Updates on War with Iran; Trump/Xi Summit; Trump/Lula Talks 

Court blocks Trump’s 10% tariff, narrowing executive trade authority

Link: Trump/Lula Meeting Signals Trade Reset, With Agriculture —
         Including Beef — Lurking as Next Flashpoint
Link: Tax Agenda Builds on Capitol Hill — But Legislative Path Narrows

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, May 2
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, May 2

TOP STORIES
 

— U.S. strikes Iranian targets after naval clash in Strait of Hormuz: The U.S. launched strikes on Iranian military infrastructure after attacks on U.S. Navy destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz, escalating tensions as President Donald Trump warned Tehran while still signaling support for a negotiated deal.

— Trump/Xi summit set against Iran war risks, with trade truce top priority: U.S. and Chinese officials are preparing for a high-stakes Trump/Xi summit focused on preserving the fragile trade truce while managing rising geopolitical tensions tied to Iran, Taiwan, and supply-chain security.

— Moran says agriculture could anchor broader U.S./China reset: Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said agriculture could serve as a stabilizing force in U.S./China relations, with Chinese purchases of U.S. commodities potentially forming a central part of broader negotiations.

— Court blocks Trump’s 10% tariff, narrowing executive trade authority: The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the administration’s proposed blanket 10% tariff, raising new questions about the limits of presidential trade authority and setting up likely appeals.

— Trump/Lula trade talks deemed ‘very well,’ with 30-day tariff working group proposal: President Donald Trump and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva agreed to pursue technical-level tariff negotiations through a new 30-day working group amid ongoing trade tensions.

— Trump courts corporate titans for China trip amid limited deal expectations: The administration is assembling a delegation of major U.S. CEOs for Trump’s China trip as officials prioritize relationship-building and limited trade stabilization over major breakthroughs.

— China/Brazil agriculture scrutiny intensifies as NDAA and farm bill align national security focus: Congress is increasingly framing China’s growing role in Brazil’s agricultural sector as a national security concern, with new reporting mandates and proposed USDA studies targeting the issue.
 

FINANCIAL MARKETS
 

— Equities today: Global equity markets weakened amid renewed U.S./Iran clashes and fears of energy supply disruptions, though U.S. stock futures stabilized following stronger-than-expected U.S. jobs data.

— Equities yesterday: Major U.S. stock indexes closed lower Thursday as geopolitical uncertainty and rising oil prices weighed on investor sentiment.

— U.S. labor market shows resilience as April hiring beats expectations: April payroll gains exceeded forecasts while unemployment held steady at 4.3%, reinforcing the Federal Reserve’s focus on inflation and energy-driven cost pressures.
 

DOJ ANTITRUST CASE WITH AGRI STATS
 

— DOJ settles antitrust case with Agri Stats, mandates broader data access: The Justice Department reached a settlement requiring Agri Stats to expand access to pricing and performance reports as regulators intensify scrutiny of data-sharing practices in the meat industry.
 

AG MARKETS
 

— Grain futures mixed overnight as soy complex strength offsets wheat and corn uncertainty: Soybeans and soy products moved higher overnight while corn and wheat markets remained cautious amid weather concerns and geopolitical risks tied to energy and fertilizer markets.

— International grain markets mixed as energy risks and weather concerns support wheat: Global grain trade remained volatile as elevated energy prices, drought concerns, and continued Strait of Hormuz disruptions supported wheat and vegetable oil markets.

— AMIS warns Hormuz disruptions are driving fertilizer shock across global agriculture: The AMIS Market Monitor warned that fertilizer disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz are sharply increasing global input costs and threatening longer-term crop production.

— Glauber: Trade realities, biofuel demand reshaping U.S. ag markets: Former USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber said China remains indispensable to U.S. agriculture while biofuel demand and shifting trade flows continue reshaping export markets.

— Florida citrus collapse deepens as structural pressures mount: Florida’s citrus industry continues to shrink under pressure from citrus greening disease, development, hurricanes, freezes, and weaker juice demand.

— Agriculture markets yesterday: Grain, livestock, and cotton futures closed mostly lower Thursday amid broader commodity volatility and ongoing geopolitical uncertainty.
 

USDA DATA & PALANTIR: ONE FARMER, ONE FILE
 

— Palantir expands federal footprint with new USDA IT contract: USDA awarded Palantir a $94.7 million contract to integrate farm production and conservation systems as part of the department’s broader “One Farmer, One File” modernization initiative.
 

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY
 

— Friday: oil rebounds to nearly $100 as U.S./Iran clashes threaten fragile diplomacy: Brent crude climbed back near $100 per barrel after renewed military exchanges between the U.S. and Iran reignited fears of prolonged supply disruptions.

— Thursday: oil pullback masks persistent supply risk as Iran talks show progress: Oil prices eased modestly as markets priced in hopes for a temporary ceasefire framework, though underlying supply risks around Hormuz remain elevated.

— Trump rejects oil export curbs as energy markets stay volatile: President Donald Trump dismissed calls for oil export restrictions, arguing strong U.S. production makes such measures unnecessary despite ongoing energy price volatility.
 

TRADE POLICY

— Trump extends EU trade deadline while escalating tariff threats: The administration extended the deadline for a U.S./EU trade agreement but warned tariffs could rise sharply if Brussels fails to implement terms by July 4.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

— FAO food price index climbs to two-year high as Iran conflict ripples through global food markets: The FAO Food Price Index rose to its highest level since February 2023 as higher vegetable oil, cereal, and meat prices reflected mounting energy and fertilizer disruptions.

— USDA finalizes stricter SNAP retail stocking standards: USDA issued a final rule tightening SNAP retailer stocking requirements to increase access to nutrient-dense foods and strengthen program integrity.

— USDA final rule expands whole milk access in school and child nutrition programs: USDA finalized a rule allowing schools and child nutrition programs to serve whole and reduced-fat milk, aligning federal policy with updated dietary guidance.

CONGRESS

— Supreme Court justices to testify before Senate Appropriators after long hiatus: Supreme Court justices are scheduled to testify before Senate appropriators for the first time in more than a decade as the judiciary seeks additional security funding.

POLITICS & ELECTIONS

— Tennessee redistricting overhaul advances GOP sweep: Tennessee lawmakers approved a congressional map eliminating the state’s majority-Black district, setting up a likely Voting Rights Act court battle.

— Supreme Court ruling reignites congressional redistricting battle nationwide: A recent Supreme Court ruling has prompted Republican- and Democratic-led states alike to reconsider congressional maps ahead of future election cycles.

— Southern redistricting push reshapes House battlefield ahead of midterms: Republican-led redraw efforts across the South could significantly raise the threshold Democrats need to reclaim control of the House, according to Cook Political Report analysis.

WEATHER

— NWS outlook: Severe thunderstorm and excessive rainfall risks remain elevated across portions of the Southern Plains and Lower Mississippi Valley heading into the weekend.

— Cold snap, split moisture pattern shapes U.S. planting outlook: Cold temperatures and sharply divided moisture patterns are accelerating planting in the western Corn Belt while keeping eastern fields and portions of the HRW wheat belt under stress.
 

TOP STORIES—U.S. strikes Iranian targets after naval clash in Strait of HormuzTrump intensifies rhetoric, warning Tehran of overwhelming force while insisting a deal remains within reach The United States launched strikes on Iranian military infrastructure after Iranian forces fired on three U.S. Navy destroyers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, marking a sharp escalation that threatens to unravel a fragile ceasefire. President Trump is due to deliver remarks Friday, the White House said, without providing details about the topic. According to U.S. Central Command, Iran’s attack involved missiles, drones, and fast-moving boats in a coordinated assault. No U.S. vessels were hit. American forces responded by intercepting incoming threats and striking Iranian missile launch sites, drone infrastructure, and command-and-control facilities tied to the operation. President Donald Trump delivered a series of forceful remarks following the exchange, sharply escalating his rhetoric while continuing to press for a negotiated settlement. “Just like we knocked them out again today, we’ll knock them out a lot harder, and a lot more violently, if they don’t get their deal signed — fast,” Trump said in a social media post. Speaking later in Washington, he struck a similar tone, saying, “They trifled with us today. We blew them away,” while emphasizing that U.S. restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. Trump also warned of the scale of potential escalation if diplomacy fails. “If there’s no deal, you’re not going to need an announcement — you’re going to see it,” he said, adding that any breakdown would be “very, very obvious.” Meanwhile, the president insisted that a diplomatic resolution remains possible. “We still have a ceasefire,” Trump said. “But they have to make a deal. It’s very simple — they have to make a deal.” The confrontation comes as the administration awaits Tehran’s response to a proposal aimed at reopening the strait and ending a conflict now in its third month — a war that has already disrupted global energy flows and contributed to heightened volatility in oil markets. Iran has not signaled willingness to accept U.S. conditions, particularly demands tied to its nuclear program and uranium enrichment limits, leaving negotiations at an impasse even as military pressure intensifies. Markets reacted quickly to the latest developments. Oil prices rose, with Brent crude climbing toward $103 per barrel, while Asian equities pulled back amid renewed concern over supply disruptions. Meanwhile, uncertainty persists over “Project Freedom,” a U.S. effort to secure commercial shipping through the strait. Regional moves by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to expand U.S. military access to bases could provide the foundation for restarting the initiative. Despite the sharper rhetoric and exchange of fire, U.S. officials continue to signal that a deal remains achievable — even as the window for de-escalation appears to be narrowing.—Trump/Xi summit set against Iran war risks, with trade truce top priorityChina looks to preserve fragile economic détente while leveraging geopolitical tensions to shape U.S. policy on Taiwan and trade — Nikkei Asia reports A planned summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Beijing is unfolding under the shadow of escalating conflict in the Middle East, with the Iran war threatening to disrupt already fragile U.S./China relations, according to Nikkei Asia.  Despite the geopolitical backdrop, both Washington and Beijing are expected to prioritize maintaining their existing trade truce, which has helped stabilize economic ties after years of tariff escalation. Chinese officials are entering the meeting with modest expectations, focused less on breakthroughs and more on preventing renewed economic conflict while navigating domestic economic challenges, including slowing growth and a prolonged property downturn. Beijing’s core objectives include limiting U.S. economic pressure tools — such as tariffs and export controls — while expanding its own countermeasures. Chinese policymakers are also expected to press the Trump administration for clarity and restraint on Taiwan, particularly regarding arms sales and diplomatic positioning. The Iran conflict has added a volatile dimension to the talks. Disruptions to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz — a critical route for China’s oil and gas imports — have heightened Beijing’s urgency to stabilize global conditions. Meanwhile, U.S. military actions and allegations of Chinese support for Iran risk further straining bilateral ties. Meanwhile, both sides retain incentives to avoid escalation. China is seeking economic stability as it manages internal headwinds, while the Trump administration is looking to steady markets and secure politically advantageous trade wins ahead of midterm elections. A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators had meetings with Li Qiang, Zhao Leji and Wang Yi this week, as the Chinese side is working hard for a positive meeting. Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) conducted three official meetings in Beijing with Premier of China Li Qiang, Chairman of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji, and Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The bipartisan delegation discussed the importance of direct and open communication between the leadership of the two countries as well as issues of international and local importance. Topics of discussion included cooperation to stop the flow of fentanyl precursors, Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and supply chain security. The Senators discussed the importance of reciprocal trade and opening up China’s markets to sustained agriculture trade across beef, wheat, pulse crops, potatoes, apples, cherries, soybeans, grain sorghum, seafood, and other industries. The delegation also discussed the importance of China’s relationship with Boeing and the proposed aircraft purchase currently under consideration. The Senators expressed their hope for an impactful and successful summit between Trump and Xi next week.  — Moran says agriculture could anchor broader U.S./China resetKansas senator argues expanded farm trade remains one of the clearest paths toward stabilizing relations with Beijing ahead of Trump’s China trip Sen. Jerry Moran used a May 7 interview on the AgriTalk radio show to emphasize that agriculture remains central to the evolving U.S./China relationship, arguing that farm exports could once again become a stabilizing force in broader negotiations between Washington and Beijing. Speaking from China while traveling with a congressional delegation ahead of President Donald Trump’s expected visit, Moran said Chinese officials continue to view U.S. agriculture as a critical component of any broader economic arrangement. He stressed that American farmers need dependable export markets rather than temporary government aid, echoing a longstanding farm-state argument that trade access ultimately matters more than ad hoc support payments. Moran indicated there remains significant interest in rebuilding agricultural trade flows that were disrupted during earlier tariff battles, particularly for commodities such as soybeans, grains, meat, and other agricultural products where China remains a dominant global buyer. He suggested both countries understand that agriculture is one of the few sectors where mutual economic interests still strongly overlap despite growing geopolitical tensions. The Kansas Republican also framed China competition as extending beyond tariffs and commodity sales. He argued the United States must strengthen its long-term economic position through expanded trade alliances, stronger domestic competitiveness, and deeper engagement with Indo-Pacific partners. Moran has previously warned that the United States cannot effectively compete with China solely through confrontation, saying the country must “trade with our friends in the Pacific” and rebuild economic strength at home. During the interview, Moran reportedly described the upcoming Trump/Xi engagement as potentially important for agriculture because farm purchases remain one of the fastest ways Beijing can demonstrate goodwill while giving the Trump administration a tangible economic and political win ahead of the midterm elections. Analysts and administration officials have increasingly pointed to possible Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans, sorghum, corn, beef, poultry, energy products, and Boeing aircraft as part of a broader package under discussion. Meanwhile, Moran signaled continued concern about China’s broader strategic influence in agriculture and rural America, an issue he has addressed repeatedly in recent years. He has previously linked U.S./China competition not only to trade balances, but also to supply chains, land ownership concerns, telecommunications infrastructure, and long-term food security issues. The interview reflected the balancing act many farm-state lawmakers now face: pushing for expanded export opportunities with China while simultaneously supporting tougher scrutiny of Beijing’s strategic and economic influence inside the United States.  Potential deliverables could include Chinese purchases of U.S. commodities and aircraft orders, though expectations remain limited. Behind the scenes, U.S. and Chinese officials have been negotiating a potential agreement that analysts expect would bundle several deliverables — including expanded Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural goods, new investment commitments, a joint framework on AI guardrails, and orders for U.S. commercial aircraft. Such a package could provide President Donald Trump with a tangible foreign policy victory to showcase in Washington. Meanwhile, Beijing’s objectives appear more defensive — seeking to prolong the current trade truce, secure relief from U.S. sanctions and technology restrictions, and potentially gain assurances that Washington will scale back arms sales to Taiwan. Quote of note: “We know that Trump favors grand ceremonies, but China is also wary of appearing overly deferential at this sensitive moment,” said Wang Yiwei, a former Chinese diplomat now serving as a council member at the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs. “A reception that exceeds the scale of 2017 could undercut China’s positioning as a neutral actor and partner to the Middle East.” Complicating Trump’s leverage, recent U.S. court rulings have weakened the administration’s tariff authority (see next item), reducing pressure on Beijing and potentially shifting negotiating dynamics. Meanwhile, China has been strengthening its own economic defenses, including new tools to counter foreign sanctions and protect domestic supply chains. Ultimately, the upcoming summit is widely viewed as an effort to preserve stability rather than reset relations. With geopolitical tensions rising and structural economic competition intact, both powers appear focused on managing rivalry — not resolving it. —Court blocks Trump’s 10% tariff, narrowing executive trade authoritySplit ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade raises fresh uncertainty for broader tariff strategy and sets up likely appeal A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt another setback to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling 2–1 that the administration lacked authority under the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a blanket 10% tariff. The majority concluded that the 1974 law was designed to support targeted trade remedies tied to specific investigations, not sweeping tariffs applied broadly across imports. In their view, the statute does not provide the kind of open-ended authority needed to justify a universal levy. The dissenting judge took a different position, arguing that the law affords the executive branch greater flexibility to respond to persistent trade imbalances and that the administration’s interpretation was reasonable. The ruling directly challenges a central element of Trump’s trade strategy, which has relied in part on using existing statutes to move quickly on tariffs without seeking new authority from Congress. A flat 10% tariff had been viewed as a potential fallback option in negotiations with major trading partners, particularly if talks stalled or geopolitical tensions escalated. By narrowing the scope of the statute, the court increases the legal vulnerability of any similar across-the-board tariff actions that are not clearly tied to established authorities such as national security or unfair trade practices. Of note: Trump claims the tariffs are needed to reduce the $1.2 trillion U.S. trade deficit in goods. The legal and semantic problem is that the balance of payments and trade balance aren’t the same, as judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly explain. “It is clear that Congress was aware of the differences in the words it chose,” they write. However, they did not issue a universal injunction that would have blocked all application of the tariffs; instead, their decision only bars the government from enforcing the challenged duties on plaintiffs involved in the case, on shipments for which they are the importers of record. Moreover, the decision finds that most of the states lacked standing to join the case because they only claimed to face increased prices as downstream purchasers of imported goods. Kelly and Barnett, however, say only importers of record are directly harmed by the tariffs. Washington is the only state that qualifies under that standard, they write. CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that any decision in the case is premature because it is based on the plaintiffs’ initial request for a preliminary injunction. “I would have denied both summary judgment motions and provided the parties ‘notice and a reasonable time to respond’” under CIT’s normal case-management procedures, he wrote. The case was brought by the Liberty Justice Center, a legal group that represents small businesses and was a big part of the Supreme Court case that overturned the earlier tariffs. The next step is likely to be an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over international trade cases. The administration may also seek to pause the ruling while the appeal is considered, which could allow the tariff policy to remain in place temporarily. If the appellate court affirms the decision, the case could ultimately be taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States, especially given the broader implications for presidential authority over trade. Meanwhile, policymakers inside the administration are likely to evaluate alternative pathways for pursuing tariff policy that are on firmer legal footing. These include relying more heavily on Section 301 authorities tied to unfair trade practices or Section 232 authorities linked to national security concerns, both of which have clearer statutory grounding and a longer track record of surviving legal challenges. Emergency economic authorities could also be considered, though those have come under increasing scrutiny in recent court rulings. The decision may also rekindle debate in Congress over the balance of trade authority between the legislative and executive branches. Lawmakers could seek to clarify or expand presidential powers, although political divisions and the proximity of elections make near-term legislative action unlikely. At the same time, some in Congress may view the ruling as an opportunity to reassert greater control over tariff policy. From a market and geopolitical perspective, the ruling introduces another layer of uncertainty but may also reduce the immediate risk of broad-based U.S. tariff escalation. Trading partners are likely to interpret the decision as a constraint on unilateral U.S. action, even as targeted tariffs remain very much in play. Meanwhile, importers have started getting reimbursements for the $166 billion in duties that the Supreme Court overturned. FedEx and Costco were among the more than 3,000 businesses that sued for refunds. The immediate impact could be limited, as the litigation is unlikely to be resolved before the law’s 150-day window for imposing tariffs expires on July 24. Meanwhile, Trump has already set in motion a separate round of tariffs under Section 301 targeting countries accused of unfair trade practices — a package Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says will be rolled out in the near term. The broader takeaway is that the courts are drawing firmer boundaries around executive trade authority. While the administration retains significant tools to impose tariffs in specific contexts, sweeping measures such as a universal 10% levy will face a much higher legal bar going forward.—Trump/Lula trade talks deemed ‘very well,’ with 30-day tariff working group proposalLeaders signal willingness to compromise as disputes over tariffs and trade practices shift to technical-level negotiations Trade talks between President Donald Trump and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva concluded on a positive note Thursday, with both leaders emphasizing continued engagement while deferring key tariff disputes to follow-on negotiations. In a post on Truth Social, Trump described the meeting as productive, saying discussions covered “many topics, including Trade and, specifically, Tariffs,” and that it “went very well.” He added that representatives from both governments will now meet to work through “certain key elements,” with additional meetings expected in the coming months. “We’re doing a lot of trading and we’re going to do some increased trading,” Trump told reporters later Thursday, indicating that Brazil “would like to have some tariff relief.” Lula, speaking separately at the Brazilian embassy in Washington, proposed the creation of a formal working group tasked with resolving tariff disagreements within 30 days. He framed the process as a pragmatic path forward, acknowledging that both sides may ultimately need to compromise. “If we have to give in, we’re going to give in. If they have to give in, they’ll have to give in,” he said, according to an informal translation. Of note: the two leaders did not make the joint appearance before reporters that had been on their schedule. Trump did not specify a reason the joint appearance had not been held — after Lula spent roughly three hours at the White House. The discussions come against a backdrop of ongoing trade friction. The Trump administration had imposed steep tariffs — as high as 50% — on Brazilian goods in 2025, citing political and trade concerns, including Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. While those tariffs have since been reduced to around 10% following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, tensions remain unresolved. Brazilian officials continue to push back on the rationale for those measures. Finance Minister Dario Durigan has argued that tariffs were unjustified given that Brazil runs a trade deficit with the United States — contradicting earlier U.S. claims of imbalance. Meanwhile, additional trade pressure could be looming. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has ongoing investigations into Brazil under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, examining both broader trade practices and compliance with forced labor import restrictions. Lula acknowledged clear disagreements between the two sides during the meeting, noting conflicting positions among ministers. Rather than extending negotiations at the leadership level, he said the working group approach would allow technical experts to bridge gaps and return with actionable proposals. Quote of note: Bruna Santos, the director of the Brazil program at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, described the relationship to the New York Times as “controlled turbulence.” She added, “We all know they aren’t always seeing eye to eye, but they need each other.” Of note: The U.S. has viewed Brazil, home to the world’s second-largest rare earths reserves, as a major potential partner on minerals key to modern technology as it seeks to diversify away from China. Reports note that Lula has been resistant to a deal, because Brazil wants to control its resources and be able to sell them to countries beyond the United States. Bottom Line: The outcome underscores a shift toward structured negotiations rather than immediate policy changes, with both governments signaling openness to compromise but leaving the most contentious trade issues — including tariffs and enforcement actions — unresolved for now. The 80-year-old leftist leader is currently deadlocked in polls with Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of Jair Bolsonaro, before October elections. —Trump courts corporate titans for China trip amid limited deal expectationsCEO delegation signals strategic reset toward relationship-building with Beijing as policy leverage narrows The Trump administration is assembling a high-profile delegation of U.S. corporate leaders to accompany President Donald Trump on his upcoming trip to China, underscoring a renewed effort to align business interests with geopolitical strategy — even as expectations for concrete trade outcomes remain modest. Invitations have been extended to executives from major firms including Nvidia, Apple, ExxonMobil, Boeing, Qualcomm, Blackstone, Citigroup, and Visa, with additional participants expected as interest intensifies among corporate leaders seeking access and influence. The effort reflects a familiar playbook — leveraging private-sector engagement to reinforce diplomatic overtures — though with a more restrained commercial agenda than in past trips. Key administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Ambassador to China David Perdue, have been actively shaping the guest list. Meanwhile, Trump himself has reportedly fueled interest through informal signals to executives, suggesting their presence in Beijing — a dynamic that has heightened competition for invitations. Despite the corporate firepower, expectations for major deal announcements remain muted. Discussions are likely to center on legacy trade pillars such as U.S. ag exports and aircraft purchases from Boeing — longstanding pressure points in bilateral trade. Meanwhile, broader structural issues — including technology restrictions, supply chain security, and market access — are unlikely to see immediate resolution. The subdued outlook reflects a shifting strategic backdrop. The recent Supreme Court decision invalidating key tariff authorities has constrained the administration’s trade leverage, forcing officials to reconsider how to reconstruct tariff regimes under alternative legal frameworks. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict involving Iran has diverted U.S. attention and enhanced China’s relative influence across Southeast Asia, complicating Washington’s negotiating position. Against that backdrop, administration officials emphasize that the primary objective of the trip is diplomatic — strengthening the personal and strategic relationship between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. While transactional outcomes may be limited, the optics of engagement — particularly at a time of heightened geopolitical fragmentation — carry their own strategic weight. As Curtis Chin of the Milken Institute noted, expectations should be tempered: the significance lies less in immediate deliverables and more in the fact that high-level dialogue is taking place at all. —China/Brazil agriculture scrutiny intensifies as NDAA, and farm bill align national security focusNew reporting mandates and proposed USDA study reflect growing concern over Beijing’s influence in Brazil’s agricultural sector Recent high-level diplomacy involving President Donald Trump, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Chinese President Xi Jinping is taking on added significance for U.S. agriculture and national security, as Congress sharpens its focus on China’s expanding footprint in Brazil’s farm economy. At the center of that effort is a provision backed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which requires the administration to deliver a non-classified report to congressional committees assessing China’s activities abroad — including those tied to strategic sectors and foreign influence. The law makes clear that such reports must be submitted in unclassified form, with the option for a classified annex, reinforcing Congress’s intent to elevate transparency around foreign economic and geopolitical risks . While the NDAA language is broad in scope, lawmakers and staff have increasingly zeroed in on China’s role in Brazil’s agricultural expansion, particularly given Brazil’s emergence as a dominant competitor to U.S. exports in soybeans, corn, cotton, rice, beef, and poultry. China’s deepening trade and investment ties with Brazil — ranging from commodity purchases to infrastructure and input supply chains—have raised bipartisan concerns that agricultural competition is evolving into a strategic vulnerability for the United States. That concern is now being echoed in the House-passed farm bill, which includes new language highlighting national security risks tied to agricultural competition with Brazil and explicitly encourages a USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) study on the issue. The directive signals that lawmakers want a more formal, data-driven assessment of how Chinese capital, trade flows, and supply chain integration in Brazil could reshape global agricultural markets—and potentially undermine U.S. producers. The convergence of these two efforts — defense-driven reporting requirements and agriculture-focused policy language — underscores a broader shift in how Washington is framing global farm competition. No longer viewed solely through a trade lens, Brazil’s rise—coupled with China’s strategic engagement—is increasingly being treated as part of a larger geopolitical contest over food security, supply chains, and influence in emerging markets. This framing is reinforced by recent market dynamics. Brazil has steadily gained market share in China across key commodities, benefiting from both logistical investments and bilateral agreements. Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers are growing more concerned that Chinese engagement in Brazil could extend beyond trade into control over inputs, infrastructure, and long-term production capacity, amplifying Beijing’s leverage over global food systems. Of note: The NDAA language was enacted, and the report was due to Intelligence committee, Agriculture committees, and Foreign Relations Committee (Senate) and Foreign Affairs Committee (House) within 90 days after enactment. The NDAA was signed into law Dec. 18, 2025. So, it should have been produced already (by March 18), but no official release of the report is yet available. Against that backdrop, the forthcoming NDAA-mandated report — once released — will likely serve as a foundational document for future legislative and regulatory action. Combined with a potential ERS study, it could shape debates over trade enforcement, investment screening, and domestic agricultural competitiveness. For U.S. agriculture, the implications are significant. What was once a commercial rivalry with Brazil is increasingly being reframed as a strategic competition involving China, with direct consequences for export markets, input costs, and long-term global positioning.

—Equities today: Global financial markets moved lower after renewed military exchanges between the United States and Iran rattled investor confidence and revived concerns over energy supply disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz. European and Asian equities broadly declined, while oil prices pushed back above the psychologically important $100-per-barrel level amid fears the conflict could intensify further. U.S. equity futures are higher following a robust jobs report.

In Asia, Japan -0.2%. Hong Kong -0.9%. China flat. India -0.7%.
 

In Europe, at midday, London -0.3%. Paris -0.8%. Frankfurt -0.9%.

The latest market selloff came after reports that U.S. and Iranian forces exchanged fire in and around the Persian Gulf, undermining optimism that negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the nearly 10-week conflict were nearing a resolution. Traders had spent much of the week pricing in hopes for a temporary framework agreement between Washington and Tehran, but the renewed hostilities injected fresh uncertainty into global markets.

Despite the geopolitical tensions, U.S. stock-index futures stabilized overnight and traded modestly higher after major North American indexes closed lower Thursday. Investors appeared encouraged by signs that Washington still hopes to secure an Iranian response to a proposed memorandum aimed at reopening Hormuz and reducing military activity in the region.

Market participants are now watching closely for Tehran’s formal response to the latest U.S. proposal, with investors increasingly treating every diplomatic headline, military development, and shipping update as a potential catalyst for sharp moves across oil, equities, currencies, and bond markets.

—Equities yesterday: 

—U.S. labor market shows resilience as April hiring beats expectations

Steady unemployment rate and upward payroll revisions reinforce Fed’s inflation focus amid Middle East war risks

U.S. job growth exceeded expectations in April, offering fresh evidence that the labor market remains relatively stable despite slowing economic momentum, ongoing federal workforce reductions, and rising uncertainty tied to inflation and the war in the Middle East.

The Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls increased by 115,000 in April, nearly double consensus expectations. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate — which is derived from a separate household survey — held steady at 4.3%, suggesting labor market conditions have not deteriorated materially even as several sectors continue to face pressure.

Health care remained one of the strongest sources of hiring, adding 37,000 jobs during the month, roughly in line with the sector’s average monthly gain over the past year. Transportation and warehousing employment also strengthened, rising by 30,000 positions as increased hiring among couriers and messengers boosted payrolls. Even with the monthly increase, however, employment in the sector remains down 105,000 jobs from its February 2025 peak, highlighting lingering softness in freight and logistics activity.

Retail trade also contributed to overall hiring gains, helping offset continued contraction in government employment. Federal payrolls fell another 9,000 jobs in April, extending a prolonged downsizing trend that has now reduced the federal workforce by 348,000 positions since peaking in October 2024.

Meanwhile, the information sector continued to weaken, shedding 13,000 jobs in April. Employment in the sector has now declined by 342,000 jobs from its November 2022 high as technology and media companies continue restructuring efforts amid slower growth and cost-cutting pressures.

The labor force participation rate was little changed at 61.8% in April, though it remains well below the 62.6% level recorded one year earlier, suggesting some workers are continuing to exit the labor force despite relatively stable hiring conditions.

The report also included modest revisions to prior months. February payroll losses were revised lower to 156,000, an improvement of 23,000 jobs from the previous estimate, while March job growth was revised higher to 178,000, up 7,000 from prior estimates.

Taken together, the figures point to a labor market that is stabilizing rather than sharply weakening, potentially reinforcing the Federal Reserve’s current focus on inflation risks rather than near-term labor market deterioration. Policymakers are also closely monitoring how the ongoing war involving Iran and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz are feeding into energy, transportation, and broader input costs across the economy.

With oil prices remaining elevated and supply chain concerns intensifying, the Fed is expected to continue weighing whether war-related inflation pressures prove temporary or become more deeply embedded in the broader economy.

—DOJ settles antitrust case with Agri Stats, mandates broader data access

Agreement requires expanded transparency in pricing reports as regulators target information-sharing practices in meat markets

The Justice Department has reached a civil settlement with Agri Stats, resolving allegations that the company’s data-sharing practices may have enabled anticompetitive behavior across the U.S. meat industry. The case — part of a broader federal push to scrutinize concentration and pricing dynamics in agriculture — focused on whether detailed, real-time benchmarking reports distributed to processors effectively reduced competition.

In a statement posted Thursday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the agreement is designed to “level the playing field” by requiring Agri Stats to make its pricing and performance reports broadly available to both buyers and sellers, rather than a more limited set of industry participants. The move aims to reduce the risk that proprietary data could be used to coordinate pricing or production decisions among major meat processors.

The settlement reflects growing concern inside the U.S. Department of Justice that highly granular data — especially when shared among dominant firms — can function as a de facto signaling mechanism, even absent explicit collusion. Regulators have increasingly argued that such information exchanges can dampen competition by giving companies visibility into rivals’ costs, margins, and output strategies.

Meanwhile, the case underscores a wider enforcement trend across the protein sector, where federal officials have been investigating pricing behavior in beef, pork, and poultry markets. Industry critics — including some producer groups — have long argued that consolidated processors can leverage shared analytics tools to align market behavior, particularly during periods of tight supply or volatile input costs.

Under the terms of the settlement, Agri Stats is expected to modify how it aggregates and distributes data, ensuring broader access and reducing the specificity of competitively sensitive information. Regulators view this as a structural fix intended to preserve the benefits of market data while limiting its potential misuse.

The resolution stops short of imposing fines or admitting wrongdoing, but it signals continued scrutiny of data platforms that sit at the center of modern agricultural supply chains — particularly as policymakers weigh additional reforms tied to market transparency, antitrust enforcement, and price discovery in the livestock sector.

—Grain futures mixed overnight as soy complex strength offsets wheat and corn uncertainty

Soybeans and soy products rebound overnight while wheat markets stabilize amid weather and geopolitical risks

Grain futures trading overnight showed a mixed tone heading into Friday morning, with strength in the soybean complex helping offset more subdued action in corn and wheat markets as traders continued to balance improving U.S. planting progress against persistent geopolitical and weather-related supply risks.

July corn futures slipped 3/4 cent to $4.66 3/4 per bushel overnight as the market continued consolidating after recent volatility tied to favorable planting conditions across much of the western Corn Belt and northern Plains. Traders remain focused on rapid fieldwork progress in key producing regions, although colder temperatures across portions of the eastern Midwest and concerns about dryness in parts of the hard-red winter wheat belt continue to provide underlying support to broader grain markets.

The soybean complex posted firmer trade overnight, supported by strength in both soybean meal and soybean oil. July soybeans gained 5 3/4 cents to $11.98 per bushel, while July soybean meal rose $1.70 to $320.60 per short ton. July soybean oil added 32 points to 74.47 cents per pound. The rebound in soybean oil continued to reflect ongoing concerns surrounding global vegetable oil supplies after disruptions tied to the war involving Iran and continued uncertainty surrounding shipping flows near the Strait of Hormuz. Traders also continue monitoring biofuel policy developments and renewable diesel demand expectations.

Wheat futures stabilized overnight following recent selling pressure. July Chicago SRW wheat futures rose 1 3/4 cents to $6.14 per bushel, while July Kansas City HRW wheat futures also gained 1 3/4 cents to $6.69 per bushel. The wheat market remains highly sensitive to evolving weather forecasts, particularly for drought-stressed portions of the central and southern Plains. Forecast models showing potential Week Two precipitation across sections of the HRW belt helped limit additional upside, although traders remain cautious about crop stress and global export competition.

Meanwhile, broader commodity markets continue to monitor developments in energy markets after renewed tensions between the U.S. and Iran pushed crude oil prices back near the $100 per barrel level earlier this week. Elevated energy and fertilizer costs remain an important underlying theme for grain traders as markets assess potential impacts on global input costs, acreage decisions, and 2026 crop production economics.

—International grain markets mixed as energy risks and weather concerns support wheat

Global grain markets remained volatile Friday amid ongoing Middle East tensions, elevated energy costs, and shifting weather forecasts across key growing regions.

Paris milling wheat futures on Euronext were steady to firmer, with September 2026 wheat trading near €206.50/metric ton, supported by continued concern over drought stress in portions of Europe and the Black Sea region.

Black Sea wheat values also remained elevated, with Russian FOB wheat offers generally holding in the upper-$230s to low-$240s per metric ton range as exporters continued to benefit from competitive pricing and strong global demand. Analysts continue to monitor Russian export flows and crop prospects ahead of the new harvest.

Chinese grain markets were mixed overnight. Dalian corn futures were little changed near the equivalent of roughly $8.70 to $8.80 per bushel, while soymeal prices remained firm on strong feed demand and elevated vegetable oil values tied to global energy disruptions.

Malaysian palm oil futures also stayed historically elevated above 4,500 ringgit per metric ton amid continued concerns about vegetable oil supply chains linked to the Strait of Hormuz conflict.

—AMIS warns Hormuz disruptions are driving fertilizer shock across global agriculture

Rising fertilizer costs, export restrictions, and supply-chain disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz closure are squeezing farm profitability and raising concerns about future crop production, even as global wheat, corn, rice, and soybean conditions remain mostly favorable

The latest AMIS Market Monitor said the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz since late February has sharply disrupted global fertilizer markets, pushing urea prices roughly twice as high as pre-disruption levels and lifting phosphate prices further from already elevated levels. The report said the Near East normally accounts for roughly one-third of global urea exports, with an estimated 2.6 million tonnes of exports suspended over the past two months.

AMIS said fertilizer producers across the Gulf region continue operating at reduced rates while relying heavily on storage infrastructure and floating storage vessels. The report warned that military strikes and temporary outages in Bahrain, Iran, and Qatar have increased concerns about supply-chain fragility, noting that damaged fertilizer facilities could take years to fully restore.

The organization said phosphate markets are particularly vulnerable because Saudi Arabia accounts for roughly one-fifth of global phosphate supply, while alternative exporters remain limited. Meanwhile, sulphur prices have surged as China, Türkiye, and Russia imposed export restrictions on key fertilizer inputs.

AMIS highlighted significant regional differences in exposure. The United States entered the spring season with relatively comfortable fertilizer supplies, but the report warned that risks remain for corn side-dress applications and fall fertilizer demand because inland logistics from New Orleans to crop-producing regions can take up to 45 days. Brazil, which imports nearly all of its urea needs and sources up to 40% through Hormuz-linked trade routes, saw local urea prices jump more than 35% within two weeks after the disruption began.

India was described as adequately supplied for the upcoming kharif season due to subsidies and government intervention, though uncertainty remains for later fertilizer demand tied to rabi crops. Sub-Saharan Africa was identified as especially vulnerable because about 30 percent of fertilizers used there originate from the Near East, with East Africa facing heightened exposure ahead of planting season.

Despite the fertilizer shock, AMIS said global crop conditions remain generally favorable. Wheat and corn conditions are broadly positive worldwide, although parts of Europe and the United States still need additional rainfall. Rice and soybean harvests continue advancing across Asia and South America under mostly favorable conditions.

The report warned, however, that crop prices have not risen enough to offset surging fertilizer costs, creating what it described as an “affordability squeeze” for producers. AMIS said higher input costs could eventually lead farmers to reduce fertilizer application rates or shift acreage toward less input-intensive crops, potentially reducing yields and crop quality over time. Analysts cited in the report said the earliest normalization in fertilizer markets may not occur until autumn 2026, with some pessimistic scenarios extending disruptions into 2028.

On the supply-and-demand front, AMIS left its global 2025/26 corn outlook largely unchanged, describing production, utilization, trade, and stocks as broadly stable month-over-month following only minor revisions across reporting countries. Wheat production forecasts were revised slightly higher, while soybean demand projections increased due to strong crushing activity and continued biofuel demand for soybean oil.

The report also highlighted a growing shift in global policy responses. China reportedly plans to ban sulfuric acid exports beginning in May, while Russia imposed sulfur export bans and established a 20 million tonne fertilizer export quota. Türkiye lifted import duties on several fertilizers, and the United States eased sanctions involving Belarusian potash traders.

In biofuels, AMIS noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized its “Set 2” Renewable Fuel Standard rule in late March, maintaining the 15-billion-gallon ethanol mandate while sharply increasing biodiesel and renewable diesel targets for 2026 and 2027. Brazil also indicated plans to raise its ethanol blend rate from 30 percent to 32 percent later this year.

International grain and oilseed prices strengthened in April. The International Grains Council grain and oilseed index rose nearly 3 percent month-over-month, with corn prices reaching a one-year high amid strong export demand and fertilizer supply concerns. Wheat prices climbed near two-year highs in some regions due to drought worries and rising production costs, while soybean prices strengthened alongside higher energy markets and strong biofuel demand.

AMIS additionally warned that El Niño conditions are increasingly likely to develop later in 2026, with NOAA projecting an 87 percent to 92 percent probability of El Niño from July 2026 through January 2027. The report said the developing weather pattern could intensify temperature extremes and alter rainfall patterns across several major agricultural regions globally.

—Glauber: Trade realities, biofuel demand reshaping U.S. ag markets

In an interview with Crystal Futrell of Milling & Baking News, former USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber said China remains indispensable, biofuels are redirecting soybean flows, and policymakers should avoid disrupting stable trade frameworks like USMCA 

Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow emeritus at the International Food Policy Research Institute and former USDA chief economist, told Milling & Baking News that the conflict with Iran has so far created “largely a supply crisis,” lifting energy and fertilizer prices while leaving grain and oilseed prices relatively subdued. The longer the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, he said, the greater the risk to fertilizer markets — though he noted that even the extreme fertilizer price spike of 2022 did not produce major crop-production losses.

Glauber contrasted the Middle East disruption with President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff actions, saying the China trade war has had a much larger direct effect on U.S. agriculture. He said U.S. soybean exports to China fell 75% in 2025 from 2024, and while other markets absorbed some additional volume, they did not come close to offsetting the China losses.

On China, Glauber argued that it remains indispensable to U.S. agriculture because it is the world’s largest agricultural importer. He said U.S. farmers have been “collateral damage” in broader trade wars and stressed that private companies — not the government — export commodities, selling to whichever buyers are active.

Glauber pushed back on the idea that the U.S. can meaningfully decouple from China in agricultural trade, stressing that China’s scale as the world’s largest importer makes it structurally central to global demand. While policymakers often frame trade in geopolitical terms, he reiterated that private-sector exporters ultimately determine flows, responding to price signals and buyer demand rather than political preferences.

Glauber also said corn exports have benefited from stronger Mexican demand tied to the suspension of feeder cattle imports, while soybean meal exports are being supported by the biodiesel-driven expansion in domestic soybean crushing. On USMCA, he called the trade pact “invaluable” for U.S. agriculture and said the guiding principle for the July review should be “do no harm.”

Glauber emphasized that global trade flows are already adjusting — but not always in ways that fully offset disruptions. Following the steep drop in U.S. soybean exports to China, he noted that exporters have redirected shipments to alternative markets, though “not nearly enough” to replace lost Chinese demand, underscoring the limits of diversification in the short term.

On North American trade, Glauber delivered a clear endorsement of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, calling it “invaluable” and signaling that both Canada and Mexico are likely aligned with the U.S. in avoiding major disruptions during the upcoming review. His “do no harm” framing reflects concern that reopening sensitive provisions could inject unnecessary volatility into otherwise stable regional trade relationships.

Meanwhile, corn export strength has been supported by temporary factors, including increased Mexican demand tied to feeder cattle import restrictions. Glauber cautioned that this support may fade once border conditions normalize, though Mexico is expected to remain a cornerstone market for U.S. corn.

He also highlighted how policy-driven demand — particularly from biofuels — is reshaping commodity flows. The expansion in biodiesel production is keeping more soybeans in the U.S. for domestic crushing, which in turn boosts supplies of soybean meal available for export. This structural shift, he suggested, could sustain strong soybean meal exports even as raw soybean trade faces headwinds.

Taken together, Glauber’s comments point to a market environment where geopolitics, policy incentives, and supply chain adjustments are interacting — with fertilizer and energy shocks dominating the near term, while trade realignments and biofuel demand quietly reshape longer-term export patterns.

—Florida citrus collapse deepens as structural pressures mount

Disease, development, and shifting demand leave long-term outlook uncertain even under recovery scenarios

Florida’s once-dominant citrus industry is now operating at a fraction of its historic scale, with compounding structural and environmental pressures pushing the sector into what many analysts view as an irreversible contraction.

At the center of the collapse is citrus greening — formally known as Huanglongbing — a bacterial disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid that has devastated tree health, reduced yields, and increased production costs across the state. Once infected, trees produce smaller, bitter fruit and eventually become unproductive, forcing growers into costly replanting cycles with no guaranteed success.

Meanwhile, rapid population growth across Florida has steadily reduced available farmland, particularly in traditional citrus regions where groves have been sold off for residential and commercial development. This land-use shift has permanently lowered the industry’s production ceiling.

Weather volatility has compounded the decline. Repeated hurricane strikes — including major storms over the past decade — have uprooted trees and damaged infrastructure, while periodic freezes have further stressed already weakened groves. These shocks have accelerated attrition in an industry already struggling to remain viable.

On the demand side, structural changes in consumption are also weighing heavily. Orange juice — the primary end use for most of Florida’s crop — has seen declining consumption in the U.S. over the past two decades, as consumers shift toward alternative beverages and fresh fruit options. This demand erosion reduces incentives for reinvestment even when supply conditions tighten.

Meanwhile, imports from lower-cost producers in Mexico and South America have captured increasing market share, offering processors more price-competitive alternatives and further squeezing domestic growers.

The production data underscores the severity of the contraction. Florida is expected to produce just 12 million boxes of oranges this season — down from roughly 242 million boxes in the 2003–04 season. That represents a decline of more than 90% over two decades. Even in the past five years alone, output has fallen by roughly three-quarters.

Grapefruit production tells a similar story, dropping to about 1.3 million boxes this season compared to 40.8 million two decades ago.

Even under optimistic assumptions — including improved disease management, replanting efforts, and more favorable weather — industry experts increasingly believe Florida citrus output has structurally reset to a much lower baseline. The combination of biological, economic, and land-use constraints suggests that a return to historical production levels is no longer realistic, marking a fundamental shift in the U.S. citrus landscape.

—Agriculture markets yesterday:

—Palantir expands federal footprint with new USDA IT contract

USDA taps data firm to unify farm production and conservation systems amid broader modernization push — with long-term integration implications

Palantir Technologies has secured a $94.7 million contract from USDA to integrate and modernize the department’s farm production and conservation IT systems, marking another step in the agency’s broader effort to streamline data infrastructure and improve program delivery.

The contract is designed to consolidate fragmented datasets across USDA agencies — particularly those tied to farm production programs and conservation initiatives — into a more unified, accessible platform. Officials have increasingly emphasized the need to connect these systems to improve efficiency, reduce reporting burdens on producers, and enable more timely decision-making across programs administered by agencies such as the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The award aligns with ongoing USDA leadership priorities around data transparency and system modernization. Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden has repeatedly highlighted efforts to build more “modernized, computerized” reporting tools and integrate disparate datasets under initiatives like “One Farmer, One File,” which aims to create a single, comprehensive data profile for producers interacting with USDA programs.

Beyond the immediate modernization push, the contract also carries longer-term structural implications. Platforms like those deployed by Palantir are typically deeply embedded across workflows — from data ingestion and analytics to compliance tracking and program delivery. As agencies build customized tools, dashboards, and reporting systems on top of that infrastructure, the platform can become central to day-to-day operations.

That dynamic can make future transitions more complex. Over time, data architectures, integration pipelines, and program workflows are tailored to the system, raising the cost and operational risk of switching to an alternative provider. For agencies like USDA — where payment systems, conservation tracking, and regulatory compliance must function without disruption — those switching costs can be particularly high.

Meanwhile, officials and industry experts emphasize that this is not unique to Palantir, but rather a common feature of large-scale enterprise software deployments across government and the private sector. Similar dynamics exist in cloud computing, enterprise resource planning systems, and other mission-critical digital infrastructure.

Still, the contract underscores Palantir’s growing role in federal data infrastructure, particularly in sectors requiring large-scale integration of complex datasets. The company has increasingly positioned itself as a key partner for government agencies seeking to modernize legacy systems, including in defense, health, and now agriculture.

Of note: The move comes as USDA continues to solicit stakeholder input on its data collection and reporting frameworks and expands survey coverage to address declining response rates in key reports. Integrating production and conservation systems could also support more advanced analytics on land use, environmental outcomes, and productivity trends — areas of growing interest for both policymakers and market participants.

Upshot: The contract signals a deeper push by USDA to modernize its digital backbone — with implications not only for program administration and policy design, but also for how tightly core agricultural data systems may become integrated with long-term technology providers.

—Friday: oil rebounds to near $100 as U.S./Iran clashes threaten fragile diplomacy

Supply disruption warnings from IEA and uncertainty over Tehran’s response keep risk premium elevated

Brent crude futures climbed back to near $100 per barrel on Friday, recovering earlier weekly losses as renewed clashes between the United States and Iran raised fears of further disruption in the already volatile Strait of Hormuz corridor. The price rebound underscores how quickly geopolitical risk premiums are being reinserted into global energy markets. U.S. WTI is trading around $95 per barrel.

U.S. Central Command said American forces intercepted Iranian attacks and conducted defensive strikes as guided missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint for global oil flows. Officials emphasized that Washington does not intend to escalate the conflict, though the continued military activity highlights the fragility of current de-escalation efforts.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is awaiting Tehran’s response to a proposal designed to reopen the Strait and bring an end to the nearly 10-week conflict. Reports indicate Iran is expected to relay its position via Pakistan within the next two days, leaving markets in a holding pattern as traders assess whether diplomacy can stabilize the region.

The supply backdrop remains a key driver. The International Energy Agency warned the conflict is disrupting roughly 14 million barrels per day of global oil supply, a significant share of seaborne crude flows. Meanwhile, the agency cautioned that even if a ceasefire is reached, restoring production and normal shipping patterns would likely be gradual, prolonging tightness in physical markets.

Taken together, the combination of active war risk, uncertain diplomacy, and constrained supply is reinforcing a persistent risk premium in crude markets — with traders closely watching both military developments and Tehran’s pending response as the next major catalyst.

—Thursday: oil pullback masks persistent supply risk as Iran talks show progress

Brent pares early losses amid ceasefire optimism, but Hormuz disruptions and production cuts keep market on edge

Global oil prices retreated modestly after a volatile session, with Brent crude settling down $1.21, or 1.2%, at $100.06 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) slipped 27 cents to $94.81. Both benchmarks had dropped as much as $5 earlier in the day before recovering some ground late in trading following reports of explosion-like sounds near Bandar Abbas, Iran.

The primary catalyst for the pullback was growing market optimism that Washington and Tehran are nearing a limited, temporary framework agreement to halt hostilities. Negotiations are reportedly focused on a short-term memorandum of understanding rather than a comprehensive peace deal — easing immediate fears of further supply disruptions without fully resolving underlying tensions.

Meanwhile, reports that the U.S. could resume naval escort operations through the Strait of Hormuz under “Project Freedom” added to the softer tone. Regional cooperation appears to be improving, with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait lifting restrictions on U.S. military access to airspace and bases — a move that could enhance security along one of the world’s most critical energy transit routes.

Despite the easing in prices, underlying supply risks remain elevated. Analysts caution that even if a ceasefire framework is finalized, physical crude markets are likely to stay tight in the near term due to ongoing shipping disruptions and constrained regional output. Iran has already reduced production by roughly 400,000 barrels per day as storage fills, with further declines possible.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the central pressure point for global energy markets. A sustained reopening of the corridor would likely compress the geopolitical risk premium embedded in prices, while any breakdown in negotiations could quickly reverse the current pullback and push crude sharply higher again.

—Trump rejects oil export curbs as energy markets stay volatile

President signals confidence in U.S. supply even as war-driven price swings keep pressure on fuel markets

President Donald Trump said the United States has no need to impose export restrictions on crude oil or refined fuels, dismissing a policy option that has resurfaced amid elevated energy prices tied to the Iran conflict and broader geopolitical volatility.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Trump made clear the administration is not considering limits on outbound shipments of oil or jet fuel. “We don’t need them,” he said, emphasizing the strength of domestic supply. “We have tremendous amounts of oil.”

The comments come as policymakers weigh how best to manage the economic fallout from sustained energy price pressure — particularly on transportation and aviation sectors, where jet fuel costs have surged alongside crude. Export restrictions have historically been floated during periods of price spikes to redirect supply to domestic markets, but they carry significant tradeoffs, including potential retaliation from allies and disruptions to global supply chains.

Trump’s remarks align with earlier signals from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who has also rejected the idea of export bans, arguing that U.S. production capacity and global market integration make such measures counterproductive. Instead, the administration has leaned on tools like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and regulatory flexibility — including a temporary Jones Act waiver — to ease supply bottlenecks without interfering directly in trade flows.

Meanwhile, energy markets remain highly sensitive to developments in the Middle East. Oil prices have pulled back modestly from recent highs but continue to reflect a geopolitical risk premium tied to uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz and the pace of any diplomatic resolution. Against that backdrop, Trump’s stance underscores a broader policy approach: maintain open energy exports while relying on domestic production strength to buffer U.S. consumers from global shocks.

—Trump extends EU trade deadline while escalating tariff threats

July 4 ultimatum as White House signals willingness to sharply raise duties if Brussels delays implementation

President Donald Trump has extended the deadline for finalizing a U.S./EU trade agreement, but paired the move with a renewed warning that tariffs on European goods could rise “much higher” if the bloc fails to implement agreed terms by July 4. 

The extension offers negotiators additional time to bridge remaining gaps, yet the tone from Washington suggests patience is limited. Trump’s ultimatum reflects a familiar strategy — using tariff escalation as leverage to force faster concessions — particularly on issues tied to market access, industrial policy, and trade imbalances with the European Union.

Meanwhile, European officials are said to be weighing both compliance pathways and potential countermeasures, wary that sudden tariff hikes could hit key export sectors including autos, machinery, and agricultural products. The July 4 deadline now serves as both a symbolic and operational pressure point, compressing an already tight negotiating timeline.

Analysts note that while both sides have made incremental progress, core disputes remain unresolved — including the scope of tariff reductions, enforcement mechanisms, and alignment on strategic industries. Trump’s latest threat raises the risk that negotiations could tip back toward confrontation, particularly if either side calculates that domestic political considerations outweigh the benefits of compromise.

Bottom line: The outcome carries broader implications beyond transatlantic trade. A breakdown could reintroduce volatility into global supply chains and commodity markets, while a deal — even a partial one — would signal a stabilization of one of the world’s most consequential economic relationships at a time of heightened geopolitical tension.

—FAO food price index climbs to two-year high as Iran conflict ripples through global food markets

Vegetable oils, wheat and meat prices surge amid Strait of Hormuz disruptions, while fertilizer and energy concerns raise alarms over 2026 crop production costs

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index climbed 1.6% in April 2026 to 130.7 points, marking the third consecutive monthly increase and pushing global food prices to their highest level since February 2023. The latest gains underscore how the ongoing war involving Iran and mounting disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz are increasingly feeding into global agricultural supply chains, particularly through higher energy, fertilizer and transportation costs.

The sharpest increase came from vegetable oils, where prices surged 5.9% during the month to reach their highest level since June 2022. FAO said palm oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil and rapeseed oil prices all moved higher as traders reacted to supply uncertainty tied to instability in the Persian Gulf region. The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint not only for crude oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, but also for fertilizer-related trade flows and agricultural inputs moving between the Middle East and global markets.

Rising energy prices and concerns over fertilizer availability also contributed to higher cereal prices. FAO’s cereals index rose 0.8% to its highest level since February 2025, with wheat prices increasing on weather worries in key exporting regions and mounting concern that elevated production costs could reduce planted acreage next season.

The wheat market was supported by persistent drought concerns in portions of the U.S. Plains, where hard-red winter wheat conditions remain under pressure. Meanwhile, traders also focused on forecasts calling for below-normal rainfall in parts of Australia, another major wheat exporter. Beyond immediate weather threats, FAO highlighted growing fears that fertilizer and fuel inflation tied to the Strait of Hormuz disruptions could discourage wheat plantings in 2026, particularly in regions heavily dependent on imported nutrients and diesel-intensive production systems.

Those fertilizer concerns have become increasingly central to global grain market discussions in recent weeks. Analysts and policymakers have warned that elevated natural gas prices and shipping bottlenecks are pushing fertilizer costs sharply higher during a critical Northern Hemisphere growing season. The Middle East plays an outsized role in global nitrogen and ammonia trade, while uncertainty surrounding shipping routes has increased freight costs and delivery risks.

Meat prices also climbed 1.2% in April, reaching a new record high. FAO attributed the gains to continued strong import demand combined with tightening supplies in several exporting countries. Higher feed costs tied to grain and oilseed inflation have also added upward pressure to livestock production expenses.

Not all food categories moved higher. Sugar prices fell 4.7% as expectations for abundant global supplies weighed on the market. Improved production prospects in China and Thailand helped offset concerns about broader commodity inflation. Dairy prices also eased 1.1%, led by declines in butter and cheese quotations amid softer international demand and improved export availability.

The broader FAO report reinforces growing concerns that geopolitical instability is increasingly becoming a structural driver of food inflation. While weather remains a major variable for agricultural markets, traders are now placing greater emphasis on the intersection between energy security, fertilizer availability and food production costs — particularly as the conflict involving Iran continues to threaten one of the world’s most strategically important shipping corridors.

—USDA finalizes stricter SNAP retail stocking standards

Rule implements 2014 Farm Bill mandates while expanding food variety and tightening program integrity

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has finalized a sweeping rule updating stocking requirements for retailers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), establishing a clearer and more structured framework for what qualifies as a “distinct staple food variety.” Link

At its core, the rule enforces long-delayed provisions from the 2014 Farm Bill by requiring SNAP-authorized retailers to carry a broader range of staple foods — increasing the minimum from three to seven varieties in each of four categories (protein, grains, fruits/vegetables, and dairy), and expanding perishable requirements from two categories to three.

The final rule introduces a new classification system for food varieties, dividing them into three groups — single-ingredient items, multi-ingredient derivative products, and shelf-stable foods — aimed at simplifying compliance while ensuring meaningful diversity in food offerings.

USDA made several notable adjustments from the proposed rule following stakeholder feedback. These include adding new qualifying varieties such as whole grain bread, whole grain pasta, shredded cheese, sour cream, and breakfast cereals, while clarifying that items like flavored milk count as distinct from plain milk. Meanwhile, butter and all forms of jerky are now categorized as “accessory foods,” meaning they cannot be counted toward stocking requirements.

The agency emphasized that the rule is designed to improve access to “whole, nutrient-dense foods” for SNAP participants while closing loopholes that previously allowed retailers to meet requirements with low-nutrition products.

However, the changes are expected to disproportionately impact small-format retailers such as convenience stores, which account for a large share of SNAP violations but a relatively small portion of total program redemptions. USDA acknowledged concerns that stricter standards could reduce retailer participation in rural and underserved areas but argued the rule strikes a balance between access and program integrity.

From a compliance standpoint, retailers must stock at least 28 total staple food varieties (seven per category), maintain a minimum of 84 stocking units, and ensure perishable items are represented across three categories.

The rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with retailers given 180 days to comply. 

Economically, USDA estimates implementation will cost retailers roughly $77 million in the first year, with smaller ongoing costs thereafter, while federal implementation costs are projected at about $4 million. Overall, the rule represents a significant tightening of SNAP retailer standards, reinforcing the program’s nutritional goals while raising operational expectations — particularly for smaller stores navigating limited space, supply chains, and perishability constraints.

—USDA final rule expands whole milk access in school and child nutrition programs

New policy restores flexibility for milk offerings, aligns with Dietary Guidelines and Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has issued a final rule that significantly expands fluid milk options across federal child nutrition programs, allowing schools and care providers to serve whole and reduced-fat milk to participants aged two and older. Link

The rule, set for publication in the Federal Register on May 8, implements provisions of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 and reflects updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which emphasize the nutritional benefits of full-fat dairy—particularly for child development and energy needs.

Under the new framework, operators in programs including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Special Milk Program (SMP) may now offer whole, reduced-fat (2%), low-fat (1%), or fat-free milk to children over age two. Previously, regulations restricted offerings primarily to low-fat and fat-free options.

The rule also allows schools to exclude saturated fat from milk when calculating weekly dietary limits for meals, easing compliance with federal nutrition standards while maintaining broader dietary guidelines. This adjustment applies to both lunch and breakfast programs and is intended to provide greater menu planning flexibility.

Importantly, the policy is deregulatory in nature — it does not mandate changes but gives program operators discretion to expand milk offerings based on local preferences, cost considerations, and product availability. USDA emphasizes that the rule is designed to better align school meal programs with evolving nutrition science while maintaining choice at the local level.

From an economic standpoint, USDA analysis suggests minimal cost impact overall, with one scenario projecting modest savings of roughly $15 million annually due to substitution effects in milk purchasing. The agency does not expect a net increase in dairy sector revenues, anticipating instead a redistribution across product categories.

The rule applies broadly across meal service settings, including afterschool snacks, preschool meal patterns, and competitive food environments such as “Smart Snacks” in schools, further embedding whole and reduced-fat milk options throughout federally supported nutrition programs.

USDA is accepting public comments for 30 days following publication, signaling that additional refinements or guidance could follow as stakeholders weigh in on implementation. But key: an interim final rule is effective immediately. A final rule with a comment period does not become effective until the comment period is over.

—Supreme Court justices to testify before Senate Appropriators after long hiatus

Rare May 20 hearing to spotlight judiciary funding, security needs, and institutional tensions

Supreme Court justices are set to return to Capitol Hill for a rare appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 20, marking the first such testimony before Senate appropriators in more than a decade. The hearing will center on the Court’s fiscal year 2027 budget request, including a notable push for increased security funding amid heightened political scrutiny of the judiciary.

While it remains unclear which members of the Court will testify, the session is expected to draw significant attention given the Court’s request for an additional $14.6 million dedicated to protecting justices. The funding increase reflects growing concerns over threats to the judiciary, as security has become a central issue following years of escalating public and political tensions.

The appearance would be the first time since 2011 that Supreme Court justices have testified before a Senate panel. That year, Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia appeared before lawmakers to discuss the constitutional role of the judiciary. More recently, in 2019, Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito testified before House appropriators, though Senate appearances have lapsed.

Historically, these hearings have focused narrowly on administrative and budgetary matters — such as staffing, clerk hiring, and operational needs — rather than judicial decisions or pending cases. Still, the renewed engagement comes at a moment when the Court’s role in public life is under intense scrutiny.

That tension was underscored this week by John Roberts, who warned against the growing perception of the Court as a political institution. Speaking at a judicial conference, Roberts emphasized the importance of maintaining the judiciary’s independence, noting that the public may not fully appreciate the distinction between the Court and the political branches.

Meanwhile, the Senate has yet to release its fiscal year 2027 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill — the legislation that funds the judiciary — leaving open questions about how lawmakers will respond to the Court’s funding requests. The House Appropriations Committee is also expected to schedule its own hearing with justices later this year, signaling a broader re-engagement between Congress and the judicial branch after years of limited direct interaction.

—Tennessee redistricting overhaul advances GOP sweep

Lawmakers eliminate majority-Black district, setting up legal showdown over voting rights

Tennessee lawmakers approved a new congressional map that dismantles the state’s only majority-Black district — a move designed to secure an all-Republican delegation in Washington and one that is almost certain to trigger immediate legal challenges.

The redistricting plan reconfigures the district long centered in Memphis, previously represented by a Democrat and anchored by a majority-Black voting population. Under the new map, that population is split across multiple districts, diluting its voting power and effectively eliminating a seat that had enabled Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice.

Republican leaders defended the overhaul as a lawful exercise of the legislature’s authority to redraw districts following population changes and political shifts. They argued the new lines reflect broader geographic and partisan realities across the state, where Republicans dominate statewide elections.

Democrats and civil rights groups sharply criticized the move, calling it a textbook case of racial vote dilution that violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They contend the previous district was protected under provisions requiring states to preserve minority voters’ ability to elect preferred candidates where possible.

The fight is expected to move quickly into the courts, potentially setting up another high-stakes test of redistricting law following the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which weakened federal oversight of state election changes. Legal experts say challengers will likely argue that Tennessee’s map unlawfully fragments a cohesive Black voting population in violation of remaining protections under Section 2 of the law.

Meanwhile, the political implications are immediate. If the map withstands legal scrutiny, Tennessee would join a small group of states with entirely one-party congressional delegations — further deepening partisan polarization in the U.S. House. Civil rights advocates signaled they are preparing lawsuits, warning that the case could become a broader referendum on how far states can go in reshaping districts without running afoul of federal protections for minority voters.

—Southern redistricting push reshapes House battlefield ahead of midterms

Republican-led redraw efforts across the South could raise the bar for Democrats to retake the House, though analysts say the broader political environment may still favor Democratic gains.

According to analysis by Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report, Republican-controlled legislatures across the South are moving aggressively to redraw congressional maps following a recent Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The effort could significantly alter the House battlefield ahead of the November midterms by eliminating or weakening several majority-Black districts that have traditionally favored Democrats. Walter writes that Tennessee lawmakers introduced a map eliminating the state’s only majority-Black district in Memphis, while lawmakers in Louisiana and Alabama are pursuing redraws that could reduce Black-majority representation there as well. Mississippi and South Carolina are also considering new maps, and Florida’s earlier redraw could add four Republican seats.

The report argues that, in a best-case scenario for Republicans, successful redraws in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee — combined with a rejection of Virginia’s proposed Democratic-leaning map — could net the GOP as many as 11 seats through redistricting alone. That would dramatically raise the threshold Democrats would need to reclaim control of the House from a three-seat gain to roughly 15 seats.

However, Walter cautions that redistricting alone cannot overcome broader political trends. The analysis notes that several newly redrawn Republican-favored districts in South Texas and South Florida may still remain competitive because of shifting Latino voting patterns and declining support for President Donald Trump among Hispanic voters compared to 2024 levels. The report also points out that Democrats remain well positioned in several battlegrounds, including California, where they could gain four or five seats depending on outcomes in competitive districts such as California’s 22nd District currently held by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.).

Walter ultimately concludes that a more realistic outcome may be a net Republican gain of about five seats from redistricting rather than the maximum 11-seat scenario. Even that smaller gain could prove meaningful in an era of razor-thin House majorities because it would force Democrats to win a larger share of competitive districts nationwide.

Still, the analysis stresses that Republican efforts to shore up southern districts may do little to protect vulnerable GOP incumbents in swing states such as Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa and California if national political conditions continue to deteriorate for Republicans.

— NWS outlook: There is a Slight Risk (level 2/5) of severe thunderstorms over parts of the Southern Plains on Friday and Saturday… … There is a Slight Risk (level 2/4) of excessive rainfall over parts of the Lower Mississippi Valley.

—Cold snap, split moisture pattern shapes U.S. planting outlook

Western belt advances while eastern fields stall — relief possible for HRW wheat 

An unusually cold weather pattern continues to dominate the near-term U.S. outlook, with another surge of cold air set to sweep across the Corn Belt by Sunday and linger east of the Mississippi River into early next week. Despite the chill, conditions remain highly favorable for fieldwork across the western Corn Belt and northern Plains, where a lack of meaningful precipitation and adequate soil moisture are allowing producers to maintain an aggressive planting pace through the next 10 days.

Meanwhile, the eastern half of the Corn Belt and the Mid-South face a much different reality. Repeated rounds of light rainfall — combined with heavier precipitation expected along the Gulf Coast over the weekend — are effectively eliminating dry windows, keeping soils saturated and halting fieldwork progress across key growing areas.

In the hard red winter wheat belt, persistent dryness continues to stress developing crops in the short term. However, the forecast introduces a meaningful shift heading into Week Two, with a trough developing in the West and a ridge building in the East. This pattern is expected to deliver much-needed precipitation to the central and eastern HRW wheat regions, along with parts of the southwestern Corn Belt — a potential stabilizing factor for crop conditions.

Meanwhile, a broader warming trend is set to take hold. Warmer temperatures will build across the Plains by early next week and expand into the western Corn Belt shortly thereafter, marking the beginning of a more moderate national pattern during the 11–15-day period.