18 U.S. Senators—evenly split between Republicans and Democrats—from agricultural-producer states sent a letter to the Surface Transportation Board urging “a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation” of the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern “not just for its potential short-term efficiencies, but for its ability to demonstrate clear and tangible long-term improvements in competition.” STB responded, saying, “Because this is a pending matter, we cannot comment further; however, please be assured that, should an application be filed, the Board will conduct a thorough and fair review of the evidence and argument and consider whether the transaction serves the public interest, consistent with applicable law.”
The STB Office of Chief Counsel Counsel entered the letter from the Senators—Republicans John Hoeven (N. Dak.), Tim Sheehy (Mont.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), M. Michael Rounds (D. Dak.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Jim Banks (Ind.) and Joni Ernst (Iowa); and Democrats Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Martin Heinrich (N. Mex.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Tammy Baldwin (Wisc), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), , and Dick Durbin (Ill.)—into the public record Nov. 13, 2025:
“We write regarding the recently proposed merger between the Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern and to encourage the Surface Transportation Board to subject this proposed merger to a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation not just for its potential short-term efficiencies, but for its ability to demonstrate clear and tangible long-term improvements in competition.
“As you know, the STB’s post-2001 ‘Major Rail Consolidation Procedures’ were adopted specifically to place heightened emphasis on whether Class I railroad mergers enhance, rather than merely preserve, competition, and to ensure that any potential anticompetitive effects or other harms are outweighed by substantive and demonstrable gains to the public interest. The proposed UP/NS merger will be the first to come before the Board under these rules, and it is essential that you establish a strong precedent and apply these heightened standards in the way they were intended.
“In conducting its review, we strongly encourage the STB to take into consideration the impact the proposed merger, if approved, may have on our nation’s agricultural producers, and on the STBs mandate to preserve long-term competition and ensure efficient, economically viable rail service.
“Impact on Agricultural Supply Chains
U.S. farmers, ranchers, and producers are facing historic market losses as they strive to provide the highest quality, lowest-cost food supply in the world. They depend on reliable and competitive rail service to move their agricultural products to markets both domestic and international. Our producers already face limited competitive options for rail service. Further consolidation could compound these challenges by reducing routing flexibility, constraining network fluidity, increasing market power, and limiting access for both producers and processors. As part of its review of the proposed merger, the STB should take into account the long-term implications for the movement of agricultural products across the domestic rail network, including potential impacts on shipping costs and market access.
“Preserving Long-Term Competition
“Since the passage of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which largely deregulated freight railroads, the number of Class I carriers in the U.S. has dropped from over 30 to just six. Today, four of those carriers control more than 90 % of U.S. rail freight. Already highly consolidated, the current landscape of railroads as it exists today represents a fragile equilibrium with two in the west, two in the east, and two through the middle.
“As the STB reviews the proposed merger, it is important to consider how additional consolidation could alter this equilibrium. In particular, the Board should examine potential impacts on key freight corridors, where fewer alternatives for shippers could reduce competitive pressure on rates and service. Over time, such dynamics risk embedding higher costs, diminished service quality, and less innovation across the network. These conditions, once entrenched, are difficult to reverse and may discourage future market entrants. The STB’s post-2001 merger rules are designed precisely to guard against this outcome, requiring that mergers demonstrably strengthen competition rather than simply accelerate consolidation.
“Efficient, and Economically Viable Rail Service
“Historical precedent highlights what is at stake. The 1996 Union Pacific–Southern Pacific merger triggered widespread service breakdowns and safety lapses. Integration challenges led to nine worker fatalities, a Federal Railroad Administration finding of a ‘fundamental breakdown’ in safety practices, and freight disruptions lasting more than a year and a half—delays that cost the broader economy an estimated $4 billion.
“If approved, a combined UP/NS would handle more than 40 % of all U.S. freight rail traffic. The Board should weigh the risks of a similar disruption given the proposed scale: a transcontinental system spanning 50,000 route miles across 43 states. Service interruptions of this magnitude could have severe consequences, especially for agricultural producers. Time-sensitive shipments during harvest could be delayed or spoiled, export windows could be missed, and access to global markets could be sharply reduced.
“We thank you for your careful consideration of this merger application, and its impact on domestic agricultural production, as well as the STB’s mandate to enhance long-term competition. We look forward to working with you to ensure the STB continues to promote an efficient, competitive, and economically viable freight rail network that serves the public interest.”
STB RESPONDS
The STB—Chair Patrick Fuchs, Vice Chair Michelle Schultz and Member Karen Hedlund—responded Nov. 14 with a letter (also on the public record):
“Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. We appreciate hearing your views on the proposed transaction, the potential impacts on the nation’s agricultural supply chain, your concern for the preservation of long-term competition, and the need to ensure efficient, economically viable rail service. We want to assure you that, should a merger application be filed, the Surface Transportation Board will conduct a rigorous and comprehensive review of the transaction as required by law.
“As you know, on July 30, 2025, UP and NS submitted to the STB a notice of intent to file an application for Board approval of a proposed merger that would result in the combination of UP and NS, both Class I railroads. This notice, required under the Board’s merger regulations at 49 C.F.R. part 1180, initiates the regulatory review process for a proposed major merger between two Class I railroads. In their notice, UP and NS state that they intend to file their application on or before Jan. 29, 2026. Following the notice, the Board ordered the two railroads to submit substantial information in advance of the filing of an application. Among other things, the Board ordered applicants to submit 100% traffic tapes for six previous years, timetables, track charts, geospatial information system maps, joint facility information, and summary information concerning interchange commitments—agreements that limit or may limit interchange with connecting carriers. This information will help facilitate a thorough, rigorous, and efficient review of an application, if filed. By decision served on Sept. 26, 2025, the Board requested public comment on a proposed procedural schedule.
“Because this is a pending matter, we cannot comment further; however, please be assured that, should an application be filed, the Board will conduct a thorough and fair review of the evidence and argument and consider whether the transaction serves the public interest, consistent with applicable law. The Board’s review will include a rigorous examination of potential competitive effects, economic efficiencies, service effects, environmental impacts, and other critical considerations, including safety integration planning. The Board’s review process will also include opportunities for public participation and comment. A copy of your letter and this reply has been placed in the public docket. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Ms. Janie Sheng, Director of the Board’s Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance, at 202-245-0238.”
