Are GOP Farm-State Lawmakers Missing Key Topics?

Oil prices plunge on Trump pullback from Iran attack | Beige Book signals uneven farm economy | House Dems to offer farm bill ideas

LINKS

Note: This dispatch was delayed due to vendor site filing problems.
 

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Jan. 11 
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Jan. 11
 

Updates: Policy/News/Markets, Jan. 15, 2026

UP FRONT

 TOP STORIES 

— Beige Book signals uneven farm economy as crop margins tighten and livestock holds up: Farm conditions are flat-to-weaker across districts entering 2026, with strong cattle income and slightly lower rates cushioning continued crop-margin pressure from low prices, high costs and export competition.

— Are farm-state lawmakers focusing on the right topics in farm country? Growers want Washington to shift from messaging to oversight and fixes — especially more specialty-crop aid beyond Farmer Bridge Aid, action on Tier-2 sugar imports, more flexible ARC/PLC for 2026, and reforms to expand/modernize Section 32 food-aid funding and timing.

— Supreme Court sidesteps Trump tariff fight again, leaving trade policy in limbo: The justices again avoided the IEEPA tariff cases, prolonging uncertainty for importers and refund litigation while the administration readies fallback tariff authorities.

— Trump escalates Greenland pressure as U.S./Europe talks unfold: Trump calls Greenland “vital” to missile defense and demands U.S. control, intensifying transatlantic skirmish as Denmark/Greenland push back and talks continue.

— Denmark says ‘fundamental disagreement’ persists with U.S. over Greenland after Washington talks: Denmark and Greenland reject U.S. control but agree to a working group as Arctic military postures and allied coordination ramp up.

— Bipartisan senators push targeted tax credit to jump-start renewable chemicals: Ricketts and Coons propose a time-limited production or investment credit to scale bio-based chemicals, pitching it as a manufacturing and farm-demand boost.

— Registration opens for 2026 USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum: USDA opens signup for its Feb. 19–20 flagship outlook event, featuring new Chief Economist Justin Benavidez, Secretary Rollins, and a Trump-era trade policy focus.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

— Equities today: Markets are rotating out of mega-cap tech into laggards as futures edge higher; traders also watch Fed speakers and Trump’s comments on Powell amid renovation-probe headlines.

— Deregulation as a rate-cut case: Fed Gov. Stephen Miran argues deregulation could lower prices and justify easier policy, a view that contrasts with officials urging a data-driven approach and emphasizing Fed independence.

AG MARKETS

— USDA daily export sales: New soybean and corn sales (plus additional soybean “unknown” volumes) underscore steady export flow into 2025/26 and beyond.

— China buys more U.S. sorghum, soybeans, cotton and pork: Weekly export data show a notable China-linked lift across multiple commodities, pushing cumulative commitments higher—especially soybeans and sorghum.

— U.S. sugar industry feels the squeeze as prices slide and politics turn hostile: Heavy supplies and softer deliveries collide with RFK Jr.-driven anti-sugar policy tone and GLP-1 demand shifts, deepening fears of forfeitures, plant stress, and a tough 2026.

— Canola caught in the crossfire as Canada/China trade talks drag on: Talks offer faint hope, but tariffs still choke Canadian canola exports to China, raising risk of lasting market-share loss.

FARM POLICY

— House Ag Democrats draw battle lines on farm, nutrition policy ahead of elections: Angie Craig’s Farm and Family Relief Act sharpens an election-year contrast on farm aid and SNAP as the broader farm bill remains stalled.

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

— Thursday: Oil prices plunge over 3% as Trump’s Iran remarks ease geopolitical risk premium: Crude drops sharply as perceived Iran-war risk cools, with inventory builds and shifting supply adding pressure.

— Wednesday: Oil prices climb on Iran tension supply risk: Geopolitical fears drove a fifth straight gain before Trump’s later calming remarks began to unwind risk premium.

— EIA sees renewable diesel and SAF output jump in 2027 as biofuels growth reaccelerates: EIA projects a 2027 rebound in renewable diesel and SAF/advanced biofuels production after a flatter 2026.

— California budget proposal floats new SAF tax credit to boost in-state production: Newsom’s budget signals a new SAF incentive, but key credit details and interactions with LCFS remain TBD.

— Coalition urges USDA to rein in manure digester funding: A 34-group petition asks USDA to make digesters ineligible for REAP, arguing poor taxpayer returns and alleged environmental/rural harms versus smaller solar/efficiency projects.

CONGRESS

— Congressional agenda: House votes, Senate advances funding package: Appropriations move forward in both chambers, but the Jan. 30 funding deadline is steering Congress toward another likely CR.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

— Trump signs bill restoring whole milk in school lunches: Whole milk returns as an option in school meals, aligning with the administration’s protein-forward MAHA nutrition shift.

— Sugar users urge USDA to revisit refined sugar definition: Manufacturers want USDA to modernize “refined sugar” rules to avoid supply bottlenecks during emergencies, setting up pushback from producers.

— RFK Jr. jokes about Trump’s fast-food diet while praising his stamina: Kennedy ribs Trump’s travel diet but frames it as situational, while the White House uses the moment to underscore vigor.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

— Inland waterways at a crossroads: blueprint emerges to fix costly lock and dam delays: A Waterways Council study urges funding and project-delivery reforms to modernize aging locks faster and cheaper, critical for grain-export logistics.

WEATHER

— NWS outlook: Heavy snow lingers for parts of the Great Lakes/Northeast, strong winds hit the High Plains, and the East stays colder than normal while the West runs mild.

TOP STORIES—Beige Book signals uneven farm economy as crop margins tighten and livestock holds upFederal Reserve districts report mixed agricultural conditions entering 2026, with weak crop profitability offset in some regions by strong cattle prices and modest relief from lower interest rates  Agricultural conditions across the Federal Reserve districts were largely unchanged to weaker inthe January 2026 Beige Book, underscoring continued pressure on crop producers from low prices, high input costs, and stiff global competition. While livestock sectors — particularly cattle — offered pockets of strength, most districts described a farm economy still struggling to regain momentum as farmers head into spring planning. Midwest: Crop margins tight, livestock a bright spot. In the Chicago Fed district, which covers much of the Corn Belt, net farm income in 2025 was roughly equal to 2024 and slightly better than previously expected after a late-year rally in corn and soybean prices. Still, contacts warned that elevated input costs are likely to keep crop margins tight in 2026. Livestock operations, especially cattle, remained profitable, though hog and dairy prices weakened. Producers also expressed lingering concern about trade uncertainty and the prospect of large South American harvests weighing on export competitiveness. The St. Louis district painted a more strained picture, noting that row crop supply continues to exceed demand. Farmers have struggled to market 2025 crops, and low Mississippi River levels — while not yet disrupting ports — have reduced barge capacity. Winter wheat planting is complete, but optimism remains limited ahead of spring planting decisions.Plains: cattle strength offsets crop weakness. In the Kansas City district, agriculture was described as “mixed,” with weak crop profitability offset by strong cattle prices. Elevated input costs and softer grain markets continue to pressure balance sheets, but livestock revenues have provided a stabilizing force for many producers. South: Export headwinds and timber slump. The Atlanta district reported a modest decline in agricultural activity, driven by weaker soybean and corn exports and stronger international competition. Milk production growth abroad reduced demand for U.S. dairy products, while expectations for increased beef imports from South America briefly pushed prices lower. The district also highlighted a sharp downturn in timber markets, with falling prices, mill closures, and reduced transactions for industrial timberland and rural parcels. Upper Midwest: agriculture remains weak. The Minneapolis district said agricultural conditions remained weak overall. Contacts cited ongoing softness in crop returns, limited pricing power, and persistent cost pressures. While some producers benefited from lower fuel prices, those gains were insufficient to materially improve farm profitability. Southwest and West: stable but unspectacular. In the Dallas and San Francisco districts, agriculture was generally described as stable on net, with no major improvement or deterioration reported. These regions continue to navigate the same themes seen nationally — high costs, cautious capital spending, and sensitivity to export demand—without a clear catalyst for near-term growth. Outlook: cautious planning ahead. Across districts, farmers are approaching 2026 with caution. Lower interest rates have provided some relief to borrowers, but high input costs, trade uncertainty, and ample global supplies continue to cap optimism. The Beige Book suggests that absent a meaningful improvement in prices or export demand, much of the farm sector will remain in a holding pattern as the new growing season approaches. —Are farm-state lawmakers focusing on the right topics in farm country?Need for program oversight, get USDA to boost food aid, boost U.S. aid for specialty crops, provide more aid beyond Farmer Bridge Aid program, deal with Tier-2 sugar imports that is hurting U.S. sugar growers, and implement a key change for 2026 Title I safety net programs  During talks with many U.S. growers the past few weeks, it is clear they are frustrated with Washington regarding farm and trade policy issues. Some of the topics growers mention:  • Specialty crops, including potatoes and sugar: USDA’s Farmer Bridge Aid program allocated just $1 billion to these crops, a tally farmers find woefully short. They are now turning to Congress to right the anemic funding level. • Sugar prices are in the tank: If anyone goes to sugar beet country the first think they will hear is all the Tier-2 (higher tariff) sugar coming into the United States. USDA is supposed to operate the U.S. sugar program to avoid loan forfeitures, but that is what is going to happen if things do not change (see Ag Markets section for more). Growers say the Ag panels should have oversight hearings on how USDA is not managing the sugar program as directed. •Farmers love that Congress, just for 2025 crops, allowed the higher of ARC or PLC programs in determining farmer payments. Crop insurance agents say this has saved them and farmers a lot of time trying to determine which program best fits various operations. The question being asked: Will Congress legislate the same flexibility for 2026 crops? This would accelerate the time crop insurance options could be made and allow farmer flexibility. •USDA’s $12 billion Farmer Bridge Aid (FBA) program seen well short of funding needed. Growers hope farm-state lawmakers will legislative another economic aid package that will complement the $12 billion package the Trump administration announced. As one farmer put it: “Any bridge needs guard rails; the current FBA does not… just need a lot more funding so farmers can get to the other side of the bridge.” • Food aid: USDA slow walking and the need for congressional changes. USDA’s use of tariff revenues for food purchases is primarily governed by Section 32. Key mechanics:• Up to 30% of annual customs (tariff) receipts are permanently appropriated to USDA under Section 32.• Roughly $350 million per year is the portion customarily available for food purchases and distribution (TEFAP, school meals support, child nutrition commodities, etc.), after:Required transfers to child nutrition programsSet-asides and prior obligations In practice, USDA does not have unlimited access to tariff revenue for food aid. The operational ceiling that food banks, Hill staff, and USDA itself reference is about $350 million annually for discretionary commodity purchases. Of note: Section 32 funds are calculated based on customs receipts from the prior fiscal year: USDA cannot obligate the funds until the following fiscal year. Result: tariff spikes today do not translate into immediate food aid purchases. Example: FY 2025 tariffs collected means Section 32 funding available in FY 2026. That lag is structural — it is not an administrative delay and cannot be waived without changing the statute. This explains a lot of the current confusion and frustration: 1. “Tariffs are bringing in billions — why isn’t USDA buying more food?” Because:• Only a slice flows to USDA (Section 32)• Only part of that slice is usable for food aid• And it arrives one fiscal year later 2. Why food banks are still short Even during periods of high tariff revenue:• USDA’s food-aid buying authority remains capped• Emergency needs can surge faster than Section 32 can respond 3. Why USDA leans on CCC instead When administrations want immediate, scalable food purchases, they typically use Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) authority not Section 32 tariff funds That’s what happened during:• Trade retaliation packages (e.g., MFP-era food box purchases)• Pandemic-era food aid expansions So meaningful expansion of food aid requires CCC authority or appropriations, not tariffs alone. There are no widely reported, major bipartisan bills specifically to raise USDA’s Section 32 cap or directly expand tariff-funded food-aid authorities beyond what already exists. Some advocacy discussions and administrative consideration previously suggested USDA officials were exploring Section 32 to support farmers, but with legal constraints around the roughly $350 million discretionary cap that limits how much USDA can spend on direct market support via those funds. What farm-state lawmakers should deal with but are not: There are far more dollar demands for Section 32 food aid, especially for specialty crops (dry edible beans, pinto beans, black beans, etc.,) than USDA has money to meet. Growers want Congress to significantly increase Section 32 funding and make it more flexible for USDA to operate.    —Supreme Court sidesteps Trump tariff fight again, leaving trade policy in limboJustices release opinions on unrelated cases but offer no signal on when they will rule on the legality of President Trump’s sweeping IEEPA tariffs The Supreme Court of the United States again declined Wednesday to act on the high-stakes litigation challenging President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, prolonging uncertainty over the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping duties on imports. The court issued three opinions addressing criminal procedure, warrantless searches, and election-law standing, but once more left unresolved the challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The absence of action keeps on hold a dispute that could determine the scope of presidential tariff authority and trigger hundreds of billions of dollars in potential refunds to importers. Many court watchers had expected a decision by now. The tariff cases have been pending since oral arguments on Nov. 4, where several justices — including conservatives — appeared skeptical of the administration’s legal rationale. That skepticism fueled expectations the court could strike down Trump’s duties on China, Mexico, Canada, and other trading partners. The justices release rulings in merits cases only on pre-scheduled decision days and never identify in advance which cases will be decided. The court has not announced when it will next issue opinions, extending speculation over when — or how — it will address the tariff challenge. The delay has ripple effects across the lower courts. A ruling against the administration would immediately revive hundreds of refund suits filed by importers seeking to recover IEEPA duties paid since last year. Those cases have been stayed pending Supreme Court action. On Jan. 14, the U.S. Court of International Trade reinforced that pause, rejecting a bid by the U.S. Department of Justice to alter how the stayed cases would be managed once they resume. In a consolidated docket order, Chief Judge Mark Barnett denied DOJ’s request to create a plaintiff “steering committee” and left existing stay procedures in place until the Supreme Court issues a final, unappealable decision. Even as the high court remains silent, the Trump administration is preparing contingency plans. Officials have signaled they could seek to reimpose similar tariffs using alternative statutory authorities if the Supreme Court ultimately invalidates the IEEPA duties — underscoring that, for now, the legal and policy battle over U.S. trade remains unresolved. —Trump escalates Greenland pressure as U.S./Europe talks unfoldPresident says Arctic territory is “vital” to missile defense plans, warning anything short of U.S. control is “unacceptable” President Donald Trump intensified his rhetoric over Greenland, declaring the Arctic territory “vital” to U.S. national security just hours before a sensitive White House meeting with European leaders. Posting on Truth Social, Trump said the United States “needs Greenland” to advance its planned “Golden Dome” missile defense shield and urged NATO to back U.S. efforts to gain control of the territory. “Anything less than that is unacceptable,” he wrote, framing the issue as a core strategic imperative rather than a diplomatic negotiation. Talks this week involved JD Vance and Marco Rubio with the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland. European officials described the meeting as an attempt to clarify Washington’s intentions and to persuade the administration that a U.S. takeover is neither necessary nor acceptable. See the box below for more on the meeting.  Denmark says ‘fundamental disagreement’ persists with U.S. over Greenland after Washington talksCopenhagen rejects Trump’s push for U.S. control but agrees to working group as Arctic military posture ramps up Denmark and Greenland emerged from high-level talks in Washington acknowledging a sharp, unresolved split with the Trump administration over Greenland’s future, even as both sides agreed to keep channels open through a new working group. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said a “fundamental disagreement” remains after meetings with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rasmussen stressed that any dialogue must address U.S. security concerns while respecting Denmark’s “red lines” over sovereignty. Greenland’s foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt joined the talks. President Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States “needs Greenland” for national security, urging NATO to back U.S. control and calling any alternative “unacceptable.” Danish officials countered that such a move is not in the Kingdom of Denmark’s interest, but signaled willingness to continue discussions via the working group. As rhetoric intensified, Denmark announced steps to bolster military presence and exercises in the Arctic and North Atlantic, citing an unpredictable security environment. Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said aircraft, ships and troops—along with contributions from NATO allies—would increase in and around Greenland. Sweden confirmed personnel arrivals, and Norway said it would dispatch officers to expand cooperation. Greenland’s prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen reiterated that Greenland chooses Denmark, NATO and the EU over the U.S., a stance Trump publicly dismissed. While Washington already maintains a military presence under a 1951 treaty, Denmark says any expansion must occur with Danish and Greenlandic consent. The dispute underscores Greenland’s strategic value as melting ice opens shorter shipping routes and access to critical minerals — factors Trump has tied to U.S. missile defense plans. But Greenlanders and some experts question claims of Russian or Chinese threats, arguing security concerns mask economic motives tied to untapped resources. Despite the impasse, diplomatic engagement continues: Danish and Greenlandic leaders are set to brief U.S. senators from the Arctic Caucus, while a bipartisan U.S. delegation travels to Copenhagen—suggesting dialogue persists even as positions harden.  Greenland has long been strategically important to U.S. defense planning because of its location astride Arctic air and missile corridors and the presence of U.S. military infrastructure, including early warning capabilities tied to North American and NATO defense systems. Trump’s renewed emphasis on missile defense elevates the issue beyond his earlier expressions of interest in the territory, recasting it as central to next-generation homeland security. The escalation has sharpened anxiety across Europe. Speaking in Berlin, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil warned that European nations risk becoming “pawns of the major powers” if they fail to harden their collective stance. His remarks underscore a growing concern in European capitals that U.S. pressure over Greenland could set a precedent for coercive geopolitics within the transatlantic alliance. For European leaders, the talks represent a critical test: balancing alliance unity and security cooperation with resistance to any move that challenges Danish sovereignty or Greenland’s autonomous status. For the Trump administration, the moment crystallizes a broader strategy that ties Arctic control, missile defense, and NATO burden-sharing into a single, high-stakes demand. —Bipartisan senators push targeted tax credit to jump-start renewable chemicals Ricketts/Coons bill would offer short-term production or investment incentives aimed at scaling U.S. bio-based chemical manufacturing A bipartisan pair of senators has introduced legislation aimed at accelerating the commercialization of renewable chemicals in the United States, positioning the sector as both an industrial competitiveness play and a new demand outlet for U.S. agriculture. The Renewable Chemicals Act, sponsored by Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), would establish a targeted, time-limited federal tax incentive for qualifying renewable chemical production. The proposal offers companies a choice between a production tax credit for eligible renewable chemicals or an investment tax credit for facilities that manufacture them. Supporters say the structure is designed to help early-stage and scaling projects bridge the cost gap with petroleum-based chemicals, without creating a permanent subsidy. The credit would apply only to chemicals derived from renewable feedstocks — such as agricultural products, residues, or other bio-based inputs — and would sunset after a defined period. The senators frame the bill as complementary to existing clean-energy incentives, arguing that chemicals made from renewable sources have largely been left out of recent federal tax policy despite their role in consumer products, packaging, coatings, and industrial materials. Backers also emphasize that many renewable chemical pathways leverage infrastructure and technologies already used in ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuel systems, allowing for faster deployment. Agricultural groups and bioindustrial manufacturers see the measure to diversify markets for corn, soybeans, and other feedstocks while strengthening domestic chemical supply chains that are currently dominated by fossil-based inputs and foreign production. Industry advocates have also argued that renewable chemicals can deliver emissions reductions without requiring end-users to change products or behavior, making them a relatively low-friction climate solution. The bill is expected to be referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers are weighing how narrowly tailored tax credits could fit into broader debates over energy, manufacturing, and agricultural policy. —Registration opens for 2026 USDA Agricultural Outlook ForumFlagship USDA event set for February with first economic outlook from new chief economist and focus on Trump-era trade policy Registration is now open for the 2026 Agricultural Outlook Forum, USDA’s premier annual economic and policy conference. Link The forum will be held Feb. 19–20 at the Crystal City Gateway Marriott in Virginia, with all sessions also available via livestream on a virtual platform. The program will feature the first official outlook for the U.S. agricultural economy and trade from top USDA economist Justin Benavidez, along with a keynote address by Brooke Rollins. A plenary panel will examine agricultural trade under President Trump’s trade agenda, reflecting the administration’s evolving approach to tariffs and global market access. The forum will also offer 22 breakout sessions organized by USDA agencies, covering a wide range of policy, market, and production issues. More than 80 experts from government, industry, and academia will provide insights on commodity markets, food price forecasts, and broader economic trends. The in-person event will also include exhibit booths from USDA agencies highlighting their missions, recent USDA-funded innovations, and key programs and services.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

—Equities today: Global markets sent mixed signals as investors trimmed exposure to some of the year’s high-flying technology names and rotated into lagging corners of the market. The move looked less like a wholesale retreat from risk and more like a recalibration, with money managers locking in gains while probing for value elsewhere. U.S. equity futures ticked higher in early trading after major benchmarks finished lower in the prior session, suggesting buyers are willing to step back in at slightly cheaper levels. The rebound in futures points to underlying confidence in the broader market, even as leadership narrows and volatility picks up beneath the headline indices. Outside the U.S., performance was uneven as investors weighed slowing momentum in mega-cap tech against improving relative value in cyclicals and defensives. The rotation underscores a market increasingly driven by selectivity — where sector choice matters more than simple exposure to equities. President Trump told Reuters said he doesn’t plan to fire Jerome Powell despite a Justice Dept. probe into the Fed’s renovation. The president also said he was unconcerned by Republican lawmakers who had criticized the investigation. On the Fed front, there are three speakers today, Bostic (8:35 a.m. ET), Barr (9:15 a.m. ET) and Barkin (12:40 p.m. ET) and the more dovish they are, the better for markets. In Asia, Japan -0.4%. Hong Kong -0.3%. China -0.3%. India closed. In Europe, at midday, London +0.4%. Paris -0.3%. Frankfurt -0.2%.

—Equities yesterday: 

Equity Index	Closing Price  Jan. 14	Point Difference  from Jan. 13	% Difference  from Jan. 13
Dow	49,149.63	-42.36	-0.09%
Nasdaq	23,471.75	-238.12	-1.00%
S&P 500	6,926.60	-37.14	-0.53%

—Deregulation as a rate-cut case

Fed Governor Stephen Miran argues supply-side gains from deregulation could justify a more accommodative monetary stance

Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran said U.S. deregulation could put meaningful downward pressure on prices and support lower interest rates, warning that monetary policy risks becoming overly restrictive if the Fed fails to account for supply-side gains. Speaking at the Delphi Economic Forum in Athens, Miran framed deregulation as a productivity-boosting, capacity-expanding shock that allows faster growth without stoking inflation — conditions that, in his view, warrant lower rates.

Miran estimated that current and planned deregulatory efforts could eliminate as much as 30% of federal regulatory restrictions by 2030, potentially lowering the consumer price level by about 3% over that period — slightly more than half a percentage point per year. By lifting potential output more than actual output, he argued, deregulation creates economic slack that monetary policy should accommodate rather than counter with tight financial conditions.

He cautioned that ignoring these deflationary forces could produce an unnecessary slowdown, citing research suggesting central banks should cut rates to offset price pressures from increased competition and productivity. Miran said policy has already been tighter than appropriate given the scale of deregulation and that he has raised these concerns with his FOMC colleagues.

Miran’s stance contrasts with the more data-dependent posture emphasized by other officials, including Anna Paulson, who said any rate cuts later this year would hinge on continued inflation progress and labor-market stabilization.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has acknowledged that productivity gains can support growth without inflation but has stressed decisions based on realized inflation and employment outcomes rather than projected supply-side effects.

The comments come as Miran’s term on the Fed’s Board nears expiration and amid expectations that President Donald Trump will soon nominate his replacement — potentially his choice for the next Fed chair — heightening attention on how deregulation could influence the next phase of U.S. monetary policy.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee this year, told Wisconsin bankers that Federal Reserve independence is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. “We’re doing our best to make the best judgments we can, keeping politics out of it,” Kashkari said. He added that he is confident the committee will continue to base its decisions on data and analysis in pursuit of the dual mandate set by Congress.

Other Fed officials have echoed that view in recent days, publicly backing Chair Jerome Powell and emphasizing the need for the central bank to remain insulated from political pressure.

As the Jan. 27–28 FOMC meeting approaches, the Fed’s latest Beige Book reported a cooling labor market, while inflation remains elevated but continues to trend in the right direction. At the same time, policymakers are expressing caution in interpreting recent economic data, noting that some indicators are still being distorted by the effects of the government shutdown.

AG MARKETS

—USDA daily export sales:
• 204,000 MT of soybeans to China for 2025/26

•110,000 MT of soybeans to unknown destinations for 2025/26

• 435,000 MT of soybeans received in the reporting period for unknown

destinations — 360,000 MT for 2025/26 and 75,000 MT for 2026/27

• 260,000 MT of corn received in the reporting period to Japan for 2025/26

• 500,302 MT of corn received in the reporting period to

unknown destinations for 2025/26

—China buys more U.S. sorghum, soybeans, cotton and pork. USDA weekly Export Sales data for the week ended Jan. 8 included more activity for China for 2025/26, with net sales of 141,737 MT of sorghum, 1,224,128 MT of soybeans, and 57,241 running bales of upland cotton. There were also net sales of 651 MT of pork for 2026 reported. The weekly activity pushed U.S. export commitments on sorghum to 995,493 MT and for soybeans, combined with daily sales since the period covered by the report, export commitments are at 8,822,647 MT.

—U.S. sugar industry feels the squeeze as prices slide and politics turn hostile

High inventories and sluggish sales are colliding with RFK Jr.’s “war on sugar” and GLP-1 demand shifts, leaving beet and cane growers staring at thinner checks, plant closures, and a tougher 2026 outlook 

Note: I have been in sugarbeet country the past two weeks and this in part is based on what I heard from growers.

The outlook for the U.S. sugar industry has darkened further with new data from USDA’s Jan. 12 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), reinforcing what growers and processors are already experiencing: prices are weak, inventories are heavy, and demand growth is faltering just as political and consumer trends turn sharply against sugar.

January WASDE: Loose fundamentals persist. USDA’s January WASDE update offered little relief. The agency showed higher beginning stocks and lower domestic deliveries for the 2025/26 marketing year, pushing ending stocks higher than earlier projections and keeping the stocks-to-use ratio elevated.

Although USDA trimmed some import expectations — particularly higher-tier refined sugar — the reduction was not enough to materially tighten the balance sheet. Total use was revised lower, reflecting softer deliveries for human consumption, a notable confirmation that demand is underperforming expectations.

For producers, especially sugar beet growers tied to cooperative processors, the WASDE numbers reinforce concerns that the current downturn is structural rather than temporary.

Prices already doing the talking. The WASDE balance sheet is clearly reflected in the cash market. Bulk refined beet sugar prices in the Midwest have slipped into the low-40-cent-per-pound range, with reported spot sales at or below 40 cents to clear inventory ahead of new crop deliveries.

That pricing pressure is flowing directly into lower expected grower payments, tighter processor margins, and heightened sensitivity to any further erosion in demand.

A hostile policy climate under RFK Jr. Market weakness is colliding with a far less forgiving policy environment. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made sugar reduction a cornerstone of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The newly issued 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans emphasize cutting added sugars and curbing consumption of sugar-heavy, ultra-processed foods.

RFK Jr. has publicly used the phrase “sugar is poison,” most notably during an April 2025 press conference, where he said that sugar is “poisoning” Americans and urged people to aim for zero added sugar in their diets. The remark was part of his broader “Make America Healthy Again” push to reduce added sugars and ultra-processed foods through public education and updated nutrition guidance. Kennedy has acknowledged that eliminating sugar entirely from the food system is unrealistic, framing the comment as a stark warning about health risks rather than a call for an outright ban.

For the sugar industry, the concern is practical, not rhetorical. Federal nutrition guidance shapes school meals, SNAP and WIC standards, and broader consumer messaging — channels that account for a meaningful share of baseline sugar demand. Even incremental reductions compound quickly in a market already burdened by excess supply.

GLP-1 drugs reshape demand assumptions. At the same time, GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are creating a demand shock that sugar policy cannot offset. Medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound suppress appetite and reduce spending on calorie-dense foods, disproportionately affecting sugar-intensive categories. Early academic and industry research shows GLP-1 households spend less on groceries and restaurant meals, prompting food companies to reformulate products toward lower sugar and higher protein. The January WASDE’s weaker delivery projections suggest these shifts may already be filtering into official demand data.

Other worries: imports, margins, and plant viability. Even within a managed U.S. sugar program, imports remain a pressure point — especially when domestic inventories are high. USDA has explicitly noted that refiners are discounting product to remain competitive with high-tier refined sugar imports, limiting the industry’s ability to stabilize prices.

Prolonged margin compression raises deeper concerns. Higher labor, energy, and compliance costs are colliding with weaker prices, increasing the risk of plant closures and consolidation, particularly in higher-cost regions. Recent shutdowns and idling decisions in the beet sector have underscored the vulnerability of rural communities where a single sugar plant anchors local employment and tax base.

The planned shutdown of a long-running beet sugar operation in Brawley, California — cited as driven by rising costs and broader sugar-industry headwinds — has become a cautionary symbol for rural communities dependent on a single plant.

For growers, the fear is that once capacity is lost, it rarely returns — turning a cyclical downturn into a permanent contraction.

Bottom Line: The Jan. 12 WASDE confirms what many in the sugar industry already feared: ample supplies, weakening demand, and no near-term catalyst for a meaningful price rebound. Combined with an increasingly hostile public-health posture under RFK Jr. and the accelerating adoption of GLP-1 drugs, the challenges facing U.S. sugar now appear deeper and more structural than at any point in the past decade.

For beet and cane growers heading into the 2026 crop year, the central question is no longer whether the industry is under pressure — but how much capacity, acreage, and political support it can afford to lose before the market fundamentally resets.

Comments: The high-tier rate hasn’t been adjusted since 2000. Even if it just kept up with inflation, it would have nearly doubled. The higher-tier sugar imports are undermining USDA’s ability to manage the sugar program, sources signal. Regardless of RFK Jr. and the Dietary Guidelines, we are going to consume sugar in this country. The question is who is going to grow it.

Wait… one more thing: This flood of imports hanging over the market is making it look increasingly likely that there will be sugar forfeitures. USDA is supposed to manage the sugar program to avoid forfeitures. But, if you don’t have a handle on high-tier imports (can’t even forecast them accurately), how do you do that? It’s a mess and U.S. growers are paying the price. And forfeitures will reignite the use or the expectation of the use of the feedstock flexibility plan (FFP) that USDA is to operate to buy surplus sugar and sell it to bioenergy producers to prevent forfeitures on sugar loans, even though the consensus is that FFP is unworkable.

—Canola caught in the crossfire as Canada/China trade talks drag on

Beijing negotiations offer faint hope for Canadian oilseed exports, but tariffs remain firmly in place

Negotiations between Canada and China are continuing this week, keeping the door ajar for a possible easing of China’s punitive trade measures that have effectively shut Canadian canola out of the Chinese market — but without any clear sign of a breakthrough.

The dispute traces back to Canada’s decision to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, a move that prompted Beijing to retaliate with tariffs that halted imports of Canadian canola and related products. Since then, the canola sector has been among the most exposed casualties, given China’s historical role as one of Canada’s largest and most lucrative oilseed buyers.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in Beijing this week, struck an optimistic tone, saying talks had shown progress and that channels of communication remain open. Industry Minister Melanie Joly confirmed that negotiations would continue through Friday, when Carney is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping.

For canola markets, however, optimism remains cautious. While continued talks suggest the dispute is not frozen in a full stalemate, officials on both sides have stopped short of signaling any imminent rollback of tariffs. That leaves Canadian exporters facing prolonged uncertainty, with shipments rerouted to alternative markets at lower margins and domestic supplies weighing on prices.

From China’s perspective, canola remains a politically sensitive lever. Restricting imports pressures Canadian farm incomes while limiting collateral damage at home by leaning on alternative oilseed supplies. For Canada, the longer the dispute drags on, the greater the risk that Chinese buyers permanently reconfigure supply chains away from Canadian canola — even if tariffs are eventually lifted.

Bottom Line: The talks’ continuation offers a modest psychological lift for canola markets, but until tariffs are formally eased or removed, the trade standoff continues to cast a long shadow over Canadian oilseed exports.
 

—Agriculture markets yesterday:

Commodity	Contract  Month	Close Jan. 14	Change from  Jan. 13
Corn	March	$4.22	+2 1/4¢
Soybeans	March	$10.42 1/2	+3 3/4¢
Soybean Meal	March	$291.90	+$0.30
Soybean Oil	March	50.98¢	-22 pts
Wheat (SRW)	March	$5.12 1/2	+2¢
Wheat (HRW)	March	$5.22 1/4	+2 3/4¢
Spring Wheat	March	$5.67	+1/2¢
Cotton	March	64.99¢	+11 pts
Live Cattle	February	$235.15	-$2.10
Feeder Cattle	March	$359.70	-$2.425
Lean Hogs	February	$85.70	+$1.075

FARM POLICY

—House Ag Democrats draw battle lines on farm, nutrition policy ahead of elections

Craig’s Farm and Family Relief Act sets up sharp contrast with GOP priorities as farm bill talks stall

House Ag Committee Democrats are opening an election-year front on farm and nutrition policy, signaling they are prepared to run against Republicans on both farm safety-net spending and food assistance as Congress struggles to advance a full farm bill.

At an event today, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, and several colleagues will unveil the Farm and Family Relief Act, a Democratic messaging bill aimed at underscoring support for producers facing income pressure while also defending nutrition programs that serve low-income households.

What Democrats are signaling. While legislative text details are still emerging, the rollout itself is the message. Democrats are framing the proposal as a contrast to GOP approaches that emphasize tighter spending caps and structural changes to nutrition assistance. Craig and allies argue that persistent farm income stress, volatile input costs, and uneven disaster recovery justify a more robust, near-term response — even if a comprehensive farm bill remains out of reach this year.

Of note: The measure is expected to include farm aid, give Congress sole authority over new tariffs and delay when states start paying for some food assistance costs under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties and other state and local officials said they want lawmakers to delay the implementation of the cost-share requirement from fiscal 2027 to fiscal 2030. However, House Ag Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) rejected talk of a delay. “I think they’re making lame excuses,” he told Politico. “I think they need to do their job. The error rates do not kick in until 2027, so they’ve got time.”

Election-year stakes. The move reflects growing confidence among Democrats that agriculture and nutrition can be campaign assets rather than liabilities. With rural margins tightening and SNAP again a flashpoint, Democrats are positioning the Farm and Family Relief Act as proof they are prioritizing both producers and consumers — casting Republicans as divided between fiscal hawks and farm-state pragmatists.

What it means for the farm bill. The bill is unlikely to advance on its own, but it raises the pressure on Republicans as Thompson pushes toward a committee markup after several aborted attempts. By elevating an alternative vision now, Democrats are shaping the narrative if talks stall or collapse — arguing that GOP delays leave farmers and families without timely relief.

Bottom Line: The Farm and Family Relief Act marks a deliberate pivot from back-room negotiation to public contrast. Even if it never becomes law, it sharpens the political fault lines that will define farm and nutrition debates through November.

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

—Thursday: Oil prices plunge over 3% as Trump’s Iran remarks ease geopolitical risk premium

Brent and U.S. crude slide sharply after President Trump signals killings in Iran protests are tapering, reducing fears of U.S. military action and supply disruptions amid mixed market fundamentals 

Oil prices tumbled more than 3% on Thursday after President Donald Trump said he had been told that the killing of demonstrators during protests in Iran was ending, easing market fears of imminent U.S. military action and potential crude supply disruptions from the region.

Brent crude futures fell about $2.19, 3.3%, to around $64.33 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) dropped roughly $2.06, also about 3.3%, dipping below $60.

Trump’s comments helped dissipate a geopolitical risk premium that had built up in recent sessions as tensions over Iran’s internal unrest and threats of retaliation raised concerns about disruptions to oil flows from a key energy exporter. Analysts noted that while the de-escalation rhetoric eased immediate fears, the broader situation in Iran remains fragile.

Bearish supply and demand signals also weighed on prices. U.S. crude and gasoline inventories rose more than analysts expected, while Venezuela has begun reversing output cuts and resuming crude exports, adding to market supply. On the demand side, data show China’s crude imports climbed significantly in December, and OPEC forecasts steady demand growth into 2027 with a near balance for 2026, contrasting with other projections of a surplus.

Bottom Line:The drop reflects a combination of reduced geopolitical risk perception and evolving fundamentals in supply and demand that are cushioning markets after recent price volatility.

—Wednesday: Oil prices climb on Iran Tension Supply Risk

Geopolitical fears fuel a fifth straight session of gains despite bullish inventory data and rising Venezuelan output

Oil prices rose about 1% on Wednesday, extending gains for a fifth straight session as markets grew increasingly concerned over potential supply disruptions stemming from heightened tensions with Iran and fears of a possible U.S. military strike and ensuing regional retaliation.

Brent crude futures settled up $1.05, 1.6%, at $66.52 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 87 cents, or 1.4%, to $62.02 a barrel, underscoring the prevailing geopolitical risk premium in global energy markets.

Iran warned regional U.S. allies that their bases could be targeted should Washington launch an attack, as the U.S. repositioned assets across the Middle East amid escalating tensions. President Donald Trump’s public encouragement of Iranian protesters and suggestion of U.S. support further amplified market anxiety about the potential for conflict — which traders said was lifting oil prices even though the unrest had not yet affected Iran’s core oil-producing regions. Trump late Wednesday signaled killings in Iran protests are tapering, reducing fears of U.S. military action and supply disruptions.

Price gains were moderated by U.S. data showing a larger-than-expected build in crude and gasoline inventories last week, reflecting higher refinery runs and increased imports, but traders remained focused on geopolitical risks over supply metrics.

Adding to the complex supply outlook, Venezuela’s oil output is showing signs of rebounding as production cuts from the U.S. embargo are reversed and crude exports resume. Two supertankers recently left Venezuelan waters with roughly 1.8 million barrels each, potentially marking the first shipments under a broader effort to restart flows after the U.S. capture of that country’s leadership.

—EIA sees renewable diesel and SAF output jump in 2027 as biofuels growth reaccelerates

Short-term outlook holds 2026 steady, but forecasts renewed expansion in renewable diesel, SAF and other advanced biofuels the following year

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects U.S. production of renewable diesel and other advanced biofuels — including sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) — to increase meaningfully in 2027, even as most categories show relatively flat growth in 2026, according to its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook released Jan. 13.

Renewable diesel: The EIA held its forecast that renewable diesel production will average 250,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2026, before rising to 290,000 bpd in 2027. That would mark a sharp increase from 190,000 bpd in 2025. Renewable diesel consumption is expected to dip slightly in 2026 to 220,000 bpd, down from the December outlook, but rebound to 260,000 bpd in 2027. Net imports are forecast at –20,000 bpd in both years, a modest upward revision from December.

Biodiesel: Biodiesel production is projected to remain flat at 100,000 bpd in both 2026 and 2027, following 80,000 bpd in 2025. Consumption is expected to average 90,000 bpd in 2026, rising to 100,000 bpd in 2027, with net imports holding at zero throughout the forecast period.

SAF and other advanced biofuels: Production of “other” biofuels — a category that includes SAF, renewable jet fuel, renewable heating oil, renewable naphtha and renewable gasoline — is forecast to average 40,000 bpd in 2026, unchanged from 2025, before increasing to 50,000 bpd in 2027. Consumption follows the same trajectory, with net imports expected to remain at zero.

Bottom Line: The EIA’s outlook points to 2027 as a renewed growth year for renewable diesel and SAF, after a pause in 2026, reinforcing expectations that advanced biofuels will play a larger role in U.S. fuel supply as new capacity comes online and aviation demand for low-carbon fuels expands.

—California budget proposal floats new SAF tax credit to boost in-state production

Newsom administration signals support for low-carbon aviation fuels, but key details remain undefined

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit as part of his preliminary 2026-27 state budget, signaling renewed state-level support for low-carbon aviation fuels amid broader climate and clean-energy goals. Link for details.

Details by the California Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review show the proposal would create a tax credit designed to offset diesel excise tax liability to incentivize SAF production within California. According to the committee’s budget summary, the credit is intended to advance the state’s emissions-reduction targets while encouraging innovation and investment in clean transportation fuels.

At this stage, however, the proposal remains conceptual. The budget summary does not specify the value of the SAF tax credit, eligibility thresholds, carbon-intensity requirements, or how the credit would be administered. It also does not clarify how the proposed incentive would interact with existing state programs such as California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which already provides significant credit value for SAF pathways.

The lack of detail suggests the SAF credit is an opening position rather than a finalized policy tool, with specifics likely to emerge during legislative negotiations this spring. Industry stakeholders are expected to closely scrutinize whether the credit is stackable with LCFS incentives and federal programs, and whether it is structured to meaningfully close the cost gap between SAF and conventional jet fuel.

If enacted, the proposal would further cement California’s role as a policy leader in aviation decarbonization, potentially providing an additional signal for project developers considering SAF production facilities on the West Coast. The full budget summary is available through the California Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.

—Coalition urges USDA to rein in manure digester funding

Petition argues anaerobic digesters undermine rural communities, harm the environment, and divert scarce REAP dollars from smaller, higher-return clean energy projects

A coalition of 34 farm, environmental, and rural advocacy organizations has filed a formal rulemaking petition urging USDA to sharply limit — or eliminate — the use of federal funds for manure digesters under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

In a petition submitted Jan. 14 to USDA’s Rural Business–Cooperative Service (RBCS), the groups argue that anaerobic digesters tied to large industrial animal operations are an inefficient and harmful use of taxpayer dollars and conflict with Congress’s intent for REAP to support small farms, rural communities, and projects that deliver clear environmental and public-health benefits.

Push to make digesters ineligible for REAP. The petition asks USDA to issue a rule deeming manure digesters ineligible for REAP grants and loan guarantees, even though animal manure qualifies as “renewable biomass” under federal law. Petitioners argue USDA has the discretion to exclude projects that undermine REAP’s statutory goals, just as it has barred other categories of projects in the past.

According to the filing, REAP has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to digester projects located at, or supplied by, large animal feeding operations. From fiscal years 2021 through 2025, about $257 million in REAP funding went to just 55 new manure digesters — awards that were far larger, on average, than grants for solar or wind projects.

Alleged harm to small farms and rural economies. The coalition contends digesters primarily benefit large, industrial livestock operations and worsen competitive pressures on small and mid-sized farms. Because digesters require millions of dollars in upfront capital, the petition argues they are economically inaccessible to smaller operations and effectively subsidize consolidation in animal agriculture.

The petition links digester subsidies to broader rural economic decline, citing research showing industrial livestock operations tend to extract wealth from rural communities rather than circulate it locally. By reinforcing the scale advantages of large operations, the groups say REAP digester funding accelerates farm loss, job decline, and population shrinkage in rural areas.

Environmental and public health concerns. Petitioners also argue manure digesters fail to deliver the environmental benefits often claimed. While digesters are promoted as methane-reduction tools, the filing says they entrench liquid manure management systems that generate significant water and air pollution and pose ongoing risks to nearby communities.

The petition documents multiple instances where REAP-funded digesters were associated with manure spills, permit violations, or degraded water quality. It also highlights research indicating that digestate — the byproduct left after digestion — can increase nutrient runoff and ammonia emissions compared with untreated manure, raising risks to drinking water, air quality, and human health.

In addition, the groups cite safety hazards linked to digester operations, including fatal incidents involving confined-space gas exposure and drownings in waste pits.

Poor returns for taxpayers, petition says. Beyond environmental concerns, the coalition argues digesters perform poorly under USDA’s own REAP scoring criteria. Digesters typically require grants far exceeding USDA’s preferred $250,000 threshold and often fail to recoup their full costs when evaluated without subsidies — a key metric in REAP funding decisions.

By comparison, the petition notes that thousands of smaller solar and energy-efficiency projects funded through REAP deliver higher energy returns per federal dollar and provide more direct economic benefits to rural businesses and communities.

Call to redirect funds. The petition concludes that making manure digesters ineligible would free up limited REAP funds for projects that better align with the program’s mission — such as solar installations, wind projects, and efficiency upgrades that lower energy costs for farmers and rural small businesses.

Upshot: Given ongoing oversubscription of REAP and a growing backlog of applications, the coalition argues USDA’s funding choices carry heightened importance — and that continued support for manure digesters crowds out projects that more clearly serve rural economic development, environmental protection, and taxpayer value.

CONGRESS

— Congressional agenda: House votes, Senate advances funding package

Lawmakers move through key business before departing Washington for the weekend and a one-week Senate recess 

The House Wednesday approved another minibus spending plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, clearing one covering Financial Services and National Security-State. The 341-79 vote moves the package to the Senate which is not expected to consider the plan until the final week of January when they return from a recess next week. The action Wednesday means the House has approved eight of the 12 annual spending plans with the Senate tally at six.

This sets the stage for the need for another continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded beyond Jan. 30 when the current CR expires.

The House is scheduled to hold votes Thursday morning before members leave Washington for the weekend.

In the Senate, attention is focused on a three-bill government funding package covering the Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy and Water, and Interior appropriations measures. The package is expected to pass, though senators are likely to consider a handful of amendments before final approval. Once the spending bills clear the chamber, senators will depart Washington for a one-week recess.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

—Trump signs bill restoring whole milk in school lunches

Move aligns school meal rules with administration’s protein focused “Make America Healthy Again” nutrition overhaul

President Donald Trump signed legislation Wednesday allowing schools in the federal lunch program to serve whole milk, reversing a decade-old restriction that limited options to fat-free and low-fat varieties. “Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, whole milk is a great thing,” Trump said at the signing event. “These changes will be major victories for the American dairy farmers, who we love and who voted for me in great numbers.”

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act marks a shift in rules governing the National School Lunch Program, enabling students receiving federal meal assistance to purchase whole milk for the first time in more than 10 years. Schools will be required to offer milk choices that may include flavored or unflavored whole and reduced-fat milk, whether organic or non-organic, alongside existing options.

The law does not mandate school menu changes, meaning districts will be responsible for determining demand for the new options. It also allows schools to serve nondairy, plant-based milks without requiring a doctor’s note.

At the signing event, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said whole milk will reappear in schools in “a few weeks.”

The signing follows the Trump administration’s rollout of new federal nutrition guidelines that encourage higher consumption of animal-based protein and dairy while reducing added sugars. Those guidelines are central to the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative and reflect the dietary views of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., emphasizing protein-heavy diets and tighter limits on processed foods and sugars.

As part of the overhaul, the administration replaced the long-standing MyPlate graphic with an inverted food pyramid that highlights protein, dairy, healthy fats, vegetables, and fruits — while de-emphasizing grains. A whole-milk carton features prominently in the new imagery. The updated guidance influences meals for nearly 30 million schoolchildren and shapes broader federal nutrition programs, though it has also prompted questions about saturated fat limits and other dietary tradeoffs.

—Sugar users urge USDA to revisit refined sugar definition

Manufacturers warn current rules could restrict access to affordable supplies during emergencies

A coalition representing food and beverage manufacturers is calling on USDA to update how it defines “refined sugar,” arguing that the current definition could unintentionally limit access to affordable sugar during supply disruptions or emergency situations.

The Sugar Users Group, which represents companies that rely on sugar as an ingredient, says USDA’s definition is overly narrow and fails to reflect modern refining processes and global supply chains. As a result, manufacturers contend they could be prevented from sourcing sugar that is functionally equivalent to U.S.-produced refined sugar when domestic supplies are tight.

Emergency access concerns. Sugar users argue the issue becomes most acute during emergencies such as hurricanes, plant outages, trade disruptions, or transportation bottlenecks. In those cases, USDA programs or trade rules tied to the agency’s refined sugar definition may restrict which types of sugar can be imported or used, even if alternative supplies meet food safety and quality standards.

Manufacturers say that updating the definition would not dismantle the existing U.S. sugar program, but instead provide flexibility to ensure continuity of production for foods, beverages, and other consumer products when supplies are constrained.

Broader industry backdrop. The request comes as sugar-using industries face a combination of volatile prices and rising scrutiny of sugar consumption in federal nutrition policy debates. Users argue that limited flexibility in definitions and eligibility standards adds another layer of risk for manufacturers already navigating higher input costs and uncertain demand.

What’s next. USDA has not yet publicly responded to the request. Any change would likely require regulatory clarification and could draw pushback from domestic sugar producers, who have long defended strict definitions as essential to maintaining the integrity of the U.S. sugar support system. For sugar users, however, the message is straightforward: modernizing the refined sugar definition is about emergency preparedness and supply reliability — not rewriting the sugar program wholesale.

—RFK Jr. jokes about Trump’s fast-food diet while praising his stamina

Health secretary says president’s travel eating habits look rough, but insists Trump’s energy and health defy expectations

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sparked laughter — and headlines — after poking fun at President Donald Trump’s well-known fast-food habits, quipping that he doesn’t “know how he’s alive” given the president’s diet.

Speaking on The Katie Miller Podcast, Kennedy was asked which Cabinet member had the most “unhinged” eating habits. He answered without hesitation: the president. Kennedy described Trump’s reliance on McDonald’s, caffeine, and Diet Coke while traveling, joking that Trump has “the constitution of a deity” given his energy levels.

At the same time, Kennedy tempered the humor with praise. He stressed that Trump eats far better food when he is at the White House or Mar-a-Lago and that the fast-food routine is largely a byproduct of campaign-style travel. Observers who only see Trump on the road, Kennedy said, may get a distorted view of his overall lifestyle.

The White House leaned into the comments, framing them as evidence of Trump’s vigor amid ongoing scrutiny of his age and health. A spokesperson pointed to Trump’s demanding schedule, golf performance, and recent physical reports as proof that he remains in strong condition.

Kennedy has made similar remarks in the past, acknowledging concern about campaign-trail food while conceding that Trump appears to defy conventional expectations about diet and stamina. The episode adds a lighthearted note to a broader political debate over presidential health, one that Trump’s allies argue is applied unevenly compared with scrutiny of Democratic leaders.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

—Inland waterways at a crossroads: blueprint emerges to fix costly lock and dam delays

Waterways Council study urges Congress, White House, and Army Corps to overhaul funding, project delivery, and design practices

America’s inland waterway system — critical to moving grain, energy products, and manufactured goods — faces mounting risks from aging lock and dam infrastructure and a project delivery model plagued by chronic cost overruns and delays, according to a new study commissioned by the Waterways Council, Inc.

The report, Recommendations for Improving the Delivery of Inland Waterway Capital Projects, finds that nearly 80% of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) locks are more than 50 years old, with an average age of about 70 years. While Congress has provided substantial funding in recent years, major modernization projects have still taken decades to complete and have exceeded original cost estimates by 100% to nearly 300% in some cases.

A system under strain. The study underscores the economic stakes noting that inland waterways handle more than 500 million tons of cargo annually and move roughly 60% of U.S. grain exports. Delays or failures can impose enormous costs on shippers, farmers, and consumers. One cited example shows that each year of delay at the Olmsted Locks and Dam project resulted in an estimated $875 million in foregone benefits to barge traffic.

Stakeholder interviews and a review of past projects point to recurring problems: fragmented project selection, uncertain annual funding under continuing resolutions, insufficient early design work, and limited use of modern construction delivery methods.

Six themes for reform. The report identifies six core areas where changes could materially improve outcomes:

1) Treat inland waterways as a system, not as isolated projects, and limit the number of major lock replacements underway at one time.

2) Reform funding practices by adopting programmatic funding and reviving continuing contracts or incremental funding to reduce inefficiencies.

3) Strengthen project planning and management, including clearer “cradle-to-grave” accountability and better coordination with industry expertise.

4) Improve scoping and design, with more rigorous early site investigations, standardized lock components, and full 3D modeling.

5) Enhance cost and schedule estimates through independent peer reviews, reference-class forecasting, and better risk identification at the feasibility stage.

6) Modernize construction delivery, encouraging alternatives to traditional design-bid-build such as early contractor involvement and integrated design-construction approaches.

Clear asks for Congress and the administration. Among its headline recommendations, the study urges Congress to fund inland navigation on a programmatic, system-wide basis and to avoid adding projects outside USACE’s established priority lists. It also calls on the administration to revisit Executive Order 12322, which the authors say has allowed the Office of Management and Budget to withhold critical project information from lawmakers.

For USACE, the report proposes creating a dedicated inland navigation program management office, expanding standard designs for locks and dams, and authorizing construction only after designs reach sufficient maturity to reduce change orders and cost shocks.

Bottom Line: The Waterways Council report argues that cost overruns and delays are not inevitable. By borrowing best practices from other federal agencies and large infrastructure programs — and by treating inland waterways as an integrated national system — lawmakers and regulators could significantly improve the reliability, affordability, and speed of lock and dam modernization at a time when river commerce is increasingly vital to U.S. competitiveness.

WEATHER

— NWS outlook: Lingering heavy snow for the Great Lakes and Interior Northeast… …Very gusty winds for much of the northern and central High Plains today and Friday… …Below average temperatures continue for much of the eastern U.S. while the West sees above average, mild temperatures.