Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Federal Agencies
Featured Stories
Surface Transportation Board Issues Decision Involving Kansas City Southern Railway, Gateway Eastern Railway, Texas Mexican Railway
WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 34342, Sub-No. 1) entitled "Kansas City Southern - Control - The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Gateway Eastern Railway Co., and the Texas Mexican Railway Co.":
* * *
Digest:/1 The Board denies a motion to temporarily stay implementation of an arbitration award pending the Board's consideration of a petition for review and/or a declaratory order. The Board also denies, in part, a motion to strike.
On April 21, 2026, Daniel T. White (White) filed an "Emergency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 34342, Sub-No. 1) entitled "Kansas City Southern - Control - The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Gateway Eastern Railway Co., and the Texas Mexican Railway Co.": * * * Digest:/1 The Board denies a motion to temporarily stay implementation of an arbitration award pending the Board's consideration of a petition for review and/or a declaratory order. The Board also denies, in part, a motion to strike. On April 21, 2026, Daniel T. White (White) filed an "EmergencyMotion for Stay and Interim Relief" (Motion for Stay), and on April 24, 2026, White filed a "Petition for Review and/or Declaratory Order" (Petition) (collectively, the April Filings), relating to an arbitration award dated April 1, 2026 (the Arbitration Award), which White seeks to temporarily stay and permanently set aside./2 Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), which was a party to the Arbitration Award, filed a reply opposing the Motion for Stay, as well as a separate reply opposing the Petition.
The Motion for Stay will be denied. A motion to strike filed by CPKC will be denied in part. The Petition will be addressed in a separate decision.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the Board approved the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger, subject to various conditions, including a condition for the protection of railroad employees set out in New York Dock--Control--Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60, 84-90 (1979). KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision, FD 34342, slip op. at 21, 24. Years later, in 2023, the Board approved, subject to conditions, the acquisition of control by Canadian Pacific Railway Limited of KCS and its railroad affiliates (the CP/KCS Merger), with the combined system to be known as CPKC.
Earlier this year, a dispute between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and CPKC arising out of the implementation of the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger was brought to arbitration pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the New York Dock protective conditions imposed in that control proceeding. (White Suppl., Arb. Award 1, May 4, 2026; see id., Arb. Award 3, 14.) The dispute centered on CPKC's proposal to consolidate train operations and transportation assets of the Tex-Mex property under the collective bargaining agreement that has covered KCS operations over the remainder of its network following its acquisition of MidSouth Corporation and its rail subsidiaries in 1993 (the MidSouth CBA)./3 (White Suppl., Arb. Award 2.) The arbitration panel issued the Arbitration Award on April 1, 2026 (from which BLET's representative dissented) in favor of CPKC, subject to two modifications addressed therein. (Id. at 14.)/4
After the Arbitration Award was issued, White filed the Motion for Stay, followed by the Petition. White states that he is "a locomotive engineer employed on the former Tex-Mex property," (Mot. for Stay 1), who is acting "solely in an individual capacity and does not purport to represent any labor organization or collective bargaining representative," (Pet. 1). According to White, the Board's approval of the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger in 2004 was explicitly conditioned on applicants' representations that existing agreements--including the Tex-Mex collective bargaining agreement (the Tex-Mex CBA)--would remain in force. (Pet. 3; see id. at 1 (referencing Tex-Mex agreement).) White argues that the Arbitration Award--which authorizes the elimination of the Tex-Mex CBA and imposition of the MidSouth CBA, (id. at 3)--"exceeds the lawful scope" of the labor protection conditions imposed when the Board approved the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger. (Mot. for Stay 1.) According to White, absent a stay, implementation of the Arbitration Award will cause him and similarly situated employees immediate and irreparable harm. (Id. at 2.)
CPKC filed a response in opposition to White's Motion for Stay on May 14, 2026. In addition to opposing White's request for a stay, CPKC provides background on the procedural history leading up to the April 1, 2026 Arbitration Award and notes that BLET did not seek review of the award. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 2-5, May 14, 2026.) White replied to CPKC's response on May 20, 2026 (May 20 Surreply), arguing, among other things, that CPKC's response "rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of this proceeding by attempting to recast the Petition as a dispute concerning the merits of a labor agreement." (May 20 Surreply 1.)/5 On May 26, 2026, CPKC filed a motion to strike White's May 20 Surreply or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surrebuttal, which accompanied the motion. On May 28, 2026, CPKC filed a response in opposition to White's Petition.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Motion for Stay
White's Motion for Stay contends that he "is directly and adversely affected by the arbitration award." (Mot. for Stay 1.) As noted above, White objects that the Arbitration Award authorizes the elimination of the Tex-Mex CBA and imposes a materially different collective bargaining agreement (the MidSouth CBA) that will involve "[c]onsolidation of seniority systems" and "[r]econfiguration of assignments and working conditions." (Id.) According to White, this action "exceeds the lawful scope of [New York Dock] authority and directly conflicts with the conditions upon which the Board approved the underlying transaction in [the KCS/TexMex Merger]." (Id.) White asserts that "[a]bsent immediate relief, the Carrier will implement structural changes to agreements, seniority systems, and working conditions that cannot be readily undone, thereby rendering subsequent Board review [of the Petition] ineffective and depriving the Board of its ability to provide meaningful relief." (Id.) White argues that the criteria for a stay are satisfied. (Id. at 1-2 (contending that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, that the balance of harms favors a stay, and that a stay serves the public interest).)
CPKC disputes these contentions and asserts that White's motion satisfies none of the criteria for a stay. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 6-18, May 14, 2026.) Among other arguments, CPKC asserts that White has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm upon implementation of the operational changes permitted by the Arbitration Award, absent a stay. (Id. at 13-17.)
Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(b)(4), the Board may issue an appropriate order, such as a stay, when necessary to prevent irreparable harm. In ruling on a request for a stay, the Board considers: (1) whether the party seeking the stay has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) whether the party seeking the stay will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) whether other interested parties will be substantially harmed by a stay; and (4) the public interest in granting or denying the stay. See, e.g., Ind. Harbor Belt R.R.-- Trackage Rts.--Consol. Rail Corp., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 4 (STB served Mar. 14, 2017) (citing Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). A party seeking a stay carries the burden of persuasion on all of the elements required for such extraordinary relief. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 4 (citing Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974); Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42104, slip op. at 2 (STB served Apr. 25, 2011)).
The threshold consideration in deciding whether a stay is appropriate is whether the moving party will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted. Joint Pet. for a Rulemaking to Establish a Voluntary Arb. Program for Small Rate Disps., EP 765, slip op. at 3 (STB served Feb. 14, 2023) (citing R. J. Corman R.R. Prop.--Aban. Exemption--in Scott, Campbell, & Anderson Cntys., Tenn., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3 (STB served Dec. 1, 2020)). The party seeking a stay must demonstrate that the injury claimed is "imminent, 'certain and great.'" Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Co.--Acquis. & Operation Exemption--Lines of Union Pac. R.R., FD 33290, slip op. at 6 (STB served Jan. 24, 1997) (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). Where a petitioner does not demonstrate "that irreparable harm will occur if a stay is not granted, the petition for a stay will be denied and the Board need not address the remaining stay criteria." R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3.
The Board will deny the Motion for Stay because White has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(b)(4); R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3 (denying petition for stay based on petitioner's failure to show irreparable harm); Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 5 (same). White fails to demonstrate that he would suffer any specific harm from implementation of the Arbitration Award--let alone harm that could be considered "imminent, 'certain and great.'" White alleges that absent a stay, he "will suffer immediate and irreparable harm"/6 because, as described by White, implementation of the Arbitration Award will result in "alteration or elimination of seniority rights," "changes to assignments and job structures," "replacement of governing contract protections," and "disruption of established working conditions." (Mot. for Stay 2.) However, these are generalized assertions of harm (some of which, on their face, do not necessarily imply harm) and White has not shown that he specifically will suffer these harms if the MidSouth CBA is implemented. See Wisconsin Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674 ("[b]are allegations of what is likely to occur are of no value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur. The movant must provide . . . proof indicating that the harm is certain to occur in the near future."); Richard Best Transfer, Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42149, slip op. at 4-5 (STB served Dec. 22, 2016) (reiterating that "bare allegations . . . are of no value" and finding that the petitioner's statements, "provided without evidentiary support, do not allow the Board to determine whether the harm alleged 'will in fact occur'"); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009) ("simply showing some possibility of irreparable injury" is insufficient). White also does not explain how such harm would be irreparable. He claims that "allowing implementation to proceed would effectively moot the relief sought" and that "structural changes will . . . mak[e] restoration of the status quo impracticable." (Mot. for Stay 2). However, this assertion is unsupported. See City of Fishers--Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 et al., slip op. at 7 (STB served Dec. 21, 2018) ("To show irreparable harm, the requesting party must demonstrate both the imminence and the irreparable nature of any purported harm. 'Bare allegations . . . are of no value . . . .'").
Moreover, in response, CPKC explains in specific detail how White will not be adversely impacted by implementation of the MidSouth CBA. (See CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 13-15, May 14, 2026.) CPKC states that under the MidSouth CBA, White--who has more than 12 years of seniority as a Tex-Mex locomotive engineer--will not be required to work on territory other than Tex-Mex and will not be required to relocate; that White will be afforded expanded work opportunities because he will be able to choose to work at additional locations and over additional territory; and that the MidSouth CBA will preserve White's existing rights under the Tex-Mex CBA, including his seniority standing. (Id. at 13-14.) CPKC also asserts that White will be protected from loss of compensation for six years because New York Dock's monetary benefits will be available to him, and he will also receive new benefits, such as a 401K plan with an employer match. (Id. at 14.) According to CPKC, other changes in White's working conditions will be neutral in effect. (Id. at 15 (listing examples).) Lastly, CPKC indicates that, if the Board were to sustain White's appeal, it sees no significant administrative impediment to readjusting its working arrangements. (Id. at 16.) In sum, there is no basis in the record before the Board to conclude that White would be immediately and irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay.
Because White has not met his burden to demonstrate irreparable harm, the Board need not address his arguments regarding the other requirements for a stay, see R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3; accord City of Fishers, FD 36137 et al., slip op. at 7-8, and his request for a stay will be denied.
Motion to Strike
CPKC has moved to strike White's May 20 Surreply on the ground that it is a prohibited reply to a reply under the Board's rules. (CPKC Mot. to Strike 1 (citing 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1104.13(c)). CPKC is correct that, as a general matter, the Board's regulations do not permit "replies to replies," 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1104.13(c), and the Board does not favor such filings, see, e.g., Sunflower State Indus. Ry.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord., FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 n.3 (STB served Mar. 28, 2025). However, the Board may accept a reply to a reply for good cause. See, e.g., Evergy, Inc. v. BNSF Ry., NOR 42180, slip op. at 4 n.8 (STB served Mar. 4, 2025).
Here, White's May 20 Surreply clarifies and narrows the scope of his claims in this proceeding. White's initial filing (the Motion for Stay) centered on the argument that the Arbitration Award he has challenged "authorizes the elimination of the [Tex-Mex CBA] and the imposition of a materially different agreement" that would result in a broad spectrum of alleged irreparable harms--including alteration or elimination of seniority rights, changes to assignments and job structures, replacement of governing contractual protections, and disruption of established working conditions. (Mot. for Stay 1-2.) However, in his May 20 Surreply, White states that he is not "seek[ing] to relitigate the arbitration award as a labor matter," (May 20 Surreply 1), or asking the Board "to resolve competing claims regarding wages, assignments, or working conditions," (id. at 4). White states in the May 20 Surreply that the question presented is "whether implementation authority asserted under [New York Dock] . . . has been lawfully exercised in a manner consistent with the framework approved by the Board in [the KCS/TexMex Approval Decision]." (Id. at 4.) White has clarified that "[t]he issue before the Board" is only whether the Arbitration Award is foreclosed by the KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision, (id. at 6-7), and that he "does not seek to relitigate the arbitration award as a labor matter," (id. at 1)./7 The May 20 Surreply thus will be accepted into the record to that extent--and the motion to strike denied in part--because doing so will streamline and facilitate a more efficient resolution of this proceeding. See FMC Wyo. Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., 2 S.T.B. 766, 767 n.2 (1997) (considering rebuttal statement to the extent it narrowed the scope of relief sought). CPKC's Motion to Strike otherwise will be granted, as the balance of the May 20 Surreply constitutes an impermissible reply to a reply./8 CPKC's alternative request for leave to file a surrebuttal will be denied as moot.
It is ordered:
1. White's Motion for Stay is denied.
2. CPKC's Motion to Strike is denied to the extent the May 20 Surreply clarifies and narrows the scope of White's claim in this proceeding. In all other respects, the Motion to Strike is granted.
3. CPKC's alternative request for leave to file a surrebuttal is denied as moot.
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Kloster, and Schultz.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. See Pol'y Statement on Plain Language Digs. in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
2/ White filed the April Filings in Docket No. FD 34342, the docket in which the Board approved the control by Kansas City Southern (KCS) of The Texas Mexican Railway Company (Tex-Mex) in 2004 (the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger). See Kan. City S.--Control--Gateway E. Ry. (KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision), FD 34342 (STB served Nov. 29, 2004). The Board has created a new sub-docket, FD 34342 (Sub-No. 1), for the consideration of White's filings and placed the April Filings, along with all responsive filings and decisions, in the new sub-docket.
3/ See Kan. City S. Indus., Inc.--Control--MidSouth Corp., FD 32167, slip op. at 1 (ICC served June 4, 1993). KCS was then known as Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc.
4/ White's April Filings did not include a copy of the Arbitration Award. By decision served May 1, 2026 (May 1 Decision), White was directed to (1) file a copy of the Arbitration Award, and (2) serve copies of the Arbitration Award, the May 1 Decision, and the April Filings on all parties to the arbitration referenced in the April Filings, and certify to the Board that he had done so, by May 8, 2026. White filed in response to those directives on May 4, 2026 (White Supplement).
5/ Throughout the May 20 Surreply, White describes the New York Dock implementation authority reflected in the Arbitration Award as being asserted "in connection with" post-merger integration under the CP/KCS Merger. (See May 20 Surreply 1, 3, 4, 5, 10.) This characterization is erroneous. As reflected in the Arbitration Award, and as explained by CPKC in response to the Motion for Stay, the authority is being asserted in connection with post-merger integration associated with the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger proceeding. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 3-5 & n.5.)
6/ As noted above, White also claims that "similarly situated employees" will suffer irreparable harm. (Mot. for Stay 2.) Because White is acting "solely in an individual capacity," (see Pet. 1), assertions pertaining to "similarly situated employees" need not be addressed.
7/ (See also May 20 Surreply 4 ("This proceeding does not turn on a comparative evaluation of the Tex-Mex and MidSouth agreements, nor does it require the Board to resolve competing claims regarding wages, assignments, or working conditions."); accord id. at 4 n.1 ("Petitioner does not ask the Board to adjudicate the comparative merits of competing labor agreements"); id. at 6 n.2 (same).)
8/ Even if the Board considered the May 20 Surreply in its entirety, that would not change the Board's decision to deny White's Motion for Stay. The May 20 Surreply does not dispute CPKC's factual showing that White will not be irreparably injured by implementation of the MidSouth CBA if a stay is not entered. It instead focuses on the merits of White's arbitration appeal, i.e., whether imposition of the MidSouth CBA was lawfully authorized.
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1785258613797/53054.pdf
* * *
Digest:/1 The Board denies a motion to temporarily stay implementation of an arbitration award pending the Board's consideration of a petition for review and/or a declaratory order. The Board also denies, in part, a motion to strike.
On April 21, 2026, Daniel T. White (White) filed an "Emergency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 34342, Sub-No. 1) entitled "Kansas City Southern - Control - The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Gateway Eastern Railway Co., and the Texas Mexican Railway Co.": * * * Digest:/1 The Board denies a motion to temporarily stay implementation of an arbitration award pending the Board's consideration of a petition for review and/or a declaratory order. The Board also denies, in part, a motion to strike. On April 21, 2026, Daniel T. White (White) filed an "EmergencyMotion for Stay and Interim Relief" (Motion for Stay), and on April 24, 2026, White filed a "Petition for Review and/or Declaratory Order" (Petition) (collectively, the April Filings), relating to an arbitration award dated April 1, 2026 (the Arbitration Award), which White seeks to temporarily stay and permanently set aside./2 Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), which was a party to the Arbitration Award, filed a reply opposing the Motion for Stay, as well as a separate reply opposing the Petition.
The Motion for Stay will be denied. A motion to strike filed by CPKC will be denied in part. The Petition will be addressed in a separate decision.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the Board approved the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger, subject to various conditions, including a condition for the protection of railroad employees set out in New York Dock--Control--Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60, 84-90 (1979). KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision, FD 34342, slip op. at 21, 24. Years later, in 2023, the Board approved, subject to conditions, the acquisition of control by Canadian Pacific Railway Limited of KCS and its railroad affiliates (the CP/KCS Merger), with the combined system to be known as CPKC.
Earlier this year, a dispute between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and CPKC arising out of the implementation of the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger was brought to arbitration pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the New York Dock protective conditions imposed in that control proceeding. (White Suppl., Arb. Award 1, May 4, 2026; see id., Arb. Award 3, 14.) The dispute centered on CPKC's proposal to consolidate train operations and transportation assets of the Tex-Mex property under the collective bargaining agreement that has covered KCS operations over the remainder of its network following its acquisition of MidSouth Corporation and its rail subsidiaries in 1993 (the MidSouth CBA)./3 (White Suppl., Arb. Award 2.) The arbitration panel issued the Arbitration Award on April 1, 2026 (from which BLET's representative dissented) in favor of CPKC, subject to two modifications addressed therein. (Id. at 14.)/4
After the Arbitration Award was issued, White filed the Motion for Stay, followed by the Petition. White states that he is "a locomotive engineer employed on the former Tex-Mex property," (Mot. for Stay 1), who is acting "solely in an individual capacity and does not purport to represent any labor organization or collective bargaining representative," (Pet. 1). According to White, the Board's approval of the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger in 2004 was explicitly conditioned on applicants' representations that existing agreements--including the Tex-Mex collective bargaining agreement (the Tex-Mex CBA)--would remain in force. (Pet. 3; see id. at 1 (referencing Tex-Mex agreement).) White argues that the Arbitration Award--which authorizes the elimination of the Tex-Mex CBA and imposition of the MidSouth CBA, (id. at 3)--"exceeds the lawful scope" of the labor protection conditions imposed when the Board approved the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger. (Mot. for Stay 1.) According to White, absent a stay, implementation of the Arbitration Award will cause him and similarly situated employees immediate and irreparable harm. (Id. at 2.)
CPKC filed a response in opposition to White's Motion for Stay on May 14, 2026. In addition to opposing White's request for a stay, CPKC provides background on the procedural history leading up to the April 1, 2026 Arbitration Award and notes that BLET did not seek review of the award. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 2-5, May 14, 2026.) White replied to CPKC's response on May 20, 2026 (May 20 Surreply), arguing, among other things, that CPKC's response "rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of this proceeding by attempting to recast the Petition as a dispute concerning the merits of a labor agreement." (May 20 Surreply 1.)/5 On May 26, 2026, CPKC filed a motion to strike White's May 20 Surreply or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surrebuttal, which accompanied the motion. On May 28, 2026, CPKC filed a response in opposition to White's Petition.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Motion for Stay
White's Motion for Stay contends that he "is directly and adversely affected by the arbitration award." (Mot. for Stay 1.) As noted above, White objects that the Arbitration Award authorizes the elimination of the Tex-Mex CBA and imposes a materially different collective bargaining agreement (the MidSouth CBA) that will involve "[c]onsolidation of seniority systems" and "[r]econfiguration of assignments and working conditions." (Id.) According to White, this action "exceeds the lawful scope of [New York Dock] authority and directly conflicts with the conditions upon which the Board approved the underlying transaction in [the KCS/TexMex Merger]." (Id.) White asserts that "[a]bsent immediate relief, the Carrier will implement structural changes to agreements, seniority systems, and working conditions that cannot be readily undone, thereby rendering subsequent Board review [of the Petition] ineffective and depriving the Board of its ability to provide meaningful relief." (Id.) White argues that the criteria for a stay are satisfied. (Id. at 1-2 (contending that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, that the balance of harms favors a stay, and that a stay serves the public interest).)
CPKC disputes these contentions and asserts that White's motion satisfies none of the criteria for a stay. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 6-18, May 14, 2026.) Among other arguments, CPKC asserts that White has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm upon implementation of the operational changes permitted by the Arbitration Award, absent a stay. (Id. at 13-17.)
Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(b)(4), the Board may issue an appropriate order, such as a stay, when necessary to prevent irreparable harm. In ruling on a request for a stay, the Board considers: (1) whether the party seeking the stay has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) whether the party seeking the stay will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) whether other interested parties will be substantially harmed by a stay; and (4) the public interest in granting or denying the stay. See, e.g., Ind. Harbor Belt R.R.-- Trackage Rts.--Consol. Rail Corp., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 4 (STB served Mar. 14, 2017) (citing Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). A party seeking a stay carries the burden of persuasion on all of the elements required for such extraordinary relief. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 4 (citing Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974); Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42104, slip op. at 2 (STB served Apr. 25, 2011)).
The threshold consideration in deciding whether a stay is appropriate is whether the moving party will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted. Joint Pet. for a Rulemaking to Establish a Voluntary Arb. Program for Small Rate Disps., EP 765, slip op. at 3 (STB served Feb. 14, 2023) (citing R. J. Corman R.R. Prop.--Aban. Exemption--in Scott, Campbell, & Anderson Cntys., Tenn., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3 (STB served Dec. 1, 2020)). The party seeking a stay must demonstrate that the injury claimed is "imminent, 'certain and great.'" Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Co.--Acquis. & Operation Exemption--Lines of Union Pac. R.R., FD 33290, slip op. at 6 (STB served Jan. 24, 1997) (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). Where a petitioner does not demonstrate "that irreparable harm will occur if a stay is not granted, the petition for a stay will be denied and the Board need not address the remaining stay criteria." R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3.
The Board will deny the Motion for Stay because White has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(b)(4); R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3 (denying petition for stay based on petitioner's failure to show irreparable harm); Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., FD 36099 et al., slip op. at 5 (same). White fails to demonstrate that he would suffer any specific harm from implementation of the Arbitration Award--let alone harm that could be considered "imminent, 'certain and great.'" White alleges that absent a stay, he "will suffer immediate and irreparable harm"/6 because, as described by White, implementation of the Arbitration Award will result in "alteration or elimination of seniority rights," "changes to assignments and job structures," "replacement of governing contract protections," and "disruption of established working conditions." (Mot. for Stay 2.) However, these are generalized assertions of harm (some of which, on their face, do not necessarily imply harm) and White has not shown that he specifically will suffer these harms if the MidSouth CBA is implemented. See Wisconsin Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674 ("[b]are allegations of what is likely to occur are of no value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur. The movant must provide . . . proof indicating that the harm is certain to occur in the near future."); Richard Best Transfer, Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42149, slip op. at 4-5 (STB served Dec. 22, 2016) (reiterating that "bare allegations . . . are of no value" and finding that the petitioner's statements, "provided without evidentiary support, do not allow the Board to determine whether the harm alleged 'will in fact occur'"); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009) ("simply showing some possibility of irreparable injury" is insufficient). White also does not explain how such harm would be irreparable. He claims that "allowing implementation to proceed would effectively moot the relief sought" and that "structural changes will . . . mak[e] restoration of the status quo impracticable." (Mot. for Stay 2). However, this assertion is unsupported. See City of Fishers--Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 et al., slip op. at 7 (STB served Dec. 21, 2018) ("To show irreparable harm, the requesting party must demonstrate both the imminence and the irreparable nature of any purported harm. 'Bare allegations . . . are of no value . . . .'").
Moreover, in response, CPKC explains in specific detail how White will not be adversely impacted by implementation of the MidSouth CBA. (See CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 13-15, May 14, 2026.) CPKC states that under the MidSouth CBA, White--who has more than 12 years of seniority as a Tex-Mex locomotive engineer--will not be required to work on territory other than Tex-Mex and will not be required to relocate; that White will be afforded expanded work opportunities because he will be able to choose to work at additional locations and over additional territory; and that the MidSouth CBA will preserve White's existing rights under the Tex-Mex CBA, including his seniority standing. (Id. at 13-14.) CPKC also asserts that White will be protected from loss of compensation for six years because New York Dock's monetary benefits will be available to him, and he will also receive new benefits, such as a 401K plan with an employer match. (Id. at 14.) According to CPKC, other changes in White's working conditions will be neutral in effect. (Id. at 15 (listing examples).) Lastly, CPKC indicates that, if the Board were to sustain White's appeal, it sees no significant administrative impediment to readjusting its working arrangements. (Id. at 16.) In sum, there is no basis in the record before the Board to conclude that White would be immediately and irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay.
Because White has not met his burden to demonstrate irreparable harm, the Board need not address his arguments regarding the other requirements for a stay, see R. J. Corman R.R. Prop., AB 1296X, slip op. at 3; accord City of Fishers, FD 36137 et al., slip op. at 7-8, and his request for a stay will be denied.
Motion to Strike
CPKC has moved to strike White's May 20 Surreply on the ground that it is a prohibited reply to a reply under the Board's rules. (CPKC Mot. to Strike 1 (citing 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1104.13(c)). CPKC is correct that, as a general matter, the Board's regulations do not permit "replies to replies," 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1104.13(c), and the Board does not favor such filings, see, e.g., Sunflower State Indus. Ry.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord., FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 n.3 (STB served Mar. 28, 2025). However, the Board may accept a reply to a reply for good cause. See, e.g., Evergy, Inc. v. BNSF Ry., NOR 42180, slip op. at 4 n.8 (STB served Mar. 4, 2025).
Here, White's May 20 Surreply clarifies and narrows the scope of his claims in this proceeding. White's initial filing (the Motion for Stay) centered on the argument that the Arbitration Award he has challenged "authorizes the elimination of the [Tex-Mex CBA] and the imposition of a materially different agreement" that would result in a broad spectrum of alleged irreparable harms--including alteration or elimination of seniority rights, changes to assignments and job structures, replacement of governing contractual protections, and disruption of established working conditions. (Mot. for Stay 1-2.) However, in his May 20 Surreply, White states that he is not "seek[ing] to relitigate the arbitration award as a labor matter," (May 20 Surreply 1), or asking the Board "to resolve competing claims regarding wages, assignments, or working conditions," (id. at 4). White states in the May 20 Surreply that the question presented is "whether implementation authority asserted under [New York Dock] . . . has been lawfully exercised in a manner consistent with the framework approved by the Board in [the KCS/TexMex Approval Decision]." (Id. at 4.) White has clarified that "[t]he issue before the Board" is only whether the Arbitration Award is foreclosed by the KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision, (id. at 6-7), and that he "does not seek to relitigate the arbitration award as a labor matter," (id. at 1)./7 The May 20 Surreply thus will be accepted into the record to that extent--and the motion to strike denied in part--because doing so will streamline and facilitate a more efficient resolution of this proceeding. See FMC Wyo. Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., 2 S.T.B. 766, 767 n.2 (1997) (considering rebuttal statement to the extent it narrowed the scope of relief sought). CPKC's Motion to Strike otherwise will be granted, as the balance of the May 20 Surreply constitutes an impermissible reply to a reply./8 CPKC's alternative request for leave to file a surrebuttal will be denied as moot.
It is ordered:
1. White's Motion for Stay is denied.
2. CPKC's Motion to Strike is denied to the extent the May 20 Surreply clarifies and narrows the scope of White's claim in this proceeding. In all other respects, the Motion to Strike is granted.
3. CPKC's alternative request for leave to file a surrebuttal is denied as moot.
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Kloster, and Schultz.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. See Pol'y Statement on Plain Language Digs. in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
2/ White filed the April Filings in Docket No. FD 34342, the docket in which the Board approved the control by Kansas City Southern (KCS) of The Texas Mexican Railway Company (Tex-Mex) in 2004 (the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger). See Kan. City S.--Control--Gateway E. Ry. (KCS/Tex-Mex Approval Decision), FD 34342 (STB served Nov. 29, 2004). The Board has created a new sub-docket, FD 34342 (Sub-No. 1), for the consideration of White's filings and placed the April Filings, along with all responsive filings and decisions, in the new sub-docket.
3/ See Kan. City S. Indus., Inc.--Control--MidSouth Corp., FD 32167, slip op. at 1 (ICC served June 4, 1993). KCS was then known as Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc.
4/ White's April Filings did not include a copy of the Arbitration Award. By decision served May 1, 2026 (May 1 Decision), White was directed to (1) file a copy of the Arbitration Award, and (2) serve copies of the Arbitration Award, the May 1 Decision, and the April Filings on all parties to the arbitration referenced in the April Filings, and certify to the Board that he had done so, by May 8, 2026. White filed in response to those directives on May 4, 2026 (White Supplement).
5/ Throughout the May 20 Surreply, White describes the New York Dock implementation authority reflected in the Arbitration Award as being asserted "in connection with" post-merger integration under the CP/KCS Merger. (See May 20 Surreply 1, 3, 4, 5, 10.) This characterization is erroneous. As reflected in the Arbitration Award, and as explained by CPKC in response to the Motion for Stay, the authority is being asserted in connection with post-merger integration associated with the KCS/Tex-Mex Merger proceeding. (CPKC Resp. to Mot. for Stay 3-5 & n.5.)
6/ As noted above, White also claims that "similarly situated employees" will suffer irreparable harm. (Mot. for Stay 2.) Because White is acting "solely in an individual capacity," (see Pet. 1), assertions pertaining to "similarly situated employees" need not be addressed.
7/ (See also May 20 Surreply 4 ("This proceeding does not turn on a comparative evaluation of the Tex-Mex and MidSouth agreements, nor does it require the Board to resolve competing claims regarding wages, assignments, or working conditions."); accord id. at 4 n.1 ("Petitioner does not ask the Board to adjudicate the comparative merits of competing labor agreements"); id. at 6 n.2 (same).)
8/ Even if the Board considered the May 20 Surreply in its entirety, that would not change the Board's decision to deny White's Motion for Stay. The May 20 Surreply does not dispute CPKC's factual showing that White will not be irreparably injured by implementation of the MidSouth CBA if a stay is not entered. It instead focuses on the merits of White's arbitration appeal, i.e., whether imposition of the MidSouth CBA was lawfully authorized.
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1785258613797/53054.pdf
Surface Transportation Board Issues Decision Involving 4 Companies
WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36873) entitled "Union Pacific Corp. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. - Control - Norfolk Southern Corp. and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.":
* * *
ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRIVILEGE SUBSTANTIATION BY BNSF AND REQUIRING CPKC TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING CPKC'S REQUEST FOR QUANTITY OF DOCUMENTS SEARCHED
Decision No. 29
Discovery is before the undersigned pursuant to a ruling by the Surface Transportation Board. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36873) entitled "Union Pacific Corp. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. - Control - Norfolk Southern Corp. and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.": * * * ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRIVILEGE SUBSTANTIATION BY BNSF AND REQUIRING CPKC TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING CPKC'S REQUEST FOR QUANTITY OF DOCUMENTS SEARCHED Decision No. 29 Discovery is before the undersigned pursuant to a ruling by the Surface Transportation Board.See Decision (Aug. 28, 2025). The undersigned scheduled and conducted a discovery conference on July 24, 2026. See Decision No. 22. This decision memorializes the rulings made at that conference.
The Surface Transportation Board regulations provide for broad discovery. These regulations provide that "[p]arties may obtain discovery under this subpart regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in a proceeding." 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(a)(1). The Board has recognized that this regulation allows for broad discovery. See Canadian Pac. Ry.--Control--Kan. City S. (Decision No. 7), FD 36500, slip op. at 4 (Aug. 2, 2021) (acknowledging authority to seek material relevant to subject matter of proceeding under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21 and interpreting scope of relevance in discovery "[b]roadly"). An order may be entered for good cause and which justice requires, to protect from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to prevent the raising of the issues untimely or inappropriate to the proceeding." 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(c). Protective orders may include that discovery not be had or that discovery be had only on specified conditions. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(c)(1)-(2).
A party claiming privilege bears the burden of proving that the communications are protected. See, e.g., In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1998). "A blanket assertion of the privilege will not suffice." Id. Rather, the party "must present the underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege in order to carry its burden." Id. (internal quotation omitted; citation omitted).
I. Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation
Applicants moved to compel privilege substantiation for BNSF's responses to Applicants' discovery requests. (Apps. Letter Brief, July 16, 2026.) Applicants argue that for Request Numbers 1-4, BNSF asserted broad claims of privilege and requested that BNSF supply information sufficient to identify documents or categories of documents or communications withheld based on privilege. (Id. at 5.) Further, Appellants requested that BNSF specifically identify the type of privilege claimed (i.e., attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege, work product protection, or other grounds). (See id.)
In relevant part, BNSF argued that its analyses "were conducted at the direction of counsel" and therefore responses that such analyses are "privileged" are sufficient. (BNSF Letter 1, 2-3 & Exh. B, July 21, 2026.)
BNSF's broad privilege assertions are not sufficient to assess the privilege it asserts. "Privileged" does not explain on which privilege BNSF relies, whether attorney-client communication, the work product doctrine, common interest privilege, or some combination of these privileges. BNSF's responses, objections, and assertions of privilege do not make clear what categories of information BNSF is withholding. Specifically, the requests may seek nonprivileged business information. BNSF's responses and objections must explain how the information is protected by a privilege rather than non-privileged business information (if any exists) sought by the requests.
At the discovery conference, BNSF agreed to supplement its responses and objections.
A review of Applicants' Request Numbers 1 and 2 demonstrates that the requests seek more information than only related to the UP/NS proposed merger transaction. It is not clear from BNSF's response and objections whether BNSF is claiming a privilege, other objection (e.g., relevance), or both to the additional information sought. Additional specificity is required.
Request Numbers 1 and 2 request information from "within the last 12 months." (BNSF Letter, Exh. A, 4, July 21, 2026.) Applicants' discovery requests were served on May 29, 2026. (Id. at Exh. A.) Applicants filed their Notice of Intent on July 30, 2026. Thus, Request Numbers 1 and 2 seek information including from before the proposed transaction. The information requested may include business information (if there is any) rather than legal advice. A more detailed response or objection is required.
Request Numbers 1 and 2 seek information "whether in response to the Proposed transaction or otherwise." (BNSF Letter, Exh. A, 4, July 21, 2026.) BNSF responded to both requests that it "did not take steps to acquire another Class I railroad," along with its claim of privilege. (Id. at Exh. B, 2-3.) BNSF's responses and objections require more detail to understand what information BNSF claims is privileged, whether BNSF objects to the additional information sought, or both.
For Request Numbers 3 and 4, BNSF responded it has not identified any non-privileged documents and that it would produce "final, non-privileged analyses[,]" respectively. (Id. at Exh. B, 4-5.) BNSF did not provide sufficient details about which privilege it claims for the information to justify withholding the information (if any information exists).
Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation is GRANTED IN PART. BNSF shall supplement its responses and objections to Request Numbers 1 - 4 to demonstrate (1) which privilege is claimed and (2) that the elements of the corresponding privilege, with the supporting underlying factual information, are met. See In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d at 1270. BNSF's responses and objections should make clear whether it is withholding information based upon privilege, an objection, or both.
Applicants' motion also requests an order compelling BNSF to supplement its response to Request Number 1 with all non-privileged factual information, produce all non-privileged documents and communications responsive to Request Numbers 2 and 3, and identify the custodial and non-custodial sources searched or consulted in responding to each request. Applicants' motion is DENIED IN PART without prejudice for these requests for relief. Applicants may renew their requests for this relief, if necessary, after BNSF supplements its responses and objections.
II. CPKC's Motion to Compel
On May 28, 2026, CPKC moved to compel Applicants' discovery responses. (CPKC Letter Brief, May 28, 2026.) At the discovery conference, CPKC explained that it is still conferring with Applicants regarding the substance of its motion (i.e., search terms), and thus, its motion is not ready to be heard. CPKC argued that regarding Applicants' claim that the additional search terms would cause an undue burden, CPKC seeks the total quantity of custodial documents searched (i.e., the universe), so it can calculate the difference between the agreed search terms and CPKC's requested search terms.
After discussion, the undersigned requested that CPKC supplement its motion to compel regarding this issue for the next discovery conference, so it could be briefed by the respective parties. Applicants have disclosed the hit counts for the agreed search terms and CPKC's proposed search terms. The undersigned is not clear whether requiring Applicants to disclose that actual number of documents in the universe would yield meaningful calculations to demonstrate Applicants' argument that using CPKC's additional search terms is unduly burdensome. From the (very large) universe of documents, the calculation would give a percentage of the hit counts that can be compared--the agreed search terms versus CPKC's additional search terms. But how do those percentages demonstrate whether CPKC's proposed search terms yield responsive documents that are not captured by the agreed search terms?Therefore, the undersigned requires additional information about CPKC's request, including its argued significance.
CPKC is required to supplement its motion to compel to brief this issue for the next discovery conference by the deadline for Opening Letter Briefs, if this issue is not resolved by CPKC and Applicants before then. See Decision No. 24, 5. The supplemented issue shall be briefed according to the deadlines in the Order Setting Discovery Guidelines, Decision No. 24, 5-6.
III. Matters Held in Abeyance
The following matters are held in ABEYANCE until further notice:
A. Applicants' Motion to Compel Data Productions, filed on July 16, 2026;
B. BNSF's Third Motion to Compel, filed on July 16, 2026; and
C. The undersigned's request for proposals for interim discovery deadlines, see Decision No. 26, 7.
It is ordered:
1. Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation is Granted in part and denied in part. BNSF shall supplement its responses and objections to Applicants' Request Numbers 1-4.
2. CPKC shall file a supplement to its motion to compel regarding the universe quantity by the deadline for Opening Letter Briefs before the next discovery conference. Briefing of the supplemental issue shall be in accordance with the abbreviated briefing schedule for discovery conferences. See Decision No. 24, 5-6.
3. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Jenifer J. Soulikias, Administrative Law Judge.
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1785268034835/53165.pdf
* * *
ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRIVILEGE SUBSTANTIATION BY BNSF AND REQUIRING CPKC TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING CPKC'S REQUEST FOR QUANTITY OF DOCUMENTS SEARCHED
Decision No. 29
Discovery is before the undersigned pursuant to a ruling by the Surface Transportation Board. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36873) entitled "Union Pacific Corp. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. - Control - Norfolk Southern Corp. and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.": * * * ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRIVILEGE SUBSTANTIATION BY BNSF AND REQUIRING CPKC TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING CPKC'S REQUEST FOR QUANTITY OF DOCUMENTS SEARCHED Decision No. 29 Discovery is before the undersigned pursuant to a ruling by the Surface Transportation Board.See Decision (Aug. 28, 2025). The undersigned scheduled and conducted a discovery conference on July 24, 2026. See Decision No. 22. This decision memorializes the rulings made at that conference.
The Surface Transportation Board regulations provide for broad discovery. These regulations provide that "[p]arties may obtain discovery under this subpart regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in a proceeding." 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(a)(1). The Board has recognized that this regulation allows for broad discovery. See Canadian Pac. Ry.--Control--Kan. City S. (Decision No. 7), FD 36500, slip op. at 4 (Aug. 2, 2021) (acknowledging authority to seek material relevant to subject matter of proceeding under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21 and interpreting scope of relevance in discovery "[b]roadly"). An order may be entered for good cause and which justice requires, to protect from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to prevent the raising of the issues untimely or inappropriate to the proceeding." 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(c). Protective orders may include that discovery not be had or that discovery be had only on specified conditions. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1114.21(c)(1)-(2).
A party claiming privilege bears the burden of proving that the communications are protected. See, e.g., In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1998). "A blanket assertion of the privilege will not suffice." Id. Rather, the party "must present the underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege in order to carry its burden." Id. (internal quotation omitted; citation omitted).
I. Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation
Applicants moved to compel privilege substantiation for BNSF's responses to Applicants' discovery requests. (Apps. Letter Brief, July 16, 2026.) Applicants argue that for Request Numbers 1-4, BNSF asserted broad claims of privilege and requested that BNSF supply information sufficient to identify documents or categories of documents or communications withheld based on privilege. (Id. at 5.) Further, Appellants requested that BNSF specifically identify the type of privilege claimed (i.e., attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege, work product protection, or other grounds). (See id.)
In relevant part, BNSF argued that its analyses "were conducted at the direction of counsel" and therefore responses that such analyses are "privileged" are sufficient. (BNSF Letter 1, 2-3 & Exh. B, July 21, 2026.)
BNSF's broad privilege assertions are not sufficient to assess the privilege it asserts. "Privileged" does not explain on which privilege BNSF relies, whether attorney-client communication, the work product doctrine, common interest privilege, or some combination of these privileges. BNSF's responses, objections, and assertions of privilege do not make clear what categories of information BNSF is withholding. Specifically, the requests may seek nonprivileged business information. BNSF's responses and objections must explain how the information is protected by a privilege rather than non-privileged business information (if any exists) sought by the requests.
At the discovery conference, BNSF agreed to supplement its responses and objections.
A review of Applicants' Request Numbers 1 and 2 demonstrates that the requests seek more information than only related to the UP/NS proposed merger transaction. It is not clear from BNSF's response and objections whether BNSF is claiming a privilege, other objection (e.g., relevance), or both to the additional information sought. Additional specificity is required.
Request Numbers 1 and 2 request information from "within the last 12 months." (BNSF Letter, Exh. A, 4, July 21, 2026.) Applicants' discovery requests were served on May 29, 2026. (Id. at Exh. A.) Applicants filed their Notice of Intent on July 30, 2026. Thus, Request Numbers 1 and 2 seek information including from before the proposed transaction. The information requested may include business information (if there is any) rather than legal advice. A more detailed response or objection is required.
Request Numbers 1 and 2 seek information "whether in response to the Proposed transaction or otherwise." (BNSF Letter, Exh. A, 4, July 21, 2026.) BNSF responded to both requests that it "did not take steps to acquire another Class I railroad," along with its claim of privilege. (Id. at Exh. B, 2-3.) BNSF's responses and objections require more detail to understand what information BNSF claims is privileged, whether BNSF objects to the additional information sought, or both.
For Request Numbers 3 and 4, BNSF responded it has not identified any non-privileged documents and that it would produce "final, non-privileged analyses[,]" respectively. (Id. at Exh. B, 4-5.) BNSF did not provide sufficient details about which privilege it claims for the information to justify withholding the information (if any information exists).
Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation is GRANTED IN PART. BNSF shall supplement its responses and objections to Request Numbers 1 - 4 to demonstrate (1) which privilege is claimed and (2) that the elements of the corresponding privilege, with the supporting underlying factual information, are met. See In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d at 1270. BNSF's responses and objections should make clear whether it is withholding information based upon privilege, an objection, or both.
Applicants' motion also requests an order compelling BNSF to supplement its response to Request Number 1 with all non-privileged factual information, produce all non-privileged documents and communications responsive to Request Numbers 2 and 3, and identify the custodial and non-custodial sources searched or consulted in responding to each request. Applicants' motion is DENIED IN PART without prejudice for these requests for relief. Applicants may renew their requests for this relief, if necessary, after BNSF supplements its responses and objections.
II. CPKC's Motion to Compel
On May 28, 2026, CPKC moved to compel Applicants' discovery responses. (CPKC Letter Brief, May 28, 2026.) At the discovery conference, CPKC explained that it is still conferring with Applicants regarding the substance of its motion (i.e., search terms), and thus, its motion is not ready to be heard. CPKC argued that regarding Applicants' claim that the additional search terms would cause an undue burden, CPKC seeks the total quantity of custodial documents searched (i.e., the universe), so it can calculate the difference between the agreed search terms and CPKC's requested search terms.
After discussion, the undersigned requested that CPKC supplement its motion to compel regarding this issue for the next discovery conference, so it could be briefed by the respective parties. Applicants have disclosed the hit counts for the agreed search terms and CPKC's proposed search terms. The undersigned is not clear whether requiring Applicants to disclose that actual number of documents in the universe would yield meaningful calculations to demonstrate Applicants' argument that using CPKC's additional search terms is unduly burdensome. From the (very large) universe of documents, the calculation would give a percentage of the hit counts that can be compared--the agreed search terms versus CPKC's additional search terms. But how do those percentages demonstrate whether CPKC's proposed search terms yield responsive documents that are not captured by the agreed search terms?Therefore, the undersigned requires additional information about CPKC's request, including its argued significance.
CPKC is required to supplement its motion to compel to brief this issue for the next discovery conference by the deadline for Opening Letter Briefs, if this issue is not resolved by CPKC and Applicants before then. See Decision No. 24, 5. The supplemented issue shall be briefed according to the deadlines in the Order Setting Discovery Guidelines, Decision No. 24, 5-6.
III. Matters Held in Abeyance
The following matters are held in ABEYANCE until further notice:
A. Applicants' Motion to Compel Data Productions, filed on July 16, 2026;
B. BNSF's Third Motion to Compel, filed on July 16, 2026; and
C. The undersigned's request for proposals for interim discovery deadlines, see Decision No. 26, 7.
It is ordered:
1. Applicants' Motion to Compel Privilege Substantiation is Granted in part and denied in part. BNSF shall supplement its responses and objections to Applicants' Request Numbers 1-4.
2. CPKC shall file a supplement to its motion to compel regarding the universe quantity by the deadline for Opening Letter Briefs before the next discovery conference. Briefing of the supplemental issue shall be in accordance with the abbreviated briefing schedule for discovery conferences. See Decision No. 24, 5-6.
3. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Jenifer J. Soulikias, Administrative Law Judge.
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1785268034835/53165.pdf
Paul K. Kearns to Retire as Director of Argonne National Laboratory After Nearly a Decade of Distinguished Leadership
ARGONNE, Illinois, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory issued the following news release on July 27, 2026:
* * *
Paul K. Kearns to retire as director of Argonne National Laboratory after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership
UChicago Argonne, LLC to conduct international search for next laboratory director
-
The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory announced today that Director Paul K. Kearns will retire after nearly ten years at the helm of one of the nation's premier science and engineering research institutions.
UChicago Argonne, ... Show Full Article ARGONNE, Illinois, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory issued the following news release on July 27, 2026: * * * Paul K. Kearns to retire as director of Argonne National Laboratory after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership UChicago Argonne, LLC to conduct international search for next laboratory director - The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory announced today that Director Paul K. Kearns will retire after nearly ten years at the helm of one of the nation's premier science and engineering research institutions. UChicago Argonne,LLC, which manages Argonne for the DOE Office of Science, will conduct an international search for the laboratory's next director.
"Serving as director of Argonne National Laboratory has been a true honor and a privilege," said Kearns. "What has always made this laboratory exceptional is its people -- the researchers, engineers and operations professionals who come to work every day driven by curiosity and a genuine desire to serve the nation. I am proud of everything we have built and accomplished together, from major upgrades to our flagship science facilities to the daily discoveries and innovations that drive our society forward."
During Kearns' tenure, Argonne achieved a series of milestones that have accelerated science and technology for the benefit of the nation.
The Advanced Photon Source, now the brightest synchrotron X-ray light source in the world following a landmark upgrade, enables discoveries across many fields of science, including energy, microelectronics, engineering, public health and national security. Aurora, deployed in 2025, stands among the world's first exascale supercomputers and represents a new frontier in open-science computing and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven discovery. Argonne launched Q-NEXT, one of five DOE national quantum information science research centers, renewed for a second five-year term in 2025 to connect quantum technologies over small and large distances.
Under Kearns' leadership, Argonne leveraged decades of research and expertise in computational science, AI and high performance computing to become a driving force in harnessing AI for scientific discovery and a leader in the DOE's Genesis Mission. The laboratory has also cemented its global reputation as a driver of advances in battery and energy storage innovation, advanced nuclear energy, materials science, critical materials research, accelerator science, physics and chemistry.
The laboratory expanded the Materials Engineering Research Facility, strengthened industry partnerships to help move discoveries toward real-world applications, renewed its management and operating contract with UChicago Argonne, LLC for another five years, and deepened its engagement with communities across Chicago and the region during Kearns' time as director.
"Paul Kearns has been an exceptional steward of Argonne National Laboratory," said Paul Alivisatos, president of the University of Chicago and chair of the UChicago Argonne, LLC Board of Directors. "Under his leadership, Argonne has delivered landmark scientific achievements, strengthened its role as a national and global resource for science and built an institutional foundation of excellence that will serve the laboratory and the nation for decades to come."
Kearns joined Argonne in 2010 as chief operations officer before being appointed laboratory director in 2017. He brought to the role more than three decades of experience managing complex research and development enterprises across DOE's national laboratory system. A biologist by training, he holds doctorate and master's degrees in bionucleonics and a bachelor's degree in natural resources and environmental sciences, all from Purdue University, which honored him with the John E. Christian Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2022.
Kearns will retire effective March 31, 2027, or earlier should a transition to his successor be completed before that date.
Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology by conducting leading-edge basic and applied research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://energy.gov/science.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.anl.gov/article/paul-k-kearns-to-retire-as-director-of-argonne-national-laboratory-after-nearly-a-decade-of
* * *
Paul K. Kearns to retire as director of Argonne National Laboratory after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership
UChicago Argonne, LLC to conduct international search for next laboratory director
-
The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory announced today that Director Paul K. Kearns will retire after nearly ten years at the helm of one of the nation's premier science and engineering research institutions.
UChicago Argonne, ... Show Full Article ARGONNE, Illinois, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory issued the following news release on July 27, 2026: * * * Paul K. Kearns to retire as director of Argonne National Laboratory after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership UChicago Argonne, LLC to conduct international search for next laboratory director - The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory announced today that Director Paul K. Kearns will retire after nearly ten years at the helm of one of the nation's premier science and engineering research institutions. UChicago Argonne,LLC, which manages Argonne for the DOE Office of Science, will conduct an international search for the laboratory's next director.
"Serving as director of Argonne National Laboratory has been a true honor and a privilege," said Kearns. "What has always made this laboratory exceptional is its people -- the researchers, engineers and operations professionals who come to work every day driven by curiosity and a genuine desire to serve the nation. I am proud of everything we have built and accomplished together, from major upgrades to our flagship science facilities to the daily discoveries and innovations that drive our society forward."
During Kearns' tenure, Argonne achieved a series of milestones that have accelerated science and technology for the benefit of the nation.
The Advanced Photon Source, now the brightest synchrotron X-ray light source in the world following a landmark upgrade, enables discoveries across many fields of science, including energy, microelectronics, engineering, public health and national security. Aurora, deployed in 2025, stands among the world's first exascale supercomputers and represents a new frontier in open-science computing and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven discovery. Argonne launched Q-NEXT, one of five DOE national quantum information science research centers, renewed for a second five-year term in 2025 to connect quantum technologies over small and large distances.
Under Kearns' leadership, Argonne leveraged decades of research and expertise in computational science, AI and high performance computing to become a driving force in harnessing AI for scientific discovery and a leader in the DOE's Genesis Mission. The laboratory has also cemented its global reputation as a driver of advances in battery and energy storage innovation, advanced nuclear energy, materials science, critical materials research, accelerator science, physics and chemistry.
The laboratory expanded the Materials Engineering Research Facility, strengthened industry partnerships to help move discoveries toward real-world applications, renewed its management and operating contract with UChicago Argonne, LLC for another five years, and deepened its engagement with communities across Chicago and the region during Kearns' time as director.
"Paul Kearns has been an exceptional steward of Argonne National Laboratory," said Paul Alivisatos, president of the University of Chicago and chair of the UChicago Argonne, LLC Board of Directors. "Under his leadership, Argonne has delivered landmark scientific achievements, strengthened its role as a national and global resource for science and built an institutional foundation of excellence that will serve the laboratory and the nation for decades to come."
Kearns joined Argonne in 2010 as chief operations officer before being appointed laboratory director in 2017. He brought to the role more than three decades of experience managing complex research and development enterprises across DOE's national laboratory system. A biologist by training, he holds doctorate and master's degrees in bionucleonics and a bachelor's degree in natural resources and environmental sciences, all from Purdue University, which honored him with the John E. Christian Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2022.
Kearns will retire effective March 31, 2027, or earlier should a transition to his successor be completed before that date.
Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology by conducting leading-edge basic and applied research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://energy.gov/science.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.anl.gov/article/paul-k-kearns-to-retire-as-director-of-argonne-national-laboratory-after-nearly-a-decade-of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: First High-Resolution Images of Chlamydia Protein Pave the Way for Better Vaccine Designs
LIVERMORE, California, July 29 (TNSjou) -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news:
* * *
First high-resolution images of chlamydia protein pave the way for better vaccine designs
Chlamydia is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the world, with 150 million people infected in 2023. Although the infection can be treated with antibiotics, it often leads to infertility and other health problems.
A safe and effective chlamydia vaccine would help prevent asymptomatic but transmissible infections that often go undiagnosed. ... Show Full Article LIVERMORE, California, July 29 (TNSjou) -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news: * * * First high-resolution images of chlamydia protein pave the way for better vaccine designs Chlamydia is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the world, with 150 million people infected in 2023. Although the infection can be treated with antibiotics, it often leads to infertility and other health problems. A safe and effective chlamydia vaccine would help prevent asymptomatic but transmissible infections that often go undiagnosed.For 40 years, researchers have been working to develop such a vaccine, but an effective candidate has remained elusive.
New research in Nature Communications (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-72763-4) -- conducted by a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Ligo Analytics, the University of California, Irvine and the University of California, Davis -- provides the first high-resolution images of protein structures in the outer membrane of chlamydia.
The result reflects LLNL's broader biosecurity mission, as understanding the structure of dangerous or hard-to-treat pathogens at the atomic level supports the nation's ability to detect, defend against and respond to biological threats. It could be a gamechanger for vaccine development.
"Vaccines work best when they teach the immune system to recognize an antigenic protein exactly as it appears in nature," said LLNL scientist and author Matthew Coleman. "If scientists know the precise shape of a protein on the surface of a bacterium, they can design vaccines that look more like the real thing."
The images were taken of major outer membrane proteins, or MOMPs. Many vaccines work by introducing harmless components of a bacterium or virus like a MOMP to elicit an immune response in the human body.
But when chlamydia MOMPs are broken down and reassembled without their natural shape, they have not triggered a strong enough immune reaction for a viable vaccine. The new study indicates that the proteins' structure may be critical for creating the protective immune response.
Until now, MOMPs have been very difficult to extract from bacteria and image. By carefully isolating MOMPs and using cryo-electron microscopy to freeze and probe them with an electron beam, the authors revealed the protein's shape for the first time at atomic resolution.
LLNL researchers played multiple roles across the project. Coleman, who co-led the National Institutes of Health (NIH) project with Luis de la Maza of the University of California, Irvine, helped supply the chlamydia samples used for imaging and coordinated the team. LLNL scientists analyzed and interpreted the cryo-electron microscopy data, using it to build maps of the MOMP.
The team showed that MOMPs form in groups of three, coming together into a tripod shape. A large, folded cluster of antigens sits on top of the tripod like a mushroom cap. Those antigens are what antibodies in the immune system recognize and attack.
"The biggest message from this work is that shape matters," said Coleman. "For years, scientists knew MOMP was an important vaccine target, but they did not know exactly what it looked like or important components of the protein for generating protection. This study provides the first detailed picture of its natural structure and shows how protective antibodies recognize it."
This same approach can be used to study other important proteins from the surface of gram-negative pathogens, leading to better understanding of biothreats and potential vaccines for many infectious diseases. The group is now working to design isolated MOMPs that follow their naturally folded three-dimensional structures.
This project was funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the NIH. Other LLNL authors include Brent Segelke, Beverly Robinson, Patrik D'haeseleer and Megan Shelby, who led the LLNL structural analysis efforts.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.llnl.gov/article/54616/first-high-resolution-images-chlamydia-protein-pave-way-better-vaccine-designs
* * *
First high-resolution images of chlamydia protein pave the way for better vaccine designs
Chlamydia is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the world, with 150 million people infected in 2023. Although the infection can be treated with antibiotics, it often leads to infertility and other health problems.
A safe and effective chlamydia vaccine would help prevent asymptomatic but transmissible infections that often go undiagnosed. ... Show Full Article LIVERMORE, California, July 29 (TNSjou) -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news: * * * First high-resolution images of chlamydia protein pave the way for better vaccine designs Chlamydia is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the world, with 150 million people infected in 2023. Although the infection can be treated with antibiotics, it often leads to infertility and other health problems. A safe and effective chlamydia vaccine would help prevent asymptomatic but transmissible infections that often go undiagnosed.For 40 years, researchers have been working to develop such a vaccine, but an effective candidate has remained elusive.
New research in Nature Communications (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-72763-4) -- conducted by a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Ligo Analytics, the University of California, Irvine and the University of California, Davis -- provides the first high-resolution images of protein structures in the outer membrane of chlamydia.
The result reflects LLNL's broader biosecurity mission, as understanding the structure of dangerous or hard-to-treat pathogens at the atomic level supports the nation's ability to detect, defend against and respond to biological threats. It could be a gamechanger for vaccine development.
"Vaccines work best when they teach the immune system to recognize an antigenic protein exactly as it appears in nature," said LLNL scientist and author Matthew Coleman. "If scientists know the precise shape of a protein on the surface of a bacterium, they can design vaccines that look more like the real thing."
The images were taken of major outer membrane proteins, or MOMPs. Many vaccines work by introducing harmless components of a bacterium or virus like a MOMP to elicit an immune response in the human body.
But when chlamydia MOMPs are broken down and reassembled without their natural shape, they have not triggered a strong enough immune reaction for a viable vaccine. The new study indicates that the proteins' structure may be critical for creating the protective immune response.
Until now, MOMPs have been very difficult to extract from bacteria and image. By carefully isolating MOMPs and using cryo-electron microscopy to freeze and probe them with an electron beam, the authors revealed the protein's shape for the first time at atomic resolution.
LLNL researchers played multiple roles across the project. Coleman, who co-led the National Institutes of Health (NIH) project with Luis de la Maza of the University of California, Irvine, helped supply the chlamydia samples used for imaging and coordinated the team. LLNL scientists analyzed and interpreted the cryo-electron microscopy data, using it to build maps of the MOMP.
The team showed that MOMPs form in groups of three, coming together into a tripod shape. A large, folded cluster of antigens sits on top of the tripod like a mushroom cap. Those antigens are what antibodies in the immune system recognize and attack.
"The biggest message from this work is that shape matters," said Coleman. "For years, scientists knew MOMP was an important vaccine target, but they did not know exactly what it looked like or important components of the protein for generating protection. This study provides the first detailed picture of its natural structure and shows how protective antibodies recognize it."
This same approach can be used to study other important proteins from the surface of gram-negative pathogens, leading to better understanding of biothreats and potential vaccines for many infectious diseases. The group is now working to design isolated MOMPs that follow their naturally folded three-dimensional structures.
This project was funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the NIH. Other LLNL authors include Brent Segelke, Beverly Robinson, Patrik D'haeseleer and Megan Shelby, who led the LLNL structural analysis efforts.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.llnl.gov/article/54616/first-high-resolution-images-chlamydia-protein-pave-way-better-vaccine-designs
LIDL U.S. Recalls Eridanous Shortbread Cookies With Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling Due to Undeclared Wheat, Soy, Milk, and Eggs
WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration issued the following recall notice:
* * *
LIDL US Recalls Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling due to Undeclared Wheat, Soy, Milk, and Eggs
Summary
Company Announcement Date: July 24, 2026
FDA Publish Date: July 28, 2026
Product Type: Food & Beverages
Reason for Announcement: Undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens due to foreign language packaging that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations.
Company ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration issued the following recall notice: * * * LIDL US Recalls Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling due to Undeclared Wheat, Soy, Milk, and Eggs Summary Company Announcement Date: July 24, 2026 FDA Publish Date: July 28, 2026 Product Type: Food & Beverages Reason for Announcement: Undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens due to foreign language packaging that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations. CompanyName: Lidl US
Brand Name: Eridanous
Product Description: Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling, 11.6 oz (330 g), UPC 4056489125839
Company Announcement
ARLINGTON, VA - Lidl US is recalling all units of Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling 11.6 oz (330 g) box UPC 4056489125839 with foreign language ingredients and nutrition facts panel due to undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to wheat, soy, milk, or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these products.
The products were distributed between 07/15/2026 - 07/22/2026 to all Lidl US retail store locations in Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
This recall was initiated after foreign language packaging was discovered that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations.
Customers with an allergy or sensitivity to wheat, soy, milk, or eggs should not consume this product. Customers should immediately discard or return the recalled product to their nearest Lidl store for a full refund (a receipt is not required for return). Customers who have questions about this recall should call the Lidl US Customer Care Hotline at (844) 747-5435, Monday - Saturday between 8 am - 8 pm ET.
The health and safety of our customers is our top priority. Lidl US regrets any inconvenience related to this voluntary recall. Our Quality Assurance Department is constantly working to ensure that all products on our shelves meet the high-quality standards that we would expect when feeding our own families. We are grateful for all our Lidl US customers who choose to shop with us every day.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/lidl-us-recalls-eridanous-shortbread-cookies-chocolate-truffle-coating-apricot-filling-due
* * *
LIDL US Recalls Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling due to Undeclared Wheat, Soy, Milk, and Eggs
Summary
Company Announcement Date: July 24, 2026
FDA Publish Date: July 28, 2026
Product Type: Food & Beverages
Reason for Announcement: Undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens due to foreign language packaging that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations.
Company ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration issued the following recall notice: * * * LIDL US Recalls Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling due to Undeclared Wheat, Soy, Milk, and Eggs Summary Company Announcement Date: July 24, 2026 FDA Publish Date: July 28, 2026 Product Type: Food & Beverages Reason for Announcement: Undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens due to foreign language packaging that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations. CompanyName: Lidl US
Brand Name: Eridanous
Product Description: Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling, 11.6 oz (330 g), UPC 4056489125839
Company Announcement
ARLINGTON, VA - Lidl US is recalling all units of Eridanous Shortbread Cookies with Chocolate Truffle Coating & Apricot Filling 11.6 oz (330 g) box UPC 4056489125839 with foreign language ingredients and nutrition facts panel due to undeclared wheat, soy, milk, and egg allergens. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to wheat, soy, milk, or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these products.
The products were distributed between 07/15/2026 - 07/22/2026 to all Lidl US retail store locations in Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
This recall was initiated after foreign language packaging was discovered that did not contain English ingredients, nutrition facts, or allergen declarations.
Customers with an allergy or sensitivity to wheat, soy, milk, or eggs should not consume this product. Customers should immediately discard or return the recalled product to their nearest Lidl store for a full refund (a receipt is not required for return). Customers who have questions about this recall should call the Lidl US Customer Care Hotline at (844) 747-5435, Monday - Saturday between 8 am - 8 pm ET.
The health and safety of our customers is our top priority. Lidl US regrets any inconvenience related to this voluntary recall. Our Quality Assurance Department is constantly working to ensure that all products on our shelves meet the high-quality standards that we would expect when feeding our own families. We are grateful for all our Lidl US customers who choose to shop with us every day.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/lidl-us-recalls-eridanous-shortbread-cookies-chocolate-truffle-coating-apricot-filling-due
How LLNL is Using AI, Robotics and Automation to Accelerate Advanced Manufacturing
LIVERMORE, California, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news:
* * *
How LLNL is using AI, robotics and automation to accelerate advanced manufacturing
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and engineers, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), are increasingly looking to AI, robotics and automation to help accelerate advanced manufacturing, materials discovery and experimental science.
The work is part of a broader push to move faster from concept ... Show Full Article LIVERMORE, California, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news: * * * How LLNL is using AI, robotics and automation to accelerate advanced manufacturing Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and engineers, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), are increasingly looking to AI, robotics and automation to help accelerate advanced manufacturing, materials discovery and experimental science. The work is part of a broader push to move faster from conceptto deployment in mission-relevant technologies. For Chris Spadaccini, who leads LLNL's Materials Engineering Division and has helped drive much of the Lab's advanced manufacturing research, that urgency is straightforward.
"In our national security space, agility is paramount as we move forward," Spadaccini explained. "To be able to go from concept to deployment on timescales that are commensurate with the changing global threat environment is extremely important for our mission."
Tools such as AI, robotics and increasingly autonomous laboratories, he said, can help make scientific workflows faster and smoother. Across the Lab, teams are developing systems designed to reduce bottlenecks in materials development, process optimization, inspection and production. They see this work as one of the clearest examples of how AI can move from software into real scientific and engineering workflows.
Spadaccini highlighted a distinction between automation and autonomy. Whereas in an automated lab, robotic systems carry out pre-programmed tasks and move through a defined workflow, an autonomous lab goes a step further: using AI to collect data, analyze results and determine what should happen next.
That distinction is becoming more important at the Lab's Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory, where researchers are combining robotics, automated experimentation and AI to build more adaptive systems. Staff Engineer Aldair Gongora said the work operates on two levels: teams are using autonomous systems to accelerate science while also building the tools and methods needed to make those systems possible in the first place. As part of that effort, Gongora leads Project ARMOR, which explores more flexible robotic execution, including robots that can adapt when samples or objects move in an unstructured environment.
In practical terms, Gongora said, autonomous laboratories add a learning layer, using AI to guide the next experiment. The concept is rooted in the familiar scientific cycle of "design, build, test, learn," but with AI helping researchers navigate experiments more quickly and at greater scale.
"We're going beyond just rigid automation," Gongora said. "The AI and the machine learning is what's allowing the Lab to think, reason and decide what experiments to run next, and how to run them."
That doesn't mean scientists are being pushed out of the process. Instead, Gongora and other researchers describe these systems as tools that can take over repetitive, time-consuming tasks and free scientists to focus more on designing experiments, interpreting results and deciding where to go next. Gongora compared the shift to what high-performance computing (HPC) did for computational science: not replacing researchers but giving them the ability to tackle bigger and more complex problems.
The same approach is also showing promise in materials discovery, where the design space can quickly become too large for humans to explore manually. Staff robotics engineer and principal investigator Mason Sage is involved in both Project ARMOR and APEX (Alloy Prediction and Experimentation), which combines AI, robotics and automated workflows to accelerate alloy development. The idea is to use AI algorithms to design experiments, automation and robotics to conduct them, and AI again to analyze the results and guide the next round of experiments. Both ARMOR and APEX are supported by LLNL's Laboratory Directed Research and Development program.
For alloy design, that approach matters because the number of possible combinations is enormous. Sage said the design space is so large that even running one experiment every second since the birth of the universe would not come close to exploring it fully. Autonomous experimentation, he said, offers a way to search that space more intelligently.
"What autonomous labs gives us is the ability to think very outside the box," Sage said. "These machine learning algorithms don't think how a traditional human scientist would. They think in hyper-dimensional space, and they can reason over dozens and dozens of variables simultaneously."
Sage said one of the biggest technical challenges is that most scientific equipment was designed around human workflows, not robotic ones.
"In some cases, vendors provide software interfaces that make automation easier. In others, we have had to write our own software or retrofit legacy equipment to allow various types of laboratory equipment to communicate with our autonomous lab," Sage explained. "This work can be painstaking, but it's our secret sauce and is absolutely essential to closing the loop between AI, robotics and real experiments."
Timo Bremer, who leads the Machine Intelligence Group in LLNL's Center for Applied Scientific Computing, said advanced manufacturing stands out as a particularly rich target for AI-enabled autonomy, because it sits at the center of a long chain of delays. The challenge is not only designing something new, but finding or qualifying materials, developing a process, making the part, inspecting it and getting it to production.
"It takes an extraordinary amount of time," Bremer said in describing the production workflow. "By the time we are understanding what material we need and getting comfortable with that material and making sure that we know where to source it and that we get it from somewhere where we trust ... all that is very difficult."
The complexity of that process is exactly why advanced manufacturing has emerged as a major proof point for the Lab's broader AI strategy: a place where AI and robotics could reduce bottlenecks and shorten the path from experimentation to production. The work also aligns with the broader goals of DOE's Genesis Mission, which aims to connect AI, computing, data and scientific infrastructure in ways that can accelerate discovery and move promising ideas more quickly toward mission impact.
Brian Giera, associate program director for data science, AI & manufacturing, said the wider goal is to use AI and robotics to not just automate isolated tasks, but to accelerate physical processes in areas where the Lab already has deep expertise. He pointed to the intersection of manufacturing, fusion science and HPC as a particularly important area for LLNL, where robotics, sensing and simulation can increasingly be connected inside the same workflow.
"We are implementing robotic systems, including fluid handling, robotic arms and other equipment, that can accelerate the physical tasks required for lab-based discovery and programmatic delivery," Giera said. "At the same time, we're using what we learn from those systems to generate valuable datasets that help us move faster in exploring parameter space, expedite operations in unsafe or high-throughput areas and combine those capabilities to explore new technical frontiers."
Bremer and Giera said LLNL and other NNSA and DOE national laboratories are especially well positioned in this area because the challenge in getting to full autonomy is not just an AI problem or just a robotics problem. It depends on bringing together experts in computing, engineering, hardware, manufacturing and science. "The innovation is going to come from these cross-discipline teams," Bremer said.
The DOE labs also bring together something many commercial AI companies do not: a combination of subject-matter expertise, specialized equipment, computational capability and mission-driven problems, Bremer explained. While frontier AI companies may provide powerful general-purpose models, he said, the labs have the scientists and engineers, the data and physical systems needed to push those tools into domains that matter for science, manufacturing and national security.
That convergence helps explain why this work matters now. AI-driven progress is increasingly seen as self-reinforcing, with the potential to accelerate further as systems are used to improve the next generation of tools and workflows. Giera pointed to a more immediate reason: the emergence of cheaper, more deployable robotics with AI models that are now capable of handling more structured lab tasks.
"We're at an intersection point of two innovation trends," Giera said. "Robotics have become affordable enough to deploy more broadly, and AI models are now built for this kind of tasking. They used to help read documents and process emails. Now they can interpret clearly defined lab tasks and data sets, and they're getting close to helping with hypothesis generation and testing. Humans are now becoming managers of these AI-powered robotic systems."
For LLNL, that doesn't simply mean moving faster for efficiency's sake. It means developing capabilities that could help the United States remain competitive in strategically important technologies tied to manufacturing, materials and national security. Still, researchers caution that the full vision remains a work in progress, while some pieces are already showing promise.
Spadaccini said one of the biggest opportunities for AI in manufacturing may be in inspection and qualification of components on-the-fly, during the manufacturing process, which he sees as one of the most significant bottlenecks in the overall workflow. Giera pointed to one example, where LLNL researchers are applying machine learning to images captured during the 3D printing process to inspect printed structures layer-by-layer in near real time, replacing what once took minutes of manual review per image with automated analysis performed in milliseconds.
But connecting everything into an end-to-end autonomous pipeline remains a longer-term challenge, with technical, organizational and cybersecurity hurdles still ahead. Safety and security are especially important when AI is connected to physical systems.
Cindy Gonzales, acting director of the Lab's Data Science Institute, and cybersecurity analyst Henry Williams are among those studying the questions that arise when AI begins to influence robotics and lab equipment.
In a scientific setting, they note, an error isn't always trivial. It could mean damaged equipment, invalid results or unsafe actions involving sensitive materials. Gonzales said the Lab needs to ensure these systems are "secure by design, especially as we start integrating AI into workflows."
Williams put it bluntly: "You have to be prepared for the risks that are introduced by letting someone else control your robot." In those situations, he said, human oversight remains essential, especially when systems are handling expensive or sensitive materials.
"We have a very bright future ahead if we do it right," Gonzales said.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.llnl.gov/article/54736/how-llnl-using-ai-robotics-automation-accelerate-advanced-manufacturing
* * *
How LLNL is using AI, robotics and automation to accelerate advanced manufacturing
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and engineers, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), are increasingly looking to AI, robotics and automation to help accelerate advanced manufacturing, materials discovery and experimental science.
The work is part of a broader push to move faster from concept ... Show Full Article LIVERMORE, California, July 29 -- The U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory issued the following news: * * * How LLNL is using AI, robotics and automation to accelerate advanced manufacturing Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and engineers, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), are increasingly looking to AI, robotics and automation to help accelerate advanced manufacturing, materials discovery and experimental science. The work is part of a broader push to move faster from conceptto deployment in mission-relevant technologies. For Chris Spadaccini, who leads LLNL's Materials Engineering Division and has helped drive much of the Lab's advanced manufacturing research, that urgency is straightforward.
"In our national security space, agility is paramount as we move forward," Spadaccini explained. "To be able to go from concept to deployment on timescales that are commensurate with the changing global threat environment is extremely important for our mission."
Tools such as AI, robotics and increasingly autonomous laboratories, he said, can help make scientific workflows faster and smoother. Across the Lab, teams are developing systems designed to reduce bottlenecks in materials development, process optimization, inspection and production. They see this work as one of the clearest examples of how AI can move from software into real scientific and engineering workflows.
Spadaccini highlighted a distinction between automation and autonomy. Whereas in an automated lab, robotic systems carry out pre-programmed tasks and move through a defined workflow, an autonomous lab goes a step further: using AI to collect data, analyze results and determine what should happen next.
That distinction is becoming more important at the Lab's Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory, where researchers are combining robotics, automated experimentation and AI to build more adaptive systems. Staff Engineer Aldair Gongora said the work operates on two levels: teams are using autonomous systems to accelerate science while also building the tools and methods needed to make those systems possible in the first place. As part of that effort, Gongora leads Project ARMOR, which explores more flexible robotic execution, including robots that can adapt when samples or objects move in an unstructured environment.
In practical terms, Gongora said, autonomous laboratories add a learning layer, using AI to guide the next experiment. The concept is rooted in the familiar scientific cycle of "design, build, test, learn," but with AI helping researchers navigate experiments more quickly and at greater scale.
"We're going beyond just rigid automation," Gongora said. "The AI and the machine learning is what's allowing the Lab to think, reason and decide what experiments to run next, and how to run them."
That doesn't mean scientists are being pushed out of the process. Instead, Gongora and other researchers describe these systems as tools that can take over repetitive, time-consuming tasks and free scientists to focus more on designing experiments, interpreting results and deciding where to go next. Gongora compared the shift to what high-performance computing (HPC) did for computational science: not replacing researchers but giving them the ability to tackle bigger and more complex problems.
The same approach is also showing promise in materials discovery, where the design space can quickly become too large for humans to explore manually. Staff robotics engineer and principal investigator Mason Sage is involved in both Project ARMOR and APEX (Alloy Prediction and Experimentation), which combines AI, robotics and automated workflows to accelerate alloy development. The idea is to use AI algorithms to design experiments, automation and robotics to conduct them, and AI again to analyze the results and guide the next round of experiments. Both ARMOR and APEX are supported by LLNL's Laboratory Directed Research and Development program.
For alloy design, that approach matters because the number of possible combinations is enormous. Sage said the design space is so large that even running one experiment every second since the birth of the universe would not come close to exploring it fully. Autonomous experimentation, he said, offers a way to search that space more intelligently.
"What autonomous labs gives us is the ability to think very outside the box," Sage said. "These machine learning algorithms don't think how a traditional human scientist would. They think in hyper-dimensional space, and they can reason over dozens and dozens of variables simultaneously."
Sage said one of the biggest technical challenges is that most scientific equipment was designed around human workflows, not robotic ones.
"In some cases, vendors provide software interfaces that make automation easier. In others, we have had to write our own software or retrofit legacy equipment to allow various types of laboratory equipment to communicate with our autonomous lab," Sage explained. "This work can be painstaking, but it's our secret sauce and is absolutely essential to closing the loop between AI, robotics and real experiments."
Timo Bremer, who leads the Machine Intelligence Group in LLNL's Center for Applied Scientific Computing, said advanced manufacturing stands out as a particularly rich target for AI-enabled autonomy, because it sits at the center of a long chain of delays. The challenge is not only designing something new, but finding or qualifying materials, developing a process, making the part, inspecting it and getting it to production.
"It takes an extraordinary amount of time," Bremer said in describing the production workflow. "By the time we are understanding what material we need and getting comfortable with that material and making sure that we know where to source it and that we get it from somewhere where we trust ... all that is very difficult."
The complexity of that process is exactly why advanced manufacturing has emerged as a major proof point for the Lab's broader AI strategy: a place where AI and robotics could reduce bottlenecks and shorten the path from experimentation to production. The work also aligns with the broader goals of DOE's Genesis Mission, which aims to connect AI, computing, data and scientific infrastructure in ways that can accelerate discovery and move promising ideas more quickly toward mission impact.
Brian Giera, associate program director for data science, AI & manufacturing, said the wider goal is to use AI and robotics to not just automate isolated tasks, but to accelerate physical processes in areas where the Lab already has deep expertise. He pointed to the intersection of manufacturing, fusion science and HPC as a particularly important area for LLNL, where robotics, sensing and simulation can increasingly be connected inside the same workflow.
"We are implementing robotic systems, including fluid handling, robotic arms and other equipment, that can accelerate the physical tasks required for lab-based discovery and programmatic delivery," Giera said. "At the same time, we're using what we learn from those systems to generate valuable datasets that help us move faster in exploring parameter space, expedite operations in unsafe or high-throughput areas and combine those capabilities to explore new technical frontiers."
Bremer and Giera said LLNL and other NNSA and DOE national laboratories are especially well positioned in this area because the challenge in getting to full autonomy is not just an AI problem or just a robotics problem. It depends on bringing together experts in computing, engineering, hardware, manufacturing and science. "The innovation is going to come from these cross-discipline teams," Bremer said.
The DOE labs also bring together something many commercial AI companies do not: a combination of subject-matter expertise, specialized equipment, computational capability and mission-driven problems, Bremer explained. While frontier AI companies may provide powerful general-purpose models, he said, the labs have the scientists and engineers, the data and physical systems needed to push those tools into domains that matter for science, manufacturing and national security.
That convergence helps explain why this work matters now. AI-driven progress is increasingly seen as self-reinforcing, with the potential to accelerate further as systems are used to improve the next generation of tools and workflows. Giera pointed to a more immediate reason: the emergence of cheaper, more deployable robotics with AI models that are now capable of handling more structured lab tasks.
"We're at an intersection point of two innovation trends," Giera said. "Robotics have become affordable enough to deploy more broadly, and AI models are now built for this kind of tasking. They used to help read documents and process emails. Now they can interpret clearly defined lab tasks and data sets, and they're getting close to helping with hypothesis generation and testing. Humans are now becoming managers of these AI-powered robotic systems."
For LLNL, that doesn't simply mean moving faster for efficiency's sake. It means developing capabilities that could help the United States remain competitive in strategically important technologies tied to manufacturing, materials and national security. Still, researchers caution that the full vision remains a work in progress, while some pieces are already showing promise.
Spadaccini said one of the biggest opportunities for AI in manufacturing may be in inspection and qualification of components on-the-fly, during the manufacturing process, which he sees as one of the most significant bottlenecks in the overall workflow. Giera pointed to one example, where LLNL researchers are applying machine learning to images captured during the 3D printing process to inspect printed structures layer-by-layer in near real time, replacing what once took minutes of manual review per image with automated analysis performed in milliseconds.
But connecting everything into an end-to-end autonomous pipeline remains a longer-term challenge, with technical, organizational and cybersecurity hurdles still ahead. Safety and security are especially important when AI is connected to physical systems.
Cindy Gonzales, acting director of the Lab's Data Science Institute, and cybersecurity analyst Henry Williams are among those studying the questions that arise when AI begins to influence robotics and lab equipment.
In a scientific setting, they note, an error isn't always trivial. It could mean damaged equipment, invalid results or unsafe actions involving sensitive materials. Gonzales said the Lab needs to ensure these systems are "secure by design, especially as we start integrating AI into workflows."
Williams put it bluntly: "You have to be prepared for the risks that are introduced by letting someone else control your robot." In those situations, he said, human oversight remains essential, especially when systems are handling expensive or sensitive materials.
"We have a very bright future ahead if we do it right," Gonzales said.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.llnl.gov/article/54736/how-llnl-using-ai-robotics-automation-accelerate-advanced-manufacturing
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Deputy Director Paoletta Issues Remarks at Meeting of Financial Literacy & Education Commission
WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following remarks on July 27, 2026, by Deputy Director Mark Paoletta at a public meeting of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission:
*
Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Bessent and the staff of the Treasury Department for convening this meeting, and for their leadership on digital financial literacy.
Under the superb leadership of Acting Director Vought, the CFPB is advancing the Trump Administration's expansive efforts to improve financial literacy and increase early access to financial empowerment opportunities. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following remarks on July 27, 2026, by Deputy Director Mark Paoletta at a public meeting of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission: * Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Bessent and the staff of the Treasury Department for convening this meeting, and for their leadership on digital financial literacy. Under the superb leadership of Acting Director Vought, the CFPB is advancing the Trump Administration's expansive efforts to improve financial literacy and increase early access to financial empowerment opportunities.These efforts will help American families and strengthen the overall economy.
Unlike the Biden administration's former CFPB Director, Rohit Chopra, this administration does not view financial education as "harmful." Although difficult to believe, that's how Chopra described financial education before this very body in 2022. Chopra lectured this Commission, devoted to Financial Education, that such education can make "individuals worse off."
Chopra even claimed that financial education gives consumers "a deep sense of shame, reducing engagement, and creating reluctance to find a path to a more stable financial situation."
While Chopra claimed that there is some worthwhile financial education out there, it was only going to be provided on Chopra's own terms, and limited ones at that, as our citizens are not to be trusted to get financially literate on their own. Rather, they must listen only to us.
Chopra's whole focus was on scaring consumers to only listen to what Big Government said is trustworthy, and his approach to financial literacy was yet another manifestation of the Biden administration's view of our countrymen - just as with Covid, one should not have been doing any independent research or thinking.
We have seen this playbook before, much like the disreputable Anthony Fauci telling Americans that they are too ill-informed and dumb to do their own research and make their own informed choices during COVID.
Instead of educating and empowering consumers to make their own informed financial decisions, Director Chopra devoted the CFPB's resources only after consumers suffered financial harm. What does that mean? He did not invest in financial education nor allowed his staff to do meaningful work educating consumers - and staff confirmed to me that Director Chopra had little interest in doing that. Instead, he hired 100 new enforcement attorneys to harass and destroy businesses that served consumers.
I suppose enforcement actions demanding extortionate penalties garner more headlines than consumers making informed and educated choices in their daily lives that align with their families' needs and values and that help consumers avoid being exploited by predatory businesses.
Needless to say, an argument that consumer education is harmful is disgraceful and anti-American. It only shows contempt for hard-working Americans, who struggled with affordability due to misguided policies implemented during the Biden-Chopra era.
Nor is Chopra's view supported by our statutory mandate to educate and empower consumers. I urge you to read former Director Chopra's shameful remarks in their entirety as this is Marxism at work that President Trump has been battling.
Today, the Vought-led CFPB works to be a source of unbiased, objective information consumers can trust. Our financial education products have been accessed over 11 million times, and we are exploring additional data-driven approaches for the application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to optimize access and delivery of CFPB educational resources.
The CFPB is continuing to develop targeted educational materials about fraud and scams and other topics that are important to Americans. We are working to reach critical groups such as servicemembers, veterans, older Americans, and young adults, who would benefit the most by increased access to financial literacy resources.
Our Financial Literacy Report published in May of this year, which is available to the public on our website, explains the many initiatives we have undertaken in these areas.
Our research has found that people are more likely to absorb and use information if it is connected to a decision that matters to them, at the time they can put it to use.
President Trump's superb leadership in restoring the American Dream is exemplified by his recent launch of Trump Accounts, which will help young Americans grow wealth and are a wonderful opportunity to promote financial literacy.
Trump Accounts provide an opportunity for kids to learn about investing and watch their money grow over time. To support teachers, parents, and communities, CFPB has begun to develop resources related to Trump Accounts to teach how investing early is a wise strategy for reaching financial goals, to build children's financial skills, and to bolster the long-term success of Trump Accounts.
CFPB is committed to helping our administration promote financial education literacy and identify opportunities for all Americans so they can have access to accurate and unbiased information. We believe in American consumers to educate themselves and to be empowered to make the right choices for their families. This is the American spirit! This is President Trump's America!
It is an honor to work for President Trump, who has done more than any other President to restore the American Dream and to bring financial opportunities to Americans. And it is a pleasure to work alongside Acting Director Vought and Secretary Bessent, and our colleagues across the administration who are here today to help implement President Trump's America First agenda.
Thank you.
***
Original text here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/deputy-director-mark-paolettas-remarks-to-the-financial-literacy-and-education-commission/
*
Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Bessent and the staff of the Treasury Department for convening this meeting, and for their leadership on digital financial literacy.
Under the superb leadership of Acting Director Vought, the CFPB is advancing the Trump Administration's expansive efforts to improve financial literacy and increase early access to financial empowerment opportunities. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 29 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following remarks on July 27, 2026, by Deputy Director Mark Paoletta at a public meeting of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission: * Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Bessent and the staff of the Treasury Department for convening this meeting, and for their leadership on digital financial literacy. Under the superb leadership of Acting Director Vought, the CFPB is advancing the Trump Administration's expansive efforts to improve financial literacy and increase early access to financial empowerment opportunities.These efforts will help American families and strengthen the overall economy.
Unlike the Biden administration's former CFPB Director, Rohit Chopra, this administration does not view financial education as "harmful." Although difficult to believe, that's how Chopra described financial education before this very body in 2022. Chopra lectured this Commission, devoted to Financial Education, that such education can make "individuals worse off."
Chopra even claimed that financial education gives consumers "a deep sense of shame, reducing engagement, and creating reluctance to find a path to a more stable financial situation."
While Chopra claimed that there is some worthwhile financial education out there, it was only going to be provided on Chopra's own terms, and limited ones at that, as our citizens are not to be trusted to get financially literate on their own. Rather, they must listen only to us.
Chopra's whole focus was on scaring consumers to only listen to what Big Government said is trustworthy, and his approach to financial literacy was yet another manifestation of the Biden administration's view of our countrymen - just as with Covid, one should not have been doing any independent research or thinking.
We have seen this playbook before, much like the disreputable Anthony Fauci telling Americans that they are too ill-informed and dumb to do their own research and make their own informed choices during COVID.
Instead of educating and empowering consumers to make their own informed financial decisions, Director Chopra devoted the CFPB's resources only after consumers suffered financial harm. What does that mean? He did not invest in financial education nor allowed his staff to do meaningful work educating consumers - and staff confirmed to me that Director Chopra had little interest in doing that. Instead, he hired 100 new enforcement attorneys to harass and destroy businesses that served consumers.
I suppose enforcement actions demanding extortionate penalties garner more headlines than consumers making informed and educated choices in their daily lives that align with their families' needs and values and that help consumers avoid being exploited by predatory businesses.
Needless to say, an argument that consumer education is harmful is disgraceful and anti-American. It only shows contempt for hard-working Americans, who struggled with affordability due to misguided policies implemented during the Biden-Chopra era.
Nor is Chopra's view supported by our statutory mandate to educate and empower consumers. I urge you to read former Director Chopra's shameful remarks in their entirety as this is Marxism at work that President Trump has been battling.
Today, the Vought-led CFPB works to be a source of unbiased, objective information consumers can trust. Our financial education products have been accessed over 11 million times, and we are exploring additional data-driven approaches for the application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to optimize access and delivery of CFPB educational resources.
The CFPB is continuing to develop targeted educational materials about fraud and scams and other topics that are important to Americans. We are working to reach critical groups such as servicemembers, veterans, older Americans, and young adults, who would benefit the most by increased access to financial literacy resources.
Our Financial Literacy Report published in May of this year, which is available to the public on our website, explains the many initiatives we have undertaken in these areas.
Our research has found that people are more likely to absorb and use information if it is connected to a decision that matters to them, at the time they can put it to use.
President Trump's superb leadership in restoring the American Dream is exemplified by his recent launch of Trump Accounts, which will help young Americans grow wealth and are a wonderful opportunity to promote financial literacy.
Trump Accounts provide an opportunity for kids to learn about investing and watch their money grow over time. To support teachers, parents, and communities, CFPB has begun to develop resources related to Trump Accounts to teach how investing early is a wise strategy for reaching financial goals, to build children's financial skills, and to bolster the long-term success of Trump Accounts.
CFPB is committed to helping our administration promote financial education literacy and identify opportunities for all Americans so they can have access to accurate and unbiased information. We believe in American consumers to educate themselves and to be empowered to make the right choices for their families. This is the American spirit! This is President Trump's America!
It is an honor to work for President Trump, who has done more than any other President to restore the American Dream and to bring financial opportunities to Americans. And it is a pleasure to work alongside Acting Director Vought and Secretary Bessent, and our colleagues across the administration who are here today to help implement President Trump's America First agenda.
Thank you.
***
Original text here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/deputy-director-mark-paolettas-remarks-to-the-financial-literacy-and-education-commission/