OPINION
As global tensions increase, Americans are understandably focused on the security of our nation. But America's strength abroad rests on resilient infrastructure at home — and when that system is concentrated or compromised, our national security is made more vulnerable.
Large scale freight rail consolidation is creating exactly that risk.
A Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger, forming a coast-to-coast rail behemoth, would put critical supply lines in fewer hands while sapping resilience and flexibility across the network. That instability is a threat the country can’t afford and shouldn’t allow.
Regulators are correct to be deeply concerned about further rail consolidation. Over the past four decades, the number of players in the freight rail industry has decline dramatically.
In the 1980s, 23 major railroads operated in the United States; today, just six remain, with four companies controlling nearly 90% of all freight traffic.
It's a pattern of extreme consolidation that has already eroded the initiative and responsiveness of our aerospace industry and has plagued our defense industrial base.
A combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern system would tighten that dangerous concentration even further, controlling roughly 40 to 45% of U.S. rail traffic and dominating key commodity movements from metals to automotive freight.
At that scale, a single company would wield enormous influence over the transportation network that moves the raw materials, food, energy, and equipment the American economy, not to mention our troops, depends on.
Creating a single coast-to-coast rail giant might make sense to a handful of rail industry insiders, but from a national security perspective, it raises serious red flags.
Fewer rail competitors mean fewer options, especially when equipment must move reliably, as it does now in war time.
As the lessons from previous rail mergers have shown, consolidation increases costs, degrades service, and weakens the redundancy of our military logistics system.
When our country’s military readiness is at stake, the last thing we should be doing is allowing monopolies to undercut efficient and affordable rail service.
The U.S. military relies on freight rail to move the heavy equipment that keeps our forces ready, including tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, fuel, and ammunition.
It's important to keep in mind that large units deploy from bases in the interior of the country to ports on the coasts, and rail is typically the only system capable of moving that kind of weight and volume efficiently.
Programs like the Strategic Rail Corridor Network exist specifically to ensure the military can move equipment across the country when the nation calls.
The military has repeatedly warned that relying on a single rail carrier to serve key installations can create dangerous vulnerabilities.
In comments submitted to the Surface Transportation Board highlighting the benefits of reciprocal switching to increase rail options, the Army’s "Railroads for National Defense" program emphasized that flexibility, resiliency, and reliability in rail service are critical to safeguarding military readiness and national security.
When only one railroad controls access to a base or logistics hub, it creates a single point of failure. If something goes wrong — a service disruption or a network slowdown — the military may have few alternatives to move critical equipment.
The military plans for redundancy in everything, including communications networks, supply chains, and energy systems.
Critical infrastructure should be no different.
A competitive rail network gives the country options, and options are what keep logistics moving when conditions change.
There's also a broader economic reality at stake.
The Trump administration is urgently working to rebuild America's defense industrial base to meet the needs of the 21st century.
These critical supply chains, including factories that build equipment, the energy producers that power our economy, and the manufacturers that supply critical materials all depend on reliable freight transportation.
When rail service becomes less competitive, shipping costs rise and service can rapidly deteriorate. That negatively impacts the businesses, the workers, and the industries that ultimately support our national defense.
An America First national security strategy requires efficient, affordable, and competitive freight rail. We used it to transport the tanks and supplies that won World War II.
Today it continues to move the materiel that keeps America’s military prepared for whatever comes next. It’s a real-world necessity.
From a military perspective, the principle is simple: when the country needs to move, the system must work. That must be the driving force of our rail policy, and absent compelling arguments to the contrary, it’s why the Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger must be rejected.
United States Air Force Brig. Gen. John Teichert (ret) is a leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs. A prolific author and speaker, he can be followed at johnteichert.com and on LinkedIn.