Farm Aid Fight Widens as $12 Bil. Pot Draws Competing Claims

Trump’s primetime election address: genuine security concerns or midterm politics?

President cites declassified documents on foreign meddling and pushes Save America Act, but experts say the evidence falls short of his sweeping claims

President Trump used a rare primetime address to the nation Wednesday night to declare U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign interference and domestic mismanagement, citing newly declassified intelligence he said shows China acquired 220 million U.S. voter files and that intelligence agencies suppressed information about Chinese meddling dating to 2020. He ordered DHS to press states to remove non-citizens from voter rolls, directed an investigation into the alleged suppression, and urged Congress to pass the Save America Act — requiring photo ID and proof of citizenship while sharply restricting mail-in voting.

The case for the president’s position: Election security is a legitimate, bipartisan concern — intelligence agencies have long warned that Russia, China, Iran and North Korea probe U.S. election infrastructure. Supporters note the declassified documents do confirm Beijing weighed a 2020 influence operation, and that voter-roll hygiene and voter ID enjoy broad public support in polling. Acting before the midterms, they argue, is prudence, not politics. The month-long delay in completing a California mayoral count gave the president a concrete example of administrative dysfunction that frustrates voters of both parties.

The case for the skeptics: Election experts quickly noted the speech offered no conclusive evidence that any past election outcome was compromised. The documents themselves are more nuanced than the president’s telling — they indicate China ultimately decided against the 2020 influence campaign, and much of the “acquired” voter data is publicly available, sold legally by states for as little as nothing to $37,000. Democrats say the address — delivered less than four months before midterms and coupled with renewed doubts about the 2020 result — is aimed at depressing turnout and pre-seeding distrust in November’s outcome. Two networks declined to carry the speech, and China’s embassy denied the interference claims.

Beijing calls election claims ‘entirely fabricated’ — but don’t expect soybeans to pay the price, most China watchers say

China’s measured response notably avoided any threat to its farm-purchase commitments, with Xi’s expected September visit still on track — though ag purchases remain Beijing’s leverage of choice if relations sour

China’s reaction was swift but calibrated. Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian dismissed the president’s allegations as “entirely fabricated and aimed at vilifying China,” insisting Beijing has “no interest in interfering in U.S. elections and [has] never done so.” The Chinese Embassy in Washington echoed that China “has never and will never interfere” in U.S. elections. Notably, the only countermeasure Beijing threatened was reciprocal action on journalist visas — responding to the administration’s move to cut Chinese journalists’ visas to 90 days — not anything touching trade. And in a telling signal, Lin urged the U.S. to “stop making an issue of China in its elections and do something conducive to China/U.S. relations,” a reference to President Xi Jinping’s still-expected September visit to the United States.

Why many China watchers see little ag fallout: Beijing has a long track record of compartmentalizing political friction from commercial self-interest. The trade deal’s terms means China is largely buying what it needs anyway. Kansas State’s Allen Featherstone notes the commitment aligns with typical Chinese import levels. The restrained rhetorical response — sharp words, but countermeasures limited to visas — suggests Beijing wants to protect the trade framework and the Xi visit, not blow them up over a domestic U.S. political speech aimed chiefly at midterm audiences.

The cautionary view: History argues against complacency. Farm commodities are Beijing’s preferred pressure point — it froze U.S. soybean purchases entirely in 2025 during the tariff standoff, and it has previously stockpiled, then stopped buying. University of Tennessee economist Andrew Muhammad says “we won’t really know until the end of this year” whether China keeps pace.

Farm aid fight widens as $12 billion pot draws competing claims

Specialty crops, row crops and mills compete as GOP vehicle faces Senate doubts

The battle over a proposed $12 billion agricultural assistance package is becoming a contest not simply between commodities, but between competing definitions of economic loss. Specialty crop organizations, row-crop groups, livestock interests and forest-product manufacturers are all preparing to argue that their members face exceptional circumstances, even though the House Republican budget plan provides too little money to satisfy every sector.

Record green diesel and SAF output drives June RIN surge — and a deepening soyoil squeeze

D4/D5 RIN generation jumps 33% from a year ago as biofuel producers race to meet historic 2026 mandates; some industry analysts look for record monthly U.S. soyoil use through year-end as the RIN bank drains

EPA’s June Renewable Identification Number (RIN) data, released late Thursday, delivered fresh confirmation that the U.S. biofuel complex is running flat-out. Combined D4/D5 RIN generation totaled 862 million RVO gallons in June, up sharply from 754 million in May and 649 million in June 2025 — a 33% year-over-year jump. Buried in the data was the month’s real headline: a record 499 million gallons of renewable (green) diesel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) were produced in June.

The production surge is a direct response to policy. EPA’s final Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) rule set the biomass-based diesel obligation at an unprecedented 9.07 billion gallons for 2026, rising to 9.20 billion in 2027 — increases that require net D4 RIN generation to expand roughly 55% this year versus 2025, according to farmdoc daily analysis. The same rule cut the RIN value of imported renewable fuel and fuel made from foreign feedstocks in half, deliberately steering the mandate toward domestic production and domestic feedstocks. With D4 RINs trading near record levels around $2.40 — worth more than $3.50 per gallon of credit value to a renewable diesel producer — the economics scream for maximum output.

Soyoil is paying the bill. Feeding that record green diesel run required record amounts of soybean oil — and the June RIN data helps confirm what the NOPA crush report signaled earlier this week. NOPA members crushed 214.3 million bushels of soybeans in June, up 15.7% from a year ago and well above trade expectations, yet member soyoil stocks still fell 13.5% from May to 1.50 billion pounds, far below the 1.65 billion the trade expected. Oil is leaving crush plants as fast as it can be produced, and the destination is overwhelmingly renewable diesel.

The feedstock math only tightens from here. Farmdoc daily projects total biomass-based diesel feedstock use must climb from 34.2 billion pounds in 2025 to 53.8 billion pounds in 2026, with soybean oil’s contribution rising from 12.4 billion to roughly 18.4 billion pounds. Alternatives are getting scarcer and dearer: imported used cooking oil (UCO) and tallow prices rallied sharply this week, eroding the discount that made waste feedstocks attractive and pushing still more demand toward domestic soyoil. Fuel imported or produced from foreign feedstocks in 2028 will then earn only half credit, so every dollar UCO gains makes soyoil relatively cheaper to the blender.

The RIN bank is the fuse. Even at June’s record pace, generation is running short of what the 2026 mandate ultimately requires, which means obligated parties are drawing down banked RINs to comply. The carryover D4/D5 RIN bank — roughly 960 million gallons at the end of 2025 — is projected by farmdoc daily to shrink toward its practical minimum near 200 million gallons by year-end. A depleting bank removes the market’s compliance cushion: once it is gone, every mandated gallon must be produced (or its RIN price bid high enough to make production happen), month after month.

That is the basis for some industry expectation of record monthly U.S. soyoil usage through the end of the year. The mandate is fixed, the RIN bank is a wasting asset, waste-feedstock alternatives are rallying, and imports are penalized. Soyoil futures, already up more than 50% earlier this year to their highest levels since late 2022, remain the market’s release valve.

Global equities retreat as chip selloff drives tech’s weakest session since April 2025

Equities today: Global equities retreated as a steep sell-off in semiconductor shares pushed the technology sector to its weakest session since April 2025. The decline reflected renewed investor concern that chip and artificial-intelligence stocks have risen faster than their underlying earnings outlook can justify, leaving markets vulnerable to profit-taking. Europe’s STOXX 50 moved lower, Japan’s Nikkei 225 tumbled 4%, and U.S. equity futures signaled additional pressure at the open. The broad geographic scope of the losses suggests the move was more than a localized correction, with investors reassessing high-growth valuations and reducing exposure to risk-sensitive assets.

U.S. equity futures extended their decline Friday as a renewed semiconductor selloff, escalating geopolitical tensions and disappointing corporate guidance revived concerns about both economic growth and inflation. S&P 500 futures fell nearly 1%, Nasdaq 100 contracts dropped about 2% and Dow futures declined roughly 350 points.

Chip stocks led the retreat as investors questioned whether large technology companies will maintain the aggressive spending on artificial-intelligence infrastructure that helped drive this year’s market rally. Improving Chinese AI models, including the latest Kimi release, added to concerns that more capable and lower-cost systems could reduce the computing power and capital investment needed to develop competitive AI products. Micron and Intel fell more than 3% in premarket trading, while Nvidia lost about 2%.

The pullback reflects a broader reassessment of richly valued technology shares. Semiconductor stocks have been priced for sustained growth in data-center construction and AI-related capital spending, leaving the sector vulnerable to any indication that hyperscalers may slow investment. Even a modest reduction in projected spending could pressure chip demand and force investors to reconsider earnings assumptions embedded in current valuations.

Meanwhile, persistent conflict in the Middle East and rising fuel costs intensified fears that inflation could remain elevated, complicating the outlook for monetary policy and consumer spending. Trade risks also resurfaced after President Donald Trump accused China of interfering in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, raising concern that the dispute could undermine the fragile truce established following last year’s tariff exchanges.

Corporate earnings added to the negative tone. Netflix shares plunged 11% after the company projected another quarter of slowing sales growth, reinforcing concern that high-profile growth companies may struggle to justify elevated valuations. Together, weaker earnings expectations, geopolitical uncertainty and doubts about the durability of AI investment are pushing investors away from risk and testing whether the technology-led rally can broaden or sustain itself.

Copper-gold ratio signals growth — and higher-rate risk

Industrial demand and rising yields keep Fed risks tilted hawkish

Tom Essaye, writing in the July 17 edition of The Sevens Report, says the sharp rise in the copper-gold ratio is delivering a broadly positive economic signal, even as it raises the risk that interest rates remain elevated. Copper has gained roughly 12% this year while gold has fallen about 8%, lifting the ratio approximately 20% and marking one of the clearest commodity-market trends of 2026.

The divergence reflects the metals’ contrasting economic roles. Copper demand is closely tied to manufacturing, construction and electrical investment, with artificial intelligence adding another source of consumption through semiconductor production, data centers and power infrastructure. Gold, meanwhile, typically performs best when investors seek protection from economic, financial or geopolitical risks. Copper’s relative strength therefore suggests markets expect continued industrial expansion rather than an imminent downturn.

The ratio points toward a resilient — and potentially overheated — economy during the second half of 2026. That supports continued industrial-demand growth but also carries an inflationary warning because the copper-gold ratio has historically moved in the same direction as the 10-year Treasury yield. The implication is that the Federal Reserve may need to keep rates higher for longer, with policy risks tilted toward additional tightening rather than cuts.

USDA daily export sales: China books 340,000 MT of new-crop soybeans

• 340,000 MT soybeans to China
• 256,634 MT soybeans to Mexico
• 110,000 MT soybeans to unknown destinations — all 2026/27

Soybean oil and wheat lead overnight grain markets

Oil strength supports soybeans, while wheat gains outpace a cautious corn rally

Grain and oilseed futures traded mostly higher overnight, led by a sharp advance in soybean oil and continued strength in wheat. September corn rose 1½ cents to $4.43, August soybeans gained 4 cents to $11.99, September soft red winter wheat climbed 4½ cents to $6.79¼, and September hard red winter wheat advanced 8 cents to $7.24½.

The soybean complex presented the clearest directional signal. August soybean oil surged 1.51 cents to 73.94 cents per pound, while August soybean meal slipped 90 cents to $322 per ton. Soybeans nevertheless moved higher, indicating that oil values were providing enough support to offset weakness in meal. The divergence also suggests traders were adjusting positions within the products rather than expressing uniformly stronger demand for the entire soybean complex.

Soybeans approached the psychologically important $12 mark, but the modest 4-cent gain showed some hesitation near that level. Sustained strength may require broader buying in meal or a decisive move above $12 to attract additional technical interest. For now, the overnight action points to an oil-led rally rather than a broad-based acceleration in soybean demand.

Wheat posted the strongest gains among the grains, with hard red winter wheat outperforming soft red winter wheat. The wider HRW advance suggests the market is assigning a greater premium to the higher-protein class or covering short positions more aggressively in Kansas City futures. Wheat’s continued strength also offered some spillover support to corn, although corn’s limited gain showed that buyers remained cautious after the market’s recent advance.

Corn held firm at $4.43 but lagged wheat and soybean oil, suggesting its overnight strength was driven more by supportive outside markets and technical positioning than by a new corn-specific catalyst. The ability of corn to maintain recent gains will be important; failure to build momentum could invite additional profit-taking, while a stronger wheat market may continue to provide a floor underneath prices during the day session.

Soyoil surges as U.S. tariffs squeeze Brazilian tallow out of the biofuel feedstock pool

A 25% Section 301 duty effective July 22 — with a possible forced-labor surcharge to follow — reroutes 30,000–35,000 MT of monthly tallow imports to Europe and pushes U.S. renewable diesel makers toward North American soyoil and canola

Soybean oil futures rallied sharply on a one-two punch of trade and biofuel news: Washington’s confirmation of steeper tariffs on Brazilian goods and fresh EIA production data underscoring how tight the U.S. biomass-based diesel feedstock balance has become. The tariff action matters to the oilshare complex for one reason above all — beef tallow, a workhorse feedstock for renewable diesel, was left off the exclusion list.

The tariff action. The U.S. Trade Representative finalized a 25% tariff on a broad range of Brazilian imports under Section 301, effective July 22, citing unfair trading practices — including Brazil’s restrictions on U.S. ethanol market access, digital-trade practices, and illegal deforestation. The new duty replaces the temporary 15% tariff imposed under Section 122, which expires late this month. Washington carved out politically sensitive food imports — beef and orange juice were excluded — but tallow was pointedly not among the exemptions. (For more details see the Trade Policy section.)

The escalation may not stop at 25%. USTR is proposing an additional 12.5% duty on goods produced with forced labor, which could be announced as early as next week. If applied to tallow, the combined rate would reach 37.5% — a level that, stacked on ocean freight and the ineligibility of foreign feedstocks for the 45Z clean fuel production credit, effectively closes the arbitrage on most Brazilian tallow business into the U.S. Gulf.

Why it is bullish soyoil. The math is straightforward. The U.S. has been importing an average of 30,000–35,000 MT of Brazilian tallow per month — roughly 360,000–420,000 MT on an annualized basis, the large majority of it bound for renewable diesel plants. At the new tariff, that flow shifts to EU biofuel producers, who face no comparable duty and are actively bidding for waste and residue feedstocks. That leaves Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) as the only meaningful import origin for U.S. buyers — a supply base that is already heavily committed and cannot expand quickly.

Every tonne of tallow that does not arrive must be replaced in the renderer-to-refinery pipeline, and the marginal replacement is North American vegetable oil. Each 30,000–35,000 MT monthly gap equates to roughly 66–77 million pounds of replacement demand for soyoil or canola oil — on the order of 790–925 million pounds per year if the shortfall is fully backfilled with vegetable oils. Layer on EIA data showing renewable diesel capacity utilization climbing and feedstock consumption expanding, and the demand pull lands squarely on domestic crush. Wider board crush margins, firmer oil share, and support for canola (which also gains from its 45Z eligibility when grown in North America) all follow.

Cotton AWP jumps 2.5 cents, widening its cushion over the loan-rate trigger

Biggest weekly gain in at least two months keeps marketing loan benefits out of reach — a gap that persists even under the higher 55-cent loan rate coming for 2026-crop cotton

Cotton AWP moves higher. The Adjusted World Price (AWP) for upland cotton is 65.37 cents per pound, effective today (July 17) through Thursday, July 23 — up 2.51 cents from 62.86 cents the prior week and the largest weekly move in either direction since at least mid-June. The AWP remains well above the 52-cent loan rate that would trigger a loan deficiency payment (LDP) if growers were able to claim one — a cushion of more than 13 cents. The deadline to claim an LDP on 2025 cotton ended May 31.

What’s behind the jump: The AWP is derived from a rolling average of the cheapest Far East quotations, adjusted for transportation and quality, so it tracks world values rather than New York futures. Far East prices have firmed — the Cotlook A Index has been hovering near 90 cents — even as ICE futures pulled back sharply Thursday, with December 2026 settling at 79.30 cents after the market rejected the 80-cent mark. That divergence explains why the AWP rose in a week when futures fell: the AWP calculation lags and smooths world quotes, and the strength showed up in this week’s number.

Why it matters even without LDPs: The AWP sets the marketing loan repayment rate. With the AWP above the loan rate, growers repay loans at principal plus interest — no marketing loan gains. The caveat about growers claiming an LDP reflects reality on the ground: with 2025-crop marketings nearly complete, few producers still hold beneficial interest in eligible cotton anyway.

Black Sea attacks reprice global wheat risk

Russian strikes curb Ukraine exports as war risk spreads to both shores

Russia’s intensified attacks on Ukraine’s ports and commercial shipping are beginning to achieve what earlier phases of the war largely failed to do: materially restrict Black Sea grain capacity and convince traders that the disruption may persist. The Financial Times reports that repeated missile and drone strikes against Odesa and other export facilities have damaged storage infrastructure, killed port workers and seafarers, and prompted shipowners, commodity traders and insurers to reconsider operating in Ukrainian waters.

The immediate market response has been concentrated in wheat. European wheat futures jumped 7% Wednesday to €231.75 per metric ton, their highest level since February 2025, while Chicago wheat gained about 5%. The rally reflects more than damage to Ukrainian facilities. Ukraine has expanded its drone campaign against Russian vessels in the Sea of Azov and Black Sea, forcing Moscow to restrict traffic through a region that handles roughly one-quarter of Russian grain exports. Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, making simultaneous threats to Russian and Ukrainian shipping far more consequential than an isolated disruption on either side of the Black Sea.

Ukraine’s vulnerability is especially acute because more than 90% of its exports normally move through Black Sea ports. Before the latest escalation, the Greater Odesa complex had been handling about 6 million metric tons of cargo per month. Ukrainian officials have warned that continued strikes could reduce that flow to roughly 4 million tons, with the Danube able to absorb perhaps 1 million additional tons at substantially higher transportation costs. That leaves Ukraine with few economical alternatives if attacks, insurance withdrawals and vessel shortages continue.

The operational deterioration is already visible. Ukraine’s main farmers’ union estimates the country has lost about one-third of its Black Sea grain-export capacity. Chornomorsk has sharply reduced grain intake, and Kernel, Ukraine’s largest grain exporter, suspended operations there after Russian attacks damaged port facilities and a vegetable-oil terminal. Only two of Ukraine’s three principal Black Sea ports were operating normally Thursday morning, while grain deliveries to the ports during July were running below the previous month.

The most important question for markets is no longer whether individual terminals can be repaired. It is whether the Black Sea’s commercial risk structure is changing permanently. Grain terminals can operate around intermittent damage, but they cannot function efficiently without ships, crews, insurance and predictable port access. A sustained withdrawal of war-risk coverage would force exporters to pay sharply higher premiums, accept smaller pools of available vessels or retain more liability themselves. That would widen Black Sea export prices even when grain remains physically available.

Ukraine can redirect some shipments through Danube ports and Romania’s Constanța, while Russia can shift cargoes toward Novorossiysk and Baltic outlets. But those routes have limited spare capacity and require additional rail, truck, barge or coastal shipping movements. The result would be slower exports, higher freight costs and larger inventories building in producing regions — a particularly serious problem as the Northern Hemisphere harvest accelerates.

The wheat rally therefore contains both a legitimate supply premium and a considerable amount of geopolitical risk premium. Prices could retreat quickly if shipping restrictions ease and insurers remain willing to cover vessels. But another successful attack on a loaded grain ship, a prolonged closure of the Kerch Strait or additional destruction at Odesa could push importers to secure alternative supplies before availability tightens further.

European Union exporters are positioned to capture some displaced demand, while U.S., Canadian, Australian and Argentine wheat could become more competitive in markets traditionally supplied by the Black Sea. The effect may be most pronounced in North Africa and the Middle East, where buyers depend heavily on competitively priced Russian and Ukrainian wheat. Higher costs would come from the grain itself, longer shipping distances and greater insurance expenses. With Russia and Ukraine together accounting for roughly one-third of global wheat exports, the market is being forced to price the possibility that both supply systems could be impaired simultaneously.

Ag markets scoreboard — Thursday, July 16

Glyphosate ban could deepen Illinois farm losses

Study puts losses at $609 million, but yield math may understate the bill

An Illinois glyphosate ban would not make corn and soybean production impossible. It would make weed control more expensive, more complicated and less forgiving — converting what appears to be a modest percentage of gross crop revenue into a potentially much larger share of farm profit. A new University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Illinois Soybean Association study estimates annual producer losses of $300 million to $609 million, or 1.8% to 3.6% of statewide corn and soybean revenue, after accounting for substitute herbicides, higher prices for those alternatives and a modest yield reduction.

The policy risk is not entirely hypothetical. Illinois state Rep. Joyce Mason (D-Grayslake) introduced HB 3803 in February 2025 to prohibit the distribution, sale and use of glyphosate or any product containing it. The blanket-ban proposal was referred to the Illinois House Rules Committee on Feb. 18, 2025, and has not advanced further. But the legislation demonstrated that a prohibition can enter the debate even in one of the nation’s largest corn- and soybean-producing states.

The size of the industry makes even a relatively small percentage loss consequential. Illinois farmers planted a combined 21.6 million acres of corn and soybeans in 2024, producing crops valued by USDA at approximately $16.68 billion. The study’s published $300 million-to-$609 million range therefore averages roughly $14 to $28 per planted acre, although actual costs would vary significantly according to crop, weed pressure, herbicide trait system and existing management practices.

That is not a trivial amount under current farm economics. University of Illinois farmdoc budgets released this spring project 2026 corn returns after all costs at losses of $45 to $91 per acre, depending on the region. Projected soybean returns range from $30 to $67 per acre, while a representative 50-50 corn-soybean rotation on high-productivity central Illinois farmland generates only about $11 per acre — including an expected government payment that would not arrive until October 2027. A statewide glyphosate-ban cost averaging $14 to $28 per acre could therefore consume the entire projected rotation profit and deepen losses on corn.

The study’s central conclusion is that adaptation would prevent the worst yield losses, but farmers would pay heavily for that adaptation. Researchers estimate glyphosate is used on 88% of Illinois corn acres and 93% of soybean acres, with annual direct spending of approximately $97 million to $186 million. Because state-level transaction data are unavailable, those figures are inferred from USDA acreage, application assumptions, market prices and internal industry survey information rather than measured directly from Illinois farm purchases.

A typical glyphosate-plus-residual program was estimated to cost $40 to $77 per hectare, equivalent to roughly $16 to $31 per acre. Glufosinate-based systems were estimated at $82 to $153 per hectare, or approximately $33 to $62 per acre, because they can require an additional postemergence application. Programs built around 2,4-D choline or dicamba were estimated at $47 to $89 per hectare, while clethodim and other selective grass-control systems require companion broadleaf and residual herbicides rather than serving as simple one-product replacements.

Aggregated across Illinois acreage, the paper calculates that substituting other weed-control programs would increase annual production costs by $238.5 million to $448.5 million. A sudden statewide demand increase could then raise the cost of replacement programs by another $35.8 million to $67.3 million under a 15% price increase, or by $71.6 million to $134.6 million if alternative-program costs rose 30%. Adding the study’s assumed yield effect produces the published loss range of approximately $300 million to $609 million.

Most of that figure is therefore not lost crop production. It is additional spending that comes directly out of producer margins. Farmers would still harvest corn and soybeans, but they would need more products, more precisely timed applications and, in some cases, additional trips across the field. The alternatives also carry narrower application windows and greater drift-management requirements, increasing the financial consequences of weather delays, labor shortages or insufficient custom-application capacity.

The published estimate also excludes potentially significant indirect costs. Glyphosate is widely used for burndown in no-till and reduced-tillage systems. Its removal could cause some producers to return to more mechanical tillage, raising tractor hours, fuel consumption, labor requirements and machinery depreciation while increasing soil disturbance. The study acknowledges that it did not calculate those expenses or potential effects on erosion, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions. It also does not quantify possible health or environmental benefits from a ban, meaning the report is a farm-cost analysis rather than a complete societal cost-benefit assessment.

Herbicide resistance cuts in both directions. Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp has already pushed many Illinois growers toward residual herbicides and multiple modes of action, meaning some farms are already bearing part of the expense modeled as a future substitution cost. That could make the incremental cost of a formal ban lower for those operations. However, rapidly concentrating millions of acres onto glufosinate, Group 4 herbicides and Group 15 residual products would intensify selection pressure and could shorten the effective life of the replacements. The study describes its estimates as short-run projections and notes that some Illinois waterhemp populations are already showing reduced susceptibility to residual chemistries that would become more important without glyphosate.

There is, however, an important numerical question surrounding the headline estimate. Table 8 in the report says the assumed 2% corn and soybean yield loss would reduce statewide revenue by only $25.6 million. Yet USDA values Illinois’ 2024 corn and soybean production at $16.68 billion, and 2% of that amount is approximately $333.6 million. Even using the study’s own Table 5, which calculates that a 9% yield loss would reduce gross receipts by $1.2805 billion, a proportional 2% loss would equal about $284.6 million — not $25.6 million. The published table appears to have applied the 2% factor to the previously calculated 9% loss rather than to total crop revenue, effectively modeling a yield loss of about 0.18%.

Because the journal version is an accepted, prepublication manuscript that remains subject to production changes, the authors or publisher may clarify or correct that calculation. Until then, the $609 million figure should not necessarily be treated as the upper boundary. Replacing the published $25.6 million yield component with 2% of USDA’s 2024 crop value — while leaving every other study assumption unchanged — would produce losses of roughly $608 million to $849 million under the 15% replacement-price scenario and $644 million to $917 million under the 30% scenario. That would equal approximately 3.6% to 5.5% of Illinois corn and soybean production value, or about $28 to $42 per planted acre. This is an independent recalculation, not an official revision of the study.

IRS raises mileage rate as fuel costs climb

Midyear hike aids drivers, while court rulings stress strict tax records

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responding to sharply higher fuel prices by increasing the optional standard mileage rate for business driving to 76 cents per mile for expenses incurred from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2026. That is a 3.5-cent increase from the 72.5-cent rate that applies during the first half of the year. The rate for medical transportation and qualifying moving expenses rises from 20.5 cents to 23.5 cents per mile, while the charitable-driving rate remains 14 cents because it is fixed by federal law. The IRS said the unusual midyear revision resulted from recent increases in fuel prices.

The change means taxpayers and employers will have to divide 2026 mileage records into two periods. Business miles driven before July 1 remain subject to the 72.5-cent rate, while qualifying miles driven on or after that date use the new 76-cent rate. Employers using the federal rate to reimburse workers also must consider both when the mileage occurred and when the reimbursement was paid.

For farmers, ranchers and other rural businesses, the increase could be more meaningful than it appears. Trips for crop scouting, livestock checks, purchasing parts, meeting with lenders or government agencies and traveling between business locations can produce substantial annual mileage. However, taxpayers still must distinguish deductible business travel from personal use and nondeductible commuting.

The 76-cent figure should not be viewed simply as a gasoline allowance. The standard mileage rate is intended to cover the broader cost of operating a vehicle, including fuel, maintenance, insurance and depreciation. Taxpayers generally choose between the standard mileage method and deducting actual vehicle expenses; they cannot use the mileage rate and then separately deduct gasoline, repairs, insurance or depreciation for the same vehicle and period. Business-related parking fees and tolls may generally be deducted separately.

The rate increase therefore may not automatically make the mileage method the best choice. Businesses operating expensive pickups or vehicles with high repair, insurance and fuel costs may obtain a larger deduction by tracking actual expenses and allocating them between business and personal use. Conversely, the standard rate can simplify recordkeeping for taxpayers who maintain reliable mileage logs but do not want to document every vehicle expense. Eligibility also depends on how the vehicle was previously depreciated and whether Section 179 or bonus depreciation was claimed.

Meanwhile, a recent federal appeals court decision reinforces that net operating loss carryovers require far more support than simply producing copies of old tax returns. In Shaut v. Commissioner, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the rejection of a $570,806 NOL carryover because the taxpayer failed to establish both the original losses and the amount remaining available for the year under examination. The court said prior returns are not conclusive evidence without supporting records that trace the losses from their creation through each intervening tax year.

That requirement is especially important because an NOL may remain available long after the normal audit period for the year in which it originated. Taxpayers should retain the underlying ledgers, receipts, invoices, depreciation schedules, Forms 172 and annual carryover calculations — not merely the filed returns. IRS instructions say records for an NOL-generating year should generally be kept until three years after the carryback or carryforward has been used, or three years after the carryforward expires. Most post-2020 NOLs can only be carried forward and are generally subject to the 80%-of-taxable-income limitation, although qualifying farming losses may still receive a two-year carryback.

A separate Tax Court decision demonstrates that businesses also cannot assume an IRS mistake turns an unexpected refund into permanent income. In Hough Beck & Baird Inc. v. Commissioner, a landscape architecture firm correctly reported and deposited $121,003 of employment taxes. The IRS mistakenly recorded the liability as zero and refunded the deposits, along with interest. After correcting its records two years later, the agency made a supplemental assessment and proposed a levy.

The company argued that the IRS could recover the money only by filing a civil erroneous-refund lawsuit. The Tax Court disagreed, holding that the original zero-dollar assessment was materially defective and could be corrected through a timely supplemental assessment under Section 6204. The decision sustains the proposed levy and underscores that an unexplained refund should not be spent merely because an IRS representative or notice initially suggests it is legitimate.

Friday: Oil returns to one-month high as U.S./Iran conflict escalates

Restricted Hormuz traffic and Red Sea threats deepen supply-risk fears

Crude oil climbed back above $80 per barrel Friday, returning to one-month highs as investors weighed the growing threat that the U.S.-Iran conflict could disrupt major Middle Eastern energy routes. Prices have gained more than 10% this week, reflecting a rapidly expanding geopolitical risk premium rather than an immediate shortage of physical supply.

U.S. Central Command said it completed a sixth consecutive night of strikes against Iran, hitting military logistics networks, maritime assets and other strategic sites. Iran has retaliated with attacks on U.S. bases in Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain, while reports indicated Tehran instructed Yemen’s Houthi forces to prepare for possible disruptions to Red Sea shipping if Iranian power infrastructure is targeted.

Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains sharply restricted after the U.S. reinstated a naval blockade near Iranian ports earlier this week. The market’s primary concern is that prolonged restrictions in Hormuz, combined with renewed attacks in the Red Sea, could threaten two critical shipping corridors simultaneously, increasing tanker, insurance and freight costs even before significant crude production is lost.

Thursday: Oil eases but Middle East shipping risks keep prices elevated

Threats to Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb preserve crude’s geopolitical premium

Oil prices slipped Thursday but remained close to one-month highs as escalating tensions in the Middle East kept the threat of supply disruptions firmly embedded in the market. Brent crude settled 72 cents lower at $84.23 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate fell 65 cents to $78.95 after both benchmarks briefly moved higher during the session.

The market’s central concern is no longer limited to the Strait of Hormuz. Reports that Iran is preparing contingency measures that could threaten another regional shipping route have raised fears that the Bab el-Mandeb, the southern gateway to the Red Sea, could also become vulnerable. Disruptions at both chokepoints would threaten crude and refined-product flows, tighten tanker availability and sharply increase freight and insurance costs.

Shipping through Hormuz remained well below normal following renewed military action between the United States and Iran and the reinstatement of U.S. maritime restrictions. The decline in vessel traffic underscores the difficulty of restoring Gulf exports even when oil facilities remain operational. The immediate risk is therefore not simply a loss of production, but an inability to move available barrels efficiently and affordably.

Additional Iraqi exports helped cap Thursday’s rally, with shipments accelerating during the first half of July after months of constrained flows. Limited diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran also gave traders some hope that the conflict could be contained. Still, crude prices are likely to remain supported as long as tanker traffic is restricted and markets must account for the possibility that two of the world’s most important energy corridors could be disrupted simultaneously.

Brazil rolls out $2.6 billion rural credit shield as U.S. Section 301 tariffs loom

Lula government pairs emergency farm credit with retaliation threats ahead of the July 22 tariff start date — but the package covers only a fraction of the $7.4 billion in exports now in the crosshairs

Brazil has published a package of extraordinary credit for rural development, debt refinancing and support for sugarcane producers affected by the coming U.S. Section 301 tariffs. The provisional measure (MP 1.377/2026), published July 16 in an extra edition of Brazil’s official gazette, totals 13.3 billion reais ($2.6 billion) and took effect immediately, though it still requires approval by Congress within 120 days.

Where the money goes. The package includes 9 billion reais ($1.76 billion) for rural technology development — channeled through Brazil’s national science and technology fund (FNDCT) and its innovation agency Finep — focused on productivity gains and competitiveness; 3 billion reais ($590 million) for financial rebalancing for borrowers in good standing (the “Desenrola Adimplentes” program); 270 million reais ($53 million) in economic subsidies for independent sugarcane producers in the country’s Northeast region; and 1 billion reais ($195 million) for student loan holders. The sugarcane money operationalizes an earlier provisional measure (MP 1.374, published June 30) that set a subsidy of 12 reais (about $2.35) per tonne of cane for the 2025/26 harvest for independent growers — those without ownership stakes in mills or distilleries — hit by the U.S. tariffs and by extreme weather.

The tariff trigger. The U.S. Trade Representative finalized a 25% tariff on a range of Brazilian goods effective July 22, capping a Section 301 investigation opened in July 2025 into Brazil’s digital trade and payment practices, preferential tariffs for third countries, anti-corruption backsliding, intellectual-property enforcement, ethanol market access and illegal deforestation. Covered products include sugar, ethanol, timber, machinery, furniture, footwear, textiles, seafood and pig iron. But the exemption list is long — more than 2,000 product lines, including beef, coffee, iron ore, crude oil, aircraft and parts, fertilizers and rare earths — covering roughly $11 billion in annual trade, according to the American Chamber of Commerce. A separate ongoing probe could layer another 12.5% on top, taking some products to 37.5%.

Brazilian Industry and Trade Minister Márcio Elias Rosa said the tariffs would cover about 18% of Brazilian exports to the U.S., with an estimated value of $7.4 billion based on 2024 data.

Why sugarcane gets singled out. Sugar and ethanol sit squarely in the tariff net, and the pain is already visible. Brazilian sugar shipments to the U.S. collapsed from 1.12 million metric tons in 2024 to about 420,000 tons in 2025, and the U.S. was the sector’s second-largest ethanol market last year at $163 million. Industry group UNICA said the U.S. decision “disregards significant asymmetries in the trade relationship,” while Northeast producer group NovaBio was blunter: “They want to export ethanol to a country that has no need to import it. That isn’t negotiation, it’s imposition.” The Northeast cane belt is also politically important ground for President Lula — small independent growers there operate on thin margins and have little ability to redirect sales.

Analysis: aid first, retaliation later — maybe. The package follows the playbook Brasília used in 2025, when it answered an earlier round of U.S. tariffs with the 30-billion-reais (roughly $5.5 billion) “Plano Brasil Soberano” credit line: cushion the blow at home before deciding whether to hit back. Note what this package is not — it is not retaliation, and at $2.6 billion it is modest against the $7.4 billion in affected exports. It is adjustment assistance, and the heavy weighting toward technology and productivity credit (9 of the 13.3 billion reais, or about $1.8 of the $2.6 billion) signals Brazil is planning for a longer-term competitiveness fight, not a quick resolution.

As for a direct response, the government is still studying options. The expectation is Brazil will lean on its Economic Reciprocity Law (Law 15.122/2025, enacted in April 2025), which authorizes countermeasures — including tariffs, suspension of trade-agreement obligations and even suspension of intellectual-property concessions — when foreign countries “violate trade agreements or deny benefits to Brazil under such agreements,” among other scenarios. President Lula called the tariffs unjustifiable and has vowed reciprocal action plus a WTO challenge. But the law requires proportionality and a public-consultation process, and Rosa has simultaneously signaled Brazil will “seek a negotiated deal” — a reminder that Brazil’s own industrial and farm lobbies are wary of an escalation that invites still-higher U.S. duties.

NWS case count holds steady with active cases down to 13

USDA’s confirmed New World screwworm tally stays at 39 as every one of the 26 June cases marked inactive comes off the treatment list — while all eight July detections remain active

The total number of New World screwworm (NWS) cases confirmed by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) continues to hold at 39, but the number the agency lists as active has fallen to 13, with 26 cases now listed as inactive. The data show that the 26 cases now inactive were all confirmed in June, leaving just 5 of those June cases still active. All eight of the cases confirmed so far in July are still shown as active.

Active animal cases are those that involve ongoing disease-mitigation efforts on the individual animal until it is free of NWS myiasis, including treatment and wound management of the infested animal, according to APHIS. Inactive cases are situations where mitigation activities are no longer required on that animal — either the animal has fully recovered, with myiasis resolved and treatment completed, or appropriate measures have been taken to prevent the spread of NWS.

Resolutions are outpacing new confirmations. The update shows that the agency, so far, is moving cases to inactive status faster than new cases are being confirmed. Two-thirds of the entire caseload — 26 of 39 — is now closed out, and every one of those closures comes from the June cohort. Put another way, 84% of June’s 31 cases have already been resolved, a turnaround that points to effective treatment and wound management on the ground rather than a caseload that is simply aging out.

The pace of new confirmations also appears to have eased. June produced 31 confirmed cases, or roughly one a day. July has added eight in its first two weeks — a slower clip, though the month is not yet complete and reporting can lag. Because a case is generally listed as active until treatment is finished, the eight July cases showing as active is expected: they are simply the most recent and have had the least time to be worked. The more telling signal is the direction of the ratio — active cases down to 13 from a peak that included the full June cohort, with resolutions accumulating on the inactive side of the ledger.

Where the cases are. Geographically, the confirmed cases remain tightly clustered. All 39 sit in just two states — Texas and New Mexico — and across roughly 14 counties, with the heaviest concentration on the Edwards Plateau of West Texas. Crockett County alone accounts for 11 of the 39 cases, followed by Edwards (6), Terrell (4), and Pecos and Zavala counties (3 each). New Mexico’s single case is in Lea County, along the Texas line. The clustering matters for containment: a caseload concentrated in a handful of adjacent counties is far easier to blanket with surveillance, animal-movement controls, and sterile-fly releases than one scattered across the map.

What’s being infested. All 39 confirmed cases involve domestic livestock and animals. Cattle (20) and sheep (12) make up 32 of the 39, with goats (4) and dogs (3) accounting for the rest. Critically, USDA continues to indicate that no cases have been found in wildlife or feral animals — the population that would be hardest to treat and monitor, and the pathway most likely to let the pest establish itself beyond the reach of producers and animal-health officials.

The containment signals. Several markers in the data point the same direction. The treatment success is evident in the fact that USDA has not announced, at any point during this situation, that any animals have died. The agency also continues to report that no fly-trap detections have been confirmed — meaning surveillance traps have not caught wild NWS flies circulating in the area, an important indicator that the confirmed cases reflect infested individual animals rather than an established, reproducing local fly population.

Taken together — a flat total, a shrinking active count, no wildlife or feral cases, no trap detections, and no reported animal deaths — the picture is one of a response that is containing and resolving the current caseload rather than chasing an expanding one. That is the outcome APHIS and its state partners have been working toward with treatment, movement controls, and the sterile-insect program.

The bigger picture. The stakes behind these 39 cases are national. New World screwworm — whose larvae feed on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals — was eradicated from the United States decades ago through the sterile-insect technique, and its return would threaten a livestock sector worth tens of billions of dollars. The pest has been pushing northward since 2023, when it re-emerged in Panama and Costa Rica, and has since been detected throughout Central America and Mexico, where regional animal-case counts run into the hundreds of thousands. Federal health officials have characterized the risk to people as very low; the concern that drives the U.S. response is animal health and the integrity of the cattle supply chain.

NWS outlook: flooding, storms, smoke and heat

Heavy rainfall threat continues in the Texas Big Bend today; dangerous flash flooding remains possible. Daily monsoonal showers and thunderstorms continue across the Western U.S. this weekend; stormy weather expected over parts of the Northern Tier and Mid-Atlantic. Air quality alerts span from the Upper Midwest Great Lakes to New England. Heat and humidity persists across the Northern Plains/Upper Midwest and lingers in the Mid-Atlantic through tomorrow.

Northern Plains turn drier as heat intensifies across the western Farm Belt

Reduced storm coverage threatens spring wheat while 95- to 100-degree heat accelerates moisture losses

Weather models have sharply reduced near-term rainfall expectations across the northern Plains, increasing concerns for spring wheat as anticipated ridge-rider thunderstorms are now forecast to track south of the primary growing region. Rainfall through early next week is expected to remain near to mostly below normal, likely accelerating crop deterioration where soil moisture is already limited.

Heat will add to the stress across western production areas. High temperatures are forecast to reach 95 to 100 degrees across South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas through Monday, intensifying evaporation and crop moisture demand before a temporary cooling trend arrives around midweek.

The hard red winter wheat belt is expected to remain completely dry through Wednesday. Localized rain chances may return to northern portions of the region afterward, but the broader outlook points to another heat buildup beginning around July 26. The developing anomaly appears likely to be expressed primarily through unusually warm nighttime temperatures across the central U.S., limiting crops’ ability to recover from daytime heat.

The overnight European model removed much of the organized thunderstorm activity it previously projected for next week. However, the broader atmospheric pattern and continued support from ensemble forecasts still favor a wetter bias for parts of the region during the middle and latter portions of the week. The first meaningful storm development is expected Sunday night near the Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota border region, though rainfall placement and coverage remain uncertain.