September 3, 2025

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

Keeping America Strong: Why Rail Competition Matters For America First 

By Robert Romano  

For over two centuries, America’s railroads have been an engine for economic growth and commerce, moving grain from the heartland, granite from the New England states, cars from Detroit and energy from the oil fields and coal mines to every corner of the country. While the true backbone of our nation’s supply chains will always be the hardworking Americans who service these industries, competition has always been the catalyst that spurred unprecedented commerce. Multiple railroads, all supporting countless jobs and industries, kept each other honest, prices in check and service reliable — delivering unprecedented prosperity to every corner of the country. 

Now, that balance could be under threat. 

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, two of the nation’s largest freight railroads, recently announced a potential merger that would create the first coast-to-coast, transcontinental rail network in history, controlling roughly 40 percent of all U.S. freight rail. On paper, it sounds efficient, but it isn’t clear how this merger will meet the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) requirement to “enhance competition.” What new rail-to-rail competition will be offered? 

At Americans for Limited Government, we believe and know the free market is the best regulator. While free markets may not directly require the existence of competition, we know that free enterprise is best served by a framework that promotes competition. Thus, a single company with dominant control over key freight corridors isn’t disciplined by the market — it controls the market itself. 

You don’t have to be an economist or a freight analyst to understand the risks posed by a merger of this magnitude. When one company calls all the shots, it’s everyday Americans who end up paying the price. The Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern merger could lead to higher transportation costs, poorer service and job losses. Those fears should cross party lines because they’re rooted in common sense and lessons learned from prior mergers. 

The risks are clear, and America’s Heartland has the most to lose. Farmers already face unpredictable input costs and global market fluctuations; reduced rail competition would only make things worse. With fewer rail options competing for their business, shippers of grain, fertilizer and livestock feed could find themselves with little leverage and higher costs. In many rural areas, there’s no “second option” if service slips or rates spike. 

Energy producers would face the same squeeze. Whether it is oil from Texas, coal from the Western states or natural gas from Pennsylvania, competition in freight rail keeps costs in check and service accountable. If consolidation means one company can set the terms, there’s no guarantee those terms will work in favor of American producers or consumers. 

America’s small businesses will also feel the squeeze. While not always the case, consolidation — particularly of this size — is often followed by higher consumer prices and less innovation, and the mom-and-pop stores will feel it the most. 

But the damage wouldn’t just hit producers and consumers — America’s infrastructure may stand to suffer the most from a merger of this size. The pandemic taught America a painful lesson about supply chains. Over-reliance on a single supplier, factory or port creates a brittle system that can break down rapidly and trigger massive issues spanning numerous industries. Freight rail is no exception. 

None of this is to say that mergers are inherently bad. Strategic partnerships can create efficiencies, improve service and strengthen our economy. But the standard that the STB must apply is clear: will the merger increase competition? When a merger threatens to create a dominant player in a critical industry, particularly one that moves the goods our economy depends on, policymakers, regulators and the public should demand clear evidence of substantial competitive benefits before signing off. 

For America First conservatives, the questions are simple: Will this deal lower costs for American consumers by improving service for America’s producers and manufacturers? Will it strengthen supply chain resiliency? Will it meet its own stated goals in ways that actually increase competition? 

If the answer to any of those is “no,” then conservatives should remember that our nation runs on competition, and it is time to speak up and ask your elected officials to consider the bigger picture on this merger — before the train leaves the station. 

Robert Romano is the Executive Director at Americans for Limited Government. 

To view online: https://townhall.com/columnists/robert-romano/2025/08/31/keeping-america-strong-why-rail-competition-matters-for-america-first-n2662580  

New Voters Are More Conservative And Voter Turnout Now Favors Republicans  

By Manzanita Miller  

President Donald Trump secured the 2024 presidential election with the largest coalition of voters to support a Republican president in two decades largely by retaining his base and unleashing new voters who sat out the 2020 election.  

A Pew Research Center study released June 26 is putting hard numbers behind the historically diverse coalition of middle-class voters that elected President Trump. While Trump was able to pull a portion of former Democrats and independents toward the GOP, a significant amount of Trump voters were new and infrequent voters. Changes in the electorate played a critical role in Trump’s victory, and turnout trends will continue to shift the electoral landscape in the 2026 midterm cycle and beyond.   

The Pew study reveals the way in which President Trump was able to cut into Kamala Harris’ margins with minority voters compared to the 2020 election with Joe Biden. While Harris won a majority of Black voters in 2024, Trump moved the needle seven points toward the GOP compared to 2020. Trump secured 15 percent of the Black vote in 2024 up from eight percent in 2020.   

Trump’s gains among Latinos were even more substantial with President Trump coming within three points of winning the Latino vote in 2024 after ceding it to Joe Biden by 35 points (61 percent to 36 percent) in 2020. Trump even moved the needle among Asian voters, with 40 percent of Asians backing Trump in 2024 up from 30 percent in 2020 according to Pew’s calculations.  

Were minorities switching parties or were minorities who sat out previous elections motivated to vote for Trump for the first time in 2024? It was likely a little of both, but the Pew report emphasizes the degree to which a diverse new electorate played into Trump’s victory.  

President Trump held the line in 2024 with voters who supported him in 2020 with more strength than Harris won over Biden voters. According to the report, 85 percent of 2020 Trump voters supported the president again, compared to 79 percent of Biden voters who came out to vote for Harris.  

However, Trump’s strength wasn’t only in voter retention, be also claimed a substantially larger portion of new voters who sat out the 2020 election. Trump won a full 54 percent of non-2020 voters, while Harris won 42 percent, a twelve-point difference. A smaller share of 2020 Trump voters decided it wasn’t worth voting in 2024 (11 percent) compared to 2020 Biden voters (15 percent).   

President Trump’s ability to activate new voters who historically sat out the political process is key to reclaiming the country from the left and creating a sustainable conservative coalition. The vast majority of the American people were never on-board with the left’s agenda, but had given up on using the voting process to reclaim the country. President Trump was able to reach and activate a coalition of low propensity voters who will be key to ensuring conservative priorities, such as a secure border, a level-playing field with global trade partners, and U.S. job growth, remain on track beyond the next election cycle.  

Based on recent elections, reaching and activating low propensity voters is a strategy that could significantly benefit Republicans over Democrats.  

The Pew study found that among eligible voters who chose not to vote, President Trump would have beat Kamala Harris by four percentage points, 44 percent to 40 percent, indicating that higher turnout would not have changed the outcome of the election. If anything, Trump would have won by a greater margin if everyone who was eligible to vote had turned out.   

As Rick Moran recently noted in an article for PJ Media, “there used to be an axiom in politics that high voter turnout always favored the Democrats because it meant that more minorities and other demographic groups that favored Democrats showed up to vote. That's simply not true today. The realization that fewer people voting is better for Democrats upends 60 years of Democratic strategy about maximizing voter turnout of all demographic groups.”  

Moran points out that for decades, Democrats have favored a get out the vote (GOTV) strategy, employing celebrities to encourage people to register to vote, with the implication that new voters tend to favor Democrats at the polls. This is no longer the case.     

A detailed New York Times report released Aug. 20 found that Republicans have been far outpacing Democrats in terms of raw voter registration numbers since 2020. The GOP added 2.4 million voters between the 2020 and 2024 elections, while Democrats parted ways with 2.1 million voters, according to the report.   

New voters no longer favor Democrats, which means all of the celebrity GOTV campaigns, college-campus registration drives, and minority targeting schemes, are not necessarily going to benefit them. Democrats’ interest in “getting out the vote” may falter as the party realizes that the more Americans who express their voices at the ballot box, the less Democrats win.  

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.  

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/09/new-voters-are-more-conservative-and-voter-turnout-now-favors-republicans/