Trump officials double down on tariff defense after Supreme Court scrutiny (Agri-Pulse): Trump administration officials are standing firm after a tense Supreme Court oral argument cast doubt on the legality of the president’s sweeping tariff authority. Following pointed questions from several justices about whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows such broad trade restrictions, trade adviser Jamieson Greer and others reiterated that the tariffs are essential to defend U.S. industry and national security. Officials signaled no plans to scale back the strategy, even as legal experts warn the Court may soon curtail those powers.
For agriculture, the stakes are high. Farmers have endured years of tariff-driven trade volatility, from Chinese retaliatory duties on soybeans to higher costs for steel and fertilizer. If the Court rules against the administration, markets could see short-term stability as broad tariffs are lifted or restructured. But a loss could also limit Washington’s ability to respond quickly to global price shocks or foreign subsidies in the future.
Observers say the ruling could force the government to fall back on narrower trade tools like Sections 232 and 301, which would mean more targeted but potentially slower trade enforcement. For producers, the outcome could influence both export competitiveness and the cost of key farm inputs well into 2026.
Senate Republicans introduce new food ingredient disclosure bill amid MAHA pressure (Civil Eats): A group of Senate Republicans, led by Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), has introduced the Better Food Disclosure Act, a new bill aimed at overhauling how food ingredients are reported and reviewed by the FDA. The legislation responds to growing calls from the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, which has criticized the current system allowing companies to add ingredients deemed “Generally Recognized as Safe” without explicit FDA approval.
The bill would require food manufacturers to formally report ingredients to the FDA and let states or citizens petition for safety reviews of substances already on the market. Importantly, it drops a clause that would have blocked states from enforcing their own bans on dyes or additives — a key win for states like California and West Virginia that have already enacted such restrictions.
While industry groups warn that this could create a patchwork of rules across states, health advocates see it as a step toward greater transparency. For agriculture and food processors, the proposal could influence ingredient sourcing and compliance costs, as companies may reformulate products to meet evolving safety standards and consumer expectations.