In a letter written to President Trump earlier this week, the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition called on the White House to oppose the proposed Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern merger.
The Stop the Rail Merger Coalition is comprised of Class I railroads BNSF Railway and CPKC, as well as the American Chemistry Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Teamsters Rail Conference (which consists of the majority of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern’s unionized workforce), the Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD), the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), the Vinyl Institute, the Agricultural Retailers Association, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and the Fertilizer Institute.
The letter explained that if this merger is approved it would place nearly half of United States rail traffic under control of a single company, adding that it would result in harming American farmers, domestic manufacturers, energy producers, and railroad workers—and also increase costs for consumers and put critical supply chains at risk.
“This outcome runs contrary to your administration’s economic agenda, and we do not believe it serves the American people who support your administration’s goals,” the letter stated. “Consolidating the country’s freight network into fewer hands concentrates risk in a single operator, so that any disruption, whether from staffing shortfalls, service failures, or weather, ripples across the entire economy with no competitor able to absorb the shock. This is not a theoretical concern.
What’s more, the letter also noted that a merged UP and NS would eliminate competitive options that keep freight rates and service reductions in check, observing that without those checks, the merger’s costs, which includes the $85 billion purchase price, would ultimately be passed along to businesses and consumers.
“American manufacturers, energy producers, and farmers would face the greatest risks from Union Pacific’s heightened market power, and the increased cost and added service problems of moving grain, fertilizer, coal, and refined products would ultimately be reflected in the prices Americans pay for food, fuel, and everyday goods,” said the letter. “The American Farm Bureau Federation has been direct on this point: farmers are already under considerable economic strain, and further rail consolidation would compress farm margins while raising food costs nationwide.”
The Stop Rail Merger Coalition letter also highlighted various economic and operational risks related to the proposed merger:
- Integrating two large rail networks with different systems could disrupt service. The Teamsters Rail Conference says there are no binding commitments to maintain adequate staffing during the transition, potentially leading to delays, stranded shipments, and job losses;
- The merger could affect consumers, farmers, manufacturers, energy producers, rail workers, and communities that depend on reliable rail service. Nearly 100 members of Congress and numerous state officials have raised concerns with the Surface Transportation Board;
- The Stop the Rail Merger Coalition said that further consolidation would reduce competition, potentially increase shipping costs and raise prices for everyday goods; and
- Citing a McLaughlin & Associates survey, the letter said about 71% of Americans oppose the merger after learning about its potential effects, while 20% support it.
On August 18, the STB issued a decision in which it officially restarted its review of the proposed merger, following a May decision in which it accepted the companies revised merger application but placed the proceedings in abeyance, as it awaited additional information, which included an environmental review of the transaction and ordered the railroads to submit supplemental information by late July. This decision effectively removes the proposed merger from abeyance, while laying out a timeline for the next stages of the review process.
Key deadlines established by the STB going forward, for the merger, are: September 4, 2026, notices of intent to participate; November 18, 2026, opposition comments/protests and responsive applications; December 3, 2026, preliminary DOJ and USDOT comments; February 16, 2027, responses to opposition and merger applicants’ rebuttal; March 29, 2027, rebuttals supporting responsive applications; and May 28, 2027, final briefs.
Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena recently stated that the companies have more than cleared the threshold to move review of this transaction forward, adding that opponents’ efforts to kill the deal do not change facts.
“We submitted an unprecedented amount of evidence showing why this transaction is good for our employees, customers and America,” said Vena. “The facts show this merger will create a stronger, more efficient single-line rail network that improves service for farmers and American industry, strengthens competition and moves more freight off the highway and onto rail—a service product our opposition is afraid to compete with.”
And Norfolk Southern President and CEO Mark George said that the application clearly shows that this merger is about growth.
“While delivering great public benefits, including better affordability for shippers and, ultimately, consumers,” said George. “Additionally, we’re guaranteeing unionized employees’ jobs for life, while creating new jobs to support increased demand and expanded service. By bringing these two great networks together, we will reverse the loss of share to the highway and actually grow rail’s share of freight transportation, creating new opportunities for our workforce while delivering long-term benefits for the customers and communities we serve.”
The Stop the Rail Merger Coalition letter is far from the only one voicing opposition to the merger.
Earlier this month, in a joint motion filed with the STB, five United States-based shipper groups called on the STB to not approve the proposed Union Pacific (UP)-Norfolk Southern (NS) merger application.
The shipper groups—The Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD), American Chemistry Council (ACC), The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), and the National Industrial Transportation Group—stated that UP and NS have not provided enough information regarding the merger and its impact to enable the STB to “find it meets the statutory public-interest standard,” or prima facie (accepted as correct until showing otherwise).
To that end, the shipper groups said that the prima facie is a preliminary screen that is based on the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by UP and NS in their application and supplemental filings, in the most favorable light.
In the filing with the STB, they explained that under the STB’s merger rules, which were revised in 2001.
“In 2001, the Board revised its merger rules, to reflect a fundamental shift that made future mergers harder to justify by placing a heavier burden on future merger applicants to demonstrate that their transactions meet the public interest standard,” the filing stated. “Among the more significant changes were a new focus on enhancing competition and assessing downstream and cumulative effects, the exclusion of benefits that could be obtained by alternative means, a more skeptical ‘show me’ attitude towards benefit claims, and transitional service disruption plans. The objective of the 2001 Merger Rules was to codify the Board’s concerns that any future mergers—with a particular focus on end-to-end transcontinental mergers—could have transformative, serious, and irremediable consequences for the rail industry, its consumers, and the North American Rail network.”
Nancy O’Liddy, Executive Director, National Industrial Transportation League, observed that despite the Board repeatedly asking for additional information and data, UP-NS has failed to transparently demonstrate how the combined railroads will enhance rail-to-rail competition and how the touted benefits of the merger will outweigh its harms.
