Trump voters don’t owe big railroads a monopoly

There is something deeply un-American about asking Washington for permission to eliminate your competition, then insisting the resulting corporate giant will be a wonderful deal for everybody else. Yet that is essentially the pitch behind the proposed $85 billion merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, a transaction that would put nearly half of America’s freight rail traffic under one corporate roof.The sales pitch sounds familiar. Two enormous companies promise efficiencies, a stronger supply chain, and billions in annual shipper savings. Who could possibly object to efficiency? Anyone who has watched a supposedly competitive industry consolidate into a handful of giants knows better than to confuse a corporate promise with a consumer benefit.The irony is that some in corporate America often celebrate competition when they want to win customers, then discover the appeal of consolidation when they want to eliminate a rival. We hear plenty about synergies and seamless service, and far less about customers left with fewer choices. This is where the America First movement, the libertarian tradition and old-fashioned anti-monopoly politics ought to meet. Free markets reward competition, innovation, and better service. They should not reward companies large enough to make customers’ alternatives disappear. If a business needs Washington’s blessing to eliminate a major competitor, Americans have every right to ask what they are getting in return.The proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern combination would dramatically reshape an industry that is already highly concentrated. According to the Government Accountability Office, some freight customers are effectively captive because they have no economically viable alternative to the railroad serving them.These are not shoppers deciding whether to buy a different brand of coffee. A chemical plant, grain elevator, or factory cannot simply pick up its operation and move it next to a competing rail line because its shipping bill has become unbearable.That is the practical problem with monopoly power. When customers can walk away, companies have an incentive to compete. When customers are trapped, the incentive changes. The railroad has more leverage to dictate prices and terms. Those added costs do not magically disappear. They work their way through agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals, energy, and ultimately to American families.The merger’s opponents are not just a collection of ideological crusaders who dislike big business. The Stop the Rail Merger Coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, and the Teamsters Rail Conference, among other stakeholders. A McLaughlin & Associates national poll found that 71% of Americans opposed the merger after learning about its projected impacts, including 64% of self-identified Republicans.Those figures point to a Trump-era political reality: skepticism about corporate concentration crosses party lines.Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern should have to demonstrate that their promised benefits will materialize without leaving customers paying for the privilege of fewer choices. A spreadsheet forecasting savings is not the same thing as a competitive marketplace delivering them. Nor is a larger railroad automatically more resilient. Putting more freight under one operator could make disruptions more consequential across a much larger network.There is also a workforce question. Railroads depend on experienced crews and skilled maintenance workers who know how to move freight safely. When companies merge, executives look for ways to cut costs. Promises of efficiency can translate into job cuts, pressure on working conditions, and lost institutional knowledge. The people who keep the trains moving should not be treated as expendable line items in a merger presentation.President Donald Trump’s America First agenda emphasizes domestic manufacturing, resilient supply chains, and an economy that works for American producers. It makes little sense to champion farmers and American industry in one breath while waving through a merger that weakens their bargaining power in the next. In particular, with farmers in states like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and elsewhere already facing a difficult trade environment and rising fuel and fertilizer prices, higher shipping costs from a rail merger would add insult to injury.This is not an argument for government running the railroads. It is an argument against government helping private companies eliminate meaningful competition. A genuinely free market needs rules against anticompetitive consolidation precisely because Washington should not be in the business of making it easier for corporate giants to dominate their customers.SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES TO SAVE A LIFE? YOUR INSURANCE APP JUST PENALIZED YOUThat’s where the Surface Transportation Board comes in. Its rules require a serious assessment of competition, service, employees, and the public interest. Its framework recognizes that further consolidation among the few remaining major railroads can produce anticompetitive effects that are difficult to remedy after the fact. The Board has yet to decide the merger’s merits, and the public deserves careful review, not a premature victory lap by the companies involved. It should reject the deal unless its proponents prove it will strengthen competition and serve the public interest.America does not need a railroad monopoly dressed up as a patriotic infrastructure project. It needs a freight network that serves the country’s producers, workers, and consumers. Free enterprise means competing to win customers, not asking Washington to make it easier to corner them.Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, has appeared in major publications around the world.