the low single digits, modestly ahead of analyst expectations of roughly 1.3%.
The company is also pursuing strategic expansion through acquisitions, including its $450 million purchase of hot dog maker Nathan’s Famous in January — a move aimed at strengthening its branded product lineup.
The results follow a similar trend across the protein sector. Tyson Foods recently raised its annual revenue outlook after strong chicken demand helped offset ongoing losses in its beef segment, highlighting shifting consumer preferences within the meat complex.
| AG MARKETS |
— Agriculture markets yesterday:
| Commodity | Contract Month | Closing Price March 23 | Change from March 20 |
| Corn | May | $4.59 1/2 | -6 cents |
| Soybeans | May | $11.63 1/2 | +2 1/4 cents |
| Soybean Meal | May | $326.60 | -$1.40 |
| Soybean Oil | May | 65.58 | +7 points |
| SRW Wheat | May | $5.87 3/4 | -7 1/2 cents |
| HRW Wheat | May | $6.03 1/4 | -3 cents |
| Spring Wheat | May | $6.27 | -1 cent |
| Cotton | May | 67.18 | -13 points |
| Live Cattle | April | $235.30 | +$1.25 |
| Feeder Cattle | May | $348.35 | +$1.975 |
| Lean Hogs | April | $90.80 | -$0.475 |
| FARM POLICY |
— Boozman pushes domestic demand, farm aid as ag sector faces “generational” strain
Senate Ag chairman calls for urgent assistance, expanded markets, and swift Farm Bill 2.0 action amid mounting financial pressure on producers
Speaking at the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit, Senate Ag Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) outlined a dual-track strategy to stabilize U.S. agriculture — pairing immediate financial relief with longer-term efforts to boost domestic demand and reduce reliance on volatile export markets.
Boozman framed the current farm economy as under severe stress, warning that “if you’re growing something in the ground, you’re losing money,” as persistently low commodity prices collide with elevated input costs. He cautioned that the financial squeeze is accelerating consolidation and pushing producers out of the sector, calling it a “generational” challenge that demands urgent policy action.
Domestic demand and market strategy take center stage. At the core of Boozman’s message was a shift toward strengthening domestic consumption of U.S. agricultural products. He emphasized that traditional export strategies are no longer sufficient in a changing global landscape marked by rising competition and unreliable trading partners. “We can no longer depend on trading partners who are not dependable,” Boozman said, pointing instead to policies that expand internal markets and add value to U.S. commodities.
He highlighted year-round E15 ethanol sales as a key example, describing it as a demand driver for corn while acknowledging ongoing negotiations to balance the interests of farmers and small refineries. He also pointed to legislation like the “Buying American Cotton Act” as part of a broader push to incentivize domestic use of U.S.-grown products.
In his remarks, Boozman pointed to a specific small refinery in Arkansas to explain why the E15 debate has become complicated. He said his state has only one refinery, and emphasized its importance:
• It is the only facility in Arkansas producing gasoline and jet fuel
• It supplies much of southern Arkansas, including fuel for a major airport
• Losing it would mean job losses and disruption of the entire regional fuel supply chain
Boozman warned that policies tied to year-round E15 should not come at the expense of small refineries, arguing that forcing consolidation or closures would raise prices and hurt local economies.
In short, his message was: He supports E15 expansion — but not if it harms small and mid-sized refineries like the one in his state, which he described as critical infrastructure for both energy supply and jobs.
Immediate aid tied to geopolitical pressures. Boozman stressed that while long-term reforms are critical, producers need near-term relief to stay afloat through the current cycle. He is working with lawmakers and the Trump administration to advance additional farm assistance — potentially around $15 billion — building on prior support programs.
He suggested that an Iran-related supplemental spending package could serve as a legislative vehicle, linking global instability directly to rising input costs such as fertilizer and fuel. “The impact that Iran is having on farmers… with things like fertilizer” underscores the urgency, he said, adding that rural producers face unique cost burdens tied to transportation and logistics.
Farm Bill 2.0 and bipartisan constraints. On the farm bill, Boozman argued that much of the heavy lifting was already completed through last year’s broader legislative package, but acknowledged that key policy details still need to be finalized. He set an aggressive timeline, saying the Senate aims to complete its work in “weeks, not months,” though he emphasized that any final bill must secure bipartisan support to reach the 60-vote threshold. That reality, he noted, could limit inclusion of more contentious provisions such as Proposition 12 pre-emption or pesticide labeling liability protections, even as he expressed support for those policies. “My focus is for farmers to quit coming in and asking, ‘When are we going to get a farm bill done?’” Boozman said.
Structural concerns: consolidation and farm viability. Beyond immediate policy debates, Boozman warned of deeper structural risks in U.S. agriculture, citing a sharp decline in the number of producers — particularly in row crops — over the past two decades. He tied those trends to profitability challenges and warned that failure to act could further concentrate the industry, undermining rural economies where agriculture often represents the dominant economic driver. “If we’re not careful, we’re going to have the same result there,” he said, pointing to consolidation pressures across the sector.
Bottom Line: Boozman’s remarks underscored a policy pivot toward demand-side solutions and domestic resilience, while reinforcing the urgency of near-term financial support. With geopolitical tensions raising input costs and bipartisan hurdles shaping legislative strategy, the chairman signaled that both timing and coalition-building will be critical to delivering relief and completing the farm bill.
— Thompson pushes market expansion as core of farm bill agenda
House Ag chairman outlines export funding surge, domestic processing buildout, and bipartisan path to passage
House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson (R-Pa.) used his remarks at the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit to center the farm bill debate on one overarching priority — expanding markets for U.S. agriculture at home and abroad.
Speaking after advancing the “Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026” out of committee, Thompson framed the legislation as a long-term competitiveness play designed to address what he called the most consistent concern across producers: the need for new and expanded markets.
Export push and cold chain investment. A cornerstone of Thompson’s strategy is a significant increase in export promotion funding. The bill more than doubles support for key USDA programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD), alongside additional tools such as the Priority Trade Fund.
For the first time, the legislation also targets cold chain infrastructure in foreign markets — a persistent bottleneck for U.S. perishable exports. Thompson emphasized that even when markets are technically open, inadequate storage and logistics can limit real access, particularly for high-value products.
Food for Peace shift and global positioning. The bill also moves the Food for Peace program permanently to USDA, returning it to its original commodity-driven model. Thompson argued the shift will better align humanitarian aid with domestic surplus production, reinforcing both global food security and U.S. farm demand.
He tied these provisions to a broader push for more active U.S. trade engagement, noting direct coordination with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on potential agreements with India and Japan. Thompson stressed that future trade success will require deliberate strategy, not “good luck,” with tariffs and relationships remaining the primary tools.
Domestic market expansion and supply chain resilience. On the domestic side, Thompson highlighted multiple efforts to strengthen local and regional markets:
• Expanded livestock processing capacity through A-PLUS and related programs
• New grants and loans for small and very small processors
• Streamlined Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) access
• Support for organic production to meet growing demand
He framed these measures as lessons learned from pandemic-era disruptions, aimed at building a more resilient and diversified supply chain.
Nutrition programs as demand drivers. The nutrition title was positioned as a key demand engine for specialty crops and animal agriculture. The bill expands the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), broadens SNAP incentive eligibility to include animal protein and dairy products, and increases procurement of fruits, vegetables, and other commodities for schools and institutions.
Thompson argued these changes create “market wins” for producers while aligning with broader food access goals.
Forestry, innovation, and new demand channels. Beyond traditional commodities, the bill reauthorizes the Wood Innovation Grant program to expand domestic markets for forest products, including construction materials and bioenergy — a move Thompson said will support rural economies and sustainable forest management.
Floor strategy and bipartisan path. On timing, Thompson signaled urgency following President Donald Trump’s public call to “pass it now,” while acknowledging narrow House margins. He is actively building bipartisan support beyond the seven Democrats who backed the bill in committee, emphasizing that strong cross-party backing will be critical for Senate alignment with Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.).
Policy fights: preemption, affordability, and science. Addressing expected opposition — particularly from “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) advocates — Thompson defended federal pre-emption on pesticide labeling as both a safety and cost issue. He warned that a patchwork of state-level standards would increase compliance costs and ultimately raise food prices. He repeatedly emphasized a “science-driven, not emotion-driven” regulatory framework.
Bridge funding and sector pressures. Separately, Thompson is pushing for a $15 billion-plus farm aid bridge package, with additional funding for specialty crops and sawmills. He underscored uneven conditions across agriculture — stronger livestock outlooks versus continued strain in row crops — and tied the assistance to ongoing trade disruptions and input cost pressures.
Labor reform effort gains traction. Though outside his committee’s jurisdiction, Thompson highlighted progress on agricultural labor reform. A bipartisan task force produced 21 recommendations — 15 unanimous — and legislation is expected soon in coordination with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). He described the effort as a potential breakthrough after decades of gridlock, calling it a “tripartisan” approach involving lawmakers and industry stakeholders.
Bottom Line: Thompson’s message was clear: the 2026 farm bill is less about traditional support programs and more about demand creation — through exports, domestic processing, nutrition programs, and supply chain investment. If enacted, the legislation would represent one of the most aggressive federal pushes in years to expand agricultural markets — but its success will hinge on navigating a narrow House majority, intra-party divisions, and broader trade and geopolitical uncertainty.
— Klobuchar warns of “perfect storm” for agriculture, urges bipartisan farm bill action
Senate Ag Democrat targets tariffs, fertilizer concentration, and nutrition policy while pushing E15, biofuels, and domestic input production
Speaking at the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit, Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) laid out a stark assessment of the current farm economy — describing a “perfect storm of ugly” driven by tight margins, rising input costs, volatile trade policy, and geopolitical disruptions — while arguing Congress must act quickly on a bipartisan farm bill.
Klobuchar emphasized that farmers are being squeezed by low commodity prices, high input costs, extreme weather, and animal disease outbreaks, compounded by shifting tariff policies that have destabilized export markets. She warned that trade disputes — particularly those affecting China — have already eroded demand, with one Minnesota soybean farmer telling her his market had “dried up.”
At the center of her critique was the Trump administration’s tariff strategy, which she said has created uncertainty for agriculture and rural businesses. Klobuchar argued that frequent tariff changes have left small businesses “roadkill,” especially those operating on thin margins without the ability to absorb cost swings. She also pointed to ongoing legal battles over tariff authority, noting concerns that executive actions may conflict with Congress’ constitutional role in trade policy.
Fertilizer costs and market concentration emerged as another major concern. Klobuchar highlighted sharp price spikes ahead of planting season and warned that consolidation has left the fertilizer market dominated by a handful of firms controlling most nitrogen, potash, and phosphate supply. She tied recent price volatility to both structural concentration and geopolitical risks — including the Middle East conflict — which she said has “exponentially made things harder” for producers.
To address those pressures, she promoted two bipartisan measures:
• The Fertilizer Transparency Act, aimed at improving price reporting and market visibility
• The Homegrown Fertilizer Act, designed to expand domestic production and storage capacity
Klobuchar framed both as critical to strengthening U.S. supply chains and reducing exposure to global disruptions.
On the farm bill, Klobuchar stressed urgency but outlined key Democratic priorities for any Senate package. These include stronger conservation funding, fixes to what she described as flawed nutrition cost-sharing provisions, and expanded support for domestic markets. She sharply criticized recent SNAP-related policy changes that shift costs unevenly across states, calling the structure “messed up” and urging delays and revisions.
Meanwhile, she pointed to biofuels and domestic demand growth as major opportunities. Klobuchar called for year-round E15 authorization, expanded sustainable aviation fuel policies, and continued support for the Renewable Fuel Standard, arguing these tools can lower fuel costs while boosting farm income. She also criticized the cancellation of local food purchasing programs, saying they represent missed opportunities to strengthen regional markets.
Despite policy disagreements, Klobuchar repeatedly emphasized bipartisan cooperation — citing her work with Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.), as well as collaborations with Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) on conservation and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on biofuels — as evidence that progress remains possible.
Her bottom line: the next year will be pivotal for rural America. Klobuchar warned that the coming months could represent “the most consequential” period for agriculture in decades, arguing that Congress must stabilize markets, restore trade certainty, and deliver a comprehensive farm bill — or risk deepening financial strain across the farm economy.
| FARM ECONOMY |
— Farm economy under strain as input costs surge and global risks mount
American Farm Bureau economist warns margins are unsustainable, urges domestic demand push and strategic rethink amid fertilizer shock
Dr. John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, delivered a stark assessment of the U.S. farm economy, warning that producers are facing an unsustainable squeeze as input costs surge while commodity prices remain depressed. Newton made his comments Monday during the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit.
Newton pointed to a dramatic disconnect: farm input costs have risen roughly 40% in recent years — the largest increase on record — while crop prices have fallen sharply from post-Ukraine war highs, leaving most major commodities below breakeven levels. “I can’t think of a crop that you can raise right now that will make you any money,” he said.
The result is a sector increasingly reliant on government support. Since 2017, U.S. agriculture has received about $125 billion in ad hoc aid, a trend Newton said is not sustainable. While recent farm bill enhancements are expected to provide some relief, much of that support will not reach producers until later this year, prompting farm groups to push the White House for additional short-term assistance.
Meanwhile, global competition is intensifying. Brazil is on track to export more soybeans than the U.S. produces, while U.S. cotton producers face mounting pressure in export markets. Compounding the challenge, population growth in key markets like China and the European Union has peaked, signaling weaker long-term demand growth.
Newton emphasized that rebuilding domestic demand is critical, highlighting policies like year-round E15 ethanol access and expanded domestic processing capacity. Increasing U.S. consumption of agricultural products, he argued, is essential in a world where export growth can no longer be taken for granted.
Geopolitical risks are adding a new layer of volatility. The disruption of fertilizer flows through the Strait of Hormuz has triggered unprecedented price spikes, including a $230-per-ton surge in urea prices in just two weeks — a move Newton said is unmatched in at least two decades. Diesel prices have also jumped sharply, further tightening margins.
These shocks underscore the vulnerability of global supply chains. Roughly 50% of global urea trade and significant shares of natural gas and fertilizer shipments move through the region, meaning prolonged disruption could ripple through farm costs and eventually food prices.
Newton raised the prospect of a broader strategic rethink, suggesting the U.S. may need to consider fertilizer reserves and treat agriculture more explicitly as a national security priority. “Food security is national security,” he said, pointing to the loss of more than 200,000 U.S. farms over the past decade and ongoing pressure on farmland from competing uses like energy and data infrastructure.
While uncertainty remains high — particularly around how long geopolitical tensions persist — Newton stressed that the current environment demands both immediate relief and long-term structural changes to ensure the viability of U.S. agriculture.
— Fertilizer as strategic asset — weighing a U.S. reserve proposal
Farm Bureau’s John Newton frames farm inputs as national security amid shrinking farm base and geopolitical supply risks
American Farm Bureau Federation chief economist John Newton’s argument — that “food security is national security” — lands at a moment when fertilizer markets are increasingly shaped by geopolitics, not just agronomics. With nitrogen, phosphate, and potash supply chains concentrated in a handful of exporting regions — many exposed to conflict, sanctions, or export controls — the idea of a U.S. fertilizer reserve is moving from theoretical to policy-relevant.
Below is a look at how such a reserve could work, along with the trade-offs.
Strategic rationale — why this is gaining traction
— Geopolitical concentration risk: Nitrogen exports tied heavily to the Persian Gulf; potash linked to Belarus/Russia; phosphates concentrated in Morocco/China. Disruptions — war, sanctions, or export bans — transmit quickly into U.S. farmgate prices.
— Input price volatility: Fertilizer shocks (2021–2022, and again amid Iran-related disruptions) have shown that input costs can spike faster than crop prices adjust, compressing margins and altering planting decisions.
— Shrinking domestic buffer: Loss of 200,000 farms over a decade reduces system resilience — fewer operators, tighter margins, less redundancy.
— Critical infrastructure competition: Farmland conversion to energy (solar, wind) and data infrastructure raises long-term questions about domestic productive capacity.
— Precedent exists: The U.S. already treats oil (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) and certain minerals as strategic — fertilizer could be viewed similarly given its direct tie to caloric output.
How a fertilizer reserve might unfold
1) Structure options
- Physical stockpile: Government-owned reserves of key fertilizers (urea, UAN, DAP/MAP, potash) stored regionally near major production belts (Midwest, Delta, Plains).
- Virtual reserve (contracted capacity): Government contracts with domestic producers/importers to guarantee supply availability during disruptions.
- Blended model: Smaller physical reserve + contractual supply guarantees.
2) Trigger mechanisms
- Release tied to:
- Price spikes beyond a defined threshold (e.g., % above multi-year average)
- Supply disruptions (export bans, shipping chokepoints like Hormuz)
- USDA-declared emergency tied to planting risk
3) Scale considerations
- Likely sized to cover 30–60 days of peak seasonal demand, not a full season.
- Focus would be on nitrogen first (most volatile, most time-sensitive), then phosphate/potash.
4) Governance
- Could sit under USDA in coordination with DOE/Commerce, or a new cross-agency authority given trade and national security implications.
- Integration with crop insurance and disaster programs to align release timing with planting windows.
Pros — potential benefits
— Price stabilization: A reserve could dampen extreme spikes, giving farmers more predictable input costs and preventing acreage shifts driven by short-term shocks.
— Planting certainty: Ensures availability during spring application windows — arguably the most critical timing risk in U.S. agriculture.
— Geopolitical insulation: Reduces exposure to export bans or shipping disruptions (e.g., Strait of Hormuz, Black Sea).
— Market signaling effect: The existence of a reserve alone could discourage hoarding/speculative price surges.
— National security framing: Aligns agriculture with defense/energy policy — potentially unlocking broader bipartisan support and funding.
Cons — risks and unintended consequences
— Market distortion: Government intervention could crowd out private storage and hedging, reducing market efficiency over time.
— Cost and logistics: Fertilizers are bulky, degrade over time (especially nitrogen), and require specialized storage — making stockpiling expensive and operationally complex.
— Timing risk: Poorly timed releases could amplify volatility (e.g., releasing into a falling market or too late into a spike).
— Moral hazard: Producers/importers may reduce private inventory if they expect government backstop — increasing dependence on the reserve.
— Trade implications: Could trigger disputes if perceived as market manipulation or indirect subsidy.
Key design challenges
— Shelf life and rotation: Nitrogen products degrade — requiring continuous turnover (a “rolling reserve” model rather than static stockpile).
— Regional distribution: Fertilizer demand is geographically concentrated; reserves must be positioned to avoid transport bottlenecks.
— Integration with domestic production policy: A reserve alone does not solve structural supply gaps — it likely needs to be paired with:
- Incentives for domestic fertilizer production
- Streamlined permitting for new plants
- Trade policy clarity (tariffs/CVD cases)
Bottom Line: Newton’s framing reflects a broader shift: agriculture inputs are no longer just cyclical commodities — they are strategic assets in an increasingly fragmented global system. A fertilizer reserve could provide a short-term shock absorber, but it is not a substitute for long-term supply resilience, including domestic production, diversified imports, and infrastructure investment.
| ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY |
— Tuesday: Oil rebounds as Iran denies talks, Hormuz disruption keeps market on edge
Prices recover after sharp selloff, but supply risks dominate as Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut
Oil prices rose Tuesday as markets refocused on supply risks after Iran denied U.S. claims of negotiations to end the conflict, contradicting President Donald Trump’s assertion that progress had been made.
Brent crude climbed 1.3% to $101.19, while WTI rose 2.4% to $90.28, recovering some losses after Monday’s more than 10% plunge tied to a five-day pause in potential U.S. strikes.
The rebound comes as the Strait of Hormuz — which carries roughly one-fifth of global oil and LNG — remains largely disrupted, marking what the International Energy Agency calls a historic supply shock.
Analysts caution volatility will persist. Iran continued missile strikes and dismissed talks as “fake news,” while ongoing attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping risks keep a firm risk premium in prices.
Macquarie warns Brent could reach $150 if disruptions last through April.
— Monday: Oil plunges as diplomatic pause triggers sharp reversal in war risk premium
Five-day delay in U.S. strike plans and some signals of potential talks with Iran send crude down more than 10%, though supply disruptions and geopolitical uncertainty remain elevated
Oil markets whipsawed Monday, with prices tumbling sharply as a temporary diplomatic window between the U.S. and Iran triggered a rapid unwind of last week’s war-driven risk premium.
Brent crude settled at $99.94 per barrel, down $12.25, or 10.9%.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell $10.10, or 10.3%, to $88.13.
Earlier in the session, both benchmarks plunged as much as 15% before paring losses as geopolitical headlines evolved.
The selloff followed the Trump administration’s decision to delay potential military strikes on Iranian power infrastructure by five days, alongside indications of “constructive” diplomatic engagement aimed at de-escalation. The move marked a sharp shift in market sentiment after days of escalation fears that had pushed crude to multi-year highs.
Volatility remains extreme. Thirty-day crude futures volatility has surged to its highest level since April 2022, underscoring how rapidly sentiment is shifting with each geopolitical development. Refined products mirrored the move, with U.S. gasoline and diesel futures dropping nearly 10% after recently hitting their highest levels since 2022.
Despite the price retreat, underlying risks remain substantial. Iran denied that negotiations are underway and reiterated threats to target regional energy infrastructure, keeping the potential for renewed escalation firmly in play.
Physical disruptions continue to anchor the market. Damage to key Gulf energy facilities and a near halt in shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have constrained flows, with only limited cargo movement reported. Analysts estimate that between 7 million and 10 million barrels per day of Middle Eastern supply could be offline — a significant share of global seaborne crude.
In response, policymakers have taken selective steps to stabilize supply. Sanctions enforcement on certain Russian and Iranian cargoes already at sea has been temporarily eased, allowing some barrels to reach Asian buyers. However, U.S. officials signaled that a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not imminent.
Beyond the immediate supply shock, broader macro pressures are building. Russian export flows have faced intermittent disruptions tied to security alerts at Baltic ports, while central banks are increasingly focused on the inflationary implications of energy volatility. Meanwhile, weakening consumer confidence in Europe and disruptions to global air travel highlight the widening economic spillovers from the conflict.
Bottom Line: The sharp drop in oil reflects a rapid repricing of near-term geopolitical risk — but with supply still constrained and tensions unresolved, markets remain highly sensitive to any shift in the conflict trajectory.
— Zeldin signals coming biofuels rule, pushes deregulation and ‘radical transparency’ at Agri-Pulse Summit
EPA administrator outlines RFS timeline, pesticide backlog cuts, and a dual mandate of environmental protection and economic growth
At the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit on March 23, Lee Zeldin laid out an aggressive agenda for the Environmental Protection Agency, emphasizing faster permitting, sweeping deregulation, and a renewed focus on agriculture — while signaling that long-awaited biofuels rules are just days away.
Speaking with Agri-Pulse founder Sara Wyant, Zeldin framed the agency’s mission under the Trump administration as rejecting a tradeoff between environmental protection and economic growth. “We choose both,” he said, underscoring a governing philosophy aimed at accelerating development while maintaining core environmental standards.
Biofuels: RFS rule by the end of March, competing interests intensify. Zeldin confirmed that the EPA is in the “very final stages” of completing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) “Set 2” rule, pledging its release “before the end of the month” — a critical signal for biofuel markets and farm-state policymakers.
He described the rulemaking as a balancing act among sharply divided stakeholders, noting multiple “dials” — including biomass-based diesel levels, small refinery exemptions (SREs), and treatment of imports — that will shape outcomes across the agricultural and refining sectors.
Zeldin emphasized that biofuels policy sits at the intersection of economic development and national security, echoing arguments frequently made by Midwestern lawmakers. Meanwhile, he acknowledged the political complexity of reconciling competing regional interests in Congress, particularly on issues like year-round E15.
Deregulation and agency restructuring. Zeldin highlighted what he described as a historic push to scale back federal regulatory reach, arguing the EPA will deliver more deregulation in a single year than prior administrations achieved across entire presidencies. He tied that effort to recent Supreme Court decisions — including the rollback of the Chevron doctrine — which he said reinforce limits on agency authority and shift responsibility back to Congress. The EPA, he added, is actively seeking to “reduce [its] own power” in favor of clearer statutory direction.
Internally, Zeldin pointed to a broad reorganization that reduced staffing from more than 16,000 to about 12,500 employees, generating roughly $750 million in annual savings while reallocating resources toward priority areas like chemical safety.
Agriculture front and center. Drawing on extensive travel to all 50 states, Zeldin said engagement with farmers has reshaped his understanding of EPA’s role in rural America. He cited recurring concerns from producers, including equipment failures tied to emissions systems, right-to-repair issues, and regulatory uncertainty around pesticides and biofuels.
The administrator framed agriculture as both an economic engine and a national security asset, stressing the need for policies that support farm productivity while maintaining environmental safeguards.
Pesticides: Backlog reduction and transparency push. On pesticides, Zeldin highlighted progress in reducing a major regulatory backlog, cutting pending reviews from roughly 14,500 to 8,500 through IT upgrades and staffing increases.
He also called for a shift in how EPA communicates scientific findings, advocating what he described as “radical transparency.” Rather than downplaying outlier studies, Zeldin said the agency should openly address conflicting evidence — explaining methodology and limitations to rebuild public trust.
That approach extends to high-profile reviews such as glyphosate, where he pledged to let career scientists lead the analysis without political interference, with results communicated clearly to the public.
Zeldin said he will not influence the EPA’s ongoing review of glyphosate’s cancer risks, emphasizing that “dedicated career scientists” will determine the outcome, not political direction.
The review follows a 2020 EPA finding that glyphosate posed no “reasonable risk,” but a 2022 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the agency to reassess cancer links and impacts on endangered species. Updated findings are expected later this year.
Zeldin stressed he has not directed the Office of Chemical Safety on what conclusions to reach, underscoring a hands-off approach during the review process.
The stance comes amid pressure from “Make America Healthy Again” activists, including influencer Kelly Ryerson (“Glyphosate Girl”), who argue the review relies too heavily on industry-backed science and question its credibility.
Zeldin pushed back on claims of alignment with chemical industry interests, saying his priority is to allow a full scientific review and ensure transparency when results are released.
Bottom Line: Zeldin’s remarks signal a decisive shift in EPA posture — toward faster rulemaking, reduced regulatory scope, and deeper engagement with agricultural stakeholders. With the RFS decision soon and pesticide policy under review, the agency is positioning itself as a central player in shaping both U.S. farm economics and broader energy policy in 2026.
| TRADE POLICY |
— Callahan: ‘America First’ trade reset driving market access gains for U.S. agriculture
USTR chief agricultural negotiator outlines tariff-driven leverage, sweeping bilateral deals, and early signs of shrinking ag trade deficit
At the Agri-Pulse Ag & Food Policy Summit, U.S. Chief Agricultural Negotiator Julie Callahan described a sweeping reset of U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration, arguing that aggressive tariff leverage and bilateral dealmaking are beginning to reverse decades of disadvantage for American agriculture.
Callahan said the administration’s “America First Trade Policy” has shifted the U.S. from a largely open-market posture — where trading partners maintained higher barriers — to one focused on reciprocity, enforcement, and measurable outcomes for farmers and ranchers.
She emphasized that the cornerstone of the strategy has been using tariffs — first under reciprocal tariff programs and now through alternative legal authorities — to force trading partners to lower both tariff and non-tariff barriers. While the Supreme Court invalidated earlier tariff authorities, Callahan stressed that the administration has pivoted quickly, including implementing a 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 and launching Section 301 investigations to maintain pressure. “The tools are changing — the policy is not,” she said, underscoring continuity in the administration’s trade agenda.
Surge in bilateral deals and market access. Callahan highlighted nine completed “reciprocal trade” agreements with countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Argentina, and Ecuador, alongside additional framework agreements with major partners such as India, Japan, the EU, and the UK. These agreements, she said, deliver “FTA-level commitments” without requiring the U.S. to lower its own baseline tariffs — instead securing one-sided concessions from trading partners.
Key outcomes include:
• Broad tariff reductions on U.S. agricultural exports across commodities like beef, dairy, grains, and horticultural products
• Elimination of longstanding non-tariff barriers such as import licensing restrictions and facility inspection bottlenecks
• Recognition of U.S. food safety and regulatory systems, accelerating export approvals
• Protections for common food names (e.g., cheese and meat labeling), preventing erosion of market access
In Indonesia, for example, Callahan said the agreement removes import licensing requirements and secures commitments for billions in commodity purchases, including soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Taiwan and Malaysia similarly agreed to dismantle entrenched regulatory barriers that had limited U.S. exports for years. “These are commitments that would have been unthinkable a year ago,” she noted.
Trade deficit showing early improvement. Callahan pointed to USDA data as evidence the strategy is beginning to shift the U.S. agricultural trade balance.
• FY 2025 deficit: $43.7 billion
• FY 2026 projected deficit: narrowed to $29 billion
• January 2025 deficit: $6.2 billion
• January 2026 deficit: $1.75 billion
She described the improvement as “turning the Queen Mary,” signaling momentum but acknowledging the path back to a surplus will take time.
Importantly, she said the improvement reflects both rising exports and moderating imports — not simply contraction in trade flows.
China, USMCA, and diversification strategy. Looking ahead, Callahan identified China and the upcoming USMCA review as central to the 2026 agenda. She confirmed that recent U.S./China discussions have produced a framework to expand agricultural exports, following her own trip to Beijing to address issues including beef access, poultry restrictions, and biotechnology approvals.
Meanwhile, she emphasized a deliberate push to diversify export markets to reduce reliance on China and prevent geopolitical leverage over U.S. agriculture. “We don’t want to over rely on any one market,” she said, noting that the growing network of bilateral agreements is designed to create more stable, long-term demand.
Aggressive pace reflects urgency. Callahan underscored the intensity of the effort, citing extensive global travel and rapid dealmaking as evidence that trade negotiations are accelerating rather than slowing. She framed the urgency around current farm economics — high input costs and weak commodity prices — arguing that expanding export opportunities is a critical lever to support farm income. “Our role at USTR is to open markets and create opportunities as quickly as possible,” she said.
Bottom Line: Callahan’s remarks signal a trade strategy centered on leverage, speed, and measurable outcomes — using tariffs to extract concessions while rapidly building a diversified portfolio of export markets. While legal challenges have forced tactical shifts, the administration’s core objective remains unchanged: restore reciprocity, reduce deficits, and reestablish U.S. agriculture as a dominant force in global trade.
| CONGRESS |
— Mullin confirmed as DHS Secretary amid shutdown, immigration fight intensifies
Senate approval installs Trump ally to lead Homeland Security as funding impasse, enforcement tactics, and political demands complicate path forward
Markwayne Mullin was confirmed Monday as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, placing the Oklahoma Republican at the center of President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda during a prolonged 37-day funding shutdown.
The Senate approved Mullin in a 54–45 vote, largely along party lines, elevating the first-term senator and staunch Trump ally to oversee a department grappling with operational strain and political controversy. Mullin assumes leadership as DHS remains unfunded, with disruptions including long airport security lines and unpaid federal workers.
The shutdown stems from a standoff over immigration enforcement practices, intensified by backlash following fatal encounters between DHS agents and U.S. citizens in Minneapolis earlier this year. Democrats have pushed for reforms, including limits on agents wearing masks and requirements for judicial warrants to enter homes.
Despite the impasse, some lawmakers signaled cautious optimism that Mullin’s confirmation could help restart negotiations. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said discussions have been “positive and productive,” while Mullin indicated openness to certain enforcement adjustments during his confirmation process.
Still, the path to a funding deal remains complicated by President Trump’s escalating demands. The president has tied DHS funding to broader policy priorities, including passage of the SAVE America Act mandating stricter voter ID requirements and additional provisions on social issues — conditions Democrats have largely rejected.
Operational pressures are mounting. With DHS employees working without pay, the administration has deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to assist at airports as a temporary measure.
Mullin’s confirmation drew limited bipartisan support, with Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) joining Republicans in backing the nomination, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) broke with his party in opposition, citing concerns about Mullin’s temperament and past conduct.
Mullin, who acknowledged his blunt style, defended his record and emphasized his willingness to work across party lines. His leadership now begins at a critical juncture, as the administration seeks to advance its immigration crackdown while navigating a politically charged funding crisis that continues to disrupt core homeland security functions.
| FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY |
— Surgeon General nominee stalls amid GOP vaccine concerns
Moderate Republicans’ doubts over Casey Means’s credentials and vaccine stance leave Trump pick in limbo
President Donald Trump’s nomination of Casey Means to serve as U.S. surgeon general has stalled in the Senate, as concerns among key Republican senators threaten to derail the pick and deal a setback to the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, as reported by Nancy Vu of National Journal
The nomination remains stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, where no vote has been scheduled following Means’s February confirmation hearing. Moderate Republicans — including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — have raised concerns about both her qualifications and her reluctance to broadly endorse vaccinations, a central responsibility traditionally associated with the nation’s top public health official.
At the core of GOP hesitation is Means’ testimony, in which she acknowledged that vaccines save lives but declined to unequivocally recommend widespread vaccination, instead emphasizing individualized medical decisions. That position has created friction with Republicans wary of aligning too closely with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s controversial vaccine policies.
Means has also faced scrutiny over her résumé, lacking some of the conventional credentials of past surgeon generals, including an active medical license and experience in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps — the agency overseen by the surgeon general.
The political math inside the HELP Committee further complicates her path. With a narrow Republican majority, even a single GOP defection could block her advancement. The temporary absence of Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who was just approved on Monday (see related item), removes a potential supporting vote, increasing uncertainty.
Beyond the committee, resistance appears to extend to the Senate floor. At least one Republican senator has indicated firm opposition, citing concerns about Means’ qualifications and her responses during the hearing. Meanwhile, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has previously broken with the administration on vaccine-related issues, has already signaled skepticism toward Kennedy-aligned policies.
Despite the headwinds, the White House has made clear it is standing by the nominee. Administration officials argue Means’s academic background and focus on chronic disease align with Trump’s broader health policy agenda, while dismissing criticism as politically motivated.
The stalled nomination underscores broader tensions within the Republican Party, where the MAHA movement — closely aligned with Kennedy — is increasingly clashing with more traditional GOP views on public health. A failed confirmation could signal waning influence for that faction, particularly as lawmakers weigh electoral risks heading into the midterms.
Historically, nominees in similar positions have withdrawn when it became clear they lacked sufficient support. For now, Means remains in limbo, with no indication that the administration plans to pull her nomination — leaving the Senate at an impasse over who will serve as the nation’s next doctor.
| POLITICS & ELECTIONS |
— Generational reset set to reshape U.S. politics by 2028
Charlie Cook warns of sweeping turnover in leadership, party identity, and presidential politics as long-standing political eras fade
Writing in the National Journal, Charlie Cook argues that U.S. politics is entering a historic period of generational transition that will fundamentally reshape both parties and the broader political landscape over the next several years.
Cook highlights that the 2028 presidential election is poised to break with more than six decades of political continuity. For the first time since 1964, no candidate from the political lineages of Nixon, Dole, Bush, Biden, Clinton, or Trump is likely to appear on a major-party ticket — marking a decisive end to an era dominated by a relatively small set of political families and figures.
This shift is not just about individuals, but generations. The transition away from the Greatest Generation and Silent Generation has already occurred, with Baby Boomers now aging out of dominance. Cook notes that the next wave of candidates is likely to come primarily from Generation X, with some Millennials entering the mix — bringing different political instincts shaped by distinct economic, cultural, and geopolitical experiences.
Meanwhile, Congress is undergoing its own transformation. A surge in retirements among senior lawmakers — including long-serving leaders in both parties — is set to usher in a large class of new members. This turnover could significantly alter institutional knowledge, leadership dynamics, and legislative priorities on Capitol Hill.
On the presidential front, Cook describes both parties as facing unusual uncertainty. Democrats are heading into 2028 with a wide-open field, while Republicans — despite an apparent frontrunner in Vice President J.D. Vance — could see volatility depending on President Donald Trump’s influence and potential maneuvering among contenders like Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Cook suggests that Trump may continue to dominate Republican politics by shaping or even staging competition among successors, raising questions about whether a non-MAGA alternative could emerge — or whether the party will remain firmly aligned with Trump-era politics.
The broader takeaway: U.S. politics is entering a period of profound change, where both leadership and party identities are in flux. As Cook concludes, the political landscape five years from now could look dramatically different from today — with new faces, new coalitions, and potentially new ideological fault lines defining the next era.
| WEATHER |
— NWS outlook: Light snow for parts of the Upper Great Lakes and Northeast… …Record heat for the interior west with temperatures 20 degrees above average.
