GOP Lawmakers Rally Behind Trump After Iran Strikes
Insurers move to cancel coverage and raise rates for Gulf shipping | Summit at a crossroads: Xi/Trump — and the stakes heading into Beijing
| LINKS |
Link: U.S. and Israel Strike Iran: Markets Brace for Energy Shock
Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 27
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 27
| Updates: Policy/News/Markets, Feb. 28, 2026 |
| UP FRONT |
TOP STORIES
— GOP lawmakers rally behind Trump after Iran strikes
Republicans broadly backed President Donald Trump’s “Operation Epic Fury,” framing it as a deterrence move against Iran, while a smaller bipartisan group called for a congressional war-powers vote as concerns grew over escalation risk and mission scope.
— Insurers raise Gulf shipping risk after conflict escalation
Marine insurers began canceling and repricing war-risk policies for vessels operating near the Strait of Hormuz, with premiums expected to surge — signaling rising freight costs and heightened volatility for global energy and commodity flows.
— Xi/Trump summit enters uncertain territory ahead of Beijing talks
Analysts are split over whether the upcoming March 31–April 2 summit will produce substance or simply stabilize relations; agricultural trade and tariff-truce continuity remain key market watchpoints.
— Importer seeks restoration of de minimis exemption
Detroit Axle asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to revive the $800 duty-free import threshold, arguing the Supreme Court’s IEEPA tariff ruling should also invalidate the administration’s repeal of the program.
— ITC begins review of phosphate fertilizer duties
The U.S. International Trade Commission launched its five-year review of tariffs on Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizers, a process that could eventually reshape fertilizer pricing and supply dynamics for U.S. producers.
— USDA trims FY 2026 ag trade deficit outlook
USDA now projects a smaller agricultural trade deficit primarily due to reduced import expectations — especially horticultural products — while export gains remain modest and structural trade pressures persist.
FINANCIAL MARKETS
— Equities pull back to end week
Major U.S. indices posted declines on the day and for the week, reflecting broader risk-off sentiment amid geopolitical uncertainty and market recalibration.
AG MARKETS
— India faces hotter-than-normal summer
Forecasted heatwaves could threaten wheat yields and boost edible-oil import demand, creating potential ripple effects for global grain and vegetable-oil markets.
— Agriculture markets snapshot
Grains and oilseeds ended higher on Friday with strong weekly gains in wheat and soybeans, while livestock futures remained under pressure.
ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY
— Oil prices rise amid Iran tensions
Brent and WTI reached multi-month highs as geopolitical risk premiums expanded, with traders watching OPEC+ production decisions and potential disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz.
TRADE POLICY
— Trump floats rehearing after Supreme Court tariff ruling
The president questioned whether the High Court could revisit its IEEPA decision, a move that could delay tariff refund litigation even though rehearings are historically rare.
TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS
— Cartel leader killing disrupts freight across western Mexico
Violence and highway blockades following the death of a major cartel figure disrupted inland trucking routes and created short-term uncertainty for shipments moving through the Port of Manzanillo and toward U.S. borders.
WEATHER
— NWS outlook highlights sharp temperature contrasts
Record warmth is expected across the Southwest while Arctic air pushes southward; snow chances remain in the northern Plains and Upper Midwest, with rain and storms forecast for parts of the West Coast, Southern Plains, and Florida.
| TOP STORIES—GOP lawmakers rally behind Trump after Iran strikesRepublicans praise “Operation Epic Fury” as calls grow for congressional war-powers debate Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly lined up behind President Donald Trump following early Saturday’s joint U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran, framing the operation as a necessary show of force aimed at stopping Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and supporting regime change efforts. The strikes followed a breakdown in diplomatic talks mediated by Oman in Geneva earlier in the week. Despite public signals from mediators that negotiations were making progress, Trump said he was dissatisfied with the direction of discussions and authorized what he described as a “major combat operation.” In a video message, he urged the Iranian people to rise up against their government, signaling a dramatic escalation in U.S. rhetoric. At 2:30 a.m. ET Saturday, Trump released an eight-minute video statement (link) saying it was time for Iranians to overthrow their government while the Americans attacked. “This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond.” Trump said that there “may” be U.S. casualties, another sign he’s preparing for an extended American military mission. “That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now,” the president said. “We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.” Many of Capitol Hill’s top national security lawmakers were briefed in the hours and days leading up to the attack, including updates on Iran’s evolving ability to target U.S. assets in the region. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), along with other congressional leaders, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio kept them informed throughout the week. Reports note Secretary of State Marco Rubio also spoke Friday with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, ahead of the strikes. House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and ranking member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) likewise received advance briefings. Thune said he expects Trump administration officials to provide “all senators” with a full briefing on the military operations. GOP support centers on strength and deterrence. Senior Republican lawmakers largely praised the decision, emphasizing deterrence and national security. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the moment potentially transformative for the Middle East, echoing Trump’s calls for regime change and framing the strikes as historic. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the operation represented long-awaited accountability for Tehran’s actions. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) described the mission as “peace through strength,” stressing U.S. support for Israel and opposition to an Iranian nuclear weapon. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) characterized the strikes as a decisive act aimed at improving global security. Many Republicans portrayed the strikes as a justified response after years of failed diplomacy, arguing that Trump’s posture demonstrated renewed U.S. resolve. Limited bipartisan backing — and immediate pushback. While Republican support was strong, reactions were not unanimous across Congress. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) emerged as one of the only Democrats to publicly praise the strikes, saying Trump had taken necessary action to pursue peace in the region. Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties renewed demands for a vote on a war powers resolution that would require congressional authorization for continued military action against Iran. Critics argued the strikes risk escalating into a broader conflict without clear approval from Congress. Political fault lines sharpen. The response highlighted familiar divides in U.S. foreign policy debates:• Interventionist Republicans argued the operation demonstrated strength and leadership.• Libertarian-leaning conservatives and many Democrats questioned whether the administration acted within constitutional limits and warned against another prolonged Middle East conflict. Even as most GOP leaders backed the administration, lawmakers signaled concern about ensuring the mission remains limited and does not evolve into what some described as a “forever war.” Bigger picture. The strikes have immediately reshaped the political conversation in Washington — turning attention toward presidential war powers, U.S./Iran escalation risks, and the possibility of broader regional retaliation. Oil markets and allies abroad are watching closely as the situation develops, while Congress prepares for classified briefings and likely debate over next steps. Link to our special report on potential market impacts. — Insurers move to cancel coverage and raise rates for Gulf shippingWar-risk premiums jump sharply after conflict escalation, with brokers warning costs could rise up to 50% Insurers are rapidly rewriting the rulebook for ships operating in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with brokers warning that both policy cancellations and steep price hikes are now underway following the latest military escalation involving Iran, the U.S., and Israel. According to the Financial Times, marine insurers issued cancellation notices to shipowners covering voyages through the region — a rare move done ahead of market reopening — signaling how quickly risk perceptions have changed. Brokers told the FT that war-risk premiums could rise by as much as 50% in the coming days as underwriters reassess exposure. What is changing in marine insurance. Key shifts now underway:• Policy cancellations first, renegotiation later: insurers are canceling existing war-risk policies and preparing to reprice coverage at higher levels rather than exiting the market entirely.•Higher premium base: prior coverage costs near roughly 0.25% of a vessel’s replacement value may jump significantly if brokers’ projections materialize.•Israeli-port exposure particularly affected: insurance for ships calling at Israeli ports is expected to rise sharply alongside Gulf coverage.•Cargo insurance also tightening: not only hull insurance, but cargo war-risk policies (covering commodities such as oil and grain) are being canceled and reset at higher rates. The immediate driver is insurer concern that Iran could leverage control over the strait — either by threatening closure, increased military activity, or proxy actions against vessels — which materially elevates underwriting risk. Why the Strait of Hormuz matters so much. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically sensitive maritime chokepoints:• Roughly one-fifth of global crude oil flows through the strait.• Any disruption can ripple into shipping costs, energy prices, and freight availability globally.• Even perceived threats — not just attacks — can trigger abrupt insurance repricing. Some vessel operators have already started turning away from the route to reassess risk, according to advisory reports cited by the FT. How big are these increases in context? This is not the first spike in war-risk pricing, but the speed is notable. During previous periods of escalation:• Hull and machinery premiums reportedly rose more than 60% in earlier Hormuz-related tensions, moving from roughly 0.125% to about 0.2% of vessel value.• Reuters-sourced insurance data showed Gulf war-risk premiums jumping from roughly 0.2–0.3% to around 0.5% in short order during prior flare-ups. The new FT report suggests the market is again entering a rapid repricing phase — this time with policy cancellations preceding the rate reset. Market implications to watch (shipping + energy). From a macro and commodity-flow perspective — which matters heavily for grain, energy, and feedstock trade: 1) Higher freight and input costs. Shipping lines typically pass war-risk costs forward, meaning higher freight rates for crude, refined products, and bulk commodities.2) Oil price sensitivity. If shipping flows slow or reroute, energy markets may price in additional supply risk premiums.3) Grain and ag trade exposure. Cargo war-risk insurance affects shipments of commodities such as grain and oilseed products — especially for cargoes linked to Middle Eastern buyers.4) Volatility risk remains high. Insurance markets are highly reactive; premiums can ease quickly if tensions de-escalate — but can also spike further if vessel incidents occur. What brokers and underwriters are signaling. The tone from brokers in the FT report is clear:• Underwriters are pricing not just current risk, but tail risk — including possible disruptions, seizures, or closure attempts in the strait.• The early issuance of cancellation notices suggests insurers want flexibility to adjust risk pricing immediately once markets reopen. In practice, this signals insurers expect continued volatility rather than a short-lived shock. Bottom Line: The Financial Times reporting highlights a fast-moving shift in maritime risk pricing:• Policies are being canceled now to allow rapid repricing.• War-risk premiums could climb by up to 50% in the near term.• The Strait of Hormuz’s central role in global energy flows makes these insurance moves a major macro signal — not just a shipping technicality. —Summit at a crossroads: Xi/Trump — and the stakes heading into BeijingWhy early gloom may be premature — and what really matters ahead of the March 31–April 2 talks The coming summit between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in Beijing — scheduled for March 31–April 2 — is already being framed through sharply different lenses. Some observers, including analysts cited in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), suggest Trump arrives weakened after the U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting his tariff authority, potentially shifting negotiating leverage toward Beijing. Others argue that such conclusions are premature — and that Washington has not yet fully pivoted its political bandwidth toward China as crises elsewhere, especially Iran, dominate attention. The reality likely sits between these views. Why some analysts see a gloomy outlook. Several recent assessments from Asia-based commentators emphasize three potential constraints on the U.S. position:• Tariff leverage uncertainty. The Supreme Court ruling that curtailed parts of Trump’s tariff framework has fueled speculation that Beijing senses new room to maneuver. Chinese analysts quoted in SCMP argue this could weaken Washington’s bargaining position — at least symbolically — ahead of the summit.•Trade truce fragility. Both sides are weighing whether to extend a temporary trade ceasefire that has paused further tariff escalation. Markets view the summit as a stress test for that arrangement.•Perception of strategic distraction. With U.S./Iran tensions and broader Middle East risks commanding attention, some commentators believe China may gain diplomatic breathing room. Oil markets and geopolitical analysts have explicitly linked China’s role to unfolding Iran dynamics. From this perspective, the summit risks becoming more optics than substance — a diplomatic event where expectations exceed deliverables.Why the pessimism may be overdone. there are strong reasons to avoid assuming a negative outcome at this stage. 1) Trump’s negotiating style is highly fluid. Trump has historically entered high-stakes summits with little fixed agenda and relied on personal leader-to-leader dynamics to shape outcomes. Reports note that policy direction often shifts late, depending on his priorities and tactical instincts. That means today’s assumptions about leverage or concession patterns may not hold once the trip becomes a primary White House focus. 2) Beijing also has incentives to stabilize. Chinese officials have publicly signaled willingness to continue dialogue and avoid escalation — suggesting Beijing sees value in preserving a calmer economic environment rather than exploiting perceived U.S. weakness. For China, extending trade stability helps at a time when export and financial pressures remain sensitive. 3. Agriculture and symbolic deals remain likely. As seen in prior negotiations, agricultural purchases — especially soybeans — can emerge as politically useful outcomes for both sides. Reuters reporting indicates such issues are expected to reappear in summit discussions. Bottom Line: even limited détente could have outsized psychological effects on commodity markets. The Iran factor: the hidden variable. A major underappreciated issue is timing. At present, foreign-policy bandwidth inside Washington appears heavily tilted toward the Iran situation, which has introduced geopolitical risk premiums into energy markets and diverted top-level attention. If that crisis remains unresolved going into late March, two outcomes become plausible: • Scenario A: Limited preparation: the summit becomes largely ceremonial, aimed at preserving stability rather than launching new initiatives.•Scenario B: Strategic reset: Trump uses the meeting to compartmentalize China issues and lower global risk while focusing elsewhere. Either way, the Iran backdrop suggests analysts may be overestimating how much detailed trade bargaining has already occurred. What each side likely wants Washington priorities:• Extend or reshape the tariff truce.• Protect political optics for U.S. manufacturing and agriculture.• Prevent economic shocks heading into domestic political cycles.• Keep pressure tools available through alternative legal mechanisms even after the court ruling. Beijing priorities• Lock in tariff stability or reductions.• Ease export-control and tech restrictions.• Avoid appearing to “win” too visibly, which could provoke backlash in Washington.• Maintain a cooperative tone ahead of Xi’s expected U.S. visit later this year. Perspective: Expect optics first, structure second. The most realistic interpretation today is that this summit is less about immediate breakthroughs and more about establishing a runway for the next phase of U.S./China relations. The gloomy narrative — that Trump arrives weakened — overlooks two realities:1) Trump’s negotiations are often defined late and personally, not institutionally.2) Beijing has equal incentives to avoid shocks that could destabilize trade or markets. Meanwhile, overly optimistic expectations would also be misplaced. The structural issues — tariffs, technology controls, Taiwan tensions, and strategic mistrust — remain unresolved and are unlikely to be settled in a single visit. Bottom Line: The March 31–April 2 Beijing summit should be viewed as a positioning meeting, not a grand bargain.• If Iran dominates the global agenda, expect symbolism and stability messaging.• If geopolitical tensions ease, trade — especially agricultural and industrial purchases — could become the centerpieces.• The real measure of success may not be what is announced publicly, but whether both leaders leave with enough political room to keep the truce intact through 2026. For markets — and particularly for U.S. agriculture — that alone would be consequential. —Importer seeks restoration of de minimis after Supreme Court tariff rulingTrade court asked to apply IEEPA decision to duty-free import exemption Auto parts importer Detroit Axle has asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to restart its lawsuit seeking to restore the de minimis $800 duty-free exemption, arguing the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs also invalidates his repeal of the program. The company says the High Court’s Learning Resources v. Trump ruling — which found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize tariffs — applies equally to eliminating de minimis, since ending a tariff exemption effectively imposes new duties without congressional approval. Detroit Axle argues Congress created and expanded the exemption, and that IEEPA lacks clear language allowing presidents to suspend tariff statutes. The importer also invokes the “major questions doctrine,” claiming such a major economic change requires explicit congressional authorization. The case had been paused awaiting the Supreme Court ruling but could now move forward. A decision in favor of the importer could restore de minimis while Congress continues with its planned phaseout beginning in July 2027. —ITC launches five-year review of phosphate fertilizer tariffsComing Federal Register notice begins formal process to determine whether ending duties on Morocco and Russia would harm U.S. producers The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has formally initiated five-year (“sunset”) reviews of existing countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizers imported from Morocco and Russia. The reviews will determine whether removing those duties would likely lead to renewed injury for the U.S. phosphate fertilizer industry. What the notice does. The action is procedural but important for fertilizer markets and trade policy. Under the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC must periodically assess whether existing trade remedies are still necessary. The current orders — originally issued in April 2021 — imposed countervailing duties after findings that foreign producers received subsidies that harmed U.S. manufacturers. The ITC’s job in this review is to evaluate whether revoking these duties would likely result in:• A return of unfairly subsidized imports• Price pressure on domestic phosphate fertilizer producers• Material injury to U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time Key timelines and next steps. The notice sets several deadlines for industry participation:• Review instituted: March 2, 2026•Initial responses due: April 1, 2026• Comments on adequacy of responses: May 8, 2026 Based on the responses it receives, the Commission will decide whether to conduct a full review (more extensive investigation) or an expedited review based on available facts. Who can participate. The ITC is asking stakeholders across the fertilizer supply chain to submit information, including:• U.S. producers and industry groups• Importers and foreign exporters• Trade associations and worker groups• Industrial users and consumer representatives Respondents are asked to provide data on production, capacity, shipments, pricing, import volumes, profitability, and market conditions for calendar year 2025. The agency will also examine changes in supply and demand conditions since the original orders took effect in 2021. Why this matters for agriculture and fertilizer markets. Phosphate fertilizers are a core input for U.S. row-crop agriculture, making trade policy around these products especially significant for both fertilizer manufacturers and farmers. This proceeding will influence whether the current pricing and competitive structure — shaped partly by the duties — remains in place or shifts if tariffs are ultimately revoked. The review is also part of a broader trend of ongoing reassessments of trade measures instituted during the early 2020s, with policymakers weighing domestic production protection against input-cost concerns for downstream users. —USDA trade outlook: smaller FY 2026 ag trade deficit as imports cut, exports edge higherRevised USDA projections show imports driving the improvement, while export gains remain modest USDA’s latest Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade trimmed the projected FY 2026 agricultural trade deficit to $29 billion, reflecting a sharp downward revision in import expectations and only a modest increase in exports. The new forecast calls for $174 billion in exports and $203 billion in imports, compared with USDA’s December outlook of $173 billion in exports and $210 billion in imports — a projected $37 billion shortfall at that time. Notably, USDA offered no additional narrative commentary, publishing the update as a data-only release. Export forecast: slight improvement, mostly incremental changes. USDA’s export revisions were relatively mild, with gains concentrated in grain, feed, and animal proteins:•Grain and feed exports: raised to $42.4 billion, up from $41.8 billion in December.•Oilseeds and products: trimmed to $30.1 billion, slightly lower than the prior $30.5 billion forecast.• Livestock, poultry, and dairy: increased to $39.1 billion, up from $38.5 billion.•Horticultural exports: unchanged at $42.1 billion. Regional export shifts• Asia: raised to $60.7 billion (from $59.8 billion).•China: unchanged at $12 billion.•Japan: nudged higher to $13.2 billion.• Mexico: steady at $31.5 billion.• Canada: steady at $59.4 billion.• Europe/Eurasia: up modestly to $17.0 billion.• Middle East: increased to $6.6 billion. Overall, the export outlook suggests stability rather than acceleration — indicating USDA sees limited near-term upside in global demand despite modest regional gains. Import forecast: horticultural products drive the big revision. The key change in the report came on the import side, where USDA cut expectations by more than $6 billion — primarily in horticultural products.•Horticultural imports: reduced to $90.8 billion, down sharply from $96.9 billion.•Sugar and tropical products: lowered to $35.9 billion from $37.7 billion.•Whole and processed nuts: the only major category revised higher, now $2.6 billion. Regional import adjustments•Europe and Eurasia: cut to $34.6 billion from $38.4 billion — the largest regional downgrade.•Asia: lowered to $27.3 billion from $29 billion.• Southeast Asia: reduced to $16.4 billion (previously $18.3 billion). These adjustments indicate USDA expects softer demand or lower prices for specialty and consumer-oriented imports, rather than a major structural shift in bulk commodity flows. Big picture: deficit shrinks — but structural trends remain. While the revised outlook improves the headline trade balance, the broader trend remains:• FY 2026 would still mark the fourth consecutive agricultural trade deficit, even if smaller than previously expected.• Imports would still top $200 billion for a third straight year.• Exports at $174 billion would be:below FY 2025 ($175.6 billion),slightly under FY 2024 ($174.1 billion),and the lowest since FY 2021. Imports, meanwhile, would decline from FY 2025 levels but remain historically high — signaling that structural demand for imported food products continues to outweigh export growth. Pace required to hit USDA forecast. Based on October–December FY 2026 trade flows:• Exports must average about $14.23 billion per month over the remaining nine months — below the $15.31 billion average seen in the first quarter.• Imports need to average $17.21 billion per month, slightly above the current FY pace but notably below FY 2025’s final-nine-month average of $18.23 billion. In other words, USDA’s revised balance assumes:• exports cool moderately but remain stable, and• imports slow more meaningfully — which is the primary driver behind the smaller projected deficit. Bottom Line: USDA’s updated FY 2026 outlook doesn’t signal a major export resurgence — instead, the improvement in the U.S. agricultural trade balance comes mainly from lower expected imports, especially in horticultural and specialty products. The forecast suggests a modest narrowing of the deficit rather than a reversal of the longer-term trend: U.S. agriculture continues to run large trade gaps despite relatively firm export performance, underscoring how rapidly import demand has grown in recent years.  |
| FINANCIAL MARKETS |
—Equities yesterday and weekly change:
| Equity Index | Closing Price Feb. 27 | Point Change from Feb. 26 | % Difference from Feb. 26 | Weekly Change |
| Dow | 48,977.92 | -521.28 | -1.05% | -1.31% |
| Nasdaq | 22,668.21 | -210.17 | -0.92% | -0.95% |
| S&P 500 | 6,878.88 | -29.98 | -0.43% | -0.44% |
| AG MARKETS |
—India faces hotter-than-normal summer as heatwave risk rises
Early season heat raises concerns for wheat yields and edible oil imports
India’s weather agency on Saturday is forecasting a hotter-than-normal summer, with heatwave conditions expected to intensify between March and May — a development that could have meaningful implications for crop production, trade flows, and food prices.
According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), minimum temperatures in March are expected to remain above average across most regions, while heatwave days during the broader spring period are projected to exceed normal seasonal levels. February already set an alarming tone, ranking as the fifth-warmest February since records began in 1901, with both daytime highs and overnight lows running above historical norms.
Crop risks emerge as winter harvest approaches. The timing is particularly sensitive for India’s winter-sown crops — including wheat, rapeseed, and chickpeas — which depend on sustained cooler temperatures during their growth cycle.
• Higher temperatures during March can reduce grain filling and shrink wheat kernel size.
• Yield potential may decline if heat stress hits during the crop’s final maturation phase.
• Traders are increasingly watching weather conditions as a key price driver for South Asian grain markets.
Market participants note that above-normal heat could trim yields just as India aims for a strong 2026 harvest.
Trade implications could extend beyond wheat. India — the world’s second-largest wheat producer and a major edible-oil importer — is relying on a large crop this season to:
• rebuild domestic grain supplies,
• potentially export surplus wheat, and
• reduce expensive imports of palm, soybean, and sunflower oils.
If the heatwave forecast materializes and yields soften, those goals may come under pressure, potentially altering regional trade flows and import demand later this year.
Outlook: The IMD expects above-normal heatwave days across most parts of the country during March through May 2026. Markets will closely monitor how early-season temperatures evolve, since prolonged heat during the next several weeks could reshape India’s crop outlook and, by extension, global wheat and vegetable-oil balance sheets.
—Agriculture markets yesterday and weekly change:
| Commodity | Contract month | Closing price Feb. 27 | Difference vs Feb. 26 | Weekly change |
| Corn | May | $4.48 1/2 | +5 cents | +8 3/4 cents |
| Soybeans | May | $11.70 3/4 | +7 1/4 cents | +17 1/2 cents |
| Soybean meal | May | $320.50 | -40 cents | +$6.70 |
| Soybean oil | May | 61.85 cents | +9 points | +255 points |
| SRW wheat | May | $5.91 1/2 | +17 cents | +11 1/4 cents |
| HRW wheat | May | $5.80 1/2 | +18 1/4 cents | -4 3/4 cents |
| Spring wheat | May | $6.12 3/4 | +14 cents | +27 1/2 cents |
| Cotton | May | 65.61 cents | +25 points | -2 points |
| Live cattle | April | $232.225 | -$4.675 | -$9.875 |
| Feeder cattle | March | $355.425 | -$6.225 | -$12.60 |
| Lean hogs | April | $95.725 | 0.00 (steady) | +$2.05 |
| ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY |
—Friday: Oil prices rise amid Iran situation
Brent and WTI hit multi-month highs amid geopolitical uncertainty and OPEC+ supply expectations
Oil prices moved higher, with Brent crude settling up $1.73 (2.45%) at $72.48 per barrel and WTI rising $1.81 (2.78%) to $67.02 — both reaching their highest levels since mid-summer.
Analysts estimate roughly $8 to $10 per barrel of current pricing reflects geopolitical risk tied to potential disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 20% of global oil supply. (Link to special report on impact of U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran.)
Meanwhile, Gulf producers are preparing contingency measures, with Abu Dhabi expected to increase Murban exports and Saudi Arabia signaling possible output and pricing adjustments. Traders are also watching the March 1 OPEC+ meeting, where a modest production increase of about 137,000 barrels per day is widely anticipated.
| TRADE POLICY |
—Trump floats possible rehearing after Supreme Court tariff ruling
President questions whether justices could revisit IEEPA decision as refund uncertainty grows
President Donald Trump renewed his criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 decision striking down his use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs, publicly asking whether the case could be reconsidered.
In a social media post on Feb. 27, Trump argued that the ruling could result in “hundreds of billions of dollars” being returned to foreign countries and companies, calling the outcome unfair to the United States and suggesting it could encourage further trade imbalances. He questioned whether a rehearing or “readjudication” was possible.
Rehearings are technically allowed — but extremely rare. Under Supreme Court rules, the losing side in a case may request a rehearing within 25 days of a decision. However, such requests are almost never granted. Legal experts note that the court rarely revisits finalized rulings, and when it does, the changes are usually limited in scope rather than a full reversal.
Examples cited by legal scholars include:
• 1965: The court granted rehearing only to adjust procedural issues and allow additional lower-court proceedings.
•Reid v. Covert (1956–1957): The last instance in which the court reheard a case and ultimately reversed its earlier decision, ruling that U.S. citizens abroad retain constitutional jury-trial protections.
Because of this history, any request from the Justice Department for a rehearing would face long odds.
Potential impact on tariff refund timeline. Even if a rehearing petition is unlikely to succeed, filing one could still have meaningful procedural consequences. Lower-court proceedings that determine whether and how refunds for now-invalidated tariffs should be issued were paused pending the Supreme Court’s final judgment.
A rehearing request could further delay those cases, extending uncertainty for importers and companies seeking reimbursement for duties collected under the emergency tariff authority.
Why this matters going forward. The court’s ruling has major implications for executive trade powers and future tariff policy. The decision limits how far emergency authorities can be used for broad trade actions, forcing the administration to rely more heavily on traditional trade statutes such as Sections 301, 232, or other congressionally authorized mechanisms.
For markets and trade stakeholders, the key issue now is timing — whether refund litigation proceeds quickly or is delayed by additional legal maneuvering. The outcome will shape both government liabilities and how aggressively future administrations pursue tariff strategies.
| TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS |
— Cartel leader killing sparks freight disruptions across Western Mexico
Violence following the death of CJNG chief rattles highways, ports, and cross-border supply chains
The confirmed killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (“El Mencho”), leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), triggered a rapid wave of retaliatory violence across western Mexico, creating immediate logistical headaches for shippers moving goods between Asia, Mexico, and the U.S.
Within hours of the military operation, authorities reported armed clashes, vehicle burnings, and coordinated “narco-blockades” across multiple states — including Jalisco, Michoacán, Colima, and Guanajuato — disrupting key highway arteries and prompting heightened security measures.
Port and transportation disruptions. Western Mexico quickly became the focal point for supply-chain concern, particularly around the Port of Manzanillo, one of the country’s most important gateways for Asian container imports.
• Authorities initially announced a temporary suspension of activities at the port, creating confusion among shippers.
• Later statements clarified that operations had resumed normally, though security was reinforced and conditions remained fluid.
This back-and-forth messaging added uncertainty for cargo owners managing automotive parts, electronics, and industrial inputs flowing inland toward Guadalajara and manufacturing corridors.
Freight market impact: “significant disruption.” Logistics operators on the ground described conditions as highly volatile. Veronica Gonzalez, who leads Mexico operations for brokerage giant C.H. Robinson, said the situation represented a major disruption to freight:
Road blockades cut off key freight corridors linking Manzanillo to Guadalajara, tightening truck capacity as carriers hesitated to operate in risk zones.
Key points reported by logistics providers:
• Freight still moving on primary routes toward Laredo and El Paso — but anything tied to western Mexico likely delayed.
• Trucking capacity tightened rapidly as drivers avoided high-risk areas.
• Brokers expected delays at least through the early part of the week while rerouting freight where possible.
Highway safety and industry warnings. Mexico’s National Chamber of Freight Transportation (CANACAR) urged drivers to prioritize safety and shelter in secure locations until conditions stabilize, warning that prolonged highway disruptions could affect food, fuel, medicine, and industrial supply flows.
This carries significant implications for North American trade because:
• Mexico is the U.S.’ top trading partner by total goods flow.
• Cross-border lanes such as Laredo, El Paso, Pharr, and Otay Mesa depend on reliable inland freight movement.
• Even when border crossings remain open, bottlenecks farther south can ripple northward and slow just-in-time manufacturing shipments.
What U.S. shippers should watch. Logistics managers are closely monitoring several pressure points:
1. Inland container flows
Cargo leaving Manzanillo toward Guadalajara remains the most vulnerable leg.
2. Manufacturing freight
Plants across Jalisco, Michoacán, and Colima face risk of supply or outbound delays.
3. Capacity and insurance dynamics
Carriers may continue limiting exposure in affected regions, tightening available truckload capacity.
4. Potential spillover to Texas crossings
If inland congestion builds, northbound freight queues could emerge at Laredo or El Paso.
Near-Term Outlook: For now, freight brokers are emphasizing contingency planning rather than complete shipment shutdowns. If violence stabilizes quickly, disruptions may remain localized and short-lived. However:
Extended blockades or expanded federal security operations could interrupt just-in-time auto and electronics supply chains feeding U.S. plants. The situation remains fluid, with operators warning it is evolving hour by hour.
| WEATHER |
— NWS outlook: Record warmth across the Southwest, while Arctic air begins to filter southward behind a strong cold front passage… …Light snow will fall across the northern Plains and Upper Midwest through the day… …The West Coast, Southern Plains, and the Sunshine State will see rain and thunderstorm chances for this weekend.
