Where Are FBA Payment Rates?

Corn 2025 review and a look ahead at 2026

LINKS

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Dec. 20
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Dec. 20

Updates: Policy/News/Markets, Dec. 26, 2025

UP FRONT

Note: Today’s dispatch looks at the Trump administration, including the president and some of his Cabinet members, and their growing reputation for saying one thing but meaning another, or just not understanding what is going on in farm country.

— Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) payment rates: USDA’s messaging has ping-ponged (press release vs. presser vs. “by month-end” chatter), fueling farmer skepticism about whether payment-rate release and/or payments stay on track for the previously cited “by Feb. 28” window—and adding to the perception Washington doesn’t understand farm-country timing.

— SDRP2 implementation frustration vs. SDRP1: Producers say SDRP2 has felt slower, less clear, and more documentation-heavy than SDRP1, with evolving guidance and uneven county-office answers creating planning headaches and compounding cash-flow stress.

— China soybean purchase-commitment timeline keeps shifting: What began as “by end of December” messaging moved to “by end of February” and then “the season,” leaving the market unsure whether officials mean calendar year, shipment timing, or the marketing year — blurring the near-term demand signal.

— USDA’s handling of the 43-day government shutdown: Stakeholders say USDA took a more rigid posture than prior shutdowns — slowing FSA office functions, delaying payments and loan processing, and disrupting SNAP operations — reinforcing a view the department wasn’t farmer- and consumer-friendly when it mattered.

— Shutdown spillovers into biofuels and tax-credit timelines: The prolonged shutdown also became a convenient (partial) explanation for why key decisions on RFS mandates, SRE reallocations, and 45Z guidance slipped further behind schedule.

— Cattle producers push back on Trump’s beef-price focus: More ranchers argue White House messaging suggests quick fixes that ignore the multi-year cattle cycle, risking policy pressure that could discourage herd rebuilding and squeeze producer margins even if retail prices ease.

— Argentina bond-swap politics meets soybean market reality: Administration support tied to Argentina’s election politics was followed by Argentina cutting export taxes and China booking large Argentine soybean volumes — undercutting U.S. competitiveness during a seasonal U.S. export window.

— EPA delays on 2026–27 RVOs and SRE reallocations: Corn/soy growers and biofuel producers are increasingly bracing for late-Q1 2026 decisions, extending uncertainty for ethanol/biodiesel demand signals, contracting, and investment — especially if waived volumes aren’t fully reallocated.

— 45Z guidance still pending: Treasury/IRS delays on final 45Z rules keep producers, farmers, and lenders guessing on carbon scoring, eligible feedstocks/practices, compliance mechanics, and credit economics — slowing investment and complicating commodity-demand planning.

— FSA staffing shortages in some counties: Producers warn thin staffing is becoming an operational bottleneck for signups, certifications, and payment processing — turning implementation capacity into a real policy risk.

— RMA drops the 5% prevented-plant (PP) buy-up: Agents and farmers are perplexed by the late change; many argue the lost 5% cushion can be material in bad spring weather years, tightening the safety net and raising downside risk.

— USDA ag trade outlook: more data, less explanation: USDA’s latest trade outlook again lacks the usual narrative on drivers behind forecast changes, leaving the sector guessing where incremental exports are expected to come from and how tariffs and slower growth are shaping assumptions.

— USDA previously ended its Household Food Security Report — replacement unclear: After terminating the long-running benchmark as “redundant/costly/politicized,” USDA still hasn’t laid out a clear successor framework or timetable, worrying researchers and anti-hunger advocates.

— DOGE savings claims debunked (New York Times): A year-long review portrays DOGE as highly disruptive but fiscally marginal — highlighting errors, inflated “receipts,” and the reality that Congress, not a task force, drives large-scale spending cuts.

— Next demographic power shift underway: New Census Bureau projections point to Nigeria, DR Congo, and Pakistan surpassing the U.S. in population around 2070, signaling a long-run tilt of labor growth, migration pressures, and geopolitical weight toward Africa and South Asia.

— Equities today: U.S. index futures are little changed in thin post-Christmas trading with many European markets closed; seasonality watchers note the S&P 500’s strong “Santa rally” tendency.

— Equities on Wednesday: In a half-day, very low-volume session, the S&P 500 notched another record close (its 39th of the year) as 2025 gains held near +18%.

— Precious metals extend shine: Silver pushed above $75/oz while gold and platinum hit fresh records, driven by rate-cut expectations, thin liquidity, and supply constraints.

— Refund reality check: Administration officials sell “big, beautiful” refunds as a broad win, but analysts argue gains are concentrated in targeted groups and higher earners, leaving many filers with modest changes and timing risk.

— U.S. corn in 2025; look at 2026: Record supply met unexpectedly resilient demand and strong exports, but tariff uncertainty and biofuel-policy risk capped rallies — setting up 2026 as a stocks-vs-policy battle.

— USDA Hogs & Pigs revisions: Upward revisions imply supplies and productivity were larger than first reported, reframing price strength and reminding markets revisions can change the story.

— Agriculture markets Wednesday (Dec. 24): Grains and oilseeds finished higher while livestock was mixed — typical thin holiday trade but a useful year-end snapshot.

— ARC/PLC bill grows as December prices settle: December MYA updates — especially weaker rice and cotton — lifted estimated 2025 ARC/PLC outlays by roughly $550 million to about $12.46B, with final county yields the key swing factor. (Paul Neiffer, CPA Farm Report)

— Oil prices steady Friday: Brent and WTI held near recent ranges as geopolitics offset oversupply fears in holiday-thinned trade.

— Oil prices slip Wednesday: Strong U.S. growth signals and supply risks supported prices, but inventory/oversupply expectations capped gains.

— Energy policy in 2025: Deregulation dominated under Trump; 2026 centers on grid reliability and surging power demand tied to data centers and AI.

— Trump administration narrows WOTUS: EPA and Army Corps moved to limit Clean Water Act jurisdiction post-Sackett, aiming to reduce permitting reach while inviting litigation and a focus on state enforcement.

— 2026 trade outlook (Bloomberg): After 2025’s tariff shock, 2026 may bring “tariff consequences,” fragile deals, USMCA review friction, and Supreme Court uncertainty.

— Spirits exports slide: Mid-2025 data show sharp export declines, deepening pressure on U.S. whiskey amid high inventories and weak domestic demand.

— China yuan breaks 7-per-dollar threshold: The offshore yuan strengthened past 7, reflecting dollar softness and trade-surplus dynamics as Beijing tolerates controlled appreciation.

— Redistricting fight heading into 2026: Mid-decade redraws have shifted some seats but not decided control; the Supreme Court’s VRA ruling is the biggest wild card.

— What Trump should know about beef prices: High prices reflect a historically small herd, drought-driven liquidation, supply disruptions, and strong demand — making quick relief unlikely.

— Court upholds Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee: A federal judge let the fee stand, strengthening executive authority on employment-based immigration and raising hiring costs.

— NWS outlook: One more wet day in California before improvement, ice/snow risks across parts of the Midwest-to-Northeast, and record warmth lingering across the southern Plains.

A close-up of a document AI-generated content may be incorrect.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

—Equities today: U.S. equity futures are little changed in quiet trading following the Christmas holiday, as most European markets are closed for St. Steven’s Day. There was no notable foreign economic news out overnight. Data from the Stock Trader’s Almanac shows that since 1950, the S&P 500 has averaged a 1.3% gain in last five trading days of the year and the first two of the new year. In Asia, Japan +0.7%. Hong Kong +0.2%. China +0.1%. India -0.4%. In Europe, at midday, London -0.2%. Paris flat. Frankfurt +0.2%.

—Equities on Wednesday: A half day of trading and the lowest volume day of the year. The S&P 500 rose 0.32% to its 39th record close of the year. It’s the index’s first Christmas Eve record since 2013. With just four days to go in 2025 trading, the S&P 500 is up 17.9% on the year. It looks like the benchmark index will post its third consecutive annual gain, bringing its total rise over that period to 80%. The Dow hit its own record. The Nasdaq is 1.4% off its October peak.

Equity Index	Closing Price Dec. 24	Point Difference from Dec. 23	% Difference from Dec. 23
Dow	48,731.16	+288.75	+0.60%
Nasdaq	23,613.31	+51.46	+0.22%
S&P 500	6,932.05	+22.26	+0.32%

—Precious metals extend shine

Silver vaults past $75 as gold and platinum hit records amid rate-cut bets, thin liquidity, and supply constraints

Precious metals powered higher into year-end, with silver, gold, and platinum all posting fresh milestones as investors leaned into hard assets amid expectations for U.S. rate cuts and volatility amplified by low holiday liquidity.

Silver surged to $75.42/oz, its first break above the $75 level, capping a meteoric +158.6% YTD gain. The rally has been fueled by tight supply, its designation as a U.S. critical mineral, and resilient industrial demand.

Gold climbed to a record $4,530/oz, extending a run that has coincided—unusually—with strong equity markets.

Platinum spiked as much as +9% to $2,463.60/oz, marking a new all-time high.

A notable twist in 2025 has been gold’s break from its long-standing negative correlation with equities. The metal’s advance has unfolded alongside new highs in major stock indexes — suggesting gold may be responding less to risk-off impulses and more to macro hedging demand tied to policy expectations and liquidity dynamics.

—Refund reality check

Trump touts “big, beautiful” refunds — but some analysts say the gains are narrow, uneven, and politically risky

President Donald Trump has been promising that taxpayers will feel flush in the new year, casting his signature tax law as a pocketbook win just in time for a consequential midterm cycle. The fine print, however, tells a more complicated story: meaningful refund gains are concentrated among specific groups, while a majority of filers are likely to see only modest changes — a gap between rhetoric and reality that could shape voter sentiment.

What the law actually does. The legislation expands or creates deductions and credits for seniors, parents, tipped and overtime workers, and — most notably — higher-income households in high-tax states. The cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction was quadrupled to $40,000, delivering the largest dollar benefits to taxpayers in places like California, New Jersey, and New York. Parents receive a boosted child tax credit; filers 65 and older qualify for a new $6,000 deduction; and workers with tips or overtime can claim new write-offs. The standard deduction also rises, which blunts the impact for many filers who don’t itemize.

As Adam Michel of the Cato Institute put it, the “typical W-2 worker with no kids” will see very little year-over-year change — a category he estimates includes just over half of taxpayers. The right-leaning Tax Foundation projects the average refund (roughly $3,000 in recent years) could rise by $300 to $1,000, but that average masks wide dispersion. Roughly a quarter of filers qualify for the enhanced child credit; about 13% for the senior deduction; and a combined 12% for tip and overtime deductions.

Where the rhetoric diverges. Administration messaging suggests broad-based, eye-catching refunds. The distributional math suggests something narrower: bigger checks for targeted groups and for higher earners who can fully leverage itemized deductions, with incremental gains for everyone else. The design also stretches benefits further up the income ladder because deductions are more valuable in higher tax brackets.

That gap matters politically. Republicans are betting that refund season will counter persistent cost-of-living complaints. Democrats are skeptical. Rich Neal, the top Democrat on the House tax-writing committee, argues voters are more focused on affordability pressures like rising out-of-pocket health costs than on one-time refund bumps.

Timing risk adds another wrinkle. Even for those expecting larger refunds, there’s concern about when the money arrives. A group of Senate Democrats led by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has warned that staffing cuts and leadership churn at the Internal Revenue Service could delay processing. After a year marked by workforce reductions and repeated acting commissioners, any refund backlog would undercut the administration’s “Santa-sized” promise at the worst possible moment.

Here’s how Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett have framed the refund issue — and how it contrasts with other commentators:
What Bessent says
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has leaned heavily into the refund narrative as proof of tangible tax relief, arguing that:The Trump tax law is designed to “put more money back in Americans’ pockets” through larger refunds and lower withholding.Refunds are a visible and immediate signal to households that the tax changes are working, especially compared with abstract marginal-rate reductions.Treasury expects refunds to be larger on average, and Bessent has emphasized that this will be felt “across income groups,” even if the mechanisms differ.
Notably, Bessent has not emphasized distributional nuance in public remarks. He tends to focus on aggregate averages and the psychological impact of refund checks rather than who benefits most or least — aligning with the administration’s political messaging that refund season will validate the law.
What Hassett says
NEC Director Kevin Hassett has taken a more explicitly macro-political and behavioral approach:Hassett argues that refunds matter more than static distribution tables, because voters respond to cash-in-hand experiences, not econometric breakdowns.He has framed the tax law as pro-growth and pro-work, stressing that incentives for overtime, tips, and family formation will show up in refunds and paychecks over time.Hassett has acknowledged that some households will see bigger gains than others, but he dismisses that as normal for any tax reform, emphasizing instead that “most families are better off than before.”
In contrast to critics, Hassett has argued that focusing on who doesn’t get a large refund misses the point: the law’s goal, in his telling, is to reward participation in the labor force and family formation, not to equalize outcomes.
Where their messaging diverges from the reality checkBoth Bessent and Hassett emphasize averages and visibility, while analysts focus on medians and eligibility.Neither has directly grappled with the fact that over half of filers — especially childless W-2 workers — see only modest changes.Both largely sidestep the issue that deductions skew benefits upward, particularly the expanded SALT cap.On timing, administration officials have downplayed IRS capacity concerns, whereas Democrats warn delays could blunt the political payoff.
Bottom Line: Bessent and Hassett are selling refund season as a political and psychological win — bigger checks, clear proof, fast feedback. The underlying analysis suggests a more uneven outcome: meaningful gains for targeted groups and higher earners, incremental change for everyone else, and real risk if refunds arrive late.
In short, the administration is betting voters remember the headline number on the check, not the distribution table behind it.

Upshot: Trump’s sales pitch emphasizes scale and speed; the policy reality emphasizes targeting and timing. For seniors, parents, tipped and overtime workers — and especially higher-income filers in high-tax states — refunds could indeed feel meaningfully larger. For the median worker outside those categories, the change is likely to be incremental. Whether voters remember the promise or the paycheck may decide how powerful the tax law proves at the ballot box.

AG MARKETS

— U.S. corn in 2025: Record supply meets a demand test; early look at 2026

A big crop and record exports steadied the market, but tariff uncertainty, shifting trade flows, and biofuel-policy fights kept a lid on prices — setting up 2026 as a battle between stocks and policy-driven demand

Perspective: Highest acres since the 1930s, and farmers delivered consecutive years of record yields, providing the individual farmer much needed income. But this record supply is just keeping pace with global consumption. The demand for corn is one of the most surprising things that happened this year. This is the one very positive item in the corn sector. If I would’ve told you 98 million acres of corn, three years of record yields and ask you the price, you would have said a lot lower corn price. But look at the price!

Prices: a year defined by “cheap corn + policy risk”

•New-crop CBOT corn spent much of 2025 under pressure as the market repeatedly re-priced larger U.S. supplies and comfortable carryout expectations. There was a sharp spring/early-summer slide, with December corn settling near $4.38 1/2 in early June and marking a five-year low for that date, as trade fears and tariff confusion mounted.

• The market also fixated on whether December corn could reclaim levels tied to revenue insurance benchmarks; Reuters highlighted the historical tendency for December corn to revisit February averages (around $4.70) — but warned 2025 uncertainty made even “always happens” seasonals feel less certain.

• Bottom line: prices were range-bound and defensively traded — bearish supply signals repeatedly collided with export demand headlines and intermittent policy risk permeated.

Supply: record U.S. production overwhelmed the balance sheet

• The defining fundamental was the size of the 2025 U.S. crop.A record-scale harvest amplified storage, cash-flow, and basis concerns in many areas.

•Even with demand improving, USDA projected large 2025/26 ending stocks.

Exports & trade flows: strong volumes, more diversified demand, but politics everywhere

• Exports were a bright spot. The U.S. shipped a record volume of corn in the 2024/25 marketing year, slightly topping the prior high.

• Analysts also emphasized that corn’s customer base looks broader and more resilient than soybeans’ in the current trade environment — helping corn “hold the line” even when China-related headlines hit broader ag sentiment.

•Still, the export story came with a warning label for 2026: Brazil’s second crop “safrinha” competitiveness and rising rival exporter supply (Brazil/Argentina/Ukraine) can cap U.S. forward sales — especially in the pre-harvest/new-crop window.

Policy issues that mattered in 2025

•Tariffs and retaliation risk returned as a recurring market overhang. Farmer and trader concerns early in the year mounted as President Trump ordered sweeping tariffs targeting major trade partners — raising the odds of blowback against U.S. ag exports (including corn and key coproduct channels).

• Biofuels policy stayed politically hot (and market-relevant) because it directly affects corn demand through ethanol margins, blending economics, and investment signals. There were widening rifts between refiners and the administration over biofuel/tariff policy (year-round E15, etc.) and related lobbying.

• Data flow even became a policy variable: USDA’s export sales reporting and commitments of traders’ delays (shutdown/holiday changes) forced the market to trade with less timely visibility — never ideal during heavy export programs.

Key issues to watch for 2026

Will acres finally retreat — or does corn plantings persist?
After record production and large carryout projections, 2026 profitability math (inputs vs cash bids) will determine whether acreage moderates or the U.S. keeps producing “too much corn.” The acreage battle between corn and soybeans will continue, as analysts recently revised some of their initial planting forecasts, and will likely again as 2026 unfolds. Yet crop rotations still play a big role relative to corn and soybean acreage in the heat of the Corn Belt, for agronomic, disease, and other reasons. Plus farmers with a “local” ethanol plant or one relatively close typically can capture a better price (narrower basis) than elevators that eventually feed into the export market.
Can exports stay strong with Brazil pressing harder?
The U.S. can repeat big exports, but it may require either pricing aggressiveness or a weather/production hiccup elsewhere, because Brazil’s crop size and logistics timing increasingly collide with U.S. sales windows.
Tariff path and trade access — especially with major buyers nearby and abroad
Mexico remains pivotal to U.S. corn flows (and rail/cross-border logistics), while broader tariff escalation raises retaliation risk. Early-2025 tariff actions show how quickly trade policy can re-price demand assumptions.
Ethanol/RFS uncertainty is a real demand risk premium
The Trump administration is expected to delay finalizing 2026 biofuel blending quotas late in first quarter 2026, extending uncertainty that complicates contracting, hedging, and investment decisions across the corn/ethanol value chain.
“Big stocks vs global tightness” tension
Even with a large U.S. balance sheet, global corn dynamics matter for price ceilings/floors; analysts note global supply questions and demand resilience as a continuing theme that could tighten the outlook if weather turns.

—USDA Hogs & Pigs report revisions: What changed and why it matters

USDA made notable upward revisions to several recent hog and pig estimates in the December Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report, reinforcing the view that actual supplies over the past year were larger than previously reported and that productivity gains were understated earlier

What USDA revised. According to NASS, all inventory and pig crop estimates from December 2023 through September 2025 were re-evaluated using updated slaughter data, death loss, and trade flows. Key revisions include:

• September 2025 all hogs and pigs inventory revised up 1.1%

• June–August 2025 pig crop revised up 2.5%

• June 2025 all hogs and pigs inventory revised up 1.9%

• March–May 2025 pig crop revised up 1.9%

These are material adjustments by USDA standards, especially for pig crop data, which directly feed into supply expectations for subsequent quarters.

Why the revisions matter. The revisions carry several important implications:

•Supply was tighter than believed earlier: Upward revisions mean more pigs were in the system than markets had assumed at the time, helping explain why pork production and slaughter held up better than some forecasts suggested in mid-2025.

•Productivity gains were understated: Larger pig crops, combined with record pigs-per-litter, indicate that efficiency improvements were stronger than initially captured, even as the breeding herd declined.

•Price interpretation changes: Hog prices that appeared strong relative to reported inventories now look less surprising when viewed against a higher revised supply base — suggesting demand absorbed more pork than previously thought.

•Forward-looking caution: Because USDA revisions often occur with a lag, the changes serve as a reminder that initial quarterly estimates can understate turning points, particularly during periods of rapid productivity change.

Bottom Line: The December revisions reinforce a key takeaway from the broader report: the U.S. hog sector in 2024–25 was larger and more productive than earlier data indicated, even without meaningful breeding herd expansion. For analysts, packers, and producers, the revisions underscore the need to interpret short-term price and supply signals with caution — and to watch future revisions closely as USDA continues to reconcile survey data with slaughter and trade realities.

—Agriculture markets Wednesday:

Commodity	Contract Month	Close Dec. 24	Change vs Dec. 23
Corn	March	$4.50 ½	+3¢
Soybeans	January	$10.62 ¾	+11 ¼¢
Soybean Meal	January	$304.70/ton	+$3.60
Soybean Oil	January	49.04 ¢/lb	+74 pts
Wheat (SRW)	March	$5.22 ½	+5 ½¢
Wheat (HRW)	March	$5.34 ¼	+6 ¼¢
Cotton	March	64.24 ¢/lb	+23 pts
Live Cattle	February	$228.725	-$1.275
Feeder Cattle	January	$344.925	+30¢
Lean Hogs	February	$89.075	-90¢

FARM POLICY

ARC/PLC bill grows as December prices settle

rice and cotton mya declines push projected 2025 farm program payouts higher, though yield assumptions remain decisive

Writing in Farm CPA Report (link), farm policy analyst Paul Neiffer reports that updated December Mid-Year Average (MYA) prices from USDA have lifted projected 2025 national ARC/PLC payments by roughly $550 million, raising the estimated total to about $12.46 billion.

Neiffer notes that earlier estimates based on November MYA prices put total 2025 ARC/PLC payments closer to $11.9 billion. Most commodity MYA prices were unchanged in December, but declines in rice and cotton prices materially increased projected program outlays.

Yield assumptions remain the swing factor. The estimates assume county yields at 103% of benchmark yields for calculating ARC payments. Neiffer cautions that final county yield data are not yet available, meaning totals could shift meaningfully:

• If actual yields exceed 103%, ARC payments would fall.

• If yields come in below 103%, ARC payments would rise.

ARC vs. PLC dynamics. According to the analysis, PLC is expected to pay more than ARC for most crops, but corn remains an exception, where ARC currently appears more favorable. However, Neiffer underscores how sensitive the outcome is to yield tweaks: increasing assumed yields to 104% of benchmark would erase the projected national increase in ARC payments altogether.

Bottom Line: December MYA price moves — especially for rice and cotton — have pushed expected 2025 ARC/PLC payments higher, but final county yields will ultimately determine whether those gains hold when payments begin next October, unless Congress acts to accelerate them.

ARC/PLC Projected Payments Table

Commodity	MYA Projected Price	National Enrolled Acres	Average ARC Payment Per Acre	Projected Total ARC Payments Nationally	Average PLC Payment Per Acre	Projected Total PLC Payments Nationally	Higher of the Two Payments	At Final 85% Factor
Barley	$5.30	5,300,078	$1.93	$10,229,151	$8.21	$43,513,640	$43,513,640	$36,986,594
Canola	$0.2150	1,449,320	$18.73	$27,145,764	$37.26	$54,001,663	$54,001,663	$45,901,414
Corn	$4.00	91,577,528	$66.29	$6,070,674,331	$59.12	$5,414,063,455	$6,070,674,331	$5,160,073,181
Sorghum	$3.80	8,321,106	$43.71	$363,715,543	$53.85	$448,091,558	$448,091,558	$380,877,824
Peanuts	$0.2500	2,358,366	$98.99	$233,454,650	$229.19	$540,513,904	$540,513,904	$459,436,818
Soybeans	$10.50	52,215,894	$6.57	$343,058,424	$8.49	$443,312,940	$443,312,940	$376,815,999
Wheat	$5.00	61,044,271	$48.85	$2,982,012,638	$56.00	$3,418,479,176	$3,418,479,176	$2,905,707,300
TOTALS		242,513,220		$11,305,635,911		$13,969,437,385	$14,660,932,544	$12,461,792,661

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

—Friday: Oil prices steady as geopolitics offset oversupply fears

Thin holiday trading keeps markets rangebound despite U.S. strikes in Nigeria and tougher pressure on Venezuelan crude

Oil prices held near recent levels on Friday as traders balanced fresh geopolitical risks against mounting concerns about a global supply glut, with holiday-thinned liquidity keeping moves modest.

Brent crude edged up 12 cents to $62.36 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate gained 19 cents to $58.54. Trading volumes were light in post-Christmas sessions, limiting market reaction to headline risks.

Prices remain on track for their steepest annual decline since 2020, driven by rising output from OPEC+ and non-OPEC producers, reinforcing expectations of surplus supply into next year.

On the geopolitical front, Donald Trump said the U.S. carried out airstrikes against Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria, though analysts noted the strikes did not affect oil infrastructure concentrated in the country’s southern producing regions. As a result, traders largely stayed on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, Washington signaled a tougher economic stance toward Venezuela, directing U.S. forces to focus on effectively “quarantining” Venezuelan oil for at least two months — underscoring the administration’s preference for economic pressure over military escalation.

Analysts said supply-side risks are currently the main swing factor for prices, but holiday closures have muted immediate reactions. Markets are also watching developments in the Russia/Ukraine peace process, as any agreement could eventually ease sanctions on Russian oil.

Oil is heading for its biggest weekly gain since late October, as traders tracked a partial U.S. blockade of crude shipments from Venezuela and the military strike in Nigeria. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he plans to meet President Donald Trump “in the coming days,” signaling optimism about reaching a peace deal to end Russia’s almost four-year war.

—Wednesday: Oil prices slip as growth optimism meets supply fears

Strong U.S. economic data and geopolitical disruptions lend support, but inventories and oversupply expectations cap gains

Oil prices finished marginally lower Wednesday as markets balanced encouraging signs of U.S. economic strength against lingering supply risks from Venezuela, Russia and Central Asia. Brent crude edged down 14 cents to $62.24 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) slipped 3 cents to $58.29. Even with the modest pullback, both benchmarks are up about 6% since mid-December after a sharp earlier selloff.

Support has come from position-squaring in thin holiday trading, solid U.S. macro data and elevated geopolitical tensions. Recent figures showed the U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in two years during the third quarter, fueled by strong consumer spending and a rebound in exports. That strength has helped offset concerns about demand softening into 2026.

On the supply side, disruptions remain a key bullish factor. U.S. enforcement actions have left more than a dozen Venezuelan oil tankers idling offshore, tightening near-term supply. Continued Russian and Ukrainian attacks on energy infrastructure have also underpinned prices, while Kazakhstan’s exports via the Caspian Pipeline Consortium are expected to drop sharply in December after damage to export facilities.

Still, the broader tone remains cautious. Industry data pointed to builds in U.S. crude, gasoline and distillate inventories ahead of delayed official figures from the Energy Information Administration, adding a bearish note. Looking ahead, both Brent and WTI are on track for annual declines of roughly 16% to 18% — their steepest since 2020 — as global supply is widely expected to outpace demand next year despite ongoing geopolitical risks.

—Deregulation dominates energy policy in 2025, while surging power demand sets the 2026 agenda

Trump administration actions reshaped the regulatory landscape as grid reliability, permitting, and energy supply take center stage next year

Energy and environment policy in 2025 was defined by a decisive shift toward deregulation under the Trump administration, with executive action driving much of the agenda. Regulatory reform accelerated across energy and infrastructure projects, particularly through efforts to streamline permitting and speed reviews under NEPA. Federal agencies rolled back or revised climate-related regulations affecting power generation, transportation, and industrial emissions, while the White House advanced a coordinated push to revive domestic coal production through regulatory relief and federal support.

Congress played a more limited role. Lawmakers debated bipartisan permitting reforms aimed at expediting energy and transmission projects, but broader legislative packages stalled. At the same time, the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits under the OBBBA reshaped investment expectations for renewables and electrification. States remained active policymakers, advancing their own climate laws and oil-and-gas methane regulations, often setting up tension with federal priorities.

Energy security concerns also rose in prominence. The administration leaned on tariffs and trade tools to counter perceived unfair practices affecting solar panels, batteries, and clean-energy manufacturing, while policy increasingly emphasized reducing foreign dependence through fuel imports management, LNG exports, strategic stockpiles, and expanded domestic industrial capacity for minerals and nuclear power.

Looking ahead to 2026, the policy debate is expected to pivot from deregulation toward managing rapidly rising energy demand. Explosive growth in electricity use — driven by data centers and AI workloads — is straining grid capacity and reliability, pushing policymakers to focus on transmission expansion, generation adequacy, and infrastructure investment. Permitting reform remains uncertain, with incremental progress possible but major legislative breakthroughs likely delayed. Climate regulation is poised to face sustained legal challenges that could test the scope of agency authority and potentially reach the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, federal financing tools and DOE deployment are expected to steer capital toward grid stability and baseload power, with nuclear energy emerging as a central pillar of the administration’s reliability strategy.

Underlying these trends is an aggressive use of executive authority. President Trump signed 17 executive orders related to energy and the environment in 2025 (see below), including declarations of a national energy emergency, sweeping deregulatory directives to “unleash” domestic energy and mining, measures to boost mineral production, actions to shore up electric grid reliability, and directives to challenge state-level energy and climate policies viewed as restrictive. Together, the charts below show a year defined by deregulation and executive action — and a coming year shaped by the practical limits of energy supply, infrastructure, and demand.

A chart of a government policy AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A diagram of a power plan AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Trump Administration Moves to Narrow Waters of the U.S. Rule
EPA and Army Corps sought to curb federal reach over wetlands and streams, reshaping Clean Water Act enforcement
Although not highlighted in the charts, the Trump administration took significant action in 2025 on the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule as part of its broader deregulatory push. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers moved to further narrow the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, aiming to limit permitting requirements for agriculture, energy, and infrastructure projects.
Administration officials argued that prior interpretations of WOTUS overstretched federal authority, created regulatory uncertainty, and imposed unnecessary compliance costs on landowners, farmers, and developers. The revised approach emphasized state primacy over land and water use, reduced coverage of ephemeral streams and certain wetlands, and aligned enforcement more closely with Supreme Court precedent — particularly the Sackett decision’s focus on relatively permanent waters with a continuous surface connection.
As with other energy and environmental rollbacks, the WOTUS actions are expected to face legal challenges and contribute to ongoing uncertainty heading into 2026, especially as courts continue to define the limits of federal agency authority under existing environmental statutes.

TRADE POLICY

—2026 trade outlook: Tariff consequences, fragile deals and legal uncertainty ahead

Why global commerce faces another volatile year after 2025’s tariff shock

Global trade held up better than expected in 2025 despite President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff agenda, but underlying shifts — weakening U.S. import demand, supply-chain rewiring, fragile trade pacts and a looming Supreme Court ruling on tariff authority — leave 2026 poised to be another year of disruption and policy risk, according to a Bloomberg analysis by Brendan Murray.

Global merchandise trade proved surprisingly resilient in 2025, even as the Trump administration erected what many economists describe as a tariff wall around the US. Data cited by shipping veteran John McCown show global container volumes rose 2.1% year over year in October. But that topline stability masks sharp divergences: US inbound container volumes fell about 8%, while imports into Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and India expanded briskly. McCown argues that if 2025 was “the year of the tariff,” 2026 will be “the year of tariff consequences,” as supply chains continue to reconfigure in response to US trade pressure, Bloomberg reports.

USMCA review risks new frictions. One major flashpoint will be the six-year review of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), a largely untested provision that opens the door to renegotiation rather than automatic extension. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has said stakeholders broadly support keeping the pact but also want changes — a combination that raises the risk of zero-sum bargaining among the three partners. That comes as Canada/U.S. relations remain strained and Mexican industries face pressure from U.S. import taxes, setting the stage for difficult talks in 2026, according to Bloomberg.

Shipping faces supply-chain whiplash. Logistics risks are also building. A potential return of container traffic to the Red Sea — after Houthi attacks subsided following an October Gaza peace plan — could paradoxically snarl global shipping. Analysts warn that shifting vessels back from longer Africa routes would flood the market with capacity and strain European ports. At the same time, a faster-growing U.S. economy could trigger a wave of inventory restocking that overwhelms shipping networks, echoing pandemic-era congestion, Bloomberg notes.

Trade deals without guardrails. Another vulnerability lies in the Trump administration’s recent trade “deals,” many of which lack traditional enforcement mechanisms. These arrangements often trade lower tariff rates for investment pledges or market-access promises, but they stop short of binding commitments. With only a one-year truce in place with China — the US’s most imbalanced trading partner — analysts warn that several agreements could unravel under geopolitical pressure, especially if Beijing pushes back against countries aligning with Washington.

Supreme Court looms over tariff policy. Perhaps the biggest wildcard for 2026 is a pending ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on the legality of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. A loss for the administration could raise thorny questions about whether importers are entitled to refunds and how quickly those could be processed. Betting markets currently put the odds of a government loss at roughly 75%, implying the White House may need to rely on alternative legal authorities to sustain its tariff strategy.

Taken together, Bloomberg concludes, the forces reshaping global trade in 2025 are far from spent. With legal uncertainty, fragile agreements and supply-chain risks converging, 2026 looks less like a reset — and more like the next phase of a still-unsettled global trading system.

—Spirits exports slide as trade tensions bite

Mid-year data show a sharp second-quarter downturn in U.S. distilled spirits exports, deepening pressure on American whiskey producers amid rising inventories and weak domestic demand

U.S. distilled spirits exports fell sharply in the second quarter of 2025, underscoring the growing toll of trade tensions on one of America’s most export-dependent value-added agricultural industries. According to the Distilled Spirits Council’s mid-year report (link), exports declined 9% year over year in Q2, driven by steep losses across the industry’s largest foreign markets — the European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan — which together accounted for 70% of U.S. spirits exports in 2024.

The most severe contraction came from Canada, where exports plunged 85% to below $10 million for the quarter. While Ottawa has removed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. spirits, provincial sales bans remain in place, sharply curtailing access. Exports to the UK and Japan each fell more than 23%, while shipments to the EU declined 12%. The report notes that Canada is currently the only trading partner actively retaliating against U.S. spirits, but consumer substitution away from U.S. products is evident across multiple markets.

By category, most major spirits posted double-digit declines. American whiskey exports dropped 13%, vodka fell 14%, cordials slid 15%, and brandy declined 12%, while rum exports were down 6%. The data suggest international consumers are increasingly opting for domestic or third-country alternatives, reflecting backlash against U.S. trade actions. In Canada alone, sales of U.S. spirits fell 68% in April 2025, while Canadian and other imported spirits each rose about 3.6%.

The export slowdown is particularly problematic for American whiskey producers. Domestic whiskey sales have weakened for two consecutive years, falling from 59.4 million proof gallons in 2022 to 57.6 million in 2024, even as inventories have tripled since 2012 to nearly 1.5 billion proof gallons. With domestic sales and exports totaling just 58 million and 45 million proof gallons respectively in 2024, exports remain the primary outlet for reducing excess stocks.

More broadly, U.S. distilled spirits supplier sales have stagnated since 2022 and slipped 1% nominally in 2024 — a 4% decline after inflation. The report warns that if trade disruptions persist and exports continue to erode, U.S. distillers face mounting financial strain, particularly smaller producers that rely heavily on international growth to offset slowing demand at home.

A graph with blue and black text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

CHINA

China’s offshore yuan breaks 7-to-the-dollar barrier as appreciation momentum builds

First breach in 15 months signals shifting sentiment, a softer dollar, and Beijing’s cautious tolerance for a stronger currency

China’s offshore yuan has strengthened past the key psychological level of 7 per U.S. dollar for the first time since September 2024, underscoring a notable shift in market sentiment toward the Chinese currency and fueling expectations of further appreciation.

The offshore yuan briefly moved to 6.9999 on Wednesday before firming to 6.9960 on Thursday, according to data from Wind. The onshore yuan followed closely, trading around 7.01 per dollar, also its strongest level in more than a year. Together, the moves mark the first sustained breach of the seven-per-dollar threshold in roughly 15 months.

What’s driving the move. Analysts point to a combination of US dollar weakness, strong foreign-exchange settlement demand, and China’s persistent trade surplus as key drivers. China’s trade surplus has surpassed $1 trillion, boosting demand for yuan as exporters convert foreign earnings, while investor unease over the sustainability of U.S. gov’t debt has weighed on the dollar.

The yuan has gained more than 1% over the past month, helped by narrowing interest-rate differentials and expectations that US rate cuts are approaching.

Beijing’s balancing act. The People’s Bank of China has signaled support for stability rather than volatility. On Thursday, it set the daily midpoint at 7.0392, while reiterating the need to avoid excessive exchange-rate swings and maintain “basic stability at a reasonable and balanced level.”

According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, recent official language alternating between “resilience” and “flexibility” suggests policymakers may be comfortable with a stronger yuan, provided the pace of appreciation remains controlled.

Exporters feel the strain. While investors and economists increasingly argue the yuan has been undervalued, some exporters are already feeling pressure. Analysts note that corporate foreign-exchange deposits have climbed above $561.8 billion, reflecting heavy settlement demand.

But small and medium-sized manufacturers warn that a stronger currency complicates pricing, procurement, and payment terms. One Guangdong-based exporter said yuan appreciation raises risks for firms operating on thin margins.

Capital shifts and long-term outlook. A weaker dollar has also prompted Chinese households to diversify away from U.S. assets, with some investors shifting into gold and silver funds instead of converting annual dollar allowances.

Looking ahead, several forecasts point to a longer-term appreciation trend. Yingda Securities projects the yuan could strengthen into the 6.20–6.30 range in 2026–27, citing solid fundamentals and dollar pressure. Veteran policymaker Huang Qifan has gone further, suggesting the currency could gradually rise toward 6.0 per dollar over the next decade.

Bottom Line: The yuan’s break below seven marks more than a technical milestone — it reflects shifting global currency dynamics and Beijing’s evolving tolerance for strength. The challenge now is managing appreciation without undercutting China’s export engine.

POLITICS & ELECTIONS

—Redistricting arms race tilts the House map — and Republicans still hold the upper hand… but there are other opinions

GOP-led redraws, court-ordered changes, and a looming Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act could reshape Southern districts and give Republicans the clearest structural advantage heading into 2026

Redistricting has again become a central force in the fight for control of the U.S. House, after Donald Trump pressed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map to further entrench GOP gains. That move didn’t occur in isolation. It triggered a familiar escalation: Democratic- and Republican-controlled states alike began reassessing their own maps, either to claw back seats or to blunt losses elsewhere.

As the dust settles heading into 2026, at least five states are now on track to use new congressional lines in the next election cycle. Some are the product of overtly partisan redraws, others the result of court intervention. But the most consequential change may still be ahead — at the Supreme Court.

The current scorecard: Who’s redrawing and why it matters. The immediate redistricting activity favors Republicans more than Democrats, for three structural reasons:

1. Geography of control: Republican-controlled legislatures dominate fast-growing Southern states where congressional maps can be redrawn aggressively with relatively little internal resistance. Texas is the clearest example, but it is not alone.

2. Defensive Democratic maps: Democratic-led states have fewer opportunities to generate new seats. In many cases, their redraws are defensive — aimed at preserving existing districts rather than expanding their footprint.

3. Court-driven changes often cut against Democrats: Court-ordered redraws frequently arise in Southern states with histories of Voting Rights Act (VRA) litigation. While these cases have historically protected minority opportunity districts that tend to elect Democrats, that legal landscape may be about to change.

Louisiana v. Callais: The case that could rewire the South. Hovering over all of this is Louisiana v. Callais, a pending Supreme Court case that could fundamentally weaken minority community protections under the Voting Rights Act. If the Court’s conservative majority rules that states face fewer obligations to create or maintain minority-opportunity districts, the consequences would be sweeping.

Such a ruling would likely:

• Reduce the number of majority-minority districts across the Deep South.

• Enable Republican legislatures to reconfigure districts that currently elect Democrats into GOP-leaning seats.

• Accelerate mid-decade redraws, as states rush to exploit new legal latitude.

States most exposed include Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and parts of Texas — all places where minority voters have been pivotal to Democratic House seats.

Who gains the most seats? Republicans are positioned to gain the most net seats from the current redistricting cycle, especially if the Supreme Court narrows the Voting Rights Act.

Short-term (2026): GOP gains are most likely to come from Texas and at least one Southern state affected by court rulings or legislative redraws. Estimates vary, but Republicans could plausibly net 3–6 additional seats purely from map changes.

Medium-term (post–Callais ruling): If minority protections are rolled back, Republicans could unlock several more seats across the South, turning previously competitive or Democratic-leaning districts into reliably Republican ones.

Democrats may see modest gains in a handful of blue states, but these are unlikely to offset Republican advances driven by population growth, unified GOP control, and favorable court outcomes. Democratic gains in California could directly cancel some of the Republican gains sought or realized in states like Texas, where GOP map changes were designed to flip several seats. But Republicans still may hold a structural edge nationally due to multiple state map changes and potential legal shifts — meaning California alone may not fully neutralize GOP advantage without good Democratic turnout and favorable conditions.

The bigger picture. Redistricting alone does not decide House control — candidate quality, turnout, and national political mood still matter. But maps define the battlefield. Right now, that battlefield is shifting in ways that favor Republicans, not just because of aggressive partisan redraws, but because the legal guardrails that once constrained them may soon be loosened.

If Louisiana v. Callais breaks against existing Voting Rights Act precedent, the 2026 House map could look less like a marginal adjustment — and more like a structural reset, particularly across the South.

Note: While redistricting activity accelerated during 2025, the revised congressional maps will first be used in the 2026 midterm elections, making that cycle the operative test of recent partisan redraws and any potential Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.

A Different Conclusion: Where the Redistricting Fight Is Headed in 2026 Mid-decade map changes have narrowed — not decided — the battle for House control, with the Supreme Court now the biggest wild card. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, congressional maps remain unsettled in several states, keeping redistricting at the center of the fight for control of the U.S. House. According to NBC News, six states enacted new congressional maps in 2025, an unusually high number for a mid-decade cycle. Several more states could pursue redraws in 2026, extending a partisan battle that has already reshaped the House landscape. “We’re still squarely in the middle of this redistricting crisis,” John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, told NBC News. How the Fight Escalated The current round of redistricting began after President Donald Trump urged Republican-controlled states to redraw their maps to reinforce the GOP’s narrow House majority. Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina responded with new lines that could collectively net Republicans up to seven seats, NBC News reported. But those gains were partially offset when California voters approved a Democratic-backed map in November that could allow Democrats to pick up as many as five seats — effectively blunting the impact of Texas’ redraw. Mixed Results Across States Other states produced less lopsided outcomes than Republicans initially sought: • Ohio lawmakers reached a compromise map that may net Republicans only one or two seats.• A court-ordered map in Utah created a new Democratic-leaning district.• Indiana lawmakers rejected a Trump-backed redraw that would have added two GOP seats. NBC News estimates Republicans end 2025 with as many as nine newly favorable seats, compared with six for Democrats, leaving neither party with a decisive advantage from redistricting alone. Where Redraws Could Expand in 2026 Looking ahead, NBC News reports that several states could reenter the redistricting fight: • Virginia Democrats are advancing a constitutional amendment that could allow lawmakers to bypass the state’s bipartisan commission and redraw maps ahead of 2026, potentially targeting multiple Republican districts.• Florida Republicans are widely expected to pursue new maps that could yield three to five additional GOP seats, though the effort is constrained by the state constitution’s anti-gerrymandering provisions and internal GOP disagreements involving Gov. Ron DeSantis.• Potential redraws in Kansas, Maryland, and Illinois face legal, political, or timing obstacles, while Missouri’s newly enacted map could be delayed by a voter referendum. Supreme Court Looms Over the Process The largest unknown is a pending Supreme Court case that could further weaken protections under the Voting Rights Act. NBC News reported that if the Court rules early in 2026 in a way that narrows those protections, Republican-led states — particularly in the South — could move quickly to redraw majority-Black districts currently represented by Democrats. Louisiana lawmakers have already taken steps to delay election deadlines in anticipation of such a ruling, while Republicans in South Carolina and Alabama have signaled interest in revisiting their maps. However, NBC News cautioned that if the Court issues its decision late in the term, any new maps may not take effect until after the 2026 elections. Bottom Line The NBC News assessment shows a redistricting fight that has intensified but not yet tipped the balance of power. Republicans gained ground early but fell short of sweeping advantages, while Democrats have used California and potential moves in Virginia to counter GOP gains. With the Supreme Court ruling still pending, control of the House may hinge less on completed redraws — and more on whether legal and political timing allows further changes before voters head to the polls in 2026.

FOOD POLICY & FOOD INDUSTRY

—What President Trump should know about beef prices

A shrinking cattle herd, supply shocks, and strong demand are keeping steak and burgers expensive

Beef has become one of the most stubborn — and visible — drivers of grocery inflation. According to government data cited by the Boston Globe, beef prices jumped sharply in November even as overall food inflation cooled. Ground beef and steak were nearly 15% higher than a year earlier, while roasts surged more than 21%. In dollar terms, lean ground beef averaged $8.23 per pound, USDA Choice sirloin $13.34, and chuck roast $9.34.

What’s behind the spike. Several forces are converging at once:

• Historic cattle shortage: The U.S. beef herd has fallen to its smallest size since the early 1950s after years of drought across the Midwest and Southwest. Higher feed costs and poor pasture conditions pushed ranchers to slaughter cattle rather than hold them.

• Supply disruptions: Imports were temporarily reduced by a parasitic screwworm outbreak in Mexico. At the same time, President Trump imposed — and later lifted — a 40% tariff on Brazilian food products, including beef, adding volatility to supply.

•Rising costs through the chain: Higher expenses for feed, labor, transportation, and packaging are being passed along to consumers.

Why this matters politically: High beef prices have become an irritant for the Trump administration as it tries to show progress on cost-of-living pressures. Some ranchers, meanwhile, point to consolidation among the four dominant meatpackers — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef — arguing that limited competition weakens their bargaining power while allowing processors to raise retail prices. The Justice Department has been directed to investigate the industry for possible collusion and price fixing; companies deny wrongdoing but have already paid large settlements in private lawsuits.

Demand isn’t backing off: Despite sticker shock, Americans are still buying beef. Fresh beef sales rose 12.5% this year through mid-July on a 6.3% increase in volume, outpacing gains for chicken and pork. The Boston Globe notes that high-protein diets — and guidance for people using GLP-1 weight-loss drugs to increase protein intake — are helping keep demand strong.

The outlook: Relief isn’t coming soon. Cattle in U.S. feedlots fell 11% in November from a year earlier, a record low for the month, and processors are already cutting capacity, including a planned Tyson plant closure in Nebraska. Rebuilding the herd requires ranchers to retain young female cattle for breeding rather than slaughter — an essential step that keeps supply tight in the near term.

Bottom Line: Beef is likely to stay scarce and expensive well into next year, a reality that continues to test household budgets and the administration’s inflation narrative. The fear among some livestock producers is that the Trump administration may make another policy move that seeks to address the issue.

LABOR & IMMIGRATION POLICY

—Court upholds Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee in blow to business groups

Judge says Congress gave the president broad authority over immigration policy

A federal judge has delivered a significant setback to major business and higher-education groups by allowing President Donald Trump’s new $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visas to stand, reinforcing the administration’s aggressive approach to employment-based immigration.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell rejected a request from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities to block the fee, which applies to H-1B workers hired from outside the United States. The plaintiffs argued that Donald Trump exceeded his authority under immigration law by imposing what they described as a punitive and unauthorized charge.

In her ruling, Howell sided squarely with the administration, writing that the president’s action “rests on a straightforward reading of congressional statutes giving the President broad authority” to regulate immigration. She concluded that existing law grants the executive wide discretion to set conditions on the entry of foreign workers, particularly when framed as a matter of national interest and labor-market protection.

Implications for employers and universities. The decision clears the way for the Trump administration to continue implementing the fee as part of a broader overhaul of the H-1B program, which has increasingly favored higher-paid, higher-skilled foreign workers. For employers, especially in technology, engineering, and research-heavy sectors, the ruling underscores a higher cost threshold for sponsoring foreign talent from abroad. Universities and research institutions, which warned the fee could deter top global researchers, now face fewer legal avenues to challenge the policy.

Broader legal and political context. The ruling also signals judicial deference to the executive branch on immigration, an area where courts have historically granted presidents considerable latitude. For the Trump administration, the outcome strengthens its hand as it presses forward with immigration restrictions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, framing the policy to protect U.S. workers while reshaping the composition of the legal immigration system.

While the Chamber and its allies could still appeal, Howell’s opinion sets a high bar for overturning the fee, suggesting that future challenges will struggle unless Congress itself moves to narrow presidential authority over employment-based visas.

WEATHER

— NWS outlook: One more wet day today across California before conditions improve for the weekend… …Accumulating ice from the upper Midwest to the Great Lakes and into Pennsylvania today before reaching the northern Mid-Atlantic tonight; moderate to heavy snow tonight across southern New England… …Record warmth hangs around for the southern Plains to the Tennessee Valley.

A map of the united states AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Ag Intel

Where Are FBA Payment Rates?

— U.S. corn in 2025: Record supply meets a demand test; early look at 2026

Prices: a year defined by “cheap corn + policy risk”

Exports & trade flows: strong volumes, more diversified demand, but politics everywhere

Policy issues that mattered in 2025

Key issues to watch for 2026

ARC/PLC Projected Payments Table

Related Posts

White House Cheers “Winning” Iowa — While Farm Country Feels the Squeeze

As Trump Heads to Iowa, the ‘Golden Age’ Pitch Collides with Farm-Belt Reality

What Drove The Latest Soybean Price Action?