Focus: FOMC, CPI, USDA Monthly Reports & FY 2025 Ag Spending   
Texas judge grants injunction against USDA's ERP, bans race and sex discrimination in payments


Headers_Week_060924


Washington Focus


 

Focus this week is congressional action on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Appropriations bill for USDA. The appropriations process is currently underway, with several key developments and discussions taking place in Congress. The House is working to move all FY 2025 spending bills through the Appropriations Committee before the Republican National Convention in July. The Agriculture spending bill, which includes funding for USDA, FDA, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is scheduled for subcommittee consideration on June 11 and a full committee vote on July 10.

     The Biden administration released its FY 2025 budget request on March 11, 2024, proposing a significant increase in the USDA budget to $29.2 billion. This proposal includes boosts for climate, nutrition, conservation, and agricultural research programs. However, the president's budget serves primarily as a starting point, with Congress ultimately responsible for drafting and passing appropriations bills.

     The Agriculture spending bill has been allocated $25.8 billion for FY 2025. That compares to the $26.2 billion appropriated for FY 2024. The House Ag Appropriations Subcommittee will release its FY 2025 bill on Monday and vote on it on Tuesday.

     The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing to review the administration's budget request. During this hearing, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack advocated for increased funding to address critical needs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The budget request for WIC is $7.73 billion, which is $700 million above the fiscal 2024 levels, to address rising participation and food costs.

     Key issues and debates

     Bottom line: The appropriations process is complicated by broader fiscal constraints and political dynamics. The Fiscal Responsibility Act set caps on defense and non-defense discretionary spending, which impacts the overall budgetary environment. Non-defense programs are expected to face a 6% cut, with some subcommittees experiencing even larger reductions. This creates a tight budgetary environment. Federal spending for agriculture is divided into mandatory and discretionary categories. Mandatory spending, which includes programs like farm program payments, crop insurance and nutrition assistance, dominates the budget and is less flexible. Discretionary spending, which funds programs like rural development and agricultural research, is more subject to annual appropriations and budget cuts.

— The IMF’s Deputy Managing Director, Gita Gopinath, urged the U.S. and other advanced economies to reduce their fiscal burdens, emphasizing the need to rein in spending and increase taxes. With the U.S. economy showing strong growth, Gopinath believes there is ample room to reduce fiscal deficits and return debt to pre-pandemic levels.

     The Congressional Budget Office predicts US debt to GDP will exceed World War II-era highs by 2029, with deficits between 5.2% and 6.3% over the next decade. Gopinath cautioned against financing all spending through borrowing, highlighting significant risks posed by fiscal deficits in both the U.S. and China.

     She praised recent fiscal reforms in the euro area but stressed the importance of implementation.

     Looking ahead, 2025 is seen as a critical year for the U.S. fiscal outlook, with concerns about potential increases in deficits under the current economic plans of both political parties.

     Gopinath also discussed the need for fundamental reforms in pension systems and medical spending due to aging populations, supporting more progressive taxation to address these issues. Additionally, she warned that while generative AI could boost productivity, it also poses risks to job security, urging countries to enhance support for displaced workers through more generous unemployment insurance and wage insurance programs.

— Attorney General vote in House? House Republicans announced that lawmakers could potentially vote this week on whether to hold Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress.

— Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has agreed to testify before a House Judiciary Committee panel regarding former President Trump’s hush-money trial, which led to Trump's conviction. This response follows House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan's (R-Ohio) request for Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo to testify at a June 13 hearing on what he called the “unprecedented political prosecution of President Trump.” The DA's office confirmed their commitment to voluntary cooperation, according to the Associated Press.

— Judge grants injunction against USDA's ERP, bans race and sex discrimination in payments. A federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, recently granted a preliminary injunction against USDA regarding the 2022 Emergency Relief Program (ERP). This injunction allows payments to continue but prohibits discrimination based on sex or race. The judge's decision was influenced by the likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on the merits of their case, which challenges the constitutionality of USDA's methodology for distributing aid under the ERP.

     The lawsuit, filed by a group of Texas farmers, claims that the USDA's prioritization of minority groups in its aid distribution is discriminatory. The plaintiffs argue that such prioritization violates their constitutional rights by discriminating against them based on race and sex. This case is part of a broader trend of legal challenges against federal policies perceived as favoring certain groups over others.

     The Northern District of Texas, where this case was filed, has become a focal point for conservative litigants seeking favorable rulings. The Northern District of Texas has the highest percentage of Republican-appointed judges among all federal district courts in the United States. This has led to a reputation for issuing rulings that align with conservative ideologies, attracting conservative litigants who believe they have a better chance of winning their cases in this district. A notable feature of the Northern District of Texas is its use of single-judge divisions. In these divisions, cases are assigned to a single judge, often leading to predictable outcomes. For example, any case filed in the Amarillo division is automatically assigned to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee known for his conservative rulings. This practice has been criticized for enabling "judge-shopping," where litigants can effectively choose their judge by selecting the division in which they file their case.

     Conservative litigants in the Northern District of Texas have employed several main arguments in their legal challenges, often targeting federal policies and regulations. Here are the key points:

— The Biden administration on Friday finalized new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, calling for a more gradual increase than initially proposed. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, require automakers' fleets to average 50.4 miles per gallon by model year 2031. This move is projected to save vehicle owners over $600 in fuel costs over the vehicle's lifetime and reduce pollution and reliance on foreign oil, according to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

     Key details of the standards:

     John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, praised the coordination with another rule tightening EPA limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions.

     However, the rule has faced opposition. The American Petroleum Institute and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) criticized the standards, arguing they ignore consumer preferences for affordable gas-powered cars and could raise car prices. Cruz plans to introduce a resolution to overturn the CAFE standards.

     Bottom line: The overarching goal of these standards is to promote electric or zero-emission vehicles, aiming for all new vehicle sales to be zero-emission by 2030, as the transportation sector is the largest source of U.S. emissions at 28%, per the EPA.

— The Supreme Court's current term is poised to deliver rulings on a range of high-stakes issues that could significantly impact the political landscape, especially in the context of the 2024 presidential election. Some rulings are coming Thursday. The court heard only 61 cases in the 2023-24 term, close to a historic low. It still needs to decide on 29 cases.

     Here are some of the key cases and their potential implications:

  1. Trump's ballot eligibility

Case: Originating from Colorado, this case involves the attempt to disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot due to his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Implications: The ruling could set a precedent for Trump's eligibility in other states and impact his political future. The justices appeared skeptical about disqualifying Trump, emphasizing the potential consequences for democracy and voter disenfranchisement.

  1. Abortion rights

Cases: Several cases, including those from Idaho and Florida, address the legality of abortion restrictions and the federal requirement for hospitals to provide abortions in medical emergencies.

Implications: These rulings could reshape abortion access across the country, especially in states with near-total bans. The decisions will likely influence voter sentiment and mobilize both pro-choice and pro-life advocates.

  1. Gun control

Case: United States v. Rahimi, which questions whether individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders can be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Implications: A ruling against the prohibition could weaken gun control measures and affect public safety, particularly concerning domestic violence.

  1. Social media and free speech

Cases: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, which challenge laws in Florida and Texas that restrict social media companies from moderating content based on political views.

Implications: The decisions will address the balance between free speech rights of social media companies and state regulations, potentially affecting how online platforms operate.

  1. Racial gerrymandering

Cases: Cases from Alabama and South Carolina address whether congressional district maps were drawn based on racial or partisan considerations.

Implications: These rulings could influence future redistricting efforts and the balance of political power in affected states.

  1. Presidential immunity

Case: Trump v. United States, which examines whether a former president can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

Implications: The outcome will determine the extent of legal accountability for former presidents and could impact ongoing and future prosecutions of Trump.

  1. Federal agency power

Case: The justices could do away with Chevron deference, a bedrock precedent of administrative law that for decades has bolstered federal agencies’ powers to regulate wide areas of American life. The doctrine instructs judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law when it is ambiguous. It has provided the executive branch with wide latitude to implement policy change in countless areas, including environmental protections and cryptocurrency.  

Implications: Conservatives have increasingly looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the “administrative state.” At oral arguments, some of the Supreme Court’s conservatives who have long criticized the precedent railed against it, but it remains unclear if a majority is willing to end Chevron deference.

— President Emmanuel Macron stunned France on Sunday when he called snap parliamentary elections after his centrist alliance was trounced by Marine Le Pen’s far-right movement in a European parliamentary vote.

     Far-right parties made significant gains in the EU elections, winning the vote in France and performing well in Germany and other countries, in results that will help tilt the European parliament towards a more anti-immigration and anti-green stance, according to observers.

 

 


Other Events & Hearings 


 

Monday, June 10

Tuesday, June 11

Wednesday, June 12

Thursday, June 13

Friday, June 14

 


Economic Reports and Events for the Week



Wednesday is the key day this week as it brings May CPI figures and later an FOMC statement on interest rates, updated Fed projections and a Fed chair presser.

     EconCal_061024

Monday, June 10

Tuesday, June 11

Wednesday, June 12

Thursday, June 13

Friday, June 14


Key USDA & international Ag & Energy Reports and Events 



Ag focus is on Wednesday’s monthly reports from USDA — updated old- and new-crop balance sheets and the second winter wheat production estimate from NASS.

In the energy sector, OPEC, the EIA and the IEA will publish their monthly market outlooks during the week.

Monday, June 10

     Ag reports and events:

Energy reports and events:

Tuesday, June 11

     Ag reports and events:

     Energy reports and events:

Wednesday, June 12

     Ag reports and events:

     Energy reports and events:

Thursday, June 13

     Ag reports and events:

     Energy reports and events:

Friday, June 14

     Ag reports and events:

     Energy reports and events:


 

KEY LINKS


WASDE | Crop Production | USDA weekly reports | Crop Progress | Food prices | Farm income | Export Sales weekly | ERP dashboard | California phase-out of gas-powered vehicles | RFS | IRA: Biofuels | IRA: Ag | | Russia/Ukraine war, lessons learned | | SCOTUS on WOTUS | SCOTUS on Prop 12 pork | New farm bill primer | | Gov’t payments to farmers by program | Farmer working capital | USDA Ag Outlook Forum |