Will Trump’s Latest 10% Tariffs Against 8 EU Countries Be Implemented?

A look at Senate Ag leaders’ new farm aid proposal | STB sends rail mega-merger back to the drawing board | Reasons for Friday’s cattle plunge 

LINKS

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Jan. 11
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Jan. 11
 

Updates: Policy/News/Markets, Jan. 17, 2026

UP FRONT

 TOP STORIES

— Boozman, Hoeven answer ag groups’ call, push expanded farm aid in funding talks
Boozman (R-Ark.) and Hoeven (R-N.D.) are pressing to expand USDA’s Farmer Bridge Assistance via a must-pass CR, adding prevent-plant eligibility, higher payment/loan limits, and targeted add-ons (including specialty crops and sugar) while keeping the topline flexible to preserve negotiating room.

— Trump threatens escalating tariffs on Europe in push for Greenland deal
Trump is threatening 10% tariffs Feb. 1 on Denmark and seven other European countries — rising to 25% June 1 — unless the U.S. can buy Greenland, but the legal mechanism remains unclear, and many observers view it as pressure tactics pending any formal action.

— Supreme Court poised for Jan. 20 ruling window, Trump tariff decision still pending
The Court’s next opinion day is Jan. 20, putting fresh focus on whether justices will rule on the IEEPA-based tariff challenges (Learning Resources/V.O.S. Selections), a decision that could redefine presidential tariff authority and trigger major economic/legal ripple effects.

— Supreme Court weighs limits on state pesticide lawsuits in landmark Roundup case
Justices agreed to hear Bayer’s bid to curb state failure-to-warn claims when EPA-approved labels lack certain warnings — raising stakes for tens of thousands of Roundup suits and intensifying a GOP split between industry pre-emption advocates and MAHA-aligned skeptics.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

— Equities Friday/weekly
Stocks were modestly lower Friday and down on the week (Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq), reflecting a softer risk tone heading into the long weekend.

AG MARKETS

— Cattle futures slide as traders exit long positions amid screwworm jitters

Friday’s sharp selloff was driven by profit-taking and technical long liquidation, with New World screwworm concerns — amplified by border-risk chatter — acting as a catalyst rather than a shift in underlying cattle fundamentals.

— Ag futures Friday/weekly
Grains were mixed (corn up Friday but down on week; beans slightly higher Friday but fractionally down weekly), while cattle sold off sharply Friday; hogs ended higher on the day and week.

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

— Oil prices edge higher ahead of long weekend as Iran risk lingers
Crude ticked up on short-covering and residual geopolitics into the MLK weekend, with traders wary of Iran escalation but broader supply expectations still capping upside.

— Congress targets ethanol expansion, tightens refinery waivers
A draft would allow year-round nationwide E15 and sharply narrow small-refinery exemptions by parent-company scale — setting up a major corn/ethanol vs. refining fight, with big implications for RFS compliance costs and corn demand.

— Power bills become the new gas prices in 2026 politics
Electricity inflation is turning into a front-burner midterm issue as rate hikes collide with data-center load growth, sparking bipartisan pressure to shift more grid-upgrade costs onto Big Tech and away from households.

TRADE POLICY

— Greer warns Canada may regret easing EV tariffs on China
USTR Greer argues Canada’s plan to slash Chinese EV tariffs (in exchange for China easing some ag barriers) risks long-term damage to Canada’s auto sector, even as Ottawa defends the deal’s economic and climate upside.

— EU/Mercosur finalize long-delayed trade pact
The EU and Mercosur signed a landmark free-trade deal after decades of talks, but it now faces a tough ratification path amid European farm and environmental backlash.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

— STB sends rail mega-merger back to the drawing board
The STB rejected Union Pacific/Norfolk Southern’s initial merger filing as incomplete (procedural, not merits-based), forcing a refile and extending the timeline under the tougher 2001 merger rules.

TOP STORIES — Boozman, Hoeven answer ag groups’ call, push expanded farm aid in funding talksSenators back broader Farmer Bridge Assistance as more than 55 farm organizations warn of mounting financial strain With rural finances under pressure, Senate Ag Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Senate Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman John Hoeven (R-N.D.) are urging Congress to expand farm assistance in an upcoming continuing resolution, responding to a unified appeal from more than 55 agriculture organizations led by the American Farm Bureau Federation (link). Prolonged low margins, higher input costs, and market disruptions have left producers needing additional, near-term support, the groups note.  Boozman said recent investments were welcome but insufficient to stabilize farm operations across the country. “America’s farmers are resilient, hardworking and deeply committed to feeding and clothing our nation,” Boozman said. “Unfortunately, resilience and hard work are not enough to withstand the significant challenges that have been mounting for several years. While producers are grateful for the investments Congress, Donald Trump and Brooke Rollins recently delivered, they need more help to keep farming.” Hoeven framed the proposal as a bridge to longer-term policy improvements enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including expanded crop insurance access, higher reference prices, and strengthened livestock disaster programs. “This assistance is about getting farmers through this year until the improvements we secured take effect,” Hoeven said, pointing to the Farmer Bridge Assistance initiative announced by the Trump administration and Rollins. “It will support row crops, specialty crops, sugar beets, prevent plant acres, and better reflect basis and cost-of-production challenges, while also expanding access to operating and ownership credit.” Building on Farmer Bridge Assistance. The senators’ plan would build on USDA’s Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program with targeted enhancements designed to deliver faster, more bankable relief.  Key elements include: • Expanded FBA coverage: Additional funding to cover a larger share of producer losses and speed delivery of assistance. • Prevent-plant eligibility: Inclusion of prevented-plant acres as eligible under FBA. • Higher payment limits: Alignment with payment-limit improvements in the One Big Beautiful Bill to better match real-world losses. • Targeted relief above national averages: Separate assistance for producers forced to sell at depressed prices or facing elevated production costs, allowing base FBA payments to flow immediately. • Specialty crop support: New funding and flexibility for USDA to address the unique challenges facing specialty producers. • Sugar beet and cane assistance: Relief for sugar farmers amid record losses in an oversupplied market. • Higher loan limits: Increases to Farm Ownership and Operating Loan limits to improve access to capital as costs rise. Backers say the package would stabilize cash flow now while preserving momentum toward broader farm-bill reforms later this year. Whether the expanded aid is attached to a must-pass funding vehicle will depend on negotiations as lawmakers finalize the continuing resolution. Some others say the GOP lawmakers jumped the gun and likely felt pressure after House Ag panel Democrats released an aid package earlier. “They should have kept their powder dry, said one farm policy veteran. “I think it’s crazy to try to get to that level of granularity. But this is what you get legislating outside a farm bill. Just more and more complication.” The chart below illustrates the losses farmers have experienced since 2023 and demonstrates the need for further assistance.  Why there is no funding level yet There are three deliberate reasons Boozman and Hoeven are not attaching a dollar figure to the proposal:  1. Negotiating leverage in a continuing resolutionThe senators are trying to attach farm aid to a must-pass continuing resolution (CR). Locking in a number too early would:Give appropriators a fixed target to cut backComplicate negotiations with non-ag committees competing for limited CR fundingRisk losing the policy entirely if the price tag becomes controversial Hoeven has been explicit that he does not want to “name an amount” until leadership signals what can fit inside the CR. 2. Aid is structured as an expansion of existing authority  This is not a stand-alone disaster bill with a clean top-line number. Instead, it:Builds on the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) framework already moving through USDAUses policy expansions (eligibility, payment limits, loan limits) that can scale up or downAllows appropriators to decide the final funding size late in the process That flexibility is critical in late-stage funding talks. 3. Avoiding a repeat of “sticker shock” fights  After past ad hoc aid packages, some members — especially deficit hawks — have pushed back hard on large ag numbers. By:Emphasizing targeting and efficiency, not a headline dollar figureFraming the aid as a bridge to farm bill improvements already enactedHighlighting producer liquidity rather than income replacement Boozman and Hoeven are trying to keep skeptics from mobilizing early opposition. Bottom line: The absence of a number is strategic, not indecision. What “higher payment limits” actually means — and why it matters  The problem under current limits Under existing ad hoc aid and some commodity programs:Payment caps are often $125,000 per person or legal entityLimits do not scale with:Acreage sizeInput costsRegional basis differences Larger or higher-cost operations hit the cap well before losses are covered. That leaves many producers under-compensated even in severe downturns. What Boozman and Hoeven want to change  They want FBA payment limits to be aligned with the higher limits authorized in the One Big Beautiful Bill, which did three important things:  1. Raised effective capsAllows significantly higher per-producer limits (via higher base caps and entity-based adjustments)Better reflects today’s cost structure for:Corn, soybeans, wheatSpecialty cropsSugar beets and cane This is not about “bigger checks,” but about covering a realistic share of losses. 2. Improved entity treatmentMore flexibility for family partnerships and multi-generation operationsPrevents artificial splitting of farms just to stay under capsAligns disaster-style aid with modern farm structures 3. Prevents aid distortionWithout higher limits:USDA must ration paymentsLarger producers receive a much smaller percentage of actual lossesLiquidity stress worsens, increasing:Loan delinquenciesForced salesLand pressure Higher limits allow aid to function as liquidity support, not symbolic relief. Why this matters politically right now  Ag lenders are pressing for this change because caps are no longer realistic relative to operating linesSpecialty crop and sugar groups are disproportionately harmed by low capsPrevent-plant acres and regional basis losses are poorly captured under current structures By fixing payment limits, lawmakers make the program bankable, meaning:Lenders can underwrite against expected aidUSDA payments arrive fasterProducers can plant another year The takeaway No funding number = tactical flexibility to get the policy into a CRHigher payment limits = making the aid work at today’s scale and cost levels  — Trump threatens escalating tariffs on Europe in push for Greenland dealPresident links new trade penalties to national security claims and renewed bid to acquire the Arctic territory The Trump administration has threatened a new round of escalating tariffs on Denmark and seven other European countries unless the United States is allowed to purchase Greenland, sharply raising tensions with close allies and the European Union. In a Truth Social post, Trump said the U.S. would impose 10% tariffs starting Feb. 1, 2026, on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, with the rate increasing to 25% on June 1 if no deal is reached. He framed the move as repayment for what he described as decades of U.S. security and economic support for Europe, arguing that “world peace is at stake.” Trump claimed China and Russia covet Greenland and asserted that recent European military deployments to the island underscore its strategic importance. He tied the proposed acquisition directly to U.S. defense planning, citing the administration’s “Golden Dome” missile defense system and arguing that Greenland’s geography is critical for its effectiveness. The threat would break with long-standing U.S. trade practice of treating the European Union as a single economic bloc, rather than targeting individual member states. Neither Trump nor the White House had explained what legal authority would be used to impose the tariffs. Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any sale of the territory and have protested Trump’s past suggestions that military force could be used. Officials from both governments said recent meetings at the White House failed to dissuade the administration from pursuing the acquisition, even as European governments moved to bolster security on the island. Of note: Trump also recently announced a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran, and that policy likewise originated in a social media post with limited legal or procedural detail so far — and experts have noted that its legal basis is uncertain and could be challenged in courts. No executive order has been released about these threatened tariffs and most observers think Trump will not follow through. So far, Trump’s Greenland tariff threat fits a pattern of dramatic tariff announcements that signal intent or political pressure rather than clearly executed policy — like past tariff threats that were scaled down or did not materialize exactly as initially stated. But it’s too early to say definitively whether this one will be enforced or fade like previous rhetoric; it depends on legal authority, implementation mechanisms, and diplomatic pushback. — Supreme Court poised for Jan. 20 ruling window, trump tariff decision still pendingJustices schedule next opinion day amid intense anticipation over legality of Trump’s tariff policies The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled Jan. 20 as its next major opinion day, and court observers are watching closely to see if the high court will finally issue a decision in the closely watched legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s global tariff campaign. The tariff case — Learning Resources v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump — asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the broad array of tariffs the Trump administration imposed beginning in 2025, and whether those orders exceed presidential authority. What to Expect on Jan. 20• Scheduled opinion day: The Supreme Court’s public docket indicates Jan. 20 as the next date when it will release multiple opinions, potentially including high-profile cases that have been awaiting decisions.• Tariffs still undecided: As of mid-January, the Court has not yet ruled on the tariff litigation, and earlier expected rulings in early January were postponed. The justices did not set a firm date for the tariff opinion at their most recent session.• No guarantee: While Jan. 20 is a logical target — it’s a scheduled opinion day and falls within the Court’s regular opinion release rhythm — the Court never announces specific case decisions ahead of time. It could release the tariff ruling on Jan. 20, another upcoming opinion day, or later in the term. Why it matters. The tariff decision carries significant implications:• Executive Power: At stake is the breadth of presidential authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs — a question with wide ramifications for separation of powers and trade policy.• Economic Impact: Trump’s tariffs have collected billions in revenue and reshaped trade dynamics; a Supreme Court ruling could affect refund obligations if the tariffs are struck down or upheld. Upshot: The Supreme Court generally sets several opinion days each term on which it releases multiple decisions. Jan. 20 is one such day that falls during the Court’s regular session, making it a plausible moment for a tariff ruling — but nothing is certain until the opinions are posted on the morning of that date.

FINANCIAL MARKETS

— Equities Friday and weekly change:

Equity Index	Closing Price Jan. 16	Point change  from Jan. 15	% Difference  from Jan. 15	WeeklyChange
Dow	49,359.33	-83.11	-0.17%	-0.29%
Nasdaq	23,515.39	-14.63	-0.06%	-0.66%
S&P 500	6,940.01	-4.46	-0.06%	-0.38%

— Supreme Court weighs limits on state pesticide lawsuits in landmark Roundup case

Justices agree to hear Bayer-backed appeal testing whether EPA-approved labels shield manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a closely watched case that could significantly narrow the ability of cancer patients to sue pesticide manufacturers, taking up a bid from Bayer to limit liability tied to its Roundup weed killer.

The Court said it will focus narrowly on whether individuals can pursue failure-to-warn claims under state law when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a pesticide label to include a specific health warning. The Trump administration urged the Court to take the case, aligning with Bayer’s argument that federal approval should preempt state claims.

At the center of the dispute is a Missouri lawsuit in which cancer patient John Durnell was awarded $1.25 million after arguing that Roundup exposure contributed to his illness. Bayer contends it should not be held liable because the EPA has repeatedly approved glyphosate — the herbicide’s key ingredient — most recently stating in 2020 that there is “insufficient evidence” linking it to human disease.

Durnell’s attorneys counter that the case goes beyond labeling, pointing to what they describe as off-label conduct, including marketing and advertising that allegedly failed to warn consumers of potential risks.

While the Court’s decision to hear the case does not guarantee a ruling in Bayer’s favor, the stakes are substantial. Bayer subsidiary Monsanto faces roughly 100,000 similar lawsuits nationwide, according to company filings.

Bayer executives welcomed the review, framing it as a bid for regulatory clarity. CEO Bill Anderson said the case is critical for farmers and for establishing that companies should not be penalized under state law for complying with federal labeling requirements.

The science around glyphosate remains contested. Bayer cites the federal Agricultural Health Study, which found no overall cancer link, though it noted elevated risks of acute myeloid leukemia among those with high exposure. Other research has reached different conclusions, including a 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which labeled glyphosate “probably carcinogenic,” and a 2025 animal study finding multiple cancers in rats.

Politically, the case has intensified tensions within the Republican Party. Industry-aligned lawmakers favor federal pre-emption, while figures tied to the “Make America Healthy Again” movement — associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — warn against weakening consumer protections. Environmental and public-health advocates echoed that concern, arguing that a ruling for Bayer could shut the courthouse doors to thousands of cancer patients. As House Agriculture Committee chair, Rep. GT Thompson (R-Pa.) has backed farm bill and appropriations language that would reinforce federal pre-emption under FIFRA, limiting state failure-to-warn lawsuits when EPA has approved pesticide labels. That approach aligns closely with Bayer’s Supreme Court arguments. 

The Court is expected to hear arguments later this term, with a decision that could reshape pesticide liability law nationwide.

AG MARKETS

— Cattle futures slide as traders exit long positions amid screwworm jitters

Profit-taking and technical selling drove Friday’s sharp decline, with renewed concern over New World screwworm — amplified by heightened border-risk chatter — accelerating long liquidation rather than signaling a shift in underlying cattle fundamentals

The best explanation available for why cattle futures plunged on Friday — and how New World Screwworm fears and related commentary fit into the picture:

1. The immediate cause: market reaction & technical selling

Profit-taking and technical selling was a major immediate driver — futures had climbed into overbought territory, and traders took profits once prices reached recent highs. That tends to push prices down sharply in the short term.

2. New World Screwworm fears were a key market factor

Concerns about New World Screwworm spreading and moving closer to the U.S. border triggered fear in the marketplace. Market commentary and rumor pressure suggested the pest might be encroaching on U.S. territory, which would risk border closures or further trade restrictions and complicate supply expectations — and that uncertainty encouraged selling.

Some commentaries specifically noted that traders sold cattle futures on Friday because of screwworm concerns and rumors about the pest being detected in or near U.S. cattle populations, prompting hedging and long position liquidations. (There is no confirmation of a screwworm incident in the United States.) 

A Reuters report also noted screwworm fears and long liquidation as a factor in Friday’s cattle futures decline, underscoring that the screwworm narrative was visible to traders.

3. Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller’s statements

Sid Miller’s recent comments, warning that New World Screwworm is approaching the U.S. and could be “inevitable,” reflect real producer anxiety about the pest.

These warnings can feed market sentiment — especially when tied to outbreak updates — but the plunge on Friday was not directly caused by anything Miller said in isolation. Rather, his comments amplify concern among livestock producers and traders about disease risk near the border, which in combination with other factors can make markets more nervous.

4. Broader market context

Fundamental cash cattle prices and uncertainty about import policy (including Mexican cattle restrictions due to screwworm) have been influencing futures for weeks. Some traders were already pricing in tight supplies due to border closures, and any news that suggests continued or increased uncertainty tends to cause volatility and selling pressure.

So, did the screwworm or Miller “cause” the plunge? Not by themselves. The price drop on Friday appears to have been driven primarily by trader positioning (profit-taking, long liquidations, technical triggers) — with screwworm concerns acting as a catalyst that helped spark or magnify selling pressure. Miller’s comments contribute to the broader narrative of risk, but they were not the singular or direct cause of the price plunge.

— Agriculture markets Friday and weekly change: 

Commodity	Contract Month	Closing Price Jan. 16	Change from  Jan. 15	Weekly Change
Corn	March	$4.24 3/4	+4 1/2¢	-21¢
Soybeans	March	$10.57 3/4	+4 3/4¢	-4 3/4¢
Soybean Meal	March	$290.00	+$0.80	-$13.70
Soybean Oil	March	52.61¢	-36 pts	+292 pts
Wheat (SRW)	March	$5.18	+7 1/2¢	+3/4¢
Wheat (HRW)	March	$5.27 1/4	+10¢	-3¢
Spring Wheat	March	$5.65	+2 1/2¢	-2 1/2¢
Cotton	March	64.66¢	-5 pts	+25 pts
Live Cattle	February	$232.15	-$3.90	-$1.575
Feeder Cattle	March	$356.45	-$8.10	+$1.75
Lean Hogs	February	$88.275	+47 1/2¢	+$2.975

ENERGY MARKETS & POLICY

— Friday: Oil prices edge higher ahead of long weekend as Iran Risk lingers

Short covering before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and persistent geopolitical uncertainty offset supply concerns, keeping crude prices modestly higher 

Oil prices settled slightly higher on Friday as traders covered short positions ahead of the three-day U.S. holiday weekend, with lingering concerns over a potential U.S. military strike against Iran continuing to lend support to the market.

Brent crude rose 37 cents, 0.6%, to $64.13 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate gained 25 cents, or 0.4%, to finish at $59.44.

Much of the day’s strength reflected precautionary buying ahead of the long weekend, as investors were reluctant to maintain short positions amid ongoing geopolitical uncertainty. While fears of an immediate escalation have eased, markets remain focused on U.S. military activity in the region and the risk that tensions with Iran could disrupt oil flows — particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.

Those risks were partly tempered by expectations that additional supply could emerge from Venezuela, though analysts cautioned that production gains so far have fallen short of earlier hopes. Prices had touched multi-month highs earlier in the week amid unrest in Iran, before sliding more than 4% on Thursday after indications that Tehran’s crackdown on protesters was easing.

Looking ahead, analysts say ample global supply is likely to cap further gains. While geopolitical risks continue to inject volatility, expectations for higher output this year suggest crude prices may remain range-bound unless Middle East tensions escalate significantly or demand — particularly from China — shows clearer signs of strengthening.

— Congress targets ethanol expansion, tightens refinery waivers

Draft legislation would allow year-round E15 sales nationwide and sharply narrow which refineries qualify for biofuel-blending exemptions

Lawmakers are drafting legislation that would significantly expand the U.S. market for corn-based ethanol while curbing long-standing exemptions for oil refineries under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), potentially raising compliance costs for some fuel producers.

According to a draft, the proposal would authorize year-round nationwide sales of E15 gasoline, ending seasonal pollution limits that have historically restricted higher-ethanol blends. 

The legislative proposal would tighten eligibility for small-refinery exemptions, limiting them to companies that process fewer than 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day across all facilities — a change that would exclude larger parent companies that have previously secured waivers for individual plants.

The effort comes as both refiners and biofuel producers await the Trump administration’s delayed finalization of annual biofuel-blending quotas, a lag that has prolonged uncertainty across energy and agricultural markets. Lawmakers from major corn-producing states are leading the push and are seeking to attach the measure to must-pass spending legislation that could move within weeks.

If enacted, the bill would overturn the current structure that allows exemptions based on the size of individual facilities, regardless of corporate scale. It would also block the EPA’s proposed practice of reallocating waived blending obligations to other refiners — another point of contention between industry groups.

The tighter standard would likely eliminate exemptions for companies such as Cenovus Energy Inc. and Delek US Holdings Inc., both of which have received waivers in the past. Cenovus warned the change could hurt small facilities that serve as economic anchors in local communities.

Supporters of reform argue the exemption program has been abused. The attorneys general of Iowa and Nebraska have questioned the integrity of the RFS, alleging that financially strong companies have used waivers to boost profits rather than avoid hardship. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has echoed those concerns, urging the Environmental Protection Agency to reinforce the program’s credibility.

Refiners counter that curtailing exemptions could spike compliance costs, force plant closures, and tighten gasoline and diesel supplies — risks they say are especially sensitive in an election year focused on consumer prices. Biofuel producers reject those warnings, arguing they conflict with refiners’ own upbeat disclosures to investors.

“Refiners can’t have it both ways,” said Emily Skor of Growth Energy, contending that companies claiming hardship to regulators often report strong financial performance elsewhere.

Overall, the proposal sets up a renewed clash between oil refiners and the farm-state coalition backing ethanol, with significant implications for fuel markets, corn demand, and the future shape of U.S. biofuel policy.

If E15 replaced E10 nationwide year-round (i.e., the whole gasoline pool moved from 10% to 15% ethanol), the incremental corn use is on the order of ~2.4–2.8 billion bushels per year.   Here are the two ways to see it:Industry/advocacy estimates: Growth Energy says year-round E15 would increase corn demand by ~2.4 billion bushels. Farm Bureau similarly frames nationwide E15 as ~6.8 billion gallons more ethanol, or ~2.4 billion bushels of corn. Back-of-the-envelope using EIA consumption + conversion:U.S. gasoline consumption in 2024 averaged 376.6 million gallons/day Moving from E10 to E15 adds 5 percentage points ethanol to that gasoline pool → roughly ~6.87 billion extra gallons of ethanol/year (5% of ~137.46B gal/yr). Converting ethanol to corn using ~2.8 gal ethanol per bushel gives ~2.45B bushels of additional corn.Using an older USDA/FSA factor (~2.5 gal/bu) yields a higher corn need: ~2.75B bushels. Reality check: If year-round E15 simply removes the summer barrier but adoption is partial:25% of gasoline gallons sold as E15: ~0.6–0.7B bushels extra corn/year50% adoption: ~1.2–1.4B bushels100% adoption: ~2.4–2.8B bushels(Also: E15 sales were ~1.24B gallons in 2024, showing today’s penetration is still limited versus full national conversion. )

— Power bills become the new gas prices in 2026 politics

Electricity inflation outpaces overall prices, putting utilities, data centers, and regulators under intensifying election-year scrutiny

Electricity costs — once a quieter corner of household budgets — have surged into the political spotlight as utility bills rise far faster than overall inflation, setting up a new cost-of-living battleground ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. According to Labor Department data cited by The Wall Street Journal, electricity prices were up 6.7% in December from a year earlier and nearly 38% higher than in 2020, compared with 2.7% overall inflation.

President Donald Trump, who has focused heavily on lowering gasoline prices since returning to office, is now confronting a parallel political risk: voters’ power bills. Administration officials recently pressed the nation’s largest grid operator to consider emergency measures to add capacity, while urging major technology companies to shoulder more of the costs tied to new power demand—particularly from data centers.

Much of the political blame has settled on Big Tech’s rapid expansion of electricity-hungry data centers. Governors and lawmakers from both parties have seized on proposed rate hikes as a visible consumer pain point. Republican Gov. Mike Braun of Indiana has ordered reviews of utility profits, while Democratic Gov. Janet Mills of Maine publicly criticized a proposed rate increase before regulators rejected it. In Missouri, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley warned utilities against shifting grid costs from large commercial users onto households.

Gasoline prices, by contrast, have eased. Regular unleaded has fallen roughly 9% since January 2024 to about $2.84 per gallon, helped by an oversupplied oil market and the Trump administration’s openness to additional Venezuelan oil flows — muting what is usually the most politically sensitive energy price.

Electricity rates, however, reflect longer-running pressures. Studies cited by the Journal point to aging infrastructure replacements, storm and wildfire rebuilding, renewable-energy mandates, weather-driven demand swings, and volatile fuel costs. In competitive power markets, economists note that years of underinvestment are now colliding with the need for new generation.

That timing is politically fraught. Utility executives and investors say 2026 is among the worst possible years to seek rate hikes. Electricity prices are expected to feature prominently in governor’s races across 36 states, while utility-commission elections — normally low-profile — are drawing new attention. Of the ten states that elect utility commissioners, nine hold elections this year, with affordability and data-center costs already shaping contests in states like Arizona, Louisiana, and Georgia.

A central question is cost allocation: how much should residential customers pay versus large commercial users such as technology firms and manufacturers? Trump has amplified that debate, highlighting a pledge by Microsoft to cover higher utility costs tied to its U.S. data centers so households do not “pick up the tab.”

Energy economists warn that voters tend to punish incumbents when prices rise — regardless of party — even though many of today’s electricity pressures were set in motion years ago. As the Wall Street Journal reports, that dynamic is turning power bills into the next high-voltage political issue of the 2026 cycle.

TRADE POLICY

— Greer warns Canada may regret easing EV tariffs on China

U.S. trade chief says deal risks long-term harm to Canadian auto sector despite short-term agricultural gains

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer cautioned that Canada could ultimately regret its decision to roll back steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, arguing the move may undermine Canada’s domestic auto industry even as it unlocks agricultural access to China.

Canada imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs in 2024, mirroring U.S. policy. But following talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Canada would slash those duties, allowing up to 49,000 Chinese EVs annually at a 6.1% most-favored-nation rate, rising to 70,000 vehicles after five years. In return, China will lift tariffs on select Canadian agricultural exports, including canola, peas, and lobster starting March 1.

In a Jan. 16 interview with CNBC, Greer said the deal could prove “problematic,” warning that Canada’s auto sector may feel long-term pain. He emphasized that U.S. tariffs are designed to shield American autoworkers from Chinese vehicles and suggested Canada may not like the consequences of trading auto protection for agricultural access. Greer added that U.S. automakers still hold a large share of the Canadian market and are expected to continue exporting vehicles north of the border.

President Donald Trump struck a more relaxed tone, telling reporters he was unbothered by the Canada/China agreement and saying countries should pursue trade deals where they can. Carney, for his part, insisted the agreement “promises much more for Canadians,” arguing that even at full implementation Chinese EV imports would represent only a low-single-digit share of Canada’s roughly 1.8 million-vehicle annual production. He also said the deal would attract Chinese investment, support jobs, and accelerate Canada’s net-zero goals.

Criticism inside Canada has been swift. Global Automakers of Canada said the deal injects uncertainty into an already fragile auto market, urging greater transparency and consultation before implementation. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned the move could jeopardize U.S./Canada auto trade and risk job losses, calling the agreement “lopsided” and urging Ottawa to abandon its EV mandate.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra underscored that Chinese EVs entering Canada would not be allowed into the U.S. market. While Trump has floated allowing Chinese automakers to build plants in the U.S. if they hire American workers, Greer later noted that cybersecurity and regulatory hurdles would make it difficult for Chinese firms to operate in the U.S.

Despite the controversy, Greer said he does not expect the deal to disrupt U.S. vehicle exports to Canada, stressing that Chinese EVs destined for Canada “are not coming here.”

— EU/Mercosur finalize long-delayed trade pact
The deal, the EU’s largest trade pact to date, still requires approval from European lawmakers and ratification across South America amid farm and environmental concerns

The European Union and Mercosur have signed a free trade agreement after 25 years of negotiations, setting up what would be the EU’s largest-ever trade deal. The pact now heads to the European Parliament and the legislatures of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay for ratification. EU leaders say the agreement will lower tariffs and strengthen economic ties in a volatile global trade environment, while critics warn it could increase cheap agricultural imports and environmental pressures. EU/Mercosur trade totaled €111 billion in 2024 (around $120 billion) across a combined market of about 700 million people.

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

— STB sends rail mega-merger back to the drawing board

Regulators reject the initial filing as incomplete, delaying review but leaving the door open to a revised application

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB)  issued an official announcement regarding the proposed mega-merger between Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS), a deal that would create the first single railroad linking the U.S. coast-to-coast. 

The STB announced it has found the merger application to be incomplete under its regulatory standards and therefore rejected the filing without prejudice. 

 

This means:

• The application, submitted on Dec. 19, 2025, did not include all required information — particularly detailed market-share projections and certain contractual documents that the board’s merger rules require. 
• Because of those deficiencies, the STB’s unanimous decision cannot advance the formal review of the deal as currently presented.
• Importantly, the rejection is procedural, not a substantive judgment on whether the merger would be approved on merits. The companies can revise and resubmit a corrected application addressing the missing data. 

This is the first major railroad merger reviewed under the stricter 2001 STB merger rules, which require evidence that a merger would enhance competition and provide clear public benefits, not just preserve the status quo. 
 

What this means going forward

1. Regulatory review is back at step one (sort of)
Because the STB rejected the original filing as incomplete, UP and NS must fix the gaps — especially robust competitive analyses and complete documentation — if they want the board to proceed with a full review. 

2. The deal isn’t dead — yet
“Without prejudice” means the STB isn’t saying the merger is bad; it’s simply saying the application needs more work before the board can evaluate competitive effects, service impacts, and public interest considerations. 

3. Timeline likely extended
The regulatory timeline will stretch. Past estimates had STB taking 12–18 months to complete its review once a complete filing is accepted; now that timeline resets with the need to refile and re-start key procedural steps. 

4. Stakeholders still weighing in
Shippers, competing railroads (such as Canadian National asking for more transparency), industry groups, and lawmakers have been actively submitting comments on competition, service quality, and national supply chain implications. Their input will shape the next submission and the STB’s ultimate assessment. 

5. Broader policy and competition implications
This case is significant because it tests the STB’s ability to enforce the 2001 merger standards in an era of growing railroad consolidation. How strictly the agency interprets requirements for competition enhancement could influence future merger proposals.