FSA Sets May 15 Deadline for Base Acre Data Pull as 30 Million Acres Hang in Balance

Trump/Xi summit update | Va voters barely say yes to partisan redistricting | USDA data users confab today in KC | USDA data agencies draw broad industry feedback on research priorities

LINKS

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, April 17
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, April 17

Updates: Policy/News/Markets, April 22, 2026

UP FRONT

TOP STORIES
 

— Markets drift as Iran standoff persists, Trump extends ceasefire, blockade indefinitely: Markets remain volatile as strong U.S. data clashes with geopolitical uncertainty, with Trump extending the ceasefire and Hormuz blockade while awaiting a unified Iranian proposal.

— Trump/Xi summit faces lowered expectations amid war distractions: South China Morning Post reports reduced expectations for a May summit, with limited deliverables and high uncertainty due to geopolitical tensions.

— EU, U.S. set high-level talks to reassess trade deal implementation: EU officials head to Washington to review compliance and tensions over tariffs and critical minerals cooperation.

— Canada trade strategy faces pressure from China risks and U.S. negotiation tensions: Ottawa balances China dependency concerns with tougher positioning toward the U.S. ahead of USMCA review.

— Canada presses U.S. for reciprocity ahead of USMCA review: Canada pushes for tariff relief and reciprocal concessions, warning prior efforts have been “pocketed” by Washington.
 

FINANCIAL MARKETS
 

— Equities today: Global markets mixed as ceasefire extension tempers optimism amid ongoing Hormuz tensions and lack of renewed talks.

— Equities yesterday: U.S. indexes declined modestly amid geopolitical uncertainty and rising yields.

— Dollar retreats as war premium fades amid Iran ceasefire hopes: Traders unwind safe-haven bets tied to the conflict.

— Warsh pledges Fed independence as confirmation path grows uncertain: Fed nominee emphasizes independence while facing political hurdles and policy scrutiny.

AGRIBUSINESS — BAYER

— Bayer steps up lobbying ahead of Supreme Court Roundup case: Company increases lobbying ahead of a pivotal case on federal preemption and pesticide liability.

AG MARKETS

— USDA data agencies draw broad industry feedback on research priorities: Stakeholders call for modernization, stable funding, and expanded ag data coverage.

— Hog futures rally builds on seasonal tightening and disease risks: Seasonal supply declines and elevated disease pressure point to extended price strength.

— Agriculture markets yesterday: Grain and oilseed futures rise while cattle decline and hogs gain.

FERTILIZER

— Russia extends fertilizer export curbs into late 2026: Export quotas reinforce supply control as global fertilizer markets remain tight.

FARM POLICY

— FSA sets deadline for base acre data pull as 30 million acres hang in the balance: Producers must update records by May 15 to qualify for new base acre allocations.

— Detroit gap in molasses imports raises timing questions — USDA sampling window aligns with sudden drop: Imports disappeared during inspection period, raising scrutiny over market behavior.

FAST-SPEED INTERNET IN RURAL AMERICA

— Rural broadband rollout lags despite massive infrastructure law investment: Deployment slowed by mapping disputes, regulatory hurdles, and policy shifts.

— Rural broadband funding tops $65 billion, but much remains unspent: Large federal commitments have yet to translate into widespread construction.

— More legislation to the rescue? Rural Broadband Protection Act targets accountability: Bipartisan bill aims to tighten oversight and prevent failed broadband projects.

— Questions for rural broadband providers: Key considerations include technology, timelines, funding certainty, and reliability.

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

— Wednesday: Oil surges back above $100 as Hormuz attacks reignite supply fears: Shipping attacks and ceasefire uncertainty drive renewed risk premium.

— Tuesday: Oil climbs as Iran uncertainty sustains risk premium: Tight supply and stalled talks keep crude prices elevated.

— U.S. finalizes third SPR release since Iran war start: DOE loans additional crude, bringing total to 80 million barrels.

— Wright signals fuel price peak — but softens timeline outlook: Energy secretary says prices likely peaked but revises earlier timeline after Trump criticism.

— Lawmakers move to break E15 gridlock with new ethanol proposal: New bill seeks year-round E15 sales and tighter refinery exemptions.

— E15 fuel expansion remains limited despite policy push: Adoption grows slowly, concentrated in the Midwest amid regulatory uncertainty.

TRADE POLICY

— Surety firms warn CBP tariff refund system risks misallocating payments: New CAPE system may send refunds to importers instead of sureties who paid duties.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

— Industry, unions split over USDA pork and poultry line speed proposal: Debate centers on efficiency gains versus worker safety risks.

— Hormuz disruption raises risk of global food shock: Fertilizer and energy disruptions threaten higher food prices and reduced yields.

PERSONNEL

— ASGA names Zack Clark as CEO, signals policy focus amid mounting industry pressures: Leadership change comes as sugar sector faces cost and trade challenges.

POLITICS & ELECTIONS

— Virginia redistricting measure passes narrowly, reshaping House battleground: New map could heavily favor Democrats while legal challenges loom.

— Economist magazine: Republicans face steep midterm headwinds as forecast points to potential Democratic wave: Model shows high probability of House flip and competitive Senate races.

— GOP House majority at risk as midterm landscape tightens: Washington Post reporting highlights narrow margins and redistricting battles shaping 2026 outlook.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

— Shipbuilding coalition launches push for federal legislation to revive U.S. maritime industry: Bipartisan effort seeks investment incentives to counter China’s dominance.

WEATHER
 

— NWS outlook: Snow, storms, and fire risk expected across multiple regions.

— Planting window opens before volatile storm pattern reshapes U.S. crop outlook: Warm weather aids planting before disruptive storms and temperature swings emerge.
 

TOP STORIES—Markets drift as Iran standoff persists, Trump extends ceasefire, blockade indefinitely Stronger U.S. data, Fed policy debate, and geopolitical uncertainty keep investors on edge Financial markets navigated a volatile session Tuesday shaped by resilient U.S. economic data, intensifying geopolitical uncertainty, and evolving Federal Reserve policy signals, as President Donald Trump reiterated expectations that Iran will eventually return to negotiations — even as conditions for talks remain unresolved. Bond yields pushed modestly higher in both the U.S. and Europe following stronger-than-expected March retail sales, reinforcing the narrative that consumer demand remains firm despite mounting global risks. Meanwhile, Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh used a Capitol Hill appearance to signal a potential shift in central bank transparency, openly questioning the future of the Fed’s “dot plot,” a key tool used to communicate interest rate projections. His remarks underscore a broader debate about the Federal Reserve’s policy framework at a time when inflation risks — particularly those tied to energy markets — remain elevated. Equity markets showed relative resilience early in the session but weakened into the close as geopolitical tensions overshadowed otherwise constructive corporate commentary. Shares of Apple Inc. faced only limited pressure following news that CEO Tim Cook will step down this fall, with hardware chief John Ternus set to take over — a transition largely viewed by investors as orderly and well-telegraphed. Across the industrial sector, companies broadly indicated that underlying business conditions remain solid heading into the new quarter. Executives suggested that, absent the uncertainty stemming from the Iran conflict and its impact on global trade and energy flows, many firms would have been positioned to raise full-year guidance more aggressively. Geopolitical developments ultimately dictated the late-session tone. Vice President JD Vance postponed a planned trip to Pakistan after Iran signaled it would not engage in further talks while the U.S. blockade remains in place. That impasse weighed on sentiment, with oil prices edging higher and equities drifting lower as hopes for a second round of negotiations faded. After the market close, Trump announced an extension of the current ceasefire, including continuing the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, stating he is awaiting a more “unified” proposal from what he described as Iran’s “fractured” leadership. The move temporarily reduces the risk of immediate escalation but leaves markets in a holding pattern, with investors closely watching whether diplomatic momentum can materialize — or whether renewed conflict will further disrupt energy markets and global risk appetite.—Trump/Xi summit faces lowered expectations amid war distractionsSouth China Morning Post reports compressed planning, limited deliverables, and rising uncertainty ahead of Beijing talks According to the South China Morning Post, preparations for an upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are being shaped more by geopolitical disruption than strategic coordination, with analysts warning the meeting risks becoming largely symbolic rather than substantive. The report highlights that the ongoing Middle East war has compressed and complicated planning, with both sides scaling back expectations for major breakthroughs. While tentative scheduling points to a mid-May visit to Beijing, including ceremonial events like a state banquet and potential military parade, uncertainty remains high — with some experts suggesting the summit could still be postponed. Substantively, discussions appear limited to narrow economic deliverables, including potential Chinese purchases of U.S. goods such as soybeans, Boeing aircraft, and beef — the so-called “three B’s.” Broader structural trade issues and geopolitical flashpoints, particularly Taiwan, are unlikely to see meaningful progress. Meanwhile, internal U.S. divisions over trade strategy and the role of business engagement further complicate preparations.Of note: My poll of traders, analysts and others asked what odds they give that a May 14-15 summit will be held and not postponed again. Their answers ranged from 45% to 55%, with many responders saying they were not confident of their response. Chinese officials, for their part, are said to have lowered expectations and appear content maintaining the current trade truce rather than pushing for ambitious outcomes. Analysts cited in the report suggest that without significant agreements, the summit may underscore the stagnation in U.S.-China relations rather than reset them, especially compared to more ambitious — though unrealized — deals discussed during Trump’s first term.—EU, U.S. set high-level talks to reassess trade deal implementationŠefčovič visit comes amid tensions over tariffs, compliance disputes, and critical minerals cooperation European Union Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič will travel to Washington this week to meet with senior Trump administration officials and lawmakers in a bid to reassess the state of the transatlantic trade deal struck last year, as both sides face mounting friction over its implementation. According to the European Commission, Šefčovič’s April 22–24 visit is intended to “take stock” of progress under the agreement reached following negotiations between President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland. The deal aimed to reset trade relations by capping U.S. tariffs on EU goods at 15% while the EU agreed to eliminate duties on many U.S. exports and expand access for American agricultural products. Meetings are scheduled with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, alongside discussions with congressional leaders and business stakeholders. A central focus will be evaluating compliance with the joint commitments and advancing cooperation on critical raw materials supply chains — an area both sides have prioritized amid global competition for minerals. Meanwhile, the talks come against a backdrop of growing EU frustration over U.S. trade actions. European lawmakers have raised concerns that Washington has exceeded agreed tariff thresholds, citing measures such as duties on steel derivatives and broader tariff actions under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. EU officials argue these moves may breach the spirit — and potentially the letter — of the Turnberry framework. The European Parliament’s March legislation implementing the deal includes safeguard provisions allowing the EU to withdraw concessions if the U.S. imposes additional tariffs or engages in actions deemed discriminatory or coercive. It also contains a “sunrise” clause tying tariff reductions to U.S. compliance on steel and aluminum duties, and a “sunset” clause that would reinstate tariffs on U.S. goods by March 2028 unless renewed. Taken together, this week’s meetings underscore a fragile phase in U.S./EU trade relations, where both sides are balancing cooperation on strategic supply chains with escalating disputes over tariff enforcement and adherence to the landmark agreement.—Canada trade strategy faces pressure from China risks and U.S. negotiation tensionsFormer detainee warns of Beijing dependency as officials push for reciprocity ahead of USMCA review A Canadian businessman detained in China for nearly three years is warning that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s push for deeper automotive trade ties with Beijing could expose Canada to strategic leverage from the Chinese government, underscoring growing concerns in Ottawa about economic dependency amid intensifying global trade competition. The warning comes as Canada simultaneously navigates a critical phase in its North American trade relationships. Ottawa’s newly appointed chief trade negotiator to the U.S. is signaling a tougher posture ahead of the upcoming review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, emphasizing the need for “mutuality” from Washington (see next item for more). The official argued that Canada has already made meaningful concessions under the current framework and expects reciprocal treatment as negotiations evolve. Meanwhile, Ontario’s representative to the U.S. struck a more optimistic tone, expressing confidence that lingering trade frictions between Canada and the United States can be resolved by 2026. That outlook reflects a broader effort by Canadian provincial and federal leaders to stabilize cross-border economic ties even as disputes persist over autos, agriculture, and industrial policy. Together, the developments highlight the delicate balancing act facing Canada’s trade strategy. On one hand, engagement with China offers potential market access and investment flows, particularly in the automotive sector. On the other, officials and analysts increasingly warn that closer alignment with Beijing could create vulnerabilities—especially if supply chains or key industries become overly reliant on Chinese demand or policy decisions. Meanwhile, the looming USMCA review is raising the stakes for Canada’s relationship with Washington. Trade officials are preparing for difficult negotiations over rules of origin, market access, and enforcement provisions, all while managing political pressure in the U.S. to revisit elements of the agreement. The combination of geopolitical risk tied to China and unresolved tensions with the United States is forcing Canadian policymakers into a narrow lane—seeking to diversify trade partnerships without undermining economic security or its most important bilateral relationship.—Canada presses U.S. for reciprocity ahead of USMCA reviewOttawa signals tariff relief is key as negotiators warn concessions have been “pocketed” Canada is escalating pressure on the Trump administration to deliver reciprocal concessions as the scheduled review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement approaches, with Ottawa arguing it has already made meaningful moves to address U.S. concerns without seeing comparable follow-through from Washington. Bloomberg reports that Canada’s chief trade negotiator Janice Charette said Ottawa has taken “significant” steps — including scrapping a digital services tax on U.S. tech firms, rolling back retaliatory tariffs imposed under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and tightening border security — but those actions have yet to yield tangible U.S. concessions. Her blunt assessment that these efforts have been “pocketed” underscores growing frustration within the Canadian government as talks intensify. The core dispute now centers on U.S. sectoral tariffs, particularly on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, which Canadian officials view as a prerequisite to any meaningful progress in the broader USMCA review. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc reinforced that position, arguing Canada cannot fully engage in updating or extending the pact without first resolving these longstanding trade barriers. This reflects a broader strategic calculation in Ottawa: rather than reopening the agreement wholesale, Canada is pushing for targeted relief that would ease pressure on key export sectors while preserving the overall framework of the deal. Stakeholder consultations cited by Charette indicate strong support within Canada for maintaining USMCA largely as-is, with business groups warning against destabilizing a trade architecture that underpins North American supply chains. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s posture continues to inject uncertainty into the process. President Donald Trump has reportedly questioned the agreement’s relevance despite having championed it during his first term, raising the possibility that the review could become a leverage point for broader tariff negotiations or even a potential withdrawal threat. Canadian officials are attempting to manage expectations around the timeline. While July 1 marks the formal review checkpoint, Charette emphasized it should not be seen as a hard deadline, signaling that negotiations are likely to stretch beyond that date in pursuit of a more comprehensive outcome. If an agreement on renewal is reached, USMCA would remain in force for another 16 years; failure to do so would trigger annual reviews until its scheduled expiration in 2036. For markets and policymakers, the stakes extend beyond North American trade flows. Canadian officials are increasingly framing U.S. tariffs as inflationary for American consumers — a message clearly aimed at influencing domestic U.S. debate as the Trump administration balances protectionist trade policy with broader economic pressures.The coming months will test whether that argument gains traction in Washington, or whether Canada’s push for “mutuality” runs into the same political constraints that have stalled tariff relief in previous rounds of negotiations.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

—Equities today: Global markets turned mixed after President Donald Trump said he would indefinitely extend the Iran ceasefire and the U.S. blockade, but investor optimism remained restrained as Iran attacked vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and there were no signs of renewed U.S./Iran negotiations. Meanwhile, Wall Street equity futures moved higher, rebounding after major U.S. indexes closed lower in the previous session amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty. S&P 500 futures rose by more than 0.5%; those for the tech-heavy Nasdaq climbed by nearly 0.8%.

In Asia, Japan +0.4%. Hong Kong -1.2%. China +0.5%. India -1%.
 

In Europe, at midday, London flat. Paris -0.2%. Frankfurt -0.2%.

It’s a busy day for U.S. earnings with Tesla results coming this afternoon. Boeing, Southwest Airlines, CSX, IBM and Texas Instruments are also due.

The futures market this morning sees rates on hold until September 2027, as concerns about the inflationary impact of a prolonged war in the Middle East grow, and then it is narrow — 39.2% for cut, 34.7% for steady. And then what would be one more cut in December.

—Equities yesterday: 

Equity Index	Closing Price  April 21	Point Difference  from April 20	% Difference  from April 20
Dow	49,149.38	-293.18	-0.59%
Nasdaq	24,259.96	-144.43	-0.59%
S&P 500	7,064.01	-45.13	-0.63%

—Dollar retreats as war premium fades amid Iran ceasefire hopes

Broad-based currency gains as traders unwind bullish dollar bets tied to geopolitical risk

The U.S. dollar has surrendered most of its Iran war–driven gains this month, as traders increasingly abandon bullish positions built during the height of the conflict and pivot toward riskier assets on expectations of de-escalation.

At the core of the move is a reversal of the dollar’s traditional safe-haven bid. During the early phases of the Iran war, investors piled into the greenback amid extreme uncertainty, driving a sharp rally. But as ceasefire prospects improved and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz eased, that demand has unwound. The dollar index has slipped back toward pre-conflict levels, reflecting a broader shift in sentiment away from defensive positioning.

Meanwhile, almost every major currency has strengthened against the dollar in April, underscoring how quickly positioning has flipped. The euro, British pound, and a range of higher-beta currencies have all benefited as markets price in a lower probability of prolonged escalation. This aligns with broader market behavior — equities have rallied and volatility has cooled on expectations that diplomacy could take hold.

Recent market data reinforce that trend. The dollar has edged lower against peers as investors grow more confident that the U.S.–Iran conflict will not spiral further, with analysts noting that a sustained ceasefire would likely remain “bearish for the dollar” as capital rotates into higher-yielding or risk-sensitive currencies.

Meanwhile, the dollar’s pullback reflects a broader macro recalibration. Traders who had built large speculative long-dollar positions during the conflict are now unwinding those bets, contributing to the currency’s decline. Earlier in the war, positioning had turned decisively bullish, but that stance has reversed as geopolitical risk premiums fade and global growth expectations stabilize.

The shift also highlights a deeper dynamic: the dollar’s strength during the conflict was less about U.S. fundamentals and more about relative safety. As that safety premium dissipates — even temporarily — the currency is losing support. Analysts caution, however, that the move could reverse quickly if negotiations falter or tensions reignite, particularly given the continued fragility around shipping flows and energy markets in the region.

Analysts see the latest move as a classic unwind of a geopolitical trade — with the dollar giving back its war premium as quickly as it gained it, leaving markets highly sensitive to every headline out of the Middle East.

—Warsh pledges Fed independence as confirmation path grows uncertain

Nominee avoids rate guidance while facing political pressure from Trump and Senate Republicans

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve chair nominee Kevin Warsh sought to reassure lawmakers he would act independently if confirmed, pushing back against concerns from Democrats that he would align too closely with President Donald Trump while offering few specifics on interest-rate policy.

Warsh repeatedly emphasized that he had made no commitments to the White House on monetary policy decisions, stating he would be an “independent actor” at the central bank. His remarks came under pointed questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the panel’s top Democrat, who warned he could become a political proxy for the administration.

Meanwhile, Warsh used the hearing to call for broad changes to the Federal Reserve’s policy framework, particularly in how it handles persistent inflation and communicates with the public. He argued that Americans are still feeling the effects of elevated prices following the pandemic and said a “regime change” in monetary policy may be needed, though he declined to spell out exactly what that would entail.

Pressed by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on whether he agreed with Trump’s call for sharply lower interest rates, Warsh refused to provide forward guidance, saying he does not believe policymakers should preview future decisions.

Markets largely looked past the testimony, with Treasury yields rising as stronger economic data and higher oil prices led traders to scale back expectations for near-term rate cuts.

Warsh also reiterated support for reducing the Fed’s $6.7 trillion balance sheet, but stressed that any such effort would need to be gradual and clearly communicated to avoid market disruption.

His confirmation prospects, however, remain clouded by political dynamics. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has pledged to block any Federal Reserve nominee until a Department of Justice investigation into the Fed — tied to a costly building renovation project under Chair Jerome Powell — is resolved.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has floated the possibility of a congressional investigation into the renovation, which could offer a way to break the impasse. The uncertainty has raised the possibility that Warsh may not be confirmed before Powell’s term as chair expires on May 15, potentially extending Powell’s tenure. However, Tillis suggested he’d stop blocking the Fed nominee process under a congressional investigation plan, adding, “I not only think it’s a good offramp, but I also think it’s good governance.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly floated a similar idea. But it is not clear whether the president would be on board.

Warsh’s testimony underscored the central challenge facing his nomination — maintaining credibility on inflation and independence with investors while navigating pressure from both the White House and Congress.

AGRIBUSINESS — BAYER

—Bayer steps up lobbying ahead of Supreme Court Roundup case

Spending surge underscores high-stakes legal battle over federal preemption and cancer liability claims

New federal lobbying disclosures show Bayer increased its presence in Washington in early 2026, as the company prepares for a pivotal legal fight at the Supreme Court of the United States over liability tied to its flagship herbicide, Roundup.

According to an analysis by Food & Water Watch, Bayer spent just over $2 million on federal lobbying in the first quarter of 2026, marking a 16% increase from the previous quarter. The stepped-up activity comes just days before the Court hears oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, a case that could reshape the legal landscape for pesticide manufacturers and product liability claims nationwide.

At the center of the dispute is whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts — or overrides — state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, is seeking a ruling that would effectively shield it from thousands of claims brought by cancer patients alleging the company failed to adequately warn about potential health risks associated with glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

Supporters of Bayer’s position — including many in the agricultural and business communities — argue that allowing a patchwork of state-level lawsuits would undermine the federal regulatory framework established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). They contend that pesticide labels are already rigorously reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and that permitting additional state-based warning requirements would create legal uncertainty and disrupt the availability of widely used crop protection tools. Industry groups also warn that failure to establish clear federal preemption could expose manufacturers to unlimited liability, potentially chilling innovation and increasing costs for farmers.

Meanwhile, consumer advocates and public health groups — including Food & Water Watch, which filed an amicus brief supporting Durnell — argue the opposite. They maintain that federal approval of a pesticide label should serve as a regulatory floor, not a ceiling, preserving the right of individuals to seek damages under state law when they believe companies withheld or downplayed safety risks. These groups point to jury verdicts in prior Roundup cases that found Bayer liable for failing to warn users about potential cancer links, arguing that removing this legal pathway would deny justice to affected individuals and weaken corporate accountability.

The case also carries significant political overtones. The Trump administration has repeatedly backed Bayer’s position in court filings, aligning with a broader push to limit litigation exposure for regulated industries. Critics, however, see the administration’s stance as favoring corporate interests over consumer protections, particularly in a case involving alleged links to cancer.

A ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell is expected later this year and could set a sweeping precedent — not just for pesticide litigation, but for how federal regulatory authority interacts with state-level product liability claims across multiple industries.

AG MARKETS

—USDA data agencies draw broad industry feedback on research priorities

Stakeholders push for satellite integration, stable funding, and expanded reporting scope

USDA Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the Office of the Chief Economist are now reviewing a substantial body of industry input after closing a public comment period on April 9, aimed at shaping the future direction of federal agricultural data and research programs. The request for comments — issued in late February — drew 238 submissions from across the agricultural sector, academia, and private industry, offering a detailed snapshot of how stakeholders view the government’s role in data collection, analysis, and market transparency.

At the core of the feedback was a clear message: market participants want modernization, but not at the expense of reliability.

A significant share of commenters encouraged USDA to accelerate the adoption of satellite and remote sensing technologies to enhance acreage estimates, crop condition monitoring, and yield forecasting. Many argued that integrating geospatial tools could improve timeliness and precision, particularly in an environment where weather volatility and geopolitical disruptions — including supply chain shocks tied to global conflicts — are raising the stakes for accurate, real-time data.

Meanwhile, stakeholders warned against moving too quickly away from traditional survey-based systems that underpin widely followed reports such as Crop Production, Grain Stocks, and WASDE-related datasets. Several submissions emphasized that these legacy reports remain the “gold standard” for markets and should continue to receive consistent funding and methodological support. Concerns were raised that underinvestment, or methodological shifts could erode confidence in benchmark data that commodity markets rely on for price discovery.

Funding stability emerged as another dominant theme. Multiple commenters urged USDA to prioritize maintaining — and in some cases increasing — funding for existing programs before launching new initiatives. The concern, frequently cited, is that expanding into new data areas without adequate resources could dilute the quality and frequency of core reports.

There was also a push to broaden the scope of USDA data offerings. Commenters highlighted gaps in areas such as input costs, fertilizer availability, supply chain logistics, and regional livestock dynamics — all of which have become more critical amid elevated production costs and ongoing disruptions tied to energy markets and global trade flows. Some submissions specifically called for more granular, near-real-time data on fertilizer pricing and availability, reflecting growing anxiety among producers about affordability and supply through 2026 and beyond.

Meanwhile, several industry groups encouraged greater transparency around methodology and revisions, arguing that clearer communication would help users better interpret data shifts — particularly during periods of heightened volatility. Others suggested enhanced collaboration with private data providers and academic institutions to leverage existing datasets and avoid duplication.

The volume and breadth of responses underscore the central role USDA data agencies play in shaping market expectations, risk management strategies, and policy decisions. With agriculture facing a convergence of weather risks, geopolitical tensions, and input cost pressures, the feedback signals strong demand for a system that evolves technologically while preserving the credibility that has long anchored U.S. agricultural markets.

USDA officials indicated the comments will help inform future program direction, potential new initiatives, and funding priorities, setting the stage for possible adjustments to how federal agricultural data is collected and delivered in the years ahead.

Of note: USDA’s NASS today in Kansas City is holding a data users’ meeting that in part will discuss the above topics.

—Hog futures rally builds on seasonal tightening and disease risks

Elevated disease pressure and steady export demand suggest supply constraints could extend well beyond typical summer lows

Pork futures are already trading at a notable premium to seasonal norms heading into late April, and according to Zachary Davis of the NTG Morning Comments, the rally is being driven by both typical seasonal tightening and an increasingly important disease backdrop. As Davis explains, “the supply-demand math tilts bullish in a hurry,” with futures reflecting expectations that available hog supplies will shrink more meaningfully in the months ahead.

The seasonal pattern in the hog market is well established. Weekly hog slaughter typically peaks in March before declining into July as the spring pig crop moves through the system. That reduction in slaughter capacity is a key driver behind the annual rally in hog prices. While slaughter levels through mid-April have remained broadly in line with prior years, the expected seasonal downturn is imminent. Early signs are already appearing in the pork cutout, which has rebounded toward $100 per hundredweight after slipping into the mid-$90s earlier this month. A similar setup last year preceded a roughly $28 rally into early July.

What distinguishes this year from a typical seasonal move is the growing impact of disease within the hog herd. Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) positivity on sow farms surged to its highest level since 2022 earlier this winter, while porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) rates have climbed sharply on a year-over-year basis. PEDv is particularly disruptive because it kills the vast majority of infected newborn piglets, directly reducing future supply. Meanwhile, elevated PRRSV adds additional production stress, compounding losses across the system.

These pressures help explain why the U.S. breeding herd has remained flat despite otherwise supportive price signals. Rather than expanding, producers appear to be replacing losses tied to disease outbreaks. The geographic spread of these issues — from the East Coast through the Midwest — underscores that this is not an isolated regional problem but a broader structural constraint on supply.

The result is a supply outlook that could tighten more aggressively — and for longer — than the market typically sees, Davis notes. Instead of bottoming out during the summer months, hog supplies could remain constrained into the fall, potentially extending through October. That shift would mark a meaningful departure from historical seasonal patterns.

Demand dynamics are reinforcing the bullish case. Export demand has remained steady, if not exceptional, providing a consistent floor for prices and limiting downside pressure. With no major weakness on the demand side, the combination of seasonal slaughter declines and disease-driven supply losses is skewing the market balance higher.

The key question now is whether futures prices have fully accounted for these risks. While the market has already moved higher, Davis suggests the current premium may still underestimate the extent of tightening ahead. If disease impacts continue to play out as current trends suggest, the rally in hog prices may have further room to run into the second half of the year.

—Agriculture markets yesterday:

Commodity	Contract  Month	Closing Price  April 21	Difference from  April 20
Corn	July	$4.62	+1 3/4 cents
Soybeans	July	$11.90 1/4	+8 1/2 cents
Soybean Meal	July	$321.20	unchanged
Soybean Oil	July	71.65 cents	+235 points
SRW Wheat	July	$6.12 3/4	+6 3/4 cents
HRW Wheat	July	$6.55 3/4	+8 1/4 cents
Spring Wheat	September	$6.98 1/2	+11 1/2 cents
Cotton	July	80.86 cents	+82 points
Live Cattle	June	$243.55	-$2.525
Feeder Cattle	May	$358.55	-$2.55
Lean Hogs	June	$103.20	+$1.475

FERTILIZER

—Russia extends fertilizer export curbs into late 2026

Move underscores supply control strategy as global markets remain sensitive to trade disruptions

Russia has extended its fertilizer export quota system through Nov. 30, reinforcing its role as a key swing supplier in global nutrient markets and signaling continued prioritization of domestic supply security. The quotas will take effect June 1 and cap total exports at 20 million metric tons (MMT), covering major categories including nitrogen, ammonium nitrate, and compound fertilizers.

Under the updated framework, more than 8.7 MMT is allocated to nitrogen fertilizers, over 4.2 MMT to ammonium nitrate, and upwards of 7 MMT to compound fertilizers. The policy reflects Moscow’s ongoing effort to balance export revenues with internal agricultural needs, particularly as global supply chains remain strained by geopolitical tensions and energy market volatility.

Russia accounts for roughly 20% of global fertilizer trade, making its export policies highly consequential for international markets. By maintaining quotas, the government is effectively managing outbound flows to prevent domestic shortages and price spikes, especially ahead of key planting seasons.

Meanwhile, the extension comes at a time when fertilizer markets are already being impacted from elevated natural gas prices — a key input for nitrogen production — and ongoing disruptions tied to the Iran conflict and shipping constraints through the Strait of Hormuz. These overlapping risks have heightened concerns about input affordability for farmers globally, particularly in import-dependent regions.

For global agriculture, Russia’s decision reinforces a broader trend toward supply nationalism in critical inputs. Countries are increasingly using export controls and trade policies to shield domestic industries, a dynamic that could keep fertilizer prices volatile and complicate planning decisions for producers heading into the next crop cycle.

FARM POLICY

—FSA sets deadline for base acre data pull as 30 million acres hang in the balance

Farm owners must ensure records are updated by May 15 to qualify under new base acre reallocation tied to recent legislation

USDA’s Farm Service Agency has established a firm May 15 deadline for producers and landowners to ensure their farm data is fully entered into the agency’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Farm Records system, as the agency prepares to determine eligibility for newly authorized base acre allocations.

Under provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, USDA will allocate an additional 30 million base acres nationwide, using each farm’s planting history from 2019 through 2023 as the basis for distribution. The initiative represents one of the most significant base acre adjustments in recent years, with potential implications for farm program payments and long-term support levels.

FSA officials said all relevant data must be entered into the CRM system before 5 p.m. Central Time on May 15, at which point the agency will pull records to calculate eligibility. That dataset will form the foundation for official notifications sent to landowners outlining how many additional base acres — if any — their operations qualify to receive.

The deadline effectively places the burden on producers to verify that acreage, planting history, and farm records are complete and accurate in advance of the cutoff. Any missing or outdated data at the time of the pull could directly impact a farm’s calculated eligibility under the reallocation formula.

Meanwhile, the reallocation tied to the legislation is expected to reshape base acre distributions across regions and crops, particularly for operations that expanded or shifted planting patterns during the 2019–2023 period. The outcome will likely carry downstream effects for commodity program payments, including Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC), where base acres are a key determinant of support levels.

—Detroit gap in molasses imports raises timing questions — USDA sampling window aligns with sudden drop

Figure in AMS report shows shipments disappearing during testing period, fueling scrutiny over potential market behavior

USDA’s molasses inspection study (link) quietly flags a striking anomaly in import patterns that could raise broader questions about market behavior during the federal review. While the report formally notes that no samples were collected from Detroit due to a lack of shipments during the sampling window, Figure 2 in the report tells a more revealing story — imports into Detroit did not just decline, they effectively disappeared during the exact period USDA and Customs and Border Protection were actively collecting samples.

According to the chart on page 6, Detroit had shown a consistent pattern of molasses entries prior to the sampling window, which ran from mid-September through late December 2025. Yet during that precise timeframe — marked clearly with asterisks in the figure — shipments dropped to zero before resuming again shortly afterward.

The report itself offers no definitive explanation, stating only that the absence of Detroit entries during the sampling period occurred “for reasons that remain unclear.” However, AMS acknowledged the gap was significant enough to warrant continued monitoring and a follow-up effort, noting that shipments resumed after the study concluded and that additional sampling is now underway.

Meanwhile, Detroit had previously accounted for a meaningful share of import activity, even if smaller than Buffalo’s dominant position. The sudden and temporary halt — precisely when federal inspectors were actively collecting and analyzing samples at other northern border ports — stands out as an unusual disruption in otherwise routine trade flows.

Uncertainty prevails. Set against the broader findings — particularly the evidence that a large share of imports through Buffalo may not meet the statutory definition of molasses — the Detroit gap introduces another layer of uncertainty. Whether coincidental or not, the timing underscores the challenges regulators face in monitoring products that are not routinely inspected and operate under relatively loose statutory definitions.

USDA stopped short of drawing conclusions about intent, but the sequencing highlighted in Figure 2 reinforces the need for continued scrutiny. A supplemental report incorporating Detroit samples is expected, which could help clarify whether the product entering that port aligns more closely with domestic molasses — or with the anomalous profiles observed elsewhere.

Sugar group responds: “Circumvention schemes like this directly harm American family farmers who grow sugarbeets and sugarcane by allowing surplus amounts of heavily subsidized sugar to be imported without paying the required duties. Sugar that circumvents the tariff-rate quotas steals legitimate sales from sugar companies that follow the law and it pushes down prices for everyone,” said Dr. Rob Johansson, Director of Economics and Policy Analysis at the American Sugar Alliance (ASA).

FAST-SPEED INTERNET IN RURAL AMERICA

—Rural broadband rollout lags despite massive infrastructure law investment

Delays tied to mapping disputes, regulatory hurdles, and shifting policy priorities have slowed visible progress in rural America

The sweeping infrastructure law passed in 2021 — formally known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — included roughly $65 billion aimed at expanding broadband access, with a strong focus on rural communities. The effort was widely promoted at the time as a transformational investment comparable to past federal commitments to highways and waterways, including upgrades to locks and dams that are critical for agriculture and freight. Yet several years later, many rural areas have seen little visible progress on high-speed internet deployment, raising questions among producers, rural businesses, and local leaders about what happened.

At the center of the issue is the program’s structure. The law created the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, which was designed to distribute funds through states rather than deploy projects directly from the federal government. While that approach was intended to ensure local control and targeted investment, it also introduced a lengthy rollout timeline. Federal agencies first had to write detailed rules, after which states were required to develop and submit their own broadband plans. Compounding the delay, the federal government undertook a nationwide effort to map broadband availability to determine which areas qualified for funding, a process that stretched over multiple years.

Those maps became one of the biggest sources of delay. Determining what constitutes an “unserved” or “underserved” area has proven highly contentious, with internet service providers, local governments, and residents challenging federal data. Until those disputes are resolved, funding allocations cannot be finalized, effectively stalling project approvals in many regions. In some cases, areas initially expected to qualify for funding have been reclassified, forcing states to revisit their plans.

Meanwhile, coordination between federal, state, and local governments has added another layer of complexity. Some states have existing laws that restrict or complicate public broadband development, while others require additional approvals before projects can move forward. These conflicts have slowed implementation and, in certain cases, led to legal uncertainty over how funds can be used.

Policy shifts have also played a role. Early in the rollout, federal officials emphasized fiber-optic networks as the gold standard for broadband deployment, particularly in rural areas where long-term reliability is critical. More recently, policymakers have moved toward a more “technology-neutral” approach that allows for alternatives such as satellite and fixed wireless. While that shift may ultimately expand options, it has required states and applicants to reassess proposals, contributing to further delays.

Even where plans are moving forward, practical challenges remain. Broadband deployment requires environmental reviews, permitting for construction, access to materials, and a skilled workforce — all of which take time. At the same time, not all funding is dedicated to physical infrastructure, as some portions are directed toward planning, mapping, and efforts to improve broadband adoption.

Adding another wrinkle, private-sector investment has accelerated during the same period. Major internet providers have expanded service into some rural areas without federal funding, which in turn reduces the number of locations eligible for government support. While that expansion is beneficial in the long run, it has forced federal and state officials to reevaluate where limited dollars should be spent.

One Iowa-based contact said: “The maps the FCC had were BS. In some cases, FCC maps said an area was served only because a company said they could offer it there. They were not necessarily there, which blocked others from being able to get any help to provide service.”

The result is a program that remains largely in the planning and approval phase rather than the construction phase in many parts of the country. For rural communities that expected rapid improvements following passage of the infrastructure law, the lack of visible projects reflects not a lack of funding, but a rollout process that has proven far more complex and time-consuming than initially anticipated.

Rural Broadband Funding Tops $65 Billion, but Much of the Money Remains Unspent Federal investment has reached historic levels, yet deployment delays mean only a fraction has translated into completed projects Federal taxpayers have committed unprecedented resources to expand high-speed internet access across rural America, but the gap between funding approved and funding actually spent on the ground remains significant. The centerpiece of that investment is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included roughly $65 billion for broadband nationwide, marking one of the largest connectivity initiatives in U.S. history. A substantial portion of that funding flows through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD), which alone accounts for approximately $42.5 billion aimed at expanding broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas, many of them rural. Additional taxpayer support comes from other federal efforts, including the USDA’s ReConnect program and the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund, pushing the total federal commitment for rural and underserved broadband well above $50 billion when combined. Despite the scale of that investment, only a portion of the funds have been fully deployed. Much of the money remains in the pipeline, tied up in planning processes, regulatory approvals, and state-level program development. While billions of dollars have been allocated to states and some projects have moved forward under smaller grant programs, the bulk of the largest funding streams — particularly under BEAD — has yet to translate into widespread, visible construction. The discrepancy reflects the structure of the funding programs, which require extensive coordination between federal agencies, states, and private providers before dollars can be spent. Mapping requirements, eligibility determinations, and evolving policy guidance have all contributed to a slower rollout than many rural communities anticipated when the law was first enacted. As a result, while taxpayers have committed tens of billions of dollars to rural broadband expansion, only a fraction has so far been converted into completed infrastructure. The remaining funds are expected to be deployed over the coming years, meaning the full impact of the investment is still largely ahead rather than already realized in many parts of rural America.

—More legislation to the rescue? Rural Broadband Protection Act targets accountability in federal internet funding

Bipartisan bill focuses on vetting providers to prevent failed projects and protect taxpayer dollars

The Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025 is a bipartisan legislative proposal aimed not at creating new broadband funding, but at tightening oversight of how existing federal dollars are awarded and used. Introduced in the Senate and passed by voice vote in June 2025, the bill reflects growing concern in Congress that billions in rural broadband subsidies have not always translated into completed projects on the ground.

At its core, the legislation directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a formal, standardized vetting process for companies seeking funding through the Universal Service Fund’s high-cost program — one of the primary mechanisms used to subsidize broadband deployment in rural and hard-to-serve areas.

The proposal responds directly to past failures in federal broadband programs, particularly instances where companies won funding through competitive bidding but later failed to deliver service. In some cases, those defaults left rural communities without internet access and complicated their eligibility for other funding programs. The bill seeks to prevent that outcome by requiring the FCC to evaluate applicants upfront based on their technical expertise, financial strength, and operational track record.

Under the legislation, broadband providers applying for federal support would need to submit detailed documentation demonstrating their ability to build and maintain networks, along with a credible business plan. The FCC would also be required to review an applicant’s past performance in other government-funded broadband programs and apply consistent, “well-established” standards when awarding funds.

Another key provision is the establishment of stronger financial penalties for companies that fail to follow through after winning funding. The intent is to deter speculative bidding — where firms overpromise in order to secure subsidies but lack the capacity to deliver — and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are directed only to providers capable of completing projects.

Importantly, the bill does not increase overall broadband spending or significantly alter existing funding structures. Budget analysts have indicated the cost of implementing the new requirements would be minimal, as the FCC already conducts some level of applicant review. Instead, the legislation largely codifies and strengthens current practices, aiming to reduce waste and improve the reliability of rural broadband deployment.

Supporters of the bill — including its bipartisan Senate sponsors — argue that it is a necessary safeguard as tens of billions of dollars flow into broadband expansion through programs authorized under recent infrastructure legislation. They contend that ensuring capable providers receive funding will help close the rural digital divide more effectively and prevent communities from being left behind due to failed projects.

Critics, however, have raised concerns that stricter vetting requirements and higher penalties could make it more difficult for smaller or newer internet service providers to compete for funding. Some worry that increased compliance burdens could favor larger, established telecom companies and reduce competition in rural markets.

Overall, the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025 represents a targeted effort to improve accountability rather than expand spending. Its likely impact would be incremental but meaningful — shifting federal broadband policy toward stricter oversight and execution, with the goal of ensuring that promised infrastructure projects in rural America are actually built.

—If you are living in rural America and dealing with various providers, here are some questions to ask:

What are you actually building?
Ask them to clearly define the technology. Are they deploying fiber, fixed wireless, or satellite? Each has very different long-term reliability and performance. Follow that by asking what speeds are guaranteed — not “up to,” but what customers can consistently expect during peak hours.

Pin them down on timing
A critical question is when construction actually begins and when service will be available at your specific location. Many providers talk in phases or regional timelines, so ask them to identify where your area falls in their build schedule. If they can’t give a firm window, that’s a signal the project may still be in early planning stages.

Follow the money
Ask whether their project is funded by federal or state programs, and if so, whether the funding has been fully approved or is still pending. There’s a big difference between “we applied for funding” and “we have signed grant agreements.” You can also ask what percentage of the project is publicly funded versus private investment.

Ask about coverage — not just eligibility
Even if your area is labeled “served” or “funded,” that doesn’t guarantee your home or farm will be connected. Ask whether your exact address is included in the buildout and whether there are distance limits, density thresholds, or additional costs to reach you.

Get clarity on total cost
Monthly price is only part of the equation. Ask about installation fees, equipment costs, long-term contracts, and potential price increases after introductory periods. Rural builds sometimes include higher upfront connection charges depending on location.

Reliability matters more than speed claims
Ask about uptime guarantees, service outages, and repair timelines. In rural areas, long repair delays can be a bigger issue than speed itself. You should also ask whether there are data caps or throttling policies.

Understand who owns and maintains the network
In federally supported projects, infrastructure ownership can vary. Ask who is responsible for long-term maintenance and upgrades. This matters for service quality five to ten years down the road.

Labor and supply chain questions
Given ongoing workforce constraints, ask whether they have secured contractors and materials. Delays often come not from funding, but from the ability to actually build.

Accountability and penalties
If the project is publicly funded, ask what happens if deadlines are missed. Are there penalties? Can funding be clawed back? This gets at how serious the commitment really is.

Future-proofing the investment
Finally, ask whether the network is scalable. Will it support higher speeds in the future without major rebuilds? Fiber generally has an advantage here, while some wireless solutions may need upgrades sooner.

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

—Wednesday: Oil surges back above $100 as Hormuz attacks reignite supply fears

Shipping disruptions and ceasefire uncertainty deepen market anxiety over global crude flows

Oil markets snapped higher Wednesday, with Brent crude climbing back above $100 per barrel after reports of gunfire attacks on multiple commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz intensified fears of further supply disruptions. 

Brent futures are just over $100, up 1.72%. 

West Texas Intermediate is at $91, up 1.75%, extending gains from the prior session when both benchmarks jumped roughly 3%.

The latest move followed confirmed attacks on at least three container ships transiting the strategic chokepoint, underscoring escalating risks to one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. The Strait of Hormuz had been responsible for roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows prior to the outbreak of the Iran war, making any disruption highly consequential for global supply balances.

Tensions have been compounded by Iranian restrictions on vessel movements through the strait, enacted in response to both U.S./Israeli military actions and a U.S. blockade targeting Iranian ports.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire and blockade with Iran just hours before its expiration, aiming to allow more time for negotiations. However, the move appeared unilateral, with no immediate confirmation from Tehran or Israel, leaving markets skeptical about whether the fragile truce will hold.

Beyond the Middle East, additional supply uncertainty emerged in Europe. Volodymyr Zelenskiy signaled readiness to resume flows through the Druzhba pipeline, though industry sources indicated Russia may halt oil shipments from Kazakhstan to Germany via that route beginning May 1, adding another layer of unpredictability to global energy logistics.

On the demand side, traders are closely watching U.S. inventory data for confirmation of tightening conditions. Industry figures from the American Petroleum Institute pointed to a 4.5-million-barrel crude draw last week, alongside declines in gasoline and distillate stocks. Analysts expect official data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to show a 1.2-million-barrel crude draw for the week ending April 17.

The combination of constrained flows through the Strait of Hormuz, uncertain ceasefire dynamics, and tightening inventories is rebuilding a significant risk premium into crude prices, with volatility likely to persist as the geopolitical situation evolves.

—Tuesday: Oil climbs as Iran uncertainty sustains risk premium

Ceasefire deadline, constrained Strait of Hormuz flows, and mixed diplomatic signals keep markets on edge

Oil prices pushed higher Tuesday, rising roughly 3% as uncertainty surrounding U.S./Iran peace talks reinforced a geopolitical risk premium ahead of the looming ceasefire deadline. 

Brent crude settled up $3.00, 3.1%, at $98.48 per barrel. 

U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) gained $2.52, 2.8%, to close at $92.13. 

Gains were pared back from earlier increases of around 5% as conflicting signals emerged on the timing and participation of upcoming negotiations. Markets were tightly focused on whether talks will materialize before the ceasefire expires, with Iran eventually confirming no involvement.

Supply conditions continue to tighten, driven largely by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. Vessel traffic through the critical chokepoint remains minimal, with only a limited number of ships transiting in the past 24 hours. The sustained disruption has effectively removed a meaningful volume of global oil supply, tightening balances and amplifying price sensitivity to geopolitical developments.

Broader regional tensions persist, further underpinning risk sentiment. Meanwhile, higher energy costs are beginning to ripple through the global economy, with early signs of strain appearing in Europe and continued resilience in U.S. fuel-driven consumption.

On the supply-demand front, traders are closely watching upcoming U.S. inventory data, with expectations for another crude draw that would signal ongoing demand strength and little immediate relief on the supply side.

Overall, oil markets remain highly reactive, with price direction closely tied to diplomatic progress, the fate of the ceasefire, and how quickly disrupted supply flows — particularly through the Strait of Hormuz — can be restored.

—U.S. finalizes third SPR release since Iran war start

The U.S. Dept. of Energy announced it had loaned 26.03 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (link) to domestic refiners, including ExxonMobil, Marathon, and BP, taking the total volume of oil borrowed to 80 million barrels.

—Wright signals fuel price peak — but softens timeline outlook

Energy secretary points to recent highs while acknowledging uncertainty after Trump rebuke

Energy Secretary Chris Wright told lawmakers Tuesday that U.S. fuel prices appear to have peaked following the Middle East conflict, but he tempered earlier projections that gasoline would remain above $3 per gallon until next year — signaling a shift in tone after public pushback from Donald Trump.

Testifying on the administration’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget, Wright said recent price action suggests gasoline likely topped out about a week ago, emphasizing that current levels remain significantly below the surge seen during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He framed the comparison as notable given the scale of disruption tied to the Middle East war, a region central to global energy supply.

“I don’t know the future of energy prices,” Wright told lawmakers, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty in forecasting oil and gasoline markets. Still, he maintained that prices “look like they peaked” and reiterated his expectation that they will continue to decline.

The comments mark a partial pivot from the weekend, when Wright suggested gasoline prices were unlikely to fall below $3 per gallon until 2027. His revised stance comes after Trump publicly rejected that outlook, calling it “totally wrong” and arguing prices would fall more quickly as the Iran conflict winds down.

The exchange highlights a growing divergence in messaging within the administration over the trajectory of fuel prices — a politically sensitive issue as markets continue to react to shifting geopolitical risks and evolving ceasefire dynamics in the Middle East.

—Lawmakers move to break E15 gridlock with new ethanol proposal

Long-awaited bill aims to expand year-round sales while tightening refinery exemption rules

U.S. lawmakers are preparing to introduce long-anticipated legislation that would allow nationwide, year-round sales of E15 gasoline, marking a renewed push to resolve a yearslong standoff between the agriculture and oil industries. The proposal is expected to be formally filed Wednesday (April 22) and reflects a negotiated effort to balance expanded ethanol access with revised limits on refinery exemptions.

At the core of the legislation is a provision to permit continuous sales of gasoline blended with 15% ethanol — a longstanding priority for corn growers and biofuel advocates who argue the current seasonal restrictions limit demand and suppress rural economic activity.

Meanwhile, the bill seeks to address oil industry concerns by tightening eligibility for waivers from federal biofuel blending mandates.

Under the proposal, exemptions would be capped for companies refining fewer than 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day across all facilities, narrowing the scope of relief compared to current law.

The legislation would preserve flexibility by allowing exemptions for refineries facing closure, permanent shutdown, or conversion to renewable fuel production — an attempt to soften opposition from smaller or financially strained operators.

The measure is being advanced by the E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council, a bipartisan group formed earlier this year after a similar effort collapsed in January. That earlier failure underscored the deep divide between agricultural interests, which have spent more than a decade pushing for year-round E15 access, and refiners, which have consistently argued that biofuel mandates impose costly compliance burdens.

The council was created as part of a broader agreement among House Republicans — particularly Midwestern lawmakers — to find a compromise framework acceptable to both ethanol producers and the refining sector.

The central sticking point remains how to structure exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard, which currently allows relief for refiners that can demonstrate “disproportionate economic hardship.” Disputes over how broadly those waivers should be applied have repeatedly derailed prior legislative efforts.

If successful, the new bill could represent a significant shift in U.S. fuel policy, expanding ethanol demand (see next item for perspective) while redefining how compliance burdens are distributed across the refining industry. However, given the history of failed attempts and entrenched industry positions, its path through Congress remains uncertain.

—E15 fuel expansion remains limited despite policy push

Midwest dominates ethanol blend growth as congress lags on permanent nationwide approval

The U.S. gasoline market remains overwhelmingly dominated by conventional fuel blends, with higher-ethanol options like E15 still representing a small share of retail availability despite years of policy support and recent growth. Industry and government estimates place the total number of gasoline stations nationwide at roughly 145,000, yet only about 4,100 to 4,600 of those locations currently offer E15 — a blend containing 15% ethanol — underscoring the limited reach of the fuel even as its footprint expands.

E15 availability has increased notably in recent years, rising from just over 3,000 stations earlier in the decade, but it still accounts for only about 3% of all U.S. fueling locations. Meanwhile, nearly all gasoline sold in the United States already contains ethanol at the 10% level, meaning the challenge for further ethanol expansion is less about acceptance and more about infrastructure and regulatory barriers that limit the transition to higher blends.

Geographically, E15 adoption is heavily concentrated in the Midwest, where ethanol production is closely tied to corn output and supported by state-level incentives and longstanding policy frameworks. States such as Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois lead the nation in E15 availability, with Iowa and Minnesota alone accounting for a significant share of total stations offering the blend. This regional dominance reflects both proximity to ethanol production facilities and a more developed network of compatible storage and dispensing infrastructure.

Outside the Midwest, E15 availability becomes far more limited, though there has been some expansion into the Southeast and parts of the Plains. Florida stands out as a notable exception beyond the core ethanol belt, while adoption in the Northeast and West Coast remains constrained by a mix of regulatory hurdles, infrastructure limitations, and, in some cases, fuel formulation requirements. California, in particular, has only recently begun to open the door to broader E15 use, suggesting potential for future growth but highlighting how uneven adoption remains across regions.

Compounding the infrastructure challenge is the continued delay in Congress to permanently codify nationwide, year-round E15 sales (see previous item for an update). While successive administrations — including under President Donald Trump — have relied on emergency waivers to allow summertime E15 sales, those measures have been temporary and create ongoing uncertainty for fuel retailers. Lawmakers have introduced bipartisan legislation multiple times to resolve the issue by aligning E15 with E10 under federal fuel volatility rules, but those efforts have repeatedly stalled, leaving the market dependent on stopgap regulatory action rather than a durable statutory fix.

This legislative uncertainty has had a chilling effect on investment. Fuel retailers are less likely to commit capital to new tanks and blender pumps without confidence that E15 can be sold consistently throughout the year across all regions. As a result, infrastructure expansion — already costly — has progressed more slowly than ethanol advocates and agricultural groups had hoped.

For agricultural markets, especially corn, the slow but steady expansion of E15 carries important implications. Increased adoption would directly translate into higher domestic ethanol demand, tightening corn balances and supporting prices. However, the current pace of infrastructure buildout, combined with unresolved federal policy, suggests that any demand boost will materialize gradually rather than through a rapid nationwide shift.

In practical terms, the U.S. fuel system has already reached near-universal adoption of ethanol at the E10 level, but breaking through to higher blends like E15 remains a longer-term transition. Until Congress provides regulatory certainty and more stations invest in compatible infrastructure, E15 will likely continue to grow incrementally, anchored in the Midwest rather than broadly distributed across the national fuel market.

TRADE POLICY

—Surety firms warn CBP tariff refund system risks misallocating payments

Bond issuers say new CAPE rollout could direct IEEPA tariff refunds to importers — even when sureties covered the original costs

Customs bond companies are raising alarms that a newly launched U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) system for refunding tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) could improperly exclude them, potentially sending millions of dollars to the wrong parties. According to an amicus brief filed with the Court of International Trade by the International Trade Surety Association, the agency’s Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system fails to account for situations where sureties — not importers — paid the duties.

The dispute centers on CAPE’s “Phase 1” rollout, which began April 20 and is designed to process refund claims for roughly 63% of shipments affected by IEEPA tariffs. While CBP has framed the system as a streamlined mechanism for reimbursing importers, surety firms argue it overlooks a critical reality: in many cases, bond issuers stepped in to pay tariffs when importers defaulted. Under the current structure, those same importers could still claim refunds, leaving sureties without reimbursement.

Industry representatives warn this creates both financial and compliance risks. They argue that CAPE’s automated design allows importers or brokers to submit claims based on entries marked as “paid,” without distinguishing who actually made the payment. This could lead to scenarios where insolvent or fraudulent importers receive funds that legally belong to sureties.

The filing points to existing federal regulations requiring that refunds be issued to bond issuers when they can demonstrate they paid the duties after an importer default. Despite this, surety groups say CBP has not incorporated mechanisms into CAPE to identify or prioritize those claims, even though the agency has acknowledged internally that it can track the original payer.

Meanwhile, CBP has reportedly asked surety firms to identify affected entries so they can be excluded from Phase 1 processing, but the association says there has been no confirmation those safeguards will work. It also criticized the agency for suggesting that importers and brokers simply avoid filing claims on such entries — a step the group argues is unreliable and unenforceable.

Looking ahead, surety companies are urging CBP to address the issue immediately rather than deferring fixes to later phases of CAPE. They warn that failing to include sureties at the outset will result in misdirected payments that CBP will ultimately have to unwind, increasing administrative burdens and exposing the agency to legal challenges.

The dispute underscores broader tensions in the aftermath of the court-ordered unwinding of IEEPA tariffs, as agencies and industry participants navigate the complex process of refunding duties across millions of entries — and determining who is legally entitled to receive those funds.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

—Industry, unions split over USDA pork and poultry line speed proposal

Public comments underscore divide on efficiency gains, worker safety, and federal oversight as rulemaking advances

Industry groups and labor unions delivered sharply contrasting feedback during the public comment period on USDA’s proposed changes to pork and poultry processing line speeds, highlighting a deep divide over how far regulators should go in modernizing meat inspection while balancing worker protections.

The proposals from USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service would expand processing flexibility across the sector, allowing poultry plants to increase line speeds and giving pork facilities greater discretion to determine their own operating pace based on process controls rather than fixed federal limits.

Supporters say the changes reflect technological advances and years of operational data. 

Critics warn they could intensify already demanding working conditions inside meatpacking plants.

Industry organizations broadly endorsed the proposal in their submitted comments, arguing that higher line speeds would improve plant efficiency, ease supply chain bottlenecks, and help stabilize consumer food prices. They maintained that food safety would not be compromised because federal inspectors would continue to have authority to slow or halt production if risks emerge. Industry commenters also pointed to research suggesting that line speed alone is not the primary driver of workplace injuries, framing the proposal as a modernization effort rather than a rollback of safeguards.

Labor unions and worker advocacy groups, however, raised significant concerns in their filings, arguing that faster line speeds would increase the risk of musculoskeletal injuries and repetitive strain for workers who already operate in physically demanding environments. They also warned that increasing production rates could make it more difficult for both plant employees and federal inspectors to adequately monitor food safety conditions in real time. Some groups criticized elements of the proposal that would scale back certain worker safety reporting requirements, saying the changes could reduce transparency at a time when operational pressures are increasing.

The broader debate reflected in the comments centers on USDA’s push to modernize inspection systems and improve processing capacity amid ongoing cost pressures in the food supply chain. Meanwhile, labor groups and some public health advocates contend that efficiency gains should not come at the expense of worker safety or oversight. With the comment period now closed, USDA will review the feedback as it considers next steps in finalizing the rule, setting up a consequential decision point for both the meat industry and its workforce.

—Hormuz disruption raises risk of global food shock

Fertilizer squeeze and gas price surge leave world “on borrowed time,” traders warn

Reporting from the Financial Times underscores a growing concern across commodity markets: the disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz is no longer just an energy story — it is rapidly becoming a food security crisis, with traders warning the world may be “on borrowed time” before a broader shock hits.

At the center of the risk is fertilizer — the critical link between energy markets and global food production. The Middle East is a major producer and exporter of key fertilizers, and the Strait of Hormuz serves as a vital artery for those shipments. With flows constrained, prices have surged sharply in recent weeks. Urea prices in the region have jumped by roughly $130 per ton to as high as $650, while ammonia prices in Europe have climbed to multi-year highs.

The underlying driver is natural gas. Fertilizer production — particularly nitrogen-based products like ammonia and urea — is highly energy-intensive, relying heavily on gas as both feedstock and fuel. As gas prices spike amid supply disruptions tied to the Iran conflict, producers are either scaling back output or passing costs through, tightening global supply.

Meanwhile, the scale of the chokepoint risk is significant. Roughly a quarter of the world’s fertilizer supply and a substantial share of global energy flows transit the Strait of Hormuz, meaning disruptions ripple quickly across both input costs and agricultural production systems.

The result is a classic second-round shock: higher energy prices feed into fertilizer costs, which then feed into crop production costs and ultimately food prices. Analysts warn this chain reaction is already underway. Global shipping through Hormuz has, at times, collapsed dramatically, disrupting not just oil and gas but also fertilizer trade and agricultural inputs.

That dynamic is what has traders and policymakers increasingly concerned. Even if food supplies remain adequate in the near term, the timing of the disruption — during key planting windows in multiple regions — raises the risk of reduced yields later in the year. Lower fertilizer use, particularly in developing markets, could translate directly into smaller harvests and tighter global supplies.

There are already early warning signs. UN-linked analysis suggests the combination of higher energy, fertilizer, and transport costs could push global food prices meaningfully higher, with some projections pointing to double-digit increases if the disruption persists.

The broader concern, as highlighted in the Financial Times, is that the system is still functioning — but only barely. Inventories, alternative routes, and temporary policy responses are buying time, yet none fully replace the scale or efficiency of Hormuz flows. That leaves global markets vulnerable to any further escalation or prolonged disruption.

In short, the risk is no longer hypothetical. The intersection of energy, fertilizer, and food markets is tightening quickly, and unless supply chains normalize, the current shock could evolve into a full-fledged global food crisis later in 2026.

PERSONNEL

—ASGA names Zack Clark as CEO, signals policy focus amid mounting industry pressures

Leadership transition comes as sugarbeet growers face trade, cost, and market headwinds

The American Sugarbeet Growers Association (ASGA) announced that Zack Clark will become its next CEO and Executive Vice President beginning Sept. 8, 2026, following a competitive search process that culminates a leadership transition at a challenging moment for the U.S. sugar sector.

Clark, who joined ASGA in 2019 and currently serves as Vice President of Government Affairs, brings a Washington policy background that includes roles with the National Farmers Union as well as work in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. His appointment positions a policy-focused leader at the helm as the industry navigates a convergence of economic and regulatory challenges.

ASGA leadership underscored the urgency of those pressures, citing adverse weather, depressed prices, rising input costs, increased foreign sugar imports, and what they describe as outdated trade policy as key threats to grower viability. Board President Clint Hagen said Clark’s familiarity with the industry and track record advocating for growers made him a trusted choice to guide the organization through a turbulent period.

Outgoing CEO Luther Markwart, who will retire at the end of the year, emphasized the importance of maintaining strong farm programs and fair-trade policies, framing them as essential to preserving the competitiveness of U.S. sugarbeet producers. He pointed to Clark’s blend of policy expertise and agricultural advocacy as critical for continuing to deliver results in Washington.

Clark, in accepting the role, highlighted the broader stakes beyond the organization itself, pointing to the importance of family farms, cooperatives, and rural communities tied to the sugarbeet sector. He signaled a continued emphasis on policy engagement aimed at sustaining domestic production and ensuring a stable future for growers.

The leadership transition comes as the U.S. beet sugar industry maintains a significant footprint, with more than 10,000 family farmers cultivating over 1.1 million acres across 11 states. Grower-owned cooperatives operate all 20 processing facilities in the upper Midwest and West, and beet sugar accounts for roughly 54% of total U.S. sugar production — an output ASGA frames as central to national food security and supply chain resilience.

POLITICS & ELECTIONS

—Virginia redistricting measure passes narrowly, reshaping House battleground

Voter-approved map overhaul expected to tilt congressional delegation toward Democrats ahead of midterms, while legal challenges loom

Virginia voters narrowly approved a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts, delivering a potential strategic advantage to Democrats as they seek to reclaim control of the U.S. House. With roughly 97% of the vote counted, the measure passed with 51.5% support to 48.5% opposition, reflecting a sharply divided electorate split along geographic and partisan lines.

Support for the proposal was concentrated in Democratic-leaning suburbs and exurbs around Washington, D.C., while rural and more conservative regions largely opposed it. The outcome underscores Virginia’s status as a competitive “purple” state, even as the approved map is expected to significantly favor Democrats in future elections.

Currently, Virginia’s U.S. House delegation stands at six Democrats and five Republicans. However, the newly approved map could shift that balance dramatically — potentially to as much as a 10-1 Democratic advantage — by redrawing district lines to favor Democratic voters.

Democratic leaders framed the measure as a necessary counter to Republican-led redistricting efforts in states like Texas. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the vote demonstrated a rejection of what he described as a broader GOP power grab, while President Donald Trump had urged voters to oppose the measure, warning of political consequences if Republicans lose the House.

Republicans, meanwhile, criticized the plan as an aggressive partisan gerrymander that undermines fair representation. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), chair of the House GOP campaign arm, argued the narrow margin highlights Virginia’s political balance and suggested the courts could ultimately overturn the new map.

The redistricting fight in Virginia is part of a broader, escalating national battle over congressional maps ahead of the midterms. Analysts note that Democratic gains in Virginia may offset Republican advantages in other states, particularly Texas, where a GOP-backed map triggered the current wave of mid-decade redistricting efforts.

The campaign surrounding the Virginia measure drew significant financial backing, with supporters outspending opponents by more than two-to-one — roughly $56 million to $24 million — highlighting the high stakes tied to control of Congress.

Despite voter approval, the measure faces ongoing legal challenges. Opponents have raised concerns about the ballot language and legislative process, and the Virginia Supreme Court is reviewing whether procedural rules were violated. Meanwhile, the new map is temporary, with districts scheduled to be redrawn again by a bipartisan commission in 2031.

Under the new gerrymandered map, the Cook Political Report (CPR) says Democrats are favored in 10 of the state’s 11 seats, leaving just one deep red district in southwest Virginia. Currently, the delegation is evenly split between six Democrats and five Republicans, and this would put four GOP members — Reps. Rob Wittman (VA-01), Jen Kiggans (VA-02), John McGuire (VA-05), and Ben Cline (VA-06) — in serious danger of losing re-election.

The outcome sets the stage for a high-stakes midterm cycle, where even small shifts in district lines could prove decisive in determining control of the narrowly divided U.S. House.

—Economist: Republicans face steep midterm headwinds as forecast points to potential Democratic wave

New model from the Economist highlights strong odds of a House flip and emerging Senate battleground risks

A new statistical forecast from the Economist suggests the 2026 midterm elections could follow historical patterns that typically punish the president’s party, with Republicans facing significant risk of losing control of the House and potentially the Senate. The model gives Democrats a 95% probability of gaining the seats needed to flip the House, while also assigning a notable 46% chance of Democrats capturing the Senate — despite a challenging electoral map.

The forecast is driven by several converging indicators. Generic ballot polling shows Democrats leading 53% to 47% among decided voters, a margin that historically correlates closely with national House outcomes. Special election performance has also favored Democrats, reinforcing the signal of a broader electoral shift. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s approval rating — reported to be 17 points underwater — adds to the historical tendency for the party in power to lose ground in midterms.

Structural factors further strengthen Democratic prospects. Unlike past cycles where district maps heavily favored one party, current congressional boundaries offer Republicans only a modest advantage. Ongoing redistricting battles, particularly between states like California and Texas, have largely neutralized partisan map advantages. Additional changes — such as potential redistricting adjustments in Virginia — could further erode Republican structural support in House races.

Still, uncertainty remains. The model acknowledges a wide range of possible outcomes, with Democratic national vote share projections spanning from a narrow 50.7% to a decisive 55.6%. Late-stage redistricting efforts in Republican-controlled states, particularly Florida, could shift the playing field. Legal developments, including potential Supreme Court changes to Voting Rights Act protections, could also significantly reshape district competitiveness.

While the House outlook appears increasingly favorable for Democrats, the Senate remains highly competitive. Democrats must flip four seats to gain control, with most target states having supported Trump by wide margins in 2024. However, strong Democratic candidates in states like North Carolina, Ohio, and Alaska are tightening races, while potential Republican primary disruptions — such as in Texas — could create unexpected openings.

The broader implication is that while Democrats are strongly positioned to reclaim the House, the Senate battle is likely to hinge on national political momentum. If Democratic gains materialize at the scale suggested by current polling and forecasts, the party could find itself within reach of unified congressional control — setting up a high-stakes political shift heading into the latter half of Trump’s term.

—GOP House majority at risk as midterm landscape tightens

Washington Post reporting highlights narrow margins, redistricting fights, and economic headwinds shaping 2026 outlook

Republicans’ grip on Washington faces mounting uncertainty heading into the 2026 midterm elections, with early indicators suggesting their narrow House majority could be in jeopardy. According to reporting from the Washington Post, President Donald Trump has framed the upcoming elections as existential to his presidency, warning that Republicans may have only a limited window to advance their legislative agenda before a potential Democratic takeover.

The House battlefield is defined by razor-thin margins and limited competitive territory. Republicans currently hold one of the smallest majorities in modern history, meaning Democrats would need to flip only a handful of seats to regain control. Polling trends have given Democrats early optimism, with a Washington Post polling average showing a five-point advantage for Democrats on the question of which party should control Congress. Still, structural realities constrain the playing field: of the 435 House districts, only about 40 are considered truly competitive due to years of aggressive gerrymandering.

That redistricting battle is now a central factor in determining control. Texas Republicans have moved to redraw maps to further solidify their advantage, prompting retaliatory efforts from Democrats in states like California. Meanwhile, Virginia has emerged as a key flashpoint, where Democrats are considering a redraw that could significantly diminish Republican representation despite the state’s relatively balanced recent voting patterns. These map fights could shape the outcome even before voters head to the polls.

Beyond district lines, broader political dynamics are also working against Republicans. Analysts point to growing voter dissatisfaction with the economy and Trump administration policies, including fallout from the Iran conflict and rising energy costs. Strategists from both parties acknowledge that a modest Democratic gain of five seats appears achievable under current conditions. The larger question is whether a broader “wave” election could materialize, allowing Democrats to build a more durable majority.

Democratic groups are already signaling confidence by targeting traditionally safe Republican districts, expanding the battlefield. Political observers note that voter sentiment on economic conditions will likely be the decisive factor in determining the scale of any shift. If dissatisfaction deepens, Republicans could face losses beyond the minimum threshold needed for a majority flip.

A Democratic-controlled House would significantly constrain Trump’s legislative agenda. While Democrats could attempt to advance policies aimed at lowering health care and childcare costs, divided government would limit major legislative breakthroughs if Republicans retain the Senate. Historical precedent suggests a return to gridlock, with increased oversight, investigations, and potential political clashes defining the final years of Trump’s term — similar to the dynamic following the 2018 midterms during his first presidency.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

—Shipbuilding coalition launches push for federal legislation to revive U.S. maritime industry

Labor, industry groups align with Trump administration priorities as lawmakers press SHIPS for America Act

A newly formed coalition of labor unions and industry leaders is ramping up pressure on Congress to pass legislation aimed at rebuilding the U.S. shipbuilding sector, aligning closely with priorities of the Trump administration and key lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The USA Shipbuilding Coalition — described as a labor-management partnership — is advocating for passage of the “Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act,” or SHIPS for America Act, which would establish a maritime security fund and create a 25% investment tax credit for shipyard development. The effort reflects growing bipartisan concern over the steep decline in U.S. shipbuilding capacity relative to China.

White House Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro endorsed the coalition, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to restoring domestic shipbuilding as a pillar of national security and economic strength. Labor leaders, including United Steelworkers President Roxanne Brown, also backed the initiative, framing it as critical to protecting American workers and rebuilding industrial capacity.

The coalition is led by Michael Wessel, a longtime trade advisor and staff chair of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy. Wessel has played a key role in prior efforts targeting China’s dominance in maritime and logistics sectors, including a 2024 petition that led to a Section 301 investigation and subsequent U.S. port fees on Chinese-linked vessels — fees that could ultimately help finance the proposed maritime security fund.

Lawmakers backing the legislation underscored the strategic urgency. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), an original sponsor, warned that the U.S. currently operates fewer than 100 ships in international commerce compared to roughly 5,500 in China, calling the disparity a direct threat to both economic and national security interests. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), also a lead sponsor, argued that while rebuilding the industry will require significant investment, failing to act would be far more costly, particularly in the context of global competition with China.

In the House, the bill is led by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), and has already attracted more than 130 co-sponsors, signaling broad bipartisan support. Industry groups, including the American Iron and Steel Institute, are urging lawmakers to advance the measure, highlighting its potential to boost domestic steel demand and create tens of thousands of jobs across the shipbuilding supply chain.

The coalition’s launch comes just ahead of a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing focused on revitalizing the maritime industrial base, where administration officials are expected to outline further steps to rebuild U.S. capacity. Meanwhile, a White House maritime action plan has floated additional funding mechanisms, including fees on foreign-built vessels calling at U.S. ports, reinforcing a broader policy push to counter China’s dominance and restore American maritime competitiveness.