President Trump’s economic vision emphasizes affordability for American families. Central to this agenda is a focus on restoring competition, ensuring robust supply chains, and prioritizing domestic production. At stake is the health of markets that should thrive on competition rather than be dominated by a few heavyweight players. This foundational belief is why the proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, two major railroad companies, warrants close examination and should ultimately be blocked.
On the surface, railroad mergers may seem like distant issues unrelated to everyday life. However, they carry significant implications for the economy. Railroads serve as essential channels for moving agricultural products, energy resources, and manufactured goods across the nation. If rail transport becomes more costly or inefficient, prices for a wide range of consumer products will inevitably rise. Historical patterns reveal that consolidation—such as this proposed merger—often fails to deliver the cost benefits it promises. Instead, it typically diminishes competition and reduces options for shippers, concentrating pricing power in the hands of one company.
This merger would create a vast transcontinental rail network with the potential to monopolize important shipping routes without the necessary competitive checks. Such an environment would not yield lower costs or enhanced service. Instead, it would create a situation in which prices can rise without accountability. The Surface Transportation Board, responsible for evaluating mergers like this one, plays a critical role in safeguarding competition. It must ensure that any transaction preserves the public interest and competitive access to rail services. Should this merger proceed, it risks stifling the very economic resurgence the nation is currently experiencing.
The implications of merging these two major carriers extend far beyond corporate interests. Agricultural producers, manufacturers, and energy suppliers rely on the competition between railroads to negotiate reasonable rates and flexible routes. A merged system could lead to diminished options, forcing shippers into less favorable positions and resulting in higher costs for consumers. Vice President J.D. Vance succinctly captured this risk: “When you have one or two companies dominating an entire sector, it’s bad for liberty and it’s bad for prosperity.” This perspective underscores a broader conservative consensus that highlights the dangers of concentrated economic power—whether public or private.
Remarkably, this merger has sparked a coalition of opposition that bridges ideological divides. In a time when bipartisan agreement is rare, lawmakers ranging from Senators Jim Banks and Tim Sheehy to Democrats like Raphael Warnock and Dick Durbin have come together. While they may disagree on various policy issues, they share a concern that excessive consolidation in freight rail threatens the competitive landscape they all value. This unexpected alliance should serve as a red flag for the public.
Rural America stands to lose the most. Farmers rely heavily on rail to transport their crops to market. With already thin margins influenced by factors like weather and global price fluctuations, even small increases in transportation costs can significantly impact profitability. Similarly, for manufacturers, rail transport often represents the most cost-effective means of moving heavy materials. Reduced competition can lead to higher shipping costs, limited service options, and slower delivery—all detrimental to the goal of revitalizing American manufacturing.
Energy markets also face potential setbacks. Bulk commodities, including coal and ethanol, rely on efficient rail access. When rail transportation costs rise, so too do the prices consumers face for utilities and energy. Clearly, the consumers are the ones who stand to suffer in all these scenarios.
In essence, this merger could be portrayed as a superficial efficiency gain while masking a nationwide cost increase. As policymakers continue to address inflation and seek to strengthen supply chains, approving such a large-scale consolidation would be fundamentally counterproductive. It would signal a preference for corporate scale over genuine competition and resilience.
America has thrived on the principles of rivalry and innovation. The rail industry should embody those same values. The Surface Transportation Board must fulfill its duty to protect the competitive nature of the freight network and reject this merger. Doing so isn’t merely a pro-business stance; it’s a clear commitment to consumers, competition, and, most importantly, to the future strength of America. The survival of competition has been crucial to this nation’s development, and preserving it is essential to maintaining that strength moving forward.
"*" indicates required fields
