Voices Against the Merger

Attorney General Ken Paxton

"In Texas, rail infrastructure is a major conduit for agriculture, chemicals, energy, and manufacturing, among many other industries. A substantial lessening of competition in rail can thereby injure critical Texas industries and their many stakeholders, including Texas employees and the Texas communities that depend on them. Further, many areas of Texas rely on limited rail carriers or single‑line access, heightening the potential for competitive harm”

State Attorneys General (Austin Knudsen, Brenna Bird, James Uthmeier, Marty Jackley, Jonathan Skrmetti, Kris Kobach, Drew Wrigley)

"In the absence of real competitive enhancements, UP and NS are attempting to sell this deal with empty promises of efficiencies and lower costs. But history has consistently shown us that these rail mega-mergers deliver exactly the opposite to rural America: fewer routing options, higher captive freight costs, and catastrophic supply chain disruptions. A deal that shifts power away from shippers to a monopoly railroad should be rejected out of hand.”

US Senators (Angela Alsobrooks, Tammy Baldwin, Charles Schumer, Mazie Hirono, Martin Heinrich, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, Tina Smith, Tammy Duckworth, Angus King, Ruben Gallego, Chris Van Hollen, Ben Lujan, Jacky Rosen, Catherine Masto, Jeffrey Merkley, Richard Durbin, Mark Kelly, Andy Kim, Peter Welch, Edward Markey)

"If approved, the unprecedented merger would not only create the first transcontinental railroad but it would significantly consolidate our nation’s transportation system, slashing rail jobs across the country, rising prices for customers and consumers, and create a potential supply chain bottlenecks and great market instability”

U.S. House of Representatives - On Behalf of 47 Republican Members

"As representatives of states and congressional districts that rely on competitive and reliable rail service to move goods essential to the U.S. economy, we have a strong interest in ensuring transactions that could concentrate market power, reduce competition, or degrade service are carefully scrutinized. Also, and consistent with the Trump Administration’s pro-growth economic agenda, we remain keenly focused on ensuring government decision-making does not result in the costs of goods and services going up for American businesses and consumers."

U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin and Roger Marshall

"[W]e are concerned that a merger of this magnitude would diminish options for industry to transport goods, increase costs, create more unreliable service for U.S. shippers, and reduce overall competition in a market where the number of carriers has diminished since 1950."

Transportation Interim Committee of the 69th Montana Legislature

"The Transportation Interim Committee of the 69th Montana Legislature writes to express strong concern regarding the proposed merger of the Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) rail corporations… Agriculture in particular requires time-sensitive shipments during harvest seasons, and any service interruptions can cause product spoilage and losses in global as well as domestic markets."

Tan Parker - State Senator, Texas

"I write because I strongly believe that Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern’s proposed merger presents significant risk for the Texas and the U.S. economies. I am concerned the merger will harm shippers and their customers by eliminating competition, disrupting service, weakening the U.S. supply chain, and increasing transportation rates."

Coalition of 7 State Attorneys General

"By entrenching a single rail behemoth across key east-west corridors, the deal would shackle domestic manufacturers, energy producers, and farmers with higher rates and fewer shipping options, thereby blunting their competitive edge against foreign rivals, squeezing household budgets, and weakening the supply chains that underpin our national security."

Coalition of 47 U.S. Congresspeople

"We also want to underscore at the outset that the responsibility to demonstrate clear, measurable, and substantial benefits for domestic manufacturers, agricultural producers, the energy sector, and the American consumer—all of whom rely on an efficient, competitive, and cost-effective freight rail system—rests squarely with the applicant railroads. Absent such a showing, the Board should not permit this transaction to proceed."

Joe Corcoran - Councilman for Richardson City, Texas

"A combined UP-NS would dominate key freight markets and shared rail industry assets, giving it unmatched power over shippers, suppliers, and rail workers. Less competition means higher costs for everyone. UP recognized this dynamic itself when it opposed the much smaller CPKC merger just a few years ago."

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal

"When competition in rail transportation is reduced, higher shipping costs are often passed directly on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the checkout counter. With inflation and affordability already top concerns for American families, approving a merger that could further raise the cost of moving goods across the country would worsen financial strain on households nationwide."

Coalition of Nine State Attorneys General - TN, KS, OH, FL, ND, SD, MS, MT and IA

"[T]he proposed merger…will result in undue market concentration that stifles competition and therefore creates higher prices, lower reliability, and less innovation at the expense of America’s manufacturers and, ultimately, America’s consumers… The downstream impact of the merger poses significant risk not just for our industrial base but also our agricultural producers. Ultimately, then, this merger could compromise our national security."

Coalition of 54 State Elected Officials

"As leaders committed to advancing economic opportunity, protecting free enterprise, and ensuring fair competition, we write to express our concerns about the proposed merger between Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS). While we recognize the importance of private sector investment and efficiency, this merger raises serious questions about its long-term impact on competition, service reliability, and the cost of doing business in America."

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer

"If approved by the feds, the deal would cut down the industry from four major players to just three, pushing us even further down the road of dangerous consolidation and monopoly power. Even worse, the costs of everything from food, via agriculture shipments, to other goods dependent on a competitive supply chain, risk going much, much higher."

Steve Cortes - President of the League of American Workers; Senior Political Adviser to Catholic Vote

"The merger would give one company enormous power over how our goods move from coast to coast, especially the things that keep America running: crops, energy, manufactured goods, and everything in between…. It’s a slap in the face to U.S. manufacturers who depend on rail to get their goods to market. Higher costs, fewer choices, and worse service for American businesses — all while foreign competitors get a boost. That’s not America First. That’s America Last."

Arnav Rao - Transportation Policy Analyst, Open Markets Institute

"We have reason to be distrustful [of claimed benefits] because we have already gone through this exercise many times before. They say that they’re going to grow volumes; they never grow volumes. They say that workers jobs are going to be preserved; and we see furloughs, layoffs, and worse bargaining power for railroad workers. They say that safety is going to be improved; and now we see hundreds of derailments a year."

Tomas Philipson - Former Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and the Daniel Levin Professor of Public Policy Studies Emeritus at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy

"The American economy has thrived for more than two centuries because our markets are open, competitive and disciplined by consumer choice… When you remove that discipline — when a handful of big players carve up an industry — you don’t get capitalism; you get cartelization. That’s exactly what this merger threatens to bring to America’s rail system… For customers, especially those in the middle of the country who already rely on limited rail options, this would mean fewer routing choices, less leverage in negotiations, and upward price pressure."

Public Rail Now - Grassroots Campaign

"This is a public-interest crisis about who controls essential infrastructure: Wall Street or the American people… Combining two of the nation’s largest railroads would entrench monopoly control of U.S. freight corridors, reduce competition, accelerate automation and de-skilling, and further weaken rail labor."

Bruce Williamson - Georgia State Representative, Majority Caucus Chairman

"As a legislator who consistently champions free enterprise and fair competition, I am deeply troubled that this merger could leave many American businesses—particularly those in smaller communities—without viable rail alternatives. The result would be a new generation of captive customers facing higher costs, service disruptions, and diminished access to markets."

American Economic Liberties Project

"[T]his merger would reduce competition in the rail industry, create service and shipping delays, increase prices for shippers, hurt workers, and threaten the viability of many independent businesses."

Steve Hurst - Alabama State Representative

"…I’m concerned about the news that Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern plan to merge. These are two of the biggest railroads in the country, and putting that much control in the hands of one company could make it harder for small communities like ours to compete. When competition goes down, costs tend to go up, and that eventually lands on the shoulders of our local businesses and families."

Jeff Whitaker - Mayor of Greenville, Ohio

"The proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern—two of the nation's largest rail carriers—raises serious concerns about the potential for reduced competition and diminished service reliability… Here in Greenville, we take pride in being a community that attracts investment and supports small business growth. A balanced, competitive rail network is essential to preserving that momentum."

Tim DeLand - Councilman for the Village of North Star, Ohio

"…[The merger] would reduce competition across the freight rail industry and present challenges to regional economies. Consolidating services under a single supplier can lead to congestion and supply chain disruptions, causing ripple effects across communities that result in slower services for manufacturers, small businesses, and residents alike."

Ryan Delk - Safety/Service Director for the City of Greenville, Ohio

"The proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern raises serious safety concerns. Reduced competition often leads to slower response times, longer blockages at crossings, and less investment in maintenance and communication systems. These challenges directly impact first responders and increase risks to residents and motorists. Our police, fire, and EMS teams depend on reliable coordination with rail operators to respond quickly and protect lives."

Brett Heinz - Revolving Door Project Newsletter

"The proposed merger deal is not popular among the companies who rely on railroads to transport their goods… While past rail mergers have been financially lucrative for the companies involved, they have often resulted in worse service, inadequate maintenance, greater safety risks, fewer good union jobs, and reduced competition that allows the rail companies to squeeze consumers and small businesses."

Donna Skipper - President of Republican Women of East Alabama

"[Antitrust] laws were intended to protect farmers, shippers, and consumers from the whims of railroad barons who dictated prices and routes. Today, despite more than a century of legal precedent, we risk returning to an era where a handful of executives determine who has access to the nation's economic arteries."

Diana Moss - Vice President and Director of Competition Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute

"[The merger] would distort competitive dynamics…BNSF and CSX, which independently serve the western and eastern U.S., respectively, would be facing off against a larger, integrated single-line monopolist that would have strong incentives to frustrate interline service that could ice out either or both rivals. This means weaker competition, higher freight rates, lower quality service and other anticompetitive effects."