Why Six Republican Attorneys General Are Trying to Stop the UP–Norfolk Southern Merger

The proposed $85 billion combination of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern has hit fresh political resistance. Attorneys general from six Republican-led states have written to Surface Transportation Board Chair Patrick Fuchs and other board members arguing that the revised merger application does not make the required case that the deal is in the public interest.

The letter from Montana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas and North Dakota follows earlier complaints from U.S. shipper associations, including the Alliance for Chemical Distribution, American Chemistry Council, The Fertilizer Institute and the National Industrial Transportation Group. Those groups have told the STB that the railroads have not provided enough information about the merger’s likely impact.

The procedural position is advanced but unresolved. On May 28 the STB unanimously accepted the revised major merger application for consideration, put parts of the process in abeyance, and ordered supplemental information by July 27. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern then submitted expanded commitments covering gateway pricing, customer access, service safeguards and rate relief. Approval remains pending.

What the AGs Say the UP-NS Gateway Pricing Plan Actually Does—and Doesn’t Do

The Attorneys General Reject CGP as New Competition

The carriers’ central competitive claim is an expanded Committed Gateway Pricing program. The AG letter contends that CGP mainly sets a formula for certain interline movements with BNSF and CSX that already occur today. It argues the plan does not give a shipper access to a new railroad and prices eligible traffic at the 70th percentile of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern rates for comparable moves, meaning many shippers could pay more than they do now. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, by contrast, describe CGP as doubling eligible shipments and extending benefits to bulk unit train customers.

Advertisement

Why a 50%-Plus Market Share Railroad Raises the Stakes

The attorneys general argue the merged railroad would control more than half the market, strengthening its pricing power over agriculture, mining, forestry and manufacturing customers that often have limited or no alternative rail options. The STB’s review is the decisive legal gate because board-approved major rail mergers receive immunity from antitrust challenges. That makes the statutory test—whether the deal creates new or enhanced rail-to-rail competition or other benefits that outweigh harms—more important than ordinary merger efficiency claims.

Where the Regulatory File Stands

The STB’s May 28 decision accepted the filing as complete, but that is not approval. The board required supplemental information by July 27, and the railroads responded with commitments they say go beyond any prior rail merger. The live dispute is whether those commitments satisfy the public-interest standard. The board could still approve the deal with conditions, reject it, or schedule further proceedings.

What Shippers and Rail-Freight Counterparties Should Prepare for at the STB

For shippers and commercial counterparties with exposure to Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, or affected interline routes, the current record points to several specific preparation steps.

  • Audit CGP-eligible traffic against the 70th-percentile formula. The AG letter argues many shippers would pay more than current rates under the proposed CGP calculation, so internal rate data will be essential if the STB opens a comment or evidentiary phase.
  • Verify protection for existing BNSF and CSX interline movement. Because the AGs describe CGP as preserving, rather than expanding, existing options, shippers using those connections should document current routing choices and contract terms.
  • Coordinate with the six objecting attorneys general. Agriculture, mining, forestry and manufacturing shippers in Montana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas and North Dakota already have political support for the captive-shipper argument.
  • Watch the docket for an STB order on the July 27 supplemental commitments. Whether the board schedules an evidentiary hearing or seeks further public-interest evidence will define the approval timeline and the likelihood of conditions.

Risk & Opportunity Assessment

Commercial RiskHighA merged railroad with more than 50 percent market share could raise costs for captive shippers; the AGs specifically argue CGP pricing at the 70th percentile would increase rates for many eligible shippers.
Competitive RiskHighThe AGs and shipper groups contend the deal would reduce routing options, and the STB must find new or enhanced rail-to-rail competition before approving a major merger.
Regulatory RiskHighThe merger is still pending at the STB, a politically visible group of state attorneys general has opposed it, and the board’s own rules require applicants to show competitive benefits outweigh harms.
Reputation RiskMediumThe public narrative from AGs frames the deal as empty promises that would hurt rural America, though Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have publicly defended their expanded commitments.
Technology DisruptionLowThis is a market-structure and regulatory review over pricing and rail competition; no material technology-disruption factor is at issue in the filing.
Commercial OpportunityMediumIf approved with the expanded CGP, preservation of 3-to-2 and 2-to-1 access, service safeguards and rate relief, the carriers and some customers could gain enforceable new protections, but the AGs dispute that these constitute new benefits.