Farm Bill 2.0 Markup Postponed Due to DC Weather

Farm Bill 2.0 Markup Postponed Due to DC Weather

State of Union address | U.S. trade policy update | Texas announces wildfire relief for Panhandle ranchers | Mexico’s most-wanted cartel leader killed in major security operation

LINKS

Link: Weekend Updates, Feb. 21: Trump Raises Global Tariff Rate to
15% Following Supreme Court Ruling

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 22

Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 22

The Week Ahead: Feb. 22, 2026

UP FRONT

TOP STORIES

— Mexico’s most-wanted cartel leader killed in major security operation — Mexican forces say CJNG boss “El Mencho” was killed in Jalisco, triggering rapid cartel retaliation (roadblocks, fires) and sharpening near-term Mexico/U.S. security and political pressures.

— End-around Section 122 limit? — After the Supreme Court tariff ruling, Trump pivots to Section 122 (time-limited, capped) plus Section 301 probes, with additional pathways via Section 232 (sector/national security) and Section 338 (discrimination authority) — while keeping key carve-outs (including USMCA duty-free goods and certain aircraft parts).

— Trade agenda rebuilt after Supreme Court tariff ruling — USTR Jamieson Greer says the administration prepared “durable” backups and will rebuild leverage through Section 122 in the near term and more targeted Section 301 and Section 232 actions over time.

— Courts hold the key on tariff refunds: USTR Greer — Greer says the administration needs court guidance on whether and how refunds happen after IEEPA tariffs were struck down, with big revenue stakes and near-term uncertainty for importers.

— Trump’s fresh tariff threat tests the durability of earlier trade deals — Financial Times framing: prior pacts may hold because partners fear retaliation and still prioritize access to the U.S. market, even as new talks slow amid legal and policy whiplash.

— USTR Greer: U.S. bilateral trade deals remain intact after Supreme Court tariff ruling — Greer tells partners China, the EU, South Korea, and others that existing arrangements stand, separating them from the new global tariff posture while the U.S. leans on other statutory tools.

— Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller announces wildfire relief for Panhandle ranchers — Disaster declaration activates feed and fencing support, financial help, and rural mental-health resources as major fires remain active, and recovery needs intensify.

— Brazil pushes India trade expansion to unlock cotton growth — Brazil seeks to broaden the Mercosur/India pact, cut India’s cotton tariff and secure quotas, aiming to lock in faster export growth into India’s textile supply chain.

CONGRESS

— Note: OPM two-hour delayed opening Monday — Federal agencies in the region will open late, with telework/leave options.

— Congress heads into a high-stakes week — A weather-driven Farm Bill 2.0 markup delay collides with Supreme Court tariff fallout and a politically charged surgeon general hearing, raising the temperature across ag, trade, and health lanes.

— House Ag panel postpones Farm Bill 2.0 battle — Markup slips to the week of March 1, with Proposition 12, pesticide liability language, SNAP rules, EQIP reallocation, biofuels, and trade uncertainty emerging as flashpoint issues.

— Trump’s State of the Union meets trade turbulence — The address lands days after the tariff-authority reset, with Section 122’s clock effectively pulling Congress deeper into the next phase of tariff policy fights.

— Senate HELP Committee to question surgeon general nominee Casey Means — Senators are set to probe public health and nutrition-related views that could spill into food and ag policy debates.

— DHS funding standoff adds urgency to congressional agenda — A department-specific shutdown puts pressure on negotiators as TSA and border personnel work without pay and visible service disruptions become leverage in the funding fight.

— The big picture — why this week matters — Farm policy, trade-authority constraints, and cross-committee fights converge, testing whether Congress can function under high polarization.

— Supreme Court limits Trump’s tariff authority — Bloomberg view: the ruling reinforces Congress’ taxing power (major-questions framing) while leaving other tariff statutes available for continued escalation.

KEY EVENTS

— Feb. 23–27 calendar — Trade and ag conferences stack up alongside Trump’s State of the Union (Tue.), Commodity Classic (Tue.–Fri.), Renewable Fuels Association ethanol meetings, and multiple Hill hearings/webinars that keep tariffs, WRDA, and energy nominations in play.

KEY ECONOMIC, AG & ENERGY REPORTS

— Note: release timing risk — D.C. weather could shift some publication schedules.

— Global macro week ahead — inflation and growth in focus — Australia CPI, Tokyo CPI, India GDP, U.S. regional Fed surveys/confidence/PPI, and eurozone/Germany inflation plus Canada GDP shape the week’s macro tone.

— Week of Feb. 23 — Key USDA & energy reports — USDA export and cold-storage reads, ERS food price outlook, export sales, and the ag trade outlook run alongside EIA petroleum and ethanol data, natural gas storage, rigs, and positioning for the clearest market signals.

TOP STORIES—Mexico’s most-wanted cartel leader killed in major security operationDeath of CJNG chief “El Mencho” triggers immediate violence and reshapes Mexico/U.S. security dynamics Mexican security forces said they killed Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, better known as “El Mencho,” during a military operation in the western state of Jalisco — a development viewed as one of the biggest blows to organized crime in Mexico in recent years. Government sources said the operation targeted the longtime leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), a group widely considered among the most violent and powerful trafficking organizations in the country. According to officials, the operation occurred near Tapalpa, Jalisco, where troops reportedly came under attack. Security forces returned fire, and Oseguera was killed along with several cartel members. Mexican authorities said the mission had intelligence support from U.S. agencies, reflecting expanded bilateral cooperation on organized crime. Immediate fallout: roadblocks, fires, and public alerts. In the hours following the operation, cartel-linked violence quickly spread across several states. Residents and authorities reported burning vehicles blocking highways — a tactic frequently used to disrupt military movements. Local officials warned people to stay indoors, and transportation disruptions followed in parts of Jalisco, including the Guadalajara area. The U.S. Embassy issued shelter-in-place guidance for Americans in several affected regions, highlighting concerns that retaliatory violence could continue as criminal networks react to the loss of leadership. Why “El Mencho” mattered. Under Oseguera’s command, CJNG expanded from a regional organization into a global trafficking network moving cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl into the U.S. and other markets. The cartel became known for aggressive expansion, direct attacks on security forces, and highly militarized tactics that distinguished it from many rival groups. Analysts expect his death to create a power vacuum that could trigger internal struggles within the cartel or renewed conflicts with rival organizations — a pattern seen after previous high-profile cartel takedowns. Political and diplomatic implications. The operation also carries political weight. President Donald Trump has pressed Mexico to intensify actions against cartels and had publicly floated the possibility of U.S. strikes if results did not improve. Mexico’s government has rejected any foreign military action on sovereignty grounds while increasing intelligence cooperation with Washington. El Mencho’s death may ease some bilateral pressure in the near term, signaling stronger enforcement by Mexican authorities while potentially reshaping the broader U.S.–Mexico security dialogue. What comes next. Security specialists caution that removing a cartel leader does not automatically reduce violence. In the short term, clashes can intensify as successors compete for control and local factions reposition themselves. Authorities in western Mexico remain on alert as the situation evolves. Bottom Line: The killing of El Mencho marks a major symbolic and operational victory for Mexico’s security forces — but it could also usher in a volatile transition period as one of the country’s most powerful criminal organizations reorganizes.—End-around Section 122 limit? After the Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs Friday, President Trump quickly pivoted to two other trade laws: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 301 investigations Section 122 limits how long tariffs can be imposed (150 days) and how high the tariffs can be. After the 150-day period, it requires Congress to extend the measures. It gives the president authority to impose temporary restrictions, like tariffs or quotas, on goods from other countries based on specific conditions. That temporary surcharge cannot exceed 15%, the level Trump announced on Saturday after initially announcing a 10% tariff. Of note: Despite the duration limit, some observers say the president could theoretically allow the tariffs to lapse, declare another emergency of balance of payments and restart the timeline. This would create a de facto perpetual tariff instrument. Meanwhile, Trump said that the administration would be initiating “several” Section 301 investigations to “protect our country from unfair trading practices and other countries and companies.” This provision in the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate whether a country is engaging in unfair trade practices and subsequently impose tariffs.
Another trade tool: Section 232, sector-by-sector. The provision of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the restriction of imports of products or sectors that threaten national security. If a Commerce Department investigation finds that to be the case, Trump could impose tariffs or other trade restrictions.The Trump administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum under this trade authority. Another tool: Section 338. This provision of the Tariff Act of 1930 allows the U.S. government to impose tariffs on goods from countries that discriminate “against the commerce of the United States,” the text of the law says. Of note: The new tariffs will not come on top of the already existing sectoral tariffs (Section 232), which are currently applied on steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, automobiles and certain motor vehicles. Also, articles entering duty-free under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) remain exempt from the surcharge. Finally, parts and components used in civil aircraft are exempted from the new tariffs, including other products (some ag imports). Major product categories exempt from the 15% tariff The Trump administration largely carried forward exemptions that already existed under the earlier tariff framework. Energy and critical resource products• Crude oil & petroleum• Natural gas• Coal• Electricity• Critical minerals not sufficiently produced in the U.S. These were explicitly carved out to avoid energy price spikes and supply shocks. Pharmaceuticals and medical inputs• Finished pharmaceuticals• Key pharmaceutical ingredients• Certain medical chemical precursors These remain exempt because of healthcare and supply-security concerns. Sectoral tariff products (already taxed elsewhere) If a product is already under separate national-security tariffs (Section 232), it generally is not hit again with the new 15%. Examples:• Steel• Aluminum• Passenger vehicles• Trucks & buses• Many auto parts• Aerospace products The logic: avoid “double stacking” duties. Certain electronics & semiconductor supply chain items• Semiconductors• Semiconductor manufacturing equipment• Some advanced electronics components These exemptions preserve domestic tech build-out policies. Agricultural & natural resource exemptions. Exempt categories include:• Fertilizers and inputs not produced adequately in the U.S.• Certain agricultural products• Natural resources unavailable domestically Specific examples mentioned in guidance:• Beef (certain categories)• Tomatoes• Oranges• Other products deemed supply-critical or unavailable domestically Important: this is not a blanket ag exemption — only designated HTS tariff codes qualify. Trade agreement exemptions• USMCA-compliant goods. Imports qualifying for duty-free treatment under:Canada, Mexico products via the USMCA will remain exempt from the new tariff. • Some existing negotiated trade carve-outs. Products already protected by earlier framework agreements (aircraft, certain specialty goods, etc.) generally continue to receive exemptions. •Additional exempt Categories• Civil aircraft parts (specific HTS codes)• Certain textile/apparel items qualifying under CAFTA-DR• Goods already in transit before the tariff effective date (“saving clause”) —Trade agenda rebuilt after Supreme Court tariff rulingUSTR Greer: administration is shifting to alternative tariff authorities to preserve leverage and protect U.S. industries U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer said the Trump administration has “found ways to really reconstruct” its tariff strategy after the Supreme Court struck down the use of emergency powers that had supported much of the administration’s trade agenda. Speaking on ABC’s This Week, Greer explained that the White House had anticipated the possibility of losing its emergency tariff authority and began preparing backup options. While acknowledging that the new framework offers less flexibility, he argued it still provides “durable tools” that allow the administration to investigate trade practices, impose tariffs where warranted, and maintain negotiating leverage.Shift to alternative legal authorities. Following the ruling, the administration quickly moved to implement a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that permits temporary tariffs — up to 150 days — in response to large trade deficits. Greer said the goal now is to preserve existing trade arrangements using longer-term authorities:•Section 301 — Allows the U.S. trade representative to impose tariffs in response to unfair or discriminatory trade practices. The administration previously used this authority for tariffs on Chinese goods during Trump’s first term.•Section 232 — Enables tariffs tied to national security concerns, which Greer argued can extend beyond traditional defense sectors to broader manufacturing supply chains. According to Greer, these mechanisms will allow the administration to rebuild and maintain tariff structures even without the emergency powers invalidated by the Court. National security framing expands. Greer emphasized that the administration increasingly views manufacturing capacity as central to national security. He pointed to lessons from the pandemic, arguing that sectors such as textiles, lumber, and auto manufacturing — often viewed as ordinary industrial goods — play strategic roles in maintaining a resilient domestic economy. Of note: He suggested that policies involving supply chains, industrial production, and even housing-related materials could fall under the national security umbrella if they contribute to economic preparedness during crises or conflict. Strategic outlook. The administration’s pivot signals a shift from broad, emergency-driven tariff powers toward more targeted investigations and sector-based measures. While these tools may require longer timelines and more procedural steps, officials argue they are legally sturdier and could sustain trade pressure over a longer horizon. For markets and trading partners, the key takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruling did not end the tariff agenda — it reshaped how it will be implemented, with investigations under Sections 301 and 232 likely to become the core instruments going forward.—Courts hold the key on tariff refunds: USTR Greer USTR signals uncertainty after Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs — while trade talks with China stay focused on stability U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer said the Trump administration is waiting for judicial guidance on how to handle potential tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Speaking on ABC’s This Week, Greer said the Court’s decision left significant unanswered questions about implementation. According to him, the administration expects the United States Court of International Trade to step in and clarify whether refunds should be issued automatically, whether importers must file formal claims, and how the process should work procedurally. Legal uncertainty after major ruling. Greer argued that courts typically provide clearer instructions after major trade rulings and said the administration now needs direction before acting. The uncertainty comes with high fiscal stakes — tariffs struck down by the ruling generated roughly $142 billion in federal revenue. Following the decision, Donald Trump moved quickly to maintain leverage by announcing a 15% global tariff, while officials evaluate other legal authorities that could preserve country-specific duties (see item above for details).Trade strategy shifts toward stability. Despite the legal disruption, Greer emphasized that upcoming talks between Trump and Xi Jinping (March 31-April 2) are not intended to reopen tariff battles. Instead, he said the goal is to maintain stability in the bilateral relationship and monitor existing commitments — including Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products, aircraft, and shipments of rare earth materials. The administration framed the meeting as a check-in on current agreements rather than a negotiation over new tariffs, signaling that economic stability and enforcement of existing trade promises will be the near-term focus. Why this matters• Refund risk: Without court guidance, businesses face uncertainty over whether previously paid tariffs may be returned.•Revenue implications: Any large-scale refund process could affect federal revenue totals tied to tariff collections.•Policy flexibility: The administration is exploring alternative trade statutes to preserve tariff leverage after the Supreme Court ruling.•China relations: Trade enforcement — especially agriculture and strategic materials — remains central ahead of the Trump/Xi meeting. Bottom Line: Greer’s comments underscore a legal gray zone created by the Supreme Court ruling — one that could shape trade enforcement, government revenue, and U.S. negotiating leverage in the months ahead. —Trump’s fresh tariff threat tests the durability of earlier trade dealsFinancial Times analysis: Why countries may stick with existing pacts despite new tariff pressure The latest tariff escalation from President Donald Trump has injected new uncertainty into global trade — but according to Financial Times reporting, analysts say many of the trade agreements struck over the past year are likely to remain in place, largely because trading partners fear triggering retaliation by reopening or challenging them. (Also see the next item for related comments from USTR Jamieson Greer.) Why earlier trade deals may hold — for now. The Financial Times notes that while the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling struck down Trump’s earlier IEEPA-based tariffs, the administration quickly shifted to alternative authorities, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to maintain pressure. That legal pivot matters because many countries already negotiated agreements under threat of higher tariffs — and analysts argue those governments have little incentive to walk away now. Key reasons deals are sticking: •Retaliation risk: Countries fear renewed U.S. duties — especially on politically sensitive sectors like autos, steel, and industrial goods — if they try to renegotiate.• Strategic dependency: Some allies still rely heavily on U.S. security and geopolitical alignment, making economic escalation less attractive.• Policy uncertainty: With tariffs now shifting legal bases, governments are waiting for clarity before reopening hard-won agreements.The result: existing pacts — including understandings with the EU, Japan, and South Korea — are broadly expected to stay intact for the moment, even if negotiations slow or become more cautious. The new tariff threat changes negotiating leverage — not necessarily outcomes. Trump’s move to raise the universal tariff rate from 10% to 15% shortly after the court ruling reinforces the administration’s strategy of maintaining pressure through alternate legal channels. From an economic-strategy perspective, analysts say this creates a paradox: Countries may dislike the unpredictability, but they still view the U.S. market as too important to risk losing access. Some governments could delay new negotiations or seek clarification before signing additional agreements. India, for example, has reportedly considered slowing talks while it evaluates the legal and policy implications. Europe’s dilemma: hold the line or retaliate? European officials have publicly signaled they possess tools to respond, including potential retaliatory mechanisms and suspended countermeasures — but immediate escalation is not guaranteed. Behind the scenes, the calculus is straightforward:• Retaliation could provoke even higher U.S. tariffs.• Compliance keeps access stable, even if terms are less favorable. That dynamic helps explain why analysts quoted by the FT believe most existing arrangements will survive despite political tensions. What this means going forward. From a structural standpoint, the FT’s analysis suggests three likely outcomes:• Deals already signed remain largely intact — countries avoid reopening negotiations unless forced.• Future talks slow down as partners seek legal clarity on U.S. tariff authorities.• Leverage shifts from legal certainty to political risk, with retaliation concerns acting as the main stabilizer. In short: the Supreme Court ruling changed the legal foundation, but not necessarily the power dynamics behind Trump’s trade strategy. Bottom Line: The Financial Times framing is that Trump’s fresh tariff threat does not automatically unravel previous trade pacts. Instead, the threat itself may reinforce them — because governments are hesitant to provoke new tariffs or enter a cycle of escalation. For markets and policy observers, the bigger story isn’t the fate of old deals — it’s how quickly countries adapt to a trade environment where the rules can change quickly, even when agreements are already on paper. — USTR Greer: U.S. bilateral trade deals remain intact after Supreme Court tariff rulingUSTR signals continuity in China, EU, and Asia agreements as administration pivots to alternative trade tools U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Sunday that the Trump administration’s bilateral trade agreements will remain in force despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision limiting the president’s emergency tariff authority, attempting to reassure trading partners amid growing global uncertainty. Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation, Greer argued that deals reached with key partners — including China, the European Union, and South Korea — are separate from the administration’s broader tariff strategy and will continue unchanged. He emphasized that the administration intends to uphold those agreements and expects counterpart governments to do the same. “We’re going to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them,” Greer said, describing the deals as “good deals” that were negotiated with long-term trade stability in mind. Separating bilateral deals from global tariff strategy. Greer sought to draw a clear distinction between existing country-specific agreements and President Donald Trump’s newly announced 15% global tariff, which follows the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. According to Greer, the legal setback does not undermine negotiated arrangements already in place because those deals were crafted while litigation over tariff authority was still ongoing. He said trading partners understood tariffs would remain a central part of U.S. trade policy regardless of the court outcome. Quote of note: “We were going to have tariffs, the president’s policy was going to continue,” Greer said, arguing that this expectation helped push partners to finalize agreements despite legal uncertainty. Alternative trade tools and China leverage. Greer also pointed to other trade mechanisms the administration intends to use to preserve negotiating leverage, including ongoing investigations into foreign trade practices and statutory tariff authorities that remain intact after the Supreme Court ruling. (See item above for details.) He noted that the U.S. already maintains significant tariffs on Chinese imports — averaging roughly 40% — under authorities unaffected by the court decision. Those measures, he suggested, provide sufficient leverage ahead of Trump’s upcoming trip to China. President Trump is expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit beginning March 31, with trade likely to be central to the agenda. Greer described the two leaders as maintaining a “strong relationship,” signaling hopes for continued engagement despite the legal and political turbulence surrounding tariffs. European concerns and diplomatic reassurance efforts. Despite Greer’s assurances, uncertainty remains among U.S. allies. The European Parliament’s trade leadership has indicated it may pause ratification of the EU/U.S. trade agreement until the administration clarifies its future tariff plans. Greer said he has already spoken with EU counterparts and plans additional outreach to reassure trading partners that negotiated agreements remain reliable. His message: the Supreme Court ruling may have altered the legal pathway for tariffs, but it has not changed the administration’s broader trade direction. Bottom Line: The administration is attempting to stabilize global expectations after a major legal setback by separating bilateral trade agreements from broader tariff policy. While allies are seeking clarity — and some are signaling caution — Greer’s comments indicate the White House intends to preserve trade deals already negotiated while shifting toward alternative tools to pursue its tariff-focused agenda. —Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller announces wildfire relief for Panhandle ranchersDisaster declaration activates feed, fencing, financial, and mental-health support as fires continue burning across the High Plains Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller outlined a series of emergency agricultural relief programs Friday in Amarillo as major wildfires continue to burn across the Texas Panhandle, damaging rangeland, fencing, and livestock infrastructure. Speaking alongside local officials, Miller said he formally declared an agricultural disaster, enabling the Texas Dept. of Agriculture to deploy targeted support programs aimed at helping ranchers cope with immediate losses and begin recovery. The relief package focuses on livestock feed access, emergency fencing repair, financial aid, and mental-health services for rural producers. Feed and fencing become top priorities. State officials said the department’s 24-hour hay and feed hotline is now active to coordinate donations and deliveries, helping producers who have lost grazing land keep livestock fed. While some areas still retain grazing capacity, Miller emphasized that destroyed fencing is creating urgent economic strain. Burned fences often force ranchers to relocate cattle, purchase supplemental feed, or sell livestock early — all of which raise costs during an already difficult period. The state is also partnering with Ranchers Navy, a nonprofit group assisting with hay deliveries, fencing repair, and agricultural recovery operations. STAR Fund expands support to firefighters. Miller highlighted the State of Texas Agriculture Relief (STAR) Fund, a privately financed disaster program that provides direct assistance to producers. The fund previously helped Panhandle ranchers during the Smokehouse Creek Fire by covering claims and transportation costs for donated hay. For the current disaster, the program will again aid agricultural producers while also extending support to volunteer fire departments whose equipment, fuel, and supplies have been heavily used during wildfire response. Local officials stressed that volunteer departments remain critical to protecting rural communities. Rural mental-health resources emphasized. Miller urged ranchers and residents to use the AgriStress Helpline, a rural mental-health resource designed specifically for farmers and ranchers. The hotline connects callers with counselors trained in agricultural issues, addressing barriers many producers face when seeking support. Officials noted that wildfire recovery extends beyond physical rebuilding, with stress and financial uncertainty often lingering long after fires are contained. Fires remain active across the region.
• The Lavender Fire in Oldham and Potter counties had burned roughly 18,423 acres and was about 50% contained.• The 8-Ball Fire in Armstrong and Donley counties had reached about 13,500 acres with approximately 70% containment.• The Texas A&M Forest Service reported crews responded to 22 wildfires statewide since Feb. 16, burning more than 32,000 acres. Additional large fires were also reported across Oklahoma and Kansas, underscoring the broader High Plains fire threat. Recovery likely to take weeks. State and local officials said that even after containment improves, ranchers may face weeks — or longer — rebuilding fences and restoring grazing access. Late winter conditions in the Panhandle, including dormant vegetation and high winds, were cited as major risk factors. Officials stressed that coordination between state agencies, local governments, and agricultural groups will remain critical as producers transition from emergency response to long-term recovery. —Brazil pushes India trade expansion to unlock cotton growthDelegation aims to cut tariffs, secure quotas, and deepen textile supply-chain ties Brazil is using a high-level diplomatic and industry mission to India to push for expanded market access for its cotton sector, as Brasília seeks to widen a long-standing trade pact and accelerate exports into one of the world’s largest textile markets. A delegation representing Cotton Brazil, the Brazilian Cotton Producers Association (Abrapa), the National Cotton Exporters Association (Anea), and ApexBrasil joined President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Agriculture and Livestock Minister Carlos Fávaro on an official visit to Asia. Their primary objective is to expand cotton trade with India and strengthen long-term commercial ties. Trade deal expansion at the center. Brazil is pressing to broaden the preferential trade agreement between Mercosur and India, which has been in force since 2009. The proposal would expand tariff concessions from roughly 450 products to as many as 4,000, significantly widening the scope of bilateral trade. For the cotton industry, the immediate goal is clear: reduce India’s current 11% import tariff on Brazilian cotton and establish zero-duty quota arrangements. According to Abrapa leadership, such terms could allow Brazil to export up to 300,000 tonnes annually to India — representing an estimated $500 million in potential revenue. Rapid growth in cotton shipments. Brazil’s cotton exports to India have already grown sharply in recent years. During the 2024–25 marketing year, shipments reached about 160,000 tonnes — up from just 8,000 tonnes previously — lifting Brazil’s share of India’s cotton imports from roughly 4% to 24%. Industry representatives say the momentum reflects both stronger trade engagement and India’s rising demand as home to the world’s second-largest textile industry. Since 2024, Brazil has increased trade and technical missions aimed at promoting its fiber quality and supply reliability. Strategic positioning and industry outreach. Beyond tariff negotiations, the mission is designed to highlight the traceability and sustainability credentials of Brazilian cotton and strengthen partnerships with Indian manufacturers. Cotton Brazil officials say they are working to position Brazil as a dependable long-term supplier for India’s textile sector. The delegation plans meetings with India’s Ministry of Textiles, where it will present a study outlining complementary strengths between the two countries’ cotton and textile industries. Multi-city engagement across key textile hubs. Following official government meetings, industry representatives will hold outreach events and workshops as part of the Cotton Brazil Outlook program. The itinerary includes New Delhi, followed by major textile centers Ahmedabad and Coimbatore, before concluding in Mumbai on Feb. 28. Bottom Line: Brazil is leveraging high-level diplomacy to turn India into a larger structural destination for its cotton exports. If tariff reductions or zero-duty quotas are achieved, the move could reshape trade flows, deepen Mercosur–India ties, and strengthen Brazil’s role in global cotton supply chains.

—CONGRESS

—Note: The Office of Personnel Management said federal agencies in the region will open Monday on a two-hour delay, with the option of unscheduled leave or telework for employees.

—Congress heads into a high-stakes week: Farm Bill 2.0 fight postponed due to weather, SCOTUS trade ruling fallout, and a surgeon general showdown

With agriculture policy, trade authority, and health politics colliding, lawmakers face a packed agenda in the week of Feb. 23

Congress returns this week to one of the busiest — and most politically charged — stretches of the winter session. But,Republicans postponed a new Farm Bill 2.0 markup via the Ag Committee due to weather concerns, while the White House grapples with the fallout from a major Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, and the Senate prepares to vet President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for U.S. surgeon general.

— House Ag panel postpones Farm Bill 2.0 battle. The House Ag Committee on Sunday announced a weather-related postponement of the full committee markup of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. The markup will occur the week of March 1 The exact start date and time will be announced in a forthcoming advisory. The legislation — led by GOP Chairman GT Thompson (R-Pa.) — is expected to revive many priorities from earlier Republican efforts, including strengthening commodity safety nets, rural development programs, research funding, and potential policy vehicles tied to energy and E15 priorities.

• Partisan dynamics: Democrats have already criticized elements of the framework, signaling a difficult path to bipartisan agreement.

• Several highly sensitive policy fights are already emerging — issues that cut across agriculture, trade, environmental regulation, and consumer politics. These debates are likely to shape not only committee markup, but also whether the bill can eventually attract bipartisan support.

• Proposition 12 — federal pre-emption vs. states’ rights. One of the most contentious questions in the farm bill involves whether Congress should address California’s Proposition 12, the state animal-welfare law that sets housing standards for pork sold in California — even if the animals are raised in other states.

Livestock producers and many farm groups argue Proposition 12 creates a fragmented national market, forcing producers nationwide to comply with one state’s standards or lose access to California consumers.

Animal welfare advocates and many Democrats view the law as a legitimate exercise of state authority and consumer choice.

The issue reached the Supreme Court in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, where the justices allowed the law to stand, leaving Congress as the main avenue for any change. Farmers and lawmakers from major pork-producing states continue to push for federal language that would preempt state production mandates affecting interstate commerce.

Potential provisions under discussion may:

• Block individual states from imposing production standards on out-of-state producers.

• Establish federal consistency rules for livestock production.

• Or avoid the issue entirely — which could alienate pork producers seeking relief.

Because this touches both states’ rights and interstate commerce, it’s among the most politically delicate debates of the entire bill.

• Pesticide policy and liability language. Pesticide policy is another major fault line — particularly around language dealing with federal label authority and state-level legal liability.

The core dispute: Farm groups and chemical manufacturers want Congress to clarify that products approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under federal law should not face conflicting state-level litigation if used according to label instructions.

Supporters argue that:

• The current patchwork of lawsuits increases uncertainty.

• Liability risk threatens product availability and raises costs for growers.

• Federal science-based reviews should remain the governing standard.

Opponents — including environmental and public-health advocates — counter that:

• State courts and regulators provide an important avenue for accountability.

• Liability shields could limit legal recourse for health or environmental harm claims.

Why this matters politically. The debate has become especially sensitive because it intersects with:

• Ongoing litigation involving herbicides and crop-protection products.

• Concerns over rising input costs facing farmers.

• Broader fights about federal vs. state regulatory authority.

Language perceived as limiting lawsuits could generate strong Democratic opposition, while failure to include protections could frustrate farm-state Republicans and input suppliers.

•Nutrition programs and SNAP work requirements. Although agriculture dominates headlines, nutrition spending — primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — remains the largest budget component of the farm bill and one of its most politically explosive elements.

Key areas of dispute include:

• Expanded work requirements for beneficiaries.

• State flexibility vs. federal standards.

• Benefit calculation methods tied to inflation and food costs.

Historically, disagreements over SNAP policy have been the biggest threat to bipartisan farm bill coalitions, and that dynamic is expected to repeat this cycle.

• The House GOP draft bill reallocates roughly $1 billion from EQIP through FY30, triggering debate over conservation priorities.

The farm bill draft would trim near-term funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), one of USDA’s most widely used conservation tools, as lawmakers redirect dollars toward other programs in the conservation title. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates summarized in the bill analysis, EQIP would lose about $1 billion in budget authority over the next four fiscal years, even though long-term funding levels eventually rise later in the budget window.

After accounting for sequestration, the CBO estimates EQIP would lose:

• $325 million in FY 2027

• $495 million in FY 2028

• $118 million in FY 2029

• $75 million in FY 2030

Taken together, these reductions form the roughly $1 billion near-term cut, even though funding stabilizes later.

Why is EQIP being reduced? A GOP committee aide said the adjustment is intended to help fund other conservation programs while still leaving EQIP with a larger long-term baseline than earlier farm bill drafts.

• Trade, market access, and supply-chain pressures. The farm bill debate is unfolding just days after the Supreme Court limited presidential tariff authority, which complicates the trade outlook for U.S. agriculture.

Lawmakers face pressure to:

• Strengthen export promotion programs.

• Address market volatility tied to trade disputes.

• Improve risk-management tools as producers navigate uncertain input costs.

For many producers, trade stability is as important as direct farm programs — making this an underlying theme throughout negotiations.

• Biofuels and climate-related language. Another sensitive area involves energy policy:

Year-round E15 fuel access remains a major farm-state priority.
Debate continues over climate and conservation incentives.
Some lawmakers want stronger sustainability requirements, while others argue new rules would create burdens for producers.

Biofuels issues often unite Midwest lawmakers but can divide rural and environmental coalitions.

The political reality. The farm bill traditionally succeeds only when agriculture and nutrition interests stay aligned. This year’s pressure points make that balance harder:

• Proposition 12 pits livestock states against animal-welfare priorities.

• Pesticide language divides farm groups and environmental advocates.

• SNAP debates revive long-standing partisan divisions.

• Trade uncertainty amplifies economic anxiety in rural districts.

With narrow majorities and an increasingly polarized environment, even small policy provisions could determine whether the bill advances smoothly — or stalls into a prolonged negotiating fight.

Bottom Line: The farm bill debate in early March is not just about crop programs or rural development — it’s a collision of competing visions for agriculture:

• Federal uniformity vs. state authority

• Liability protection vs. consumer safeguards

• Farm support vs. nutrition policy reforms

How lawmakers handle issues like Proposition 12 and pesticide language may ultimately reveal whether Congress can still build the bipartisan coalition that has traditionally carried farm bills across the finish line.

Ag-economy backdrop: Lawmakers face pressure from farm groups citing tighter margins, higher input costs and uncertainty over trade policy — especially after last week’s Supreme Court decision on tariffs.

Timing: GOP leaders want movement before spring recess, raising the stakes for the early March markup.

For agricultural stakeholders, this debate is not just procedural — it will define risk-management tools, conservation funding, credit programs and market access policy for the next several years.

— Key agricultural credit issues in Farm Bill 2.0Congress is looking at modernizing farm lending programs as producers face tighter margins, higher interest rates, and rising debt costs As lawmakers will soon debate Farm Bill 2.0, agricultural credit policy has re-emerged as a major concern. While credit programs often receive less attention than commodity or nutrition titles, they are becoming increasingly important because many producers are operating in a high-cost, lower-margin environment — with elevated interest rates and growing debt pressure. The main ag credit issues likely to be part of the discussion: 1. Higher loan limits for USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs One of the most widely discussed proposals is updating loan caps for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) — USDA’s lender of first resort for many beginning and financially stressed producers. Why this matters. Current loan limits were set years ago and many lawmakers argue they no longer reflect:• Higher land values• Increased machinery costs• Rising operating expenses Proposed adjustments under discussion include:• Raising direct and guaranteed operating loan limits• Expanding ownership loan ceilings to better reflect modern farm size• Improving access for mid-sized operations that often fall between commercial lending and traditional FSA thresholds Producers and lenders alike have argued that outdated caps limit the usefulness of federal credit programs in today’s market. 2. Interest rate and loan servicing flexibility Higher borrowing costs have brought renewed focus to how USDA manages loan servicing and restructuring. Issues being debated. Lawmakers are considering:• More flexible repayment terms during commodity downturns• Expanded restructuring authority for financially stressed farms• Temporary interest rate adjustments or refinancing tools The goal is to avoid forced liquidations during short-term downturns, particularly as input costs remain elevated and margins narrow. Many farm groups argue this mirrors lessons learned from past farm credit crises: flexibility early can prevent broader financial stress later. 3. Beginning and young farmer access to credit Succession and generational turnover remain central concerns — especially as land prices and equipment costs make entry increasingly difficult. Farm Bill 2.0 discussions include:• Expanding down-payment loan assistance• Increasing guarantees for beginning farmer loans• Strengthening partnerships with local lenders Lawmakers see credit access as a way to slow consolidation and maintain a diverse farm structure. 4. Guaranteed loan program expansion Commercial banks and the Farm Credit System are pushing for updates that make USDA guarantees more practical. Key priorities include:• Faster approval timelines• Reduced paperwork burdens• Higher guarantee percentages to reduce lender risk Supporters argue these changes would encourage private lenders to continue extending credit even during periods of market uncertainty. 5. Financial stress and safety-net coordination A growing debate involves how credit programs interact with commodity supports and disaster assistance. Lawmakers are weighing:• Whether loan eligibility should be tied more closely to participation in safety-net programs• How to coordinate emergency assistance with outstanding federal loans• Ways to avoid producers becoming over-leveraged while still maintaining access to capital This issue is especially sensitive as farm debt levels rise and delinquency concerns slowly increase in some regions. 6. Credit conditions and the broader ag economy Although not always written directly into statute, many of the credit discussions reflect concerns that:• Net farm income has softened compared with recent highs• Input costs remain elevated• Land values have stayed strong, increasing borrowing needs In short: even profitable producers may face tighter cash flow, making credit access a central policy question rather than a niche issue. Political sensitivities• Credit provisions tend to draw bipartisan support — but disagreements still exist:• Some lawmakers favor broader lending authority and larger federal backing.• Others worry about expanding government exposure to financial risk.• Regional differences matter, as borrowing patterns vary across commodity sectors. Because credit issues are less ideological than nutrition or climate policy, they could become one of the areas where bipartisan compromise is most realistic. Bottom Line: Ag credit is emerging as one of the quiet but consequential pieces of Farm Bill 2.0. The main themes include:• Modernizing USDA loan limits• Giving struggling producers more restructuring tools• Improving access for beginning farmers• Encouraging private lenders to stay active in rural credit markets In a high-interest-rate environment with tighter farm margins, many lawmakers see credit policy as the difference between temporary financial stress and long-term structural decline in rural America.

—Trump’s State of the Union meets trade turbulence. President Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union message on Tuesday, days after the Supreme Court struck down a core part of his trade strategy — ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant presidents broad authority to impose tariffs without Congress.

The decision reshapes the political terrain just as Congress returns.

What happened. The Court issued a 6-3 ruling limiting presidential tariff authority under IEEPA. (See item below for more details and impacts.)

Trump quickly responded by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a temporary tariff framework — first at 10%, then announcing a move toward 15%. He also announced Section 301 trade investigations.

Why Congress suddenly matters more. Section 122 tariffs only last 150 days without congressional approval, giving lawmakers more leverage than they had under the struck-down regime.

Trade policy — previously driven largely by executive authority — is likely to become a major legislative debate heading into spring.

Key political tension. Trump will likely use the State of the Union to reinforce his trade message and reassure supporters that tariff policy will continue despite judicial limits. Meanwhile, members of Congress from both parties are debating how much authority presidents should retain over trade decisions.

For agriculture, this is pivotal: many farm groups argue that volatile tariff policy adds uncertainty to input costs and export demand — issues already at the center of the farm bill debate.

—Senate HELP Committee to question surgeon general nominee Casey Means. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Wed., Feb. 25, for Dr. Casey Means, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. surgeon general. The hearing comes after an earlier confirmation session was postponed last year.

What to watch. Means has drawn scrutiny for her unconventional views on metabolic health and preventive medicine.

Senators are expected to probe positions on public health messaging, nutrition policy and chronic disease — issues that overlap with agriculture and food policy debates already underway in Congress.

Given the polarized environment, the hearing could become another flashpoint in broader ideological battles over health regulation and federal guidance.

—DHS funding standoff adds urgency to congressional agenda

Lawmakers face pressure to reach a deal as the Department of Homeland Security remains partially shut down over funding disputes

One of the biggest unresolved issues hanging over Congress this week is the continuing funding lapse at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which entered a partial shutdown after lawmakers failed to reach an agreement on appropriations.

The impasse has created real-world disruptions just as Congress returns to work, adding pressure to negotiations already dominated by the farm bill debate, trade policy fallout, and the political messaging surrounding President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address.

What’s happening. The shutdown began after Congress failed to approve a DHS funding package, with negotiations breaking down over immigration enforcement policy and oversight provisions tied to the department’s operations.

Of note: Because DHS funding lapsed while most other federal agencies remain funded, the result is a targeted, department-specific shutdown rather than a full government closure.

Key functions are continuing — but under strain:

• TSA and border security personnel are working without pay.

• FEMA non-disaster programs have been suspended.

• The Transportation Security Administration abruptly reversed course on suspending its PreCheck service Sunday — saying it will remain operational despite a statement from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. DHS previously suspended TSA PreCheck and Global Entry programs, signaling how deeply the funding lapse is affecting operations. Global Entry will remain paused as the shutdown continues.

Administration officials argued the moves reflect limited resources, while critics accused the White House of using visible disruptions to increase pressure on Congress.

Why lawmakers are stuck. The dispute centers on competing demands over immigration enforcement:

• Democrats are pushing for tighter oversight measures and policy changes tied to federal enforcement actions.

• Republicans argue the House has already passed a funding bill and accuse Democrats of forcing an unnecessary shutdown.

With Congress returning from recess, negotiators face heightened pressure to resolve the stalemate before disruptions worsen.

The shutdown complicates nearly every major item on the congressional calendar:

•State of the Union backdrop. President Trump’s national address will occur while DHS remains partially unfunded, increasing pressure on both parties to show movement toward a deal.

•Trade and security narrative. The Supreme Court’s recent tariff ruling already shifted attention toward congressional authority. A DHS funding fight now reinforces the theme of Congress reasserting control over executive policy decisions.

•Agriculture and border politics overlap. Farm-state lawmakers involved in the House Agriculture Committee farm bill debate are also watching how immigration and border funding negotiations could spill into broader fiscal talks.

Capitol Hill aides say the likeliest paths forward include:

• A short-term extension to reopen DHS while negotiations continue, or

• A broader appropriations compromise that separates immigration policy disputes from agency funding.

Until an agreement is reached, essential homeland security personnel will continue working under shutdown conditions, and visible travel-related disruptions may increase public pressure on lawmakers.

The DHS funding lapse turns what was already a high-stakes congressional week into something even larger: lawmakers are simultaneously negotiating farm policy, debating presidential trade authority, and trying to end a politically charged department-level shutdown. In practical terms, whether Congress can strike a deal on DHS funding may become the earliest real test of how functional Washington will be in the months ahead.

—The big picture — why this week matters. Several unusual threads are converging at once:

1. Agriculture meets macro politics

The farm bill markup although postponed until early march arrives as trade policy is destabilized by the Supreme Court ruling, creating uncertainty around exports, input costs and global competitiveness.

2. Congressional power reassertion

The Court’s tariff decision effectively returns part of trade authority to lawmakers, guaranteeing fresh legislative fights over how far the White House can go on tariffs.

3. Cross-committee pressure

While Agriculture looks to advance a trillion-dollar policy package, Senate HELP will debate public health leadership — both touching food, supply chains and consumer costs in different ways.

Bottom Line: The week of Feb. 23 and early March could set the tone for the next phase of congressional politics: a partisan farm bill fight unfolding alongside a constitutional reset on trade authority — all while Trump uses the national stage to redefine his agenda after a major legal setback.

For agriculture, trade, and health policy alike, this isn’t just another workweek on Capitol Hill — it’s a convergence point that may shape the legislative trajectory for the rest of the year.

—Supreme Court limits Trump’s tariff authority

Bloomberg analysis says ruling reinforces congressional control over taxation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision limiting President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs marks a significant constitutional boundary on executive authority, according to Bloomberg Government.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution places taxing power with Congress, rejecting the administration’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as granting broad tariff authority. The majority — including Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — said such sweeping economic actions require clear congressional approval under the “major questions doctrine.”

The ruling exposed a conservative split, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting, arguing the president holds wider authority in foreign affairs.

While the decision curbs one key legal tool behind Trump’s trade agenda, it does not eliminate his ability to pursue tariffs under other statutes. Analysts say the ruling signals the court’s willingness to enforce constitutional limits on presidential power — but not necessarily a broader shift against the administration.

The ruling also arrives amid several pending Supreme Court cases involving Trump’s powers, including disputes over Federal Reserve leadership and birthright citizenship policies. Legal observers say the tariff decision suggests the court may enforce clear constitutional boundaries in cases where congressional authority is explicit.

—KEY EVENTS

Mon., Feb. 23
•Trade policy: Washington International Trade Association hosts annual international trade conference, through Tuesday.

•AFFI-CON frozen ingredients show, through Tuesday, in San Diego.
• National Association of Counties conference through Tuesday, in Washington.

•International Sweetener Colloquium, through Wednesday, Champions Gate, Florida.

Tue., Feb. 24
•Commodity Classic, through Friday, San Antonio.

•Renewable Fuels Association’s National Ethanol Conference through Thursday, Orlando.
• Farmers for Free Trade roundtable, “USMCA Renewal and North American Agricultural Trade.”

• U.S. trade policy: Center for Strategic and International Studies webinar, “What Comes Next for U.S. Trade Policy After the Supreme Court’s IEEPA Ruling?”

•WRDA: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), with focus on Army Corps of Engineers projects and programs.

• Tariffs: Peterson Institute for International Economics will host a virtual event on “tariffs in America and the Supreme Court case.”
• U.S./Guatemala trade policy. Atlantic Council holds event on “unlocking new opportunities in U.S./Guatemala trade and investment.”

•State of Union address: President Trump delivers his State of the Union address to Congress; Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) gives the Democratic response.

Wed., Feb. 25
•Nomination hearing: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the nominations of Stevan Pearce to be director of the Bureau of Land Management, Kyle Haustveit to be an undersecretary of energy, and David LaCerte to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

•Nomination hearing: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Casey Means to be U.S. surgeon general.

Thur., Feb. 26
• Ag Innovation Forum 2026, in Kansas City, Mo.
• USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks at Commodity Classic in San Antonio.

—KEY ECONOMIC, AG & ENERGY REPORTS

— Note: Some of the economic, USDA and energy report release dates could be impacted by the coming DC weather events expected early in the week.

—Global macro week ahead — inflation and growth in focus

Key data from Asia-Pacific, the U.S., and Europe will shape expectations for central banks and global growth momentum

Global markets enter the week with attention firmly fixed on inflation trajectories and growth signals across major economies. While the calendar is lighter in the U.S., several key indicators from Asia-Pacific and Europe could influence how investors assess the outlook for monetary policy and economic resilience.

Asia-Pacific: inflation and growth still diverging. In the Asia-Pacific region, the main event will be Australia’s January CPI report, where inflation is expected to ease slightly to 3.7% year-over-year. Even with moderation, price pressures remain above the Reserve Bank of Australia’s 2–3% target range, reinforcing expectations that policy will stay restrictive after the bank’s recent rate hike.

Japan: Tokyo CPI — often viewed as a leading indicator for national inflation — is forecast to slow, with some core measures potentially dipping below the Bank of Japan’s 2% target, highlighting ongoing uncertainty around Japan’s fragile inflation trend.

India: Fourth-quarter GDP growth is expected to moderate to around 7.3% year-over-year, down from 8.2%, signaling a cooling but still strong expansion compared with other major economies.

Why it matters: Asia’s data may underscore a growing split — persistent inflation in Australia versus disinflationary pressures in Japan and gradually slowing growth in India — complicating the regional policy picture.

United States: light data, heavy interpretation. The U.S. data calendar is relatively quiet, but markets will be closely scrutinizing several indicators after the softer-than-expected 1.4% annualized GDP growth rate in the fourth quarter.

Key themes to watch:

• Regional Federal Reserve business surveys for February, which may offer early clues about industrial momentum and sentiment.

• Consumer confidence, expected to show a modest rebound after recent volatility.

• Producer Price Index (PPI), where moderate monthly gains would support the narrative of cooling — but still sticky — inflation pressures.

Even smaller data releases could influence rate expectations given heightened sensitivity to growth signals and inflation direction.

Europe and Canada: Stabilization vs. Softness

In Europe: Germany and the broader eurozone are expected to post steady inflation readings, reinforcing views that price pressures are stabilizing rather than reaccelerating.

In North America: Canada’s fourth-quarter GDP is projected to show a slight annualized contraction, suggesting that tighter monetary policy continues to weigh on activity.

Europe appears to be moving toward gradual stabilization, while Canada’s economy may be showing early signs of strain from higher rates.

Bottom Line: The upcoming week is less about dramatic surprises and more about confirmation of broader trends:

• Inflation remains sticky in parts of Asia, easing elsewhere.

• U.S. growth is slowing but still resilient, keeping policy debates open.

• Europe shows tentative stabilization while Canada flirts with contraction.

For markets, the bigger question remains whether these data points reinforce the narrative of a soft global slowdown — or signal deeper divergences that could complicate central bank strategies into the spring.

—Week of Feb. 23 — Key USDA & energy reports

Monday (Feb. 23)

USDA: Export Inspections and Chickens & Eggs — early look at grain shipments and poultry supply trends.

Energy: Angola crude loading program and energy earnings help set supply expectations.

Tuesday (Feb. 24)

USDA: Cold Storage — key indicator for meat and dairy inventories and price pressure.

Energy: API inventory report provides early U.S. oil stock signals.

Wednesday (Feb. 25)

USDA: ERS Food Price Outlook and Broiler Hatchery — food inflation trends and poultry/feed demand outlook.

Energy: EIA Petroleum Status Report and Weekly Ethanol Production — major signals for crude markets and corn-based ethanol demand.

Thursday (Feb. 26)

USDA: Export Sales plus livestock, crop value, exchange rate, and slaughter reports — strong read on export demand and farm fundamentals.

Energy: EIA Natural Gas Report and North Sea loading data highlight supply trends.

Friday (Feb. 27)

USDA: Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade and Agricultural Prices — big-picture trade and farm price direction.

Energy: Baker-Hughes Rig Count and CFTC positioning data show drilling activity and market sentiment.

Bottom Line: Watch export sales, ethanol production, food price outlook, and the U.S. Agricultural Trade Outlook for the clearest signals on demand, inflation, and market direction.

Mon., Feb. 23

Economic reports/events. Chicago Fed National Activity Index | Factory Orders | Dallas Fed Mfg. Survey

Energy reports. Angola preliminary loading program (April) | Holidays: China; Japan; Russia; Greece; Guyana | Earnings: Diamondback; ONEOK; Dominion Energy.

USDA reports. AMS. Export Inspections NASS. Chickens and Eggs

Tues., Feb. 24

Energy reports. API US inventory report | Energy Storage Summit, London; runs through Wednesday | Holidays: China, Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, S. Korea, Singapore.

USDA reports. NASS: Cold Storage

Wed.,Feb. 25

Economic reports/events: New Home Sales | Earnings: Earnings: Seadrill; EOG; EON.

USDA reports. ERS: Food Price Outlook NASS: Broiler Hatchery

Thur.,Feb. 26

Economic reports/events. Jobless Claims | Earnings: Helleniq; Engie; Viridien; Technip Energies; Drax; Eni; Cheniere; Coterra; Veolia; Sempra; Pembina Pipeline.

Energy reports. EIA Natural Gas Report | Singapore onshore oil-product stockpile weekly data | Main North Sea loading programs due (April) | Holiday: Myanmar.

Fri., Feb. 27

Economic reports/events. Construction Spending | PPI-FD | Chicago PMI | Earnings: BASF; Vallourec

Energy reports. Brent April futures expire | ICE weekly Commitments of Tradersreport for Brent, gasoil | CFTC Commitments of Traders | Baker-Hughes Rig Count | Holiday: Taiwan.