Trump/Xi Summit Postponed Five to Six Weeks; Both Sides Downplay Tensions
FOMC decision day, presser and projections | E15 | Iran update | Fertilizer | False disease rumors debunked — NCBA urges reliance on verified animal health information | U.S. producer prices surge in February
| LINKS |
Link: Mexico Pivots to Meat Exports as U.S. Border Closure
Reshapes Cattle Trade
Link: EPA RFS Decision Nears as White House Engagement Intensifies
Ahead of Potential Friday, March 27 Rollout
Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, March 15
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, March 15
| Updates: Policy/News/Markets, March 18, 2026 |
| UP FRONT |
TOP STORIES
— Trump/Xi summit postponed five to six weeks: Washington and Beijing say the delay is logistical, not political, and are trying to calm worries about any near-term trade or diplomatic fallout.
— Canada falls behind in USMCA talks: USTR Greer says Mexico is moving faster than Canada ahead of the July 1 review, raising pressure on Ottawa as Trump weighs tariff leverage.
— Gasoline and diesel prices surge: U.S. fuel prices are climbing sharply, with diesel above $5 a gallon, threatening to raise transportation, farm, and consumer costs across the economy.
— Year-round E15 could lift ethanol and corn demand: A Southern Ag Today analysis says nationwide E15 could materially boost ethanol use and corn demand, but the outlook still hinges on Congress and regulators.
— RFS Set 2 rule enters final review phase: OMB meetings are intensifying ahead of EPA’s end-of-March deadline, putting biofuel volumes and compliance rules in focus for energy and agriculture markets.
— U.S. pushes back on Chinese role in Brazil port auction: Washington is signaling security concerns over Chinese participation in the Santos terminal bid, turning the project into another U.S./China strategic flashpoint.
— Hormuz disruption broadens beyond oil: The Strait crisis is now threatening fertilizer, LNG, and broader agricultural input flows, widening the economic fallout from the Iran conflict.
FINANCIAL MARKETS
— Global stocks mixed as Fed decision looms: International equities were mostly higher, but U.S. futures were pressured by hot inflation data and elevated oil prices.
— Producer prices jump in February: Stronger-than-expected PPI reinforced inflation concerns and strengthened the case for the Fed to stay on hold.
— Fed expected to hold rates steady: Markets see almost no chance of a rate move, with attention centered on the statement, dot plot, and Powell’s view of war-related economic risks.
— Tuesday U.S. equities closed modestly higher: The Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 all posted gains heading into the Fed decision.
— FOMC preview centers on 2026 cuts: Markets are focused less on today’s rate decision than on whether the Fed preserves expectations for one cut next year.
— Oil shock revives recession fears: Economists warn that if crude stays elevated long enough, higher energy costs could squeeze consumers, keep inflation hot, and raise 2026 recession risk.
AG MARKETS
— USDA reports soybean meal sale: USDA announced a daily export sale of 120,000 metric tons of soybean cake and meal to unknown destinations for 2026/27.
— Cheap global wheat pressures U.S. market: Rumors of Florida mill imports and lower-priced European wheat are weighing on sentiment, though Southern Plains dryness remains a support risk.
— NCBA rebuts Texas cattle disease rumors: Industry leaders say reports of a new feedlot disease are false and warn misinformation can damage producers and consumer confidence.
— USDA export reporting system transition nears: USDA will replace its legacy export sales platform on March 26, putting exporters on a tight timetable to shift systems.
— Tuesday ag futures were mixed: Corn was flat, soybeans and cattle were higher, while wheat contracts ended lower.
FERTILIZER
— Moroccan fertilizer duties remain beyond presidential reach: The phosphate duties are countervailing duties governed by trade remedy law, meaning Trump cannot simply remove them by emergency order.
POULTRY POLICY
— USDA seeks to delay Biden-era poultry rule: The department wants to push implementation to the end of 2027, citing major compliance costs and unresolved legal and policy concerns.
ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY
— Oil eases Wednesday on Iraq export restart: Renewed flows through Ceyhan offered some relief, but Hormuz-related war risks are still keeping crude elevated.
— Oil surged Tuesday on Iran supply threats: Attacks tied to Iran and disruption near Fujairah intensified fears of deeper supply losses and kept volatility high.
TRADE POLICY
— U.S. may broaden steel tariff exemptions: EU trade chief Bernd Lange says Greer signaled that more downstream steel items could be excluded from Section 232 tariffs as talks continue.
CONGRESS
— Wednesday policy calendar is packed: Hearings on foreign policy, China’s pharma role, health costs, and the Fed decision headline the day.
— Klobuchar and Raskin target antitrust settlements: New legislation would tighten court review and transparency after backlash to DOJ’s Live Nation deal.
POLITICS & ELECTIONS
— Stratton wins Illinois Democratic Senate primary: The lieutenant governor defeated two House Democrats and now enters the general election as the clear favorite in a blue state.
— No clear Democratic wave yet in 2026: Charlie Cook argues Republicans are vulnerable, but the small number of competitive House seats may limit losses to something short of a historic blowout.
FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY
— SNAP retailer rule nears release: Small stores and rural advocates warn tougher stocking requirements could force some retailers out of the program and reduce food access.
— RFK Jr. junk-food definition could trigger lawsuits: HHS is expected to define ultra-processed or “junk” food through a policy statement, but legal and industry fights are likely.
TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS
— Iran conflict throws shipping into chaos: Freight costs are surging, containers are being rerouted or stranded, and Hormuz disruption is turning logistics into a costly, unstable mess.
WEATHER
— NWS flags major weather extremes: An early western heat wave is building, while freezing temperatures linger in the East and mixed precipitation affects parts of the Midwest and Great Lakes.
— Historic March heat threatens the West: An unusually intense heat dome could shatter records, accelerate snowmelt, strain water supplies, and worsen early wildfire risk.
| TOP STORIES—Trump/Xi summit postponed five to six weeks; both sides downplay tensionsWhite House and Beijing signal continued engagement as markets ease concerns over trade fallout President Donald Trump has confirmed that his planned March 31–April 2 summit in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping will be delayed by roughly five to six weeks, with both governments emphasizing the move is logistical — not political. Speaking at the White House, Trump said the meeting is being “reset,” adding that China was “fine with it” and that a new date is expected within the next month or so. No specific rescheduled timeline has yet been announced. Administration officials moved quickly to tamp down speculation that the delay reflects friction in U.S./China relations. U.S. Trade Representative Jaimeson Greer stated that the postponement “has no relation to the trade and economic talks at all,” underscoring that negotiations remain ongoing as both sides coordinate a new date. (Some commodity traders and analysts, likely pimping their short position, have tried to say this situation signals friction in U.S./China relations and that the summit may not be held —speculation denied by the White House and in Chinese statements.) Beijing echoed Trump’s message. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the two countries will “maintain communication” regarding the visit, emphasizing that leader-level engagement plays an “irreplaceable strategic leading role” in bilateral relations. The aligned messaging from Washington and Beijing appears to have reassured markets and commodity stakeholders, particularly in speculation-happy agriculture. Concerns that a canceled or contentious summit could disrupt Chinese demand for U.S. farm exports — especially soybeans and feed grains — have eased, at least temporarily. Of note: The U.S. told China that opening Strait of Hormuz is in its interest, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says in an interview. The topic came up briefly during the latest round of talks in Paris earlier this week, Greer says. Still, the delay injects a degree of uncertainty into the near-term diplomatic calendar. The Trump/Xi meeting is widely viewed as a key inflection point for trade policy direction, including tariff frameworks, purchase commitments, and broader economic coordination between the world’s two largest economies.—Canada falls behind in USMCA talks as review deadline approachesGreer signals Mexico advancing faster, while Trump weighs leverage ahead of July review U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Fox Business that negotiations with Canada are lagging behind progress made with Mexico as the Trump administration ramps up preparations for the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Speaking Wednesday, Greer emphasized that while talks with Canada are ongoing, “we’ve moved along with Mexico,” underscoring a growing imbalance in trilateral engagement ahead of a critical July 1 review milestone. Review structure adds pressure — and leverage. The USMCA, which runs through 2036, includes a built-in review mechanism requiring the three countries to assess the agreement’s performance starting this year. If no consensus is reached to extend the pact, annual reviews will follow, and any party retains the option to withdraw with six months’ notice. Trump leverage. That structure is increasingly relevant as Donald Trump has privately weighed the possibility of exiting the agreement altogether — a move that would inject significant uncertainty into North American trade flows. While Greer noted that parts of the deal “function fine,” the administration is pushing for expanded U.S. market access in key sectors, suggesting targeted pressure points rather than a full renegotiation. Canada signaling flexibility, but tensions linger. Canadian officials, including Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc, have struck a more measured tone. LeBlanc said he is “not pessimistic” about the review process and expects more limited, targeted adjustments rather than a wholesale rewrite of the pact. However, tensions remain. Talks on a potential bilateral U.S.–Canada deal to ease sectoral tariffs — including on steel, aluminum, autos, and lumber — were previously halted by Trump after a dispute tied to an Ontario-sponsored anti-tariff advertisement.Tariffs and exemptions remain central. Despite broader trade tensions, USMCA continues to shield most North American trade from the administration’s global tariff actions. Still, sector-specific tariffs — particularly on autos, steel, aluminum, and lumber — remain in place and continue to raise costs across integrated supply chains. Bottom Line: With Mexico advancing more quickly in negotiations and Canada lagging, the July USMCA review is shaping up as a key inflection point. The administration appears poised to use both the agreement’s review clause and ongoing tariff pressure as leverage — raising the stakes for Canada as it works to catch up in talks and avoid disruptions to North American trade integration.—The national average gas price was $3.842 per gallon on Wednesday morning, which is a 31.4% increase from the previous month. On Sunday, Gas Buddy’s Head of Petroleum Analysis, Patrick De Haan warned that gas prices will “inch closer to a $4/gal national average” this week. The national average price of diesel stood at $5.068 on Wednesday morning, after breaching the $5 mark on Tuesday. The diesel price spike is expected to affect prices across the economy, as it is the primary fuel for heavy vehicles such as trucks, tractors, combines, and construction machinery. Everything from groceries to shipping prices is likely to go up.—Year-round E15 could reshape ethanol demand — but timing and policy uncertainty remainSouthern Ag Today analysis highlights how expanded E15 access could boost corn demand, even as long-term gasoline consumption declines A new analysis (link) by J. Mark Welch, published in Southern Ag Today, outlines how year-round E15 adoption could materially increase U.S. ethanol consumption and corn demand — even as structural declines in gasoline use create long-term headwinds. Policy backdrop: momentum, but no nationwide resolution yet. E15 — gasoline blended with 15% ethanol — remains restricted during summer months under current Environmental Protection Agency rules, though annual emergency waivers have allowed seasonal sales since 2019.• A regional fix is already underway: eight Midwestern states will have permanent summer E15 access starting in 2025.• A national solution remains unresolved: Congress missed a February deadline to introduce legislation enabling permanent year-round E15 sales nationwide.• A Congressional task force is still expected to advance proposals, but timing remains uncertain. Bottom Line: Regulatory inconsistency continues to limit long-term investment certainty for ethanol producers and fuel retailers. Corn-for-ethanol: already a dominant demand driver. Welch underscores just how critical ethanol has become to the corn balance sheet:• 2005/06: 1.6 billion bushels (14% of crop) used for fuel• 2025/26: 5.6 billion bushels (~33% of production) Ethanol is now the second-largest use category for U.S. corn, making any shift in fuel policy highly consequential for farm income and land values. Structural headwind: declining gasoline demand. According to projections from the Energy Information Administration:• Gasoline demand peaked at 143 billion gallons (2018)• Expected to fall to 135 billion gallons (2026)• Further decline to 111 billion gallons by 2035 If ethanol blending stays near today’s ~10.4%:• Ethanol consumption would fall from 14.2B gallons → 11.5B gallons• That implies roughly a 1-billion-bushel reduction in corn demand Key tension: Efficiency gains and EV adoption are shrinking the total fuel pool ethanol blends into. USDA vs. EIA outlook: flat vs. declining demand. Welch highlights a divergence in baseline assumptions:• USDA projects steady corn-for-ethanol use at 5.6 billion bushels through 2035• This stability is driven by rising ethanol exports, which have grown from:1.2B gallons (2016) → 2.2B gallons (2025) Interpretation: Export growth is expected to offset domestic gasoline decline — but that assumption depends heavily on global policy and trade conditions. E15 scenario: a major demand accelerator. If E15 adoption expands nationwide and blending rates rise to 15% over five years:• Ethanol consumption could jump to ~19 billion gallons by 2030• Then moderate slightly to ~18 billion gallons by 2035 Corn demand impact:• +1 billion bushels above baseline by 2028• +2 billion bushels by 2030• +1.7 billion bushels by 2035 This would represent a structural expansion in corn demand, reversing what would otherwise be a decline under E10. Market implications: stability vs. uncertainty. Welch emphasizes that policy certainty is the critical variable: Year-round E15 would:• Encourage infrastructure investment (blending, storage, retail)• Expand consumer familiarity and adoption• Provide a lower-cost fuel option, supporting demand For farmers:• Expands a core demand pillar• Supports price stability amid volatile global markets• Reinforces long-term acreage and productivity growth Bottom Line: The Southern Ag Today analysis makes clear:• Without E15 expansion → ethanol demand likely declines with gasoline use• With nationwide E15 → corn demand could increase materially, offsetting structural energy trends The swing factor is policy. Until Congress or regulators provide a permanent nationwide framework, ethanol markets — and by extension corn markets — remain caught between long-term demand erosion and policy-driven upside potential. —OMB review intensifies as RFS Set 2 Rule nears deadlineStakeholder meetings accelerate ahead of EPA’s late-March finalization pledge The final stretch of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Set 2 Rule review is underway, with a packed schedule of stakeholder meetings at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ahead of a court-imposed deadline. Between now and March 24, eight meetings are scheduled involving a wide cross-section of biofuel, petroleum, environmental, and agricultural stakeholders. Sessions include: • March 18 — American Petroleum Institute and Sustainable Advanced Biofuel Refiners Coalition• March 19 — National Farmers Union and Phillips 66•March 23 — Center for Biological Diversity and OPAL Fuels• March 24 — Advanced Biofuel Association and National Restaurant Association The meetings underscore the broad economic and political stakes of the rule, which will set renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for 2026–2027 and shape demand for corn-based ethanol, biodiesel, and advanced biofuels. The Environmental Protection Agency has committed in court filings to finalize the rule by the end of March, keeping pressure on regulators to complete OMB review on time. At the same time, a White House event — reportedly planned for March 27 and focused on producers of “food, fiber, and fuel” — signals the administration is preparing to roll out the final policy with strong agricultural and biofuel messaging. However, there is some uncertainty around the process. Historically, not all scheduled OMB meetings are ultimately held, and past biofuel rulemakings have concluded before every stakeholder session took place. That leaves open the possibility that the review could wrap early if consensus — or sufficient political alignment — is reached. Bottom Line: The RFS Set 2 rule is entering its final phase, with competing pressure from refiners, biofuel producers, farmers, and environmental groups converging just days before EPA’s self-imposed deadline—making the final volume targets and compliance structure a key market-moving decision for both energy and agriculture. —Washington moves to block Chinese bid in Brazil’s largest port auctionU.S. flags security and strategic concerns as Santos megaterminal becomes focal point in global infrastructure rivalry The United States is signaling strong opposition to Chinese participation in Brazil’s upcoming auction for the Tecon Santos 10 container terminal — a multibillion-dollar project at Latin America’s largest port — underscoring how infrastructure deals are increasingly tied to geopolitical competition. U.S. Consul-General in São Paulo Kevin Murakami told Brazilian port executives the project should not fall into “unwanted hands,” widely interpreted as a warning against a Chinese bidder. The U.S. later confirmed concerns centered on sovereignty, security, competition, and strategic leverage, while denying direct pressure on Brazil’s decision. The Santos project is a major strategic asset — a 25-year concession requiring roughly $1.1 billion in investment and expected to significantly expand Brazil’s container capacity. Its scale and location make it critical not just commercially, but also in terms of regional logistics control and trade flows. China has shown clear interest. State-linked firms including Cosco Shipping and China Merchants Port have actively pursued participation, even challenging Brazilian bidding rules that could exclude major shipping lines. Beijing has already expanded its footprint in Latin American ports, adding to U.S. concerns about long-term influence over trade corridors. The dispute reflects a broader pattern: Washington has increasingly pushed back on Chinese port investments across the region — from Peru’s Chancay terminal to prior tensions over Panama Canal facilities — viewing them as potential extensions of China’s geopolitical reach. Brazil, meanwhile, is balancing competing pressures. Regulators have adjusted auction rules multiple times, including proposals to exclude existing operators and major shipping lines from early bidding rounds — moves that have drawn legal threats and delayed the tender into the second half of 2026. With no U.S. firms expected to bid, the outcome will hinge on how Brazil weighs investment needs against geopolitical risk, making the Santos auction a key test case for infrastructure competition between Washington and Beijing in Latin America. —Trump owns the Strait crisis — fertilizer, gas flows now at riskProlonged Hormuz disruption expands beyond oil, threatening global ag inputs and energy markets Analysis from the Financial Times underscores a growing reality in global markets: with the Strait of Hormuz still partially closed amid escalating conflict with Iran, the disruption is no longer just an oil story — it is rapidly becoming a broader supply shock hitting natural gas liquids and fertilizers critical to global agriculture. The publication frames the situation bluntly — President Donald Trump now “owns” the economic consequences of the crisis, as his administration’s strategic and military posture in the region becomes inseparable from the unfolding market fallout. Energy choke point now hitting agriculture. Roughly a fifth of global oil flows through Hormuz, but the Financial Times emphasizes that the waterway is equally vital for:• Liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments — particularly from Qatar• Ammonia and urea exports — key nitrogen fertilizer inputs• Petrochemical feedstocks tied to global manufacturing and plastics With tanker traffic constrained and insurance premiums surging, shipments of these products are slowing or rerouting — raising immediate concerns about fertilizer availability and pricing ahead of key planting seasons. For agriculture, this is a critical escalation:• Nitrogen fertilizer production is heavily dependent on natural gas• Gulf producers are among the lowest-cost global suppliers• Any sustained disruption risks tightening global supply and lifting input costs Market spillovers widening. While crude prices have surged above $100/barrel in recent sessions, the Financial Times highlights that second-order effects may prove more economically damaging:• Fertilizer price spikes could pressure farm margins globally• Food inflation risks rise if input costs feed through to production• Emerging markets dependent on imported fertilizers face acute vulnerability Shipping constraints are also compounding the issue. War-risk premiums for vessels transiting the Gulf have surged, discouraging traffic even when routes remain technically open. Policy accountability shifts to Washington. The Financial Times argument is ultimately political as much as economic: by escalating confrontation with Iran and contributing to instability in the Gulf, the Trump administration is now directly tied to the downstream consequences. That includes:• Energy price volatility feeding into U.S. inflation• Fertilizer-driven cost pressures on U.S. farmers• Broader risks to global economic stability The phrase “you break it, you own it” reflects a shift in market psychology — where geopolitical decisions are now being priced directly into commodities, shipping, and agricultural inputs. Bottom Line: What began as an oil supply shock is evolving into a multi-commodity disruption with direct implications for agriculture. If Hormuz constraints persist, the next phase of this crisis will likely be felt less at the pump — and more in fertilizer markets, crop input costs, and ultimately global food prices. |
| FINANCIAL MARKETS |
—Equities today: Global markets were higher as retreating crude prices boosted sentiment, while investors awaited interest rate decisions from the U.S. Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada. Dow futures tumbled 200 points as hot inflation reading and higher oil pressure markets.
In Asia, Japan +2.9%. Hong Kong +0.6%. China +0.3%. India +0.8%.
In Europe, at midday, London +0.3%. Paris +1%. Frankfurt +0.8%.
—U.S. producer prices surge in February. U.S. producer prices rose 0.7% in February, the largest increase in seven months and well above the forecasted 0.3%. Annually, the PPI climbed 3.4%, the highest in a year and exceeding expectations of 2.9%. Core producer prices also increased 0.5% mom and 3.9% yoy, surpassing market forecasts. Overall foods increased by 2.4% after falling 1.4% in January. The data provides yet another piece of data pointing to inflationary concerns that will keep the Fed on hold relative to interest rates.
—The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) concludes its meeting today — the first rate-setting decision since the onset of the Middle East war — with markets overwhelmingly expecting no change in policy. The Fed is widely anticipated to maintain the federal funds rate target range at 3.5% to 3.75%, with the CME FedWatch tool assigning a 99% probability to a hold ahead of this morning’s wholesale inflation (PPI-FD) data release. (See next item for an FOMC preview.)
Attention will center on the post-meeting statement for any signals regarding the future path of interest rates, particularly how policymakers assess the economic implications of the Middle East conflict and incorporate that uncertainty into their outlook.
The meeting will also include updated projections in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), including the closely watched “dot plot,” which reflects where Fed officials expect the policy rate to stand by the end of 2026. These projections will offer further insight into the anticipated trajectory of monetary policy through the remainder of the year. Prior to the latest inflation data, CME FedWatch indicated expectations for just one rate cut in 2026.
All eyes will also be on Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose press conference is expected to reinforce that policy decisions remain data-dependent and not on a preset course. His characterization of internal Fed discussions and the risks tied to geopolitical uncertainty will be critical for shaping market expectations.
Today’s outcome will also set the stage for the April 8 release of the FOMC meeting minutes, which should provide additional detail on policymakers’ views and the evolving policy debate within the U.S. central bank.
—Equities yesterday:
| Equity Index | Closing Price March 17 | Point Difference from March 16 | % Difference from March 16 |
| Dow | 46,993.26 | +46.85 | +0.10% |
| Nasdaq | 22,479.53 | +105.35 | +0.47% |
| S&P 500 | 6,716.09 | +16.71 | +0.25% |
—FOMC preview — Markets key on 2026 rate-cut signal as oil shock complicates outlook
Sevens Report: Fed expected to hold steady, with “dots” and forward guidance driving market reaction
Today’s FOMC decision is viewed as a high-impact market event despite near certainty of no rate change, with investor focus squarely on how the Federal Reserve signals the path for 2026 rate cuts, according to the Sevens Report.
No rate move — communication is everything. The Fed is not expected to change interest rates, meaning market direction will hinge on two key communication tools:
1) The dot plot (rate projections)
2) The policy statement language, particularly around risks and forward guidance
Markets currently expect one additional rate cut in 2026, and confirmation of that baseline is critical to avoiding renewed volatility.
What markets want to see
• Median 2026 dot unchanged, signaling one rate cut
• Continued language that the Fed is monitoring “both sides” of risks (growth vs. inflation)
• Forward guidance maintaining a bias toward when — not if — cuts occur
If these conditions are met, the Sevens Report expects a modest “relief rally”, with equities led by cyclicals and tech, while yields and the dollar drift slightly lower .
Oil shock limits policy flexibility. The escalating Iran conflict and elevated oil prices are not expected to materially alter this meeting’s outcome, but they reinforce a “wait-and-see” stance from the Fed as policymakers assess whether energy-driven inflation proves persistent.
This underscores a key dynamic:
• Higher oil → inflation risk rises
• But Fed reaction → delayed until price trends stabilize
Hawkish vs. dovish scenarios. The Sevens Report outlines clear market implications depending on how the Fed deviates from expectations:
Hawkish outcome (negative for markets):
• No projected rate cuts in 2026 (higher median dot)
• Shift in statement toward inflation risks
• Forward guidance implying extended policy hold
→ Likely result: Equity selloff, higher yields, stronger dollar
Dovish outcome (positive for markets):
• More Fed officials signaling support for cuts
→ Likely result: Broad equity rally, falling yields, weaker dollar, strong gold
Bottom Line: Even without a rate move, this FOMC meeting carries outsized market significance because it will either:
• Reinforce expectations for 2026 easing, supporting risk assets
• Or undermine the rate-cut narrative, adding downside pressure to equities
The importance of the FOMC minutes that will arrive April 8 cannot be understated if there are few clear policy signals from the FOMC meeting conclusion Wednesday. Those will potentially provide more insight into the level and scope of debate that helped shape the post-meeting statement. They will also be looked to confirm comments from Fed Chair Powell who often provides some insight into the discussions taking place during the two-day meeting that typically are backed up or expanded on in the minutes. For oil, duration and level of prices are obviously the keys for the potential economic impact.
As the Sevens Report emphasizes, the Fed’s guidance on future cuts — not current policy — will determine whether this meeting acts as a tailwind or headwind for markets
—Rising oil shock reignites recession fears
Economists warn Iran conflict could tip U.S. economy if energy spike persists
A surge in global oil prices driven by the Iran conflict is intensifying recession concerns across Wall Street, with economists warning that sustained energy inflation — rather than short-term spikes — could push the U.S. economy into contraction over the next year.
Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi said a recession is “once again a serious threat,” estimating a 49% probability of a downturn within 12 months, citing weakening labor market conditions alongside rising energy costs. Historically, nearly every U.S. recession since World War II has been preceded by an oil price shock, underscoring the current risk backdrop.
Crude prices have already moved sharply higher, with Brent topping $102 per barrel and WTI above $95, reflecting supply disruptions tied to tensions in the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for roughly 20% of global oil flows.
Price thresholds that could trigger recession. Economists broadly agree the duration and magnitude of the oil spike will determine economic fallout:
•$130/barrel (Wells Fargo) — Sustained levels could force consumers to cut spending and push businesses to reduce hiring
•$140/barrel (Oxford Economics) — Two months at this level, combined with tight financial conditions, could trigger a mild global recession
• $150/barrel (Vanguard) — Persistent prices at this level, alongside higher rates and weaker asset prices, could tip the U.S. into recession
More extreme scenarios are also emerging. Analysts and regional officials warn oil could reach $150–$200 per barrel if Iran significantly disrupts shipping through Hormuz, with Goldman Sachs noting current disruptions may already exceed the market impact seen after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Inflation and Fed policy complicate outlook. The energy shock is hitting an economy already facing inflation and labor market concerns:
• Energy prices: Up 11.5% year-over-year through late 2025
• Fuel oil: Up 11.1% in early 2026, the fastest-rising consumer category
•Labor market: U.S. lost 92,000 jobs in February, unemployment rising to 4.4%
Higher energy costs risk re-accelerating inflation, potentially limiting the Federal Reserve’s ability to cut rates — a key support for growth markets are currently counting on.
Not all economists see an immediate downturn. Despite the warnings, there is still a meaningful counterview:
• The Federal Reserve has noted the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient and resilient than in past decades
• Analysts at Vanguard and Wells Fargo emphasize that a short-lived oil spike alone is unlikely to trigger a recession
Bottom Line: The macro risk is no longer just the level of oil prices — it is how long they stay elevated. A prolonged disruption in energy markets tied to the Iran conflict could simultaneously:
• Squeeze consumer spending
• Raise business costs
• Keep inflation elevated
• Delay Fed easing
That combination — rather than any single factor — is what economists increasingly see as the pathway to a potential 2026 recession.
| AG MARKETS |
—USDA daily export sale: 120,000 MT soybean cake and meal to unknown for 2026/27.
—Global discounts and import rumors pressure U.S. wheat outlook
Cheaper European supplies, Southern Plains dryness, and soft global pricing weigh on market sentiment
Wheat markets are navigating a mix of bearish global pricing signals and tightening domestic weather risks, creating a complex near-term outlook.
A key market rumor circulating is that a mill in Tampa, Florida, has purchased Northern European hard wheat — a notable development that underscores the growing competitiveness of non-U.S. supplies. While unconfirmed, such chatter reflects a broader reality: global wheat prices are trading at a significant discount to U.S. offers, making imports into traditionally domestic-consuming regions more economically viable.
That price gap has become a central pressure point. European and Black Sea-origin wheat continues to undercut U.S. export values, limiting demand for U.S. wheat on the global stage and, increasingly, opening the door for imports into U.S. coastal markets when freight economics align.
Meanwhile, weather remains a counterbalance. The Southern Plains — a critical region for hard red winter wheat — continues to face persistent dryness. Soil moisture deficits are raising concerns about yield potential as the crop moves toward key development stages this spring.
This divergence is creating a tug-of-war in the market:
• Bearish factor: Abundant and cheaper global wheat supplies, particularly from Europe, eroding U.S. competitiveness
•Bullish factor: Ongoing drought stress in the Southern Plains threatening production prospects
For now, global price pressure appears to be dominating sentiment, but the market remains highly sensitive to any deterioration in U.S. crop conditions. If dryness intensifies or expands, it could quickly shift the narrative and provide support to futures.
In the near term, traders will be closely watching both export flows — including any confirmation of U.S. import activity — and updated weather patterns across the Plains as the next directional drivers.
—False disease rumors debunked — NCBA urges reliance on verified animal health information
Industry leaders warn misinformation threatens producer livelihoods and consumer confidence
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is pushing back against online rumors alleging a new or unknown animal disease in a Texas Panhandle feedlot, calling the claims unequivocally false.
NCBA CEO Colin Woodall said federal and state animal health officials — including USDA and Texas authorities — have confirmed there is no evidence of any such disease. Industry groups, including the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, have also verified the absence of a health threat.
Woodall emphasized that spreading unverified information can have serious consequences, undermining cattle producers, disrupting the beef supply chain, and eroding consumer trust in the safety of U.S. beef.
He underscored that the cattle industry relies on transparency, science-based animal health protocols, and close coordination with regulatory agencies to maintain herd health and food safety standards.
NCBA is urging producers, media, and the public to rely on credible, verified sources for information, noting that the organization and its state partners remain in close contact with animal health officials to monitor any legitimate concerns.
—Reminder: USDA transitions to new export sales reporting system
ESRQS launch set for March 26 as legacy system sunsets, exporters face tight transition window
USDA is moving forward with a full transition to its new Export Sales Reporting and Query System (ESRQS), with the platform officially launching on Thursday, March 26, 2026, replacing the long-running Export Reporting and Maintenance System (ESRMS).
The shift marks a significant modernization of how U.S. agricultural export sales data are reported, accessed, and analyzed — with implications for exporters, analysts, and weekly market transparency.
What’s changing
•ESRMS shutdown: The current system will go offline around midday Monday, March 23
•ESRQS go-live: New system opens for data entry Thursday, March 26 (10:00 a.m. ET)
• Mandatory use: Exporters must begin submitting weekly export data through ESRQS immediately upon launch
•Public access unchanged: Analysts and data users can still access reports, query tools, and APIs without logging in
Transition logistics and USDA assurances. USDA indicates the transition has been structured to minimize disruption:
•Full data migration: All outstanding sales and historical export data will be transferred into ESRQS
•System validation: USDA testing confirms ESRQS reports match those generated under ESRMS
•Pre-launch support: Agencies will distribute the official system URL ahead of deployment
• Training available: Exporters can access support via email, Microsoft Teams sessions, and recorded tutorials (Link)
Key deadlines exporters must meet. To avoid reporting gaps:
Final ESRMS reporting:
• All data for the week ending March 19 must be entered by 12:00 p.m. ET on March 23
Initial ESRQS reporting window:
• Opens: March 26 (10:00 a.m. ET)
• Closes: March 31 (12:00 p.m. ET)
USDA is strongly encouraging exporters to submit data early in the new system to allow time for troubleshooting.
Required preparation steps. USDA is urging exporters to complete several actions ahead of launch:
• Register for ESRQS access (if not already completed) (link)
• Review training materials to understand updated workflows
• Use the test environment to practice data entry and system navigation (link) (link)
Bottom Line: The ESRQS rollout is a critical infrastructure upgrade for USDA export reporting — but the compressed transition window puts pressure on exporters to meet deadlines and quickly adapt to the new system.
Timely compliance will be essential to maintain the integrity of weekly export sales reports, which remain a cornerstone indicator for commodity markets and global trade flows.
—Agriculture markets yesterday:
| Commodity | Contract Month | Closing Price Mar 17 | Change from Mar 16 |
| Corn | May | $4.54 | 0 |
| Soybeans | May | $11.57 | +1 3/4¢ |
| Soybean Meal | May | $311.70 | -$0.50 |
| Soybean Oil | May | 65.97¢ | +203 pts |
| SRW Wheat | May | $5.89 3/4 | -7 1/2¢ |
| HRW Wheat | May | $6.06 3/4 | -9 3/4¢ |
| Spring Wheat | May | $6.24 1/4 | -9 3/4¢ |
| Cotton | May | 68.77¢ | +58 pts |
| Live Cattle | April | $235.225 | +1.975 |
| Feeder Cattle | March | $359.80 | +4.35 |
| Lean Hogs | April | $93.725 | +22 1/2¢ |
| FERTILIZER |
—U.S. duties on Moroccan fertilizer and limits of presidential authority
Trade remedy law — not emergency powers — governs whether phosphate fertilizer tariffs stay or go
The debate over U.S. fertilizer costs has intensified as lawmakers, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urge the White House to use “emergency powers” to remove tariffs on imports. But in the case of Moroccan phosphate fertilizer, the legal reality is clear: these duties are not discretionary tariffs the president can simply turn off.
The current duty structure: a trade remedy, not a policy tariff. The United States imposed countervailing duties (CVDs) on phosphate fertilizer imports from Morocco in 2021 after finding that producers benefited from government subsidies that harmed U.S. industry.
Initial duty rate: 19.97% on Morocco’s OCP Group. The duties were imposed following a joint determination by:
• The Department of Commerce (subsidy finding)
• The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) (injury finding)
These duties are legally binding trade remedies, not general tariffs like those imposed under Section 232 or Section 301.
Over time, rates have fluctuated through administrative reviews and litigation, but the underlying order remains in place.
Most recent administrative review (baseline “cash deposit” rate)
•~16.8% countervailing duty. Applies to Moroccan phosphate fertilizer imports today (for recent review period). This is the rate importers are generally paying now at the border
Now under review: the five-year “sunset” process. Under U.S. law, CVD orders must be revisited every five years. That process is now underway:
• The ITC formally initiated a five-year review in March 2026
• The review determines whether removing the duties would likely lead to:
- Continued subsidies, and
- Continued injury to U.S. producers
If both are found likely, the duties remain in place; if not, they are revoked.
This review is not optional — it is required under statute — and it will ultimately determine whether Moroccan fertilizer duties continue.
Timeline for the review decision: late summer to early fall, according to USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden.
Why the president cannot remove the duties. Despite political pressure, the president — including Donald Trump — does not have unilateral authority to lift these duties.
1. Statutory delegation to Commerce and ITC. The Tariff Act of 1930 assigns authority over CVDs to:
• Commerce (calculating subsidy rates)
• ITC (determining injury)
These are quasi-judicial determinations, not policy choices.
2. No emergency override mechanism. Authorities often cited in trade debates — such as:
• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
• Section 232 (national security tariffs)
• Section 301 (unfair trade practices)
These do not apply to CVD orders. There is no provision allowing the president to override or terminate a CVD order via executive action, even in an economic emergency.
3. Courts reinforce the rules-based system. The Moroccan fertilizer case itself has been shaped by:
• Litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade
• Appeals and remand decisions adjusting subsidy calculations
This underscores that:
• CVDs are governed by legal process and judicial review, not executive discretion
What the president can do. While the president cannot directly revoke the duties, the administration still has indirect influence:
• Shape agency priorities at Commerce and the ITC
• Decline to pursue appeals, as seen in March 2026 when the U.S. dropped a related case against Morocco’s OCP
• Signal policy preferences that may influence future administrative reviews
However, none of these steps can immediately eliminate the duties.
Policy tension: farm costs vs. trade law. The political push to remove fertilizer duties reflects real economic pressure:
• Moroccan phosphate is a key global supply source
• Limited imports have contributed to higher fertilizer prices
• Lawmakers argue removal would lower input costs for U.S. farmers
But the legal framework creates a constraint:
• Trade remedy system → slow, rules-based
• Farm economy → needs rapid relief
• That gap is exactly what Grassley and others are highlighting.
Bottom Line: U.S. duties on Moroccan fertilizer stem from a countervailing duty order imposed in 2021. The order is currently under a mandatory five-year review that will determine its future. The president cannot remove these duties through emergency powers or executive order. Only the Commerce Department and ITC — through statutory procedures — can revoke them.
In short, while the White House can influence trade policy broadly, countervailing duties remain one of the clearest limits on presidential authority in the tariff space.
Comparison of U.S. Trade Authorities: Section 301 vs. Countervailing Duties (CVD) vs. Section 232
| Authority | Legal Basis | Purpose | Who Determines | Presidential Flexibility | Example |
| Section 301 | Trade Act of 1974 | Address unfair foreign trade practices | USTR (with presidential direction) | High — can impose, modify, or remove tariffs | China tariffs |
| Countervailing Duties (CVD) | Tariff Act of 1930 | Offset foreign government subsidies | Commerce (subsidy) + ITC (injury) | Low — cannot unilaterally remove; must follow legal process | Moroccan phosphate fertilizer duties |
| Section 232 | Trade Expansion Act of 1962 | Protect national security | Commerce investigation + presidential decision | High — president can adjust or remove tariffs anytime | Steel and aluminum tariffs |
| POULTRY POLICY |
— USDA moves to delay Biden-era poultry rule amid cost concerns
Proposed 18-month delay could save industry billions and reopen broader policy debate
USDA, through its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), is proposing to delay implementation of the Biden-era Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems rule until December 31, 2027, pushing back the original July 1, 2026, start date by 18 months. Link to Federal Register notice.
The rule, finalized in January 2025, imposed new restrictions on how livestock poultry dealers (LPDs) compensate growers, aiming to address fairness concerns in contract poultry production. However, USDA now argues the policy carries substantial economic and legal uncertainties that warrant further review.
Cost concerns drive delay proposal. AMS estimates the rule would impose significant financial burdens across the poultry sector:
• $4.9 billion annually in costs for LPDs during the first four years
• $249,000 per year per grower in additional costs
• Combined first-year industry cost: ~$5.2 billion
By delaying implementation:
•Year 1 savings: ~$5.2 billion
• Year 2 savings: ~$2.5 billion (LPDs) + $125,000 (growers)
• Total projected savings: ~$7.7 billion over two years
USDA noted that one-time setup and compliance preparation costs already incurred would not be affected by the delay.
Policy and legal uncertainty. AMS said the delay would allow for a more thorough evaluation of:
• The rule’s economic justification, given “no quantifiable benefits” identified in the final analysis
• Legal vulnerabilities, particularly around how compensation restrictions are structured
• Broader policy implications for contract poultry markets
The agency considered three options — no delay, a 12-month delay, and the proposed 18-month delay — ultimately favoring the longest timeline.
Congressional and political backdrop. The move aligns with direction from Congress, as the FY 2026 funding package included language encouraging USDA to postpone the rule’s implementation.
More broadly, the proposal reflects a wider push by the Trump administration to revisit and potentially unwind late-stage Biden-era regulations, particularly those affecting agricultural markets and contract systems.
What comes next. While the delay itself does not repeal the rule, it significantly reshapes the timeline and opens the door to:
• Substantive revisions to the rule’s structure
• Possible full reconsideration or replacement
• Continued industry and legal scrutiny
The outcome will depend on USDA’s reassessment of costs, legal risks, and stakeholder input — setting up a potentially major shift in how poultry grower contracts are regulated in the U.S.
| ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY |
—Wednesday: Oil pulls back as Iraq exports resume, but war risks keep market elevated
Ceyhan pipeline restart offers limited relief as Hormuz disruptions, geopolitical escalation, and rising U.S. inventories cap gains
Oil prices edged lower Wednesday as Iraq restarted crude exports through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, offering a modest supply boost to markets strained by ongoing Middle East disruptions.
Brent crude slipped 0.3% to around $103 per barrel, while U.S. WTI fell 1.6% to roughly $94.65, following a sharp rally the previous session.
The decline was driven primarily by Baghdad’s agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government to resume pipeline flows, with initial volumes expected near 100,000 barrels per day. The move signals incremental supply relief at a time when global markets remain tight.
However, the broader supply picture remains severely constrained. Iraq’s production is still running at roughly one-third of pre-conflict levels, with southern output down about 70% earlier this month. Ongoing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for roughly 20% of global oil flows — continue to limit tanker traffic and keep risk premiums elevated.
Geopolitical tensions remain the dominant market driver. Iran’s leadership has rejected de-escalation overtures, while recent U.S. strikes on Iranian coastal missile sites underscore the continued threat to shipping in the Gulf. The killing of a senior Iranian official has further heightened uncertainty, even as some analysts speculate the escalation could accelerate a resolution.
Additional supply-side volatility emerged from Libya, where flows from the Sharara oilfield were rerouted after a fire, highlighting persistent fragility across multiple producing regions.
On the demand and inventory side, U.S. crude stockpiles rose sharply by 6.56 million barrels last week, far exceeding expectations and adding downward pressure to prices.
Bottom Line: While Iraq’s export restart provided a short-term bearish signal, the oil market remains structurally tight. With Brent holding above $100 for a fourth straight session, geopolitical risk — particularly around Hormuz — continues to outweigh incremental supply gains, keeping prices elevated and volatility high.
—Tuesday: Oil surges as Iran strikes deepen supply fears
Fujairah disruption and Strait of Hormuz instability drive renewed volatility in global energy markets
Oil prices climbed sharply Tuesday as escalating Iranian attacks on Middle East energy infrastructure intensified fears of prolonged supply disruptions and tightened global crude availability.
Brent crude settled at $103.42 per barrel, rising $3.21 (3.2%).
U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) closed at $96.21, up $2.71 (2.9%), reflecting a market increasingly pricing in geopolitical risk.
The latest gains followed fresh strikes on the United Arab Emirates, where attacks on the critical export hub at Fujairah forced partial shutdowns of oil loading operations. The facility — located just outside the Strait of Hormuz — serves as a key outlet for regional crude flows, making any disruption there particularly impactful for global supply chains.
Conditions in the Strait of Hormuz remain fragile. While some tanker traffic has resumed, security threats continue to constrain flows, and analysts warn that even limited attacks on shipping or infrastructure could rapidly escalate into broader supply shocks.
Production impacts are already emerging. Reports indicate the UAE has cut oil output by more than half due to logistical constraints tied to the strait’s reduced functionality — a significant development given the country’s role as a major global supplier.
Markets are also reflecting tightening physical supply. Middle East crude benchmarks have surged to record premiums, signaling immediate scarcity and strong competition for available barrels.
Efforts to stabilize markets remain uncertain. The International Energy Agency has indicated it could expand strategic petroleum reserve releases beyond the previously announced 400 million barrels, though analysts caution such measures would likely offer only temporary relief if disruptions persist.
Looking ahead, traders expect continued volatility, with oil prices remaining elevated as long as risks to critical infrastructure and shipping lanes in the region remain unresolved.
| TRADE POLICY |
—U.S. weighs broad steel tariff exemptions as EU vote nears
EU lawmaker cites talks with USTR Greer as momentum builds ahead of key European Parliament vote
European Parliament trade chief Bernd Lange said the United States is preparing to exclude “a lot” of additional products from its Section 232 steel tariffs, suggesting incremental progress in ongoing U.S./EU trade discussions. Speaking to Politico, Lange said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer indicated during a March 14 call that while not all items will be removed, a significant number of downstream steel products could be exempted — a key demand from European officials.
Lange characterized the development as “some movement” after sustained EU pressure to ease tariff coverage on value-added goods tied to steel supply chains. However, the Biden — now Trump-era policy apparatus remains cautious publicly. A White House official emphasized that while the administration continues to evaluate tariff structures to protect U.S. national and economic security, any discussion of specific changes remains speculative until formally announced.
The timing of the potential tariff adjustments is closely tied to broader transatlantic trade negotiations. Lange’s committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on a pending U.S./EU trade agreement, with a full European Parliament vote possible later this month or in April. The process has faced repeated delays amid tariff tensions and shifting policy signals from Washington.
Lange is expected to travel to Washington later this week as part of an EU delegation, where he will meet again with Greer on Friday — a meeting that could further clarify the scope and timing of any tariff relief. While expectations remain that the European Parliament will ultimately approve the trade deal, uncertainty persists over the final timeline, underscoring the continued sensitivity of steel tariffs within the broader U.S./EU economic relationship.
| CONGRESS |
—Congressional and policy calendar — Wednesday preview
Foreign policy, China supply chains, health costs, and Fed rate decision headline the day
•10:00 a.m. ET — Foreign Affairs and National Security Focus
Lawmakers will convene multiple high-profile hearings centered on global policy and security risks. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will examine State Department accountability and mission priorities, while the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party will assess Beijing’s expanding influence over the pharmaceutical supply chain. At the same time, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will receive a briefing on the evolving situation in Iran.
• 10:15 a.m. ET — Health Care Costs Under Scrutiny
The House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee will hold a hearing focused on rising health care costs and the impact on U.S. providers, continuing congressional oversight of affordability and system pressures.
•2:00 p.m. ET — Federal Reserve Rate Decision
Markets will turn their attention to the Federal Reserve, which is set to release its latest interest-rate decision and accompanying policy statement — a key signal for inflation, economic outlook, and monetary policy direction. (See related item above for perspective.)
—Klobuchar, Raskin push to tighten antitrust settlements after Live Nation deal
Semafor: New legislation targets DOJ discretion, state AG authority, and transparency in corporate enforcement negotiations
The political and legal fallout from the Justice Department’s settlement with Live Nation is accelerating, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) moving to reshape how antitrust deals are reviewed and approved, according to a Semafor report.
Klobuchar — a longtime antitrust advocate — is introducing legislation that would significantly expand judicial oversight of antitrust settlements, allowing courts greater authority to reject deals they view as insufficient. The bill would also empower state attorneys general to more easily intervene in federal cases and require disclosure of previously opaque communications between regulators and corporations during settlement negotiations.
The push comes in direct response to the DOJ’s recent agreement with Live Nation Entertainment, which allowed the company to avoid a structural breakup tied to its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster. Instead, the settlement required the divestiture of a limited number of concert venues and imposed roughly $280 million in penalties — a resolution critics argue falls short of addressing market concentration concerns.
The deal also exposed internal fractures within the Trump administration’s antitrust enforcement team. Then-antitrust chief Gail Slater reportedly favored taking the case to trial rather than settling, a position that contributed to her dismissal. The episode has fueled broader concerns among lawmakers about whether enforcement agencies are too willing to negotiate rather than litigate major competition cases.
Klobuchar sharply criticized the outcome, saying “the American people got the raw end of the deal,” framing the legislation as a corrective to what she views as overly lenient enforcement practices.
Raskin’s companion bill in the House signals coordinated Democratic efforts to elevate antitrust scrutiny, even as the legislation faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress. Still, the move underscores a continued push among progressive lawmakers to tighten oversight of corporate consolidation and rein in discretionary settlement practices at federal agencies.
Politically, the proposal also aligns with Klobuchar’s broader profile as an antitrust reform advocate — a theme central to her policy agenda as she campaigns for governor of Minnesota.
| POLITICS & ELECTIONS |
—Stratton wins Illinois Democratic Senate primary, set to succeed Durbin
Progressive lieutenant governor defeats two sitting House Democrats in high-spending race, with general election tilt favoring Democrats
Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) secured a decisive victory in Illinois’ Democratic Senate primary, defeating Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) to succeed retiring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has held the seat since 1997 and serves as the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.
Stratton — Illinois’ first Black lieutenant governor and a close ally of Gov. JB Pritzker (D) — ran on a progressive platform that included support for Medicare for All, a $25 federal minimum wage, expanded abortion rights, and abolishing ICE. She also backed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and stricter gun laws, framing her campaign as a direct counter to “Trump-style” politics.
She will face former Illinois Republican Party chair Don Tracy in November. However, the general election is expected to lean heavily Democratic, as Illinois has not elected a Republican to statewide federal office since 2014.
The primary was one of the most expensive in state history, with roughly $62 million in total spending — including more than $50 million on television advertising — underscoring the high stakes of replacing a long-serving Senate leader.
—No “blue wave” yet — structural limits may cap GOP losses
Charlie Cook: Thin House margins and a shrinking battlefield suggest Republicans face risk — but not a historic midterm collapse
A major Democratic “wave” in the 2026 midterms is not yet materializing, despite political headwinds for Republicans, because structural factors — including a historically small GOP majority and a limited number of competitive districts — are likely to cap potential losses, according to Charlie Cook writing in National Journal.
Key Takeaways
•Yes, Republicans are vulnerable — but only to a point. The GOP holds a razor-thin House majority (roughly 220–215 adjusted), meaning even small losses could flip control, especially with President Donald Trump’s approval rating hovering near 41%.
• But the battlefield is unusually small. According to Cook Political Report ratings:
- Only ~17 GOP seats are Toss-Up or worse
- Even expanding to “Lean Republican” adds just 3 more seats
- Total competitive exposure remains well below historical wave conditions
•Few true swing districts remain. Due to gerrymandering and geographic sorting, there are far fewer “purple” districts than in past cycles — limiting Democrats’ ability to rack up large gains.
•Republican base remains intact. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains in the 80% range, indicating no meaningful erosion of the MAGA base, reducing the likelihood of widespread GOP defections.
•Historical comparison argues against a wave. Past wave elections (2006, 2010, 2018) featured:
- Much larger majorities to lose from
- Far more vulnerable seats
By contrast, today’s GOP starts with fewer seats and less exposure, inherently limiting downside.
•Ceiling vs. floor dynamic. Democrats could still:
- Win the House
- Flip enough swing seats
But matching past wave-scale gains appears unlikely unless losses extend into deep-red districts — which Cook sees as improbable.
Bottom Line: Republicans are clearly on defense in 2026, and a House flip is plausible. But Cook concludes that absent a broader geographic collapse, this cycle looks more like a narrow majority shift than a sweeping electoral wave — a reflection of today’s highly polarized, structurally constrained political map.
| FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY |
—SNAP retailer rules near release, industry raises compliance concerns
Small stores warn stricter stocking standards could reshape food access in rural and low-income areas
A final rule from USDA updating Staple Food Stocking Standards for retailers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is nearing release, following review at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that began Feb. 24.
The proposal would require an estimated 266,000 SNAP-authorized retailers to expand their offerings of staple and healthier foods to remain eligible for the program. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has indicated the requirement of 28 varieties of staple foods is “just a starting point,” signaling potential for even stricter standards over time.
Industry pushback intensifies. Convenience store operators — who make up a significant share of SNAP retailers — have been among the most vocal critics. They argue the new requirements are too rigid, operationally difficult, and costly, particularly for smaller-format stores with limited space, refrigeration, and supply chain flexibility.
Industry groups, including the National Association of Convenience Stores, NATSO (travel centers and truck stops), and SIGMA (fuel marketers), raised these concerns directly during OMB review meetings, warning that some retailers may opt out — or be forced out — of SNAP participation.
Concerns from hunger and rural advocates. The rule is also drawing concern from anti-hunger organizations. Groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) have engaged in the review process, but broader advocacy voices warn the policy could have unintended consequences:
• Reduced retailer participation in SNAP
• Fewer food access points in rural communities and food deserts
• Increased burden on small-scale retailers, which represent about 71% of SNAP-authorized stores
Policy stakes and next steps. The rule is expected to be finalized shortly after OMB review concludes, setting up a significant policy shift in how SNAP retailers are regulated.
Key uncertainties remain:
• Whether USDA modifies the rule in response to stakeholder feedback
• How aggressively the agency enforces compliance timelines
• Whether legal challenges emerge from retailer groups
At its core, the rule reflects a broader policy tension — balancing improved nutritional access for SNAP recipients against the economic realities facing small and rural food retailers.
—RFK Jr. moves to define ‘junk food,’ setting up legal clash
National Journal reports HHS will avoid formal regulation, but industry and legal experts warn definition alone could trigger sweeping lawsuits
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is preparing to define “junk food” or ultra-processed foods (UPFs) through a policy statement rather than formal regulation — a move that could reshape U.S. nutrition policy while setting off a major legal fight, according to National Journal.
Rather than using the Food and Drug Administration’s rulemaking authority, Kennedy is expected to sidestep the formal regulatory process and instead issue a definition — potentially as soon as April or May — paired with a public education campaign. National Journal reports this approach is designed to inform consumers and pressure food companies without triggering the lengthy notice-and-comment requirements tied to federal regulation.
However, legal experts and former FDA officials told National Journal that bypassing rulemaking could open the door to immediate lawsuits from major food manufacturers, who are likely to argue the administration is effectively regulating the industry without proper legal procedures. One former policymaker warned the effort would become a “legal battle,” with companies challenging the government’s authority.
At the center of the issue is a fundamental problem: there is no universally accepted definition of ultra-processed foods. While such foods are often associated with preservatives, artificial ingredients, and industrial processing methods, National Journal notes that not all UPFs are unhealthy. Items like whole-grain bread and instant oatmeal fall into the category but can still provide nutritional benefits — complicating any attempt to draw a clear regulatory line.
That ambiguity is significant given the scale of the issue. More than 70% of the U.S. food supply is considered ultra-processed, meaning any federal definition could have far-reaching consequences for school meal programs, state-level regulations, food labeling, and consumer behavior nationwide.
The administration has already taken preliminary steps, including a 2025 request for information that generated roughly 5,000 public comments from industry, health groups, and consumers. Still, National Journal reports there is little consensus, with some stakeholders pushing for Brazil’s NOVA classification system and others advocating for a more nuanced, nutrition-based framework.
Legal precedent suggests the administration could survive court challenges — National Journal points to a 1992 FDA policy statement on genetically modified foods that was upheld because it did not impose binding regulatory requirements. But experts caution the outcome will hinge on how prescriptive the new definition becomes and whether it effectively alters how foods are treated under federal programs.
The stakes extend beyond legal theory. A federal definition could influence USDA school meal standards, bolster state-level restrictions like California’s law targeting ultra-processed foods, and intersect with broader efforts such as front-of-package labeling rules and potential reforms to the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) system.
Ultimately, Kennedy’s strategy reflects a broader approach: using the “bully pulpit” to pressure industry behavior without direct regulation. But as National Journal makes clear, even defining junk food — without regulating it — may prove just as consequential, and just as contentious, as formal rulemaking.
| TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS |
—Shipping chaos deepens as Iran conflict turns global trade lanes into what the Financial Times terms a “wild west”
Containers stranded, rerouted, and abandoned as freight costs surge and logistics unravel
The escalating Iran conflict has pushed global container shipping into what industry executives are calling a “wild west” — a breakdown of normal logistics marked by extreme pricing, erratic routing, and rising legal uncertainty.
At the center of the disruption is the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy and trade flows, which has forced shipping lines to improvise in ways rarely seen outside of wartime conditions.
Containers dumped at alternative ports. With access to Gulf destinations severely restricted, carriers are increasingly abandoning standard delivery routes altogether:
• Containers are being offloaded at distant ports such as India or the UAE instead of their intended destinations
• Shipping companies are declaring “end of voyage” early, leaving customers responsible for onward transport
• Congestion is building at substitute hubs, creating cascading delays across global supply chains
This has created a fragmented system where cargo flows are no longer predictable — a sharp departure from the tightly coordinated global logistics networks that defined pre-conflict trade.
Freight rates surge — in some cases quadrupling. The pricing shock has been equally dramatic:
• Some container routes have seen rates jump up to fourfold
• UK–Dubai shipping costs, for example, surged from roughly $1,500 to nearly $6,000 per container
• War-risk insurance, fuel surcharges, and rerouting costs are all compounding the increase
Even broader freight benchmarks show sharp gains, with container indices rising rapidly and Middle East routes seeing some of the steepest increases globally.
Supply chains under stress — especially food and agriculture. The disruption is hitting time-sensitive cargo the hardest, with significant implications for agriculture and food systems:
• Refrigerated goods and perishables face delays and spoilage risks
• Livestock shipments are encountering severe logistical bottlenecks
• Fertilizer and energy-linked inputs are also at risk due to constrained Gulf exports
Shipping executives warn the situation is more chaotic than the Covid-era supply chain crisis, largely because this disruption stems from an active conflict zone rather than demand imbalances.
A breakdown in the rules-based system. What distinguishes this moment — and drives the “wild west” characterization — is not just higher costs, but the erosion of standard commercial norms:
• Contracts are being rewritten or abandoned mid-transit
• Liability for cargo is increasingly unclear
• Shippers are facing unexpected fees and delivery risks
In effect, the global shipping system is shifting from a rules-based, predictable network to a risk-driven, opportunistic environment, where security conditions — not efficiency — dictate trade flows.
Bottom Line: The Iran conflict is no longer just an energy shock — it is actively fragmenting global trade logistics.
For agriculture, energy, and manufacturing alike, the implications are significant:
• Higher delivered costs
• Longer transit times
• Greater volatility in supply chains
And unless safe passage through Hormuz is restored, the “wild west” dynamics now defining shipping could persist — with ripple effects across global commodity markets and inflation.
| WEATHER |
— NWS outlook: An anomalously early heatwave begins to intensify across the western U.S. and expand east into the Great Plains… …Sub-freezing temperatures down to the eastern Gulf coast this morning will begin to moderate… …Wet across western Washington as light snow moves through the Midwest today followed by a wintry mix across the Great Lakes Thursday into Friday.
—Historic March heat wave threatens west with record temperatures and rising risks
“Heat dome” could shatter records, strain water supplies, and heighten wildfire danger
A rare and unusually intense heat wave is sweeping across the Western U.S., with meteorologists warning it could break long-standing temperature records weeks before April even begins.
The event, driven by a powerful “heat dome” — a high-pressure system that traps and superheats air — is expected to push temperatures 20 to 30 degrees above normal from California to Texas and as far north as Montana. Cities like Phoenix could see temperatures exceed 106°F, well above typical March highs and potentially setting new all-time records for the month.
Forecasters say the magnitude and timing of this event are highly unusual. Many locations are expected to log their earliest 100-degree days on record, with dozens of daily and monthly temperature records likely to fall by wide margins.
Some scientists and meteorologists emphasize that while unusual weather patterns help trigger events like this, human-caused climate change is making them more intense and more frequent. Similar to the devastating 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave — which researchers found would have been nearly impossible without global warming — this event reflects a broader trend toward longer-lasting and more severe heat waves.
Experts describe the current heat dome as “astonishing” and “mind-boggling” for this time of year, noting that warming temperatures increase both the likelihood and severity of such extremes.
The early-season timing significantly raises public health concerns. Extreme heat is already the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S., and populations are particularly vulnerable in March, when people are not yet acclimated to high temperatures.
Risks are compounded by limited access to air conditioning in some regions and fewer safe cooling options. Rivers and lakes remain dangerously cold, creating a heightened risk of hypothermia for those seeking relief in water.
Water supply and wildfire concerns. Beyond immediate health impacts, the heat wave could have lasting consequences for water availability and wildfire risk across the West.
Rapid snowmelt is expected, particularly in the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains, where snowpack may disappear weeks earlier than normal. This threatens already strained water systems, including the Colorado River basin, and could accelerate the onset of drought conditions.
Meanwhile, early drying of vegetation raises the likelihood of an extended and more severe wildfire season.
A warning sign for future conditions. The heat wave follows what was already the warmest winter on record in parts of the West, reinforcing concerns that such extremes are becoming the new baseline.
Climatologists say understanding these events — and the conditions that produce them — will be critical as the region faces a future of more frequent and intense heat, with cascading impacts on public health, agriculture, water systems, and energy demand.
