STB orders Union Pacific to release Vena shipper speech in merger review

The board orders the video out

Administrative Law Judge Jenifer J. Soulikias ruled on 23 October that the recording is not confidential, and gave Union Pacific until 30 October to hand it over with the "Confidential" label removed [12].

The fight now turns on whether shippers who fear retaliation can still shape the review. Union Pacific denies threatening anyone. What the recording shows, and how the board weighs it, is still open.

Union Pacific appealed the judge's order on 30 October and asked for a temporary stay [11]. It argued that public release could cause "irreparable harm" by allowing others to "edit, clip, manipulate, and distribute" the recording outside the merger proceeding [11]. As an alternative, the railroad offered to post the video on its merger website while keeping the confidential designation and restrictions on use outside the case [11]. The board's 4 November decision rejected the appeal and left the disclosure ruling in place [11]. The board also said it had "serious concerns" about whether Union Pacific influenced stakeholder input on the proposed $85 billion transaction [11].

Vena gave the keynote at the Southwest Association of Rail Shippers' annual conference in Houston in March 2026, before an audience CPKC puts at about 900 people [12].

CPKC asks the board to end the case

CPKC wants the review terminated outright. Its request, filed on 30 October 2026 in Finance Docket No. 36873, runs to 193 pages with exhibits and asks the board to withhold the control authority Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are seeking [12].

The filing rests on a 16 July letter to the board from U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin and on a 13 October letter from five shipper groups warning that Vena's remarks and the railroad's later conduct risked silencing customers [12]. Those groups are the American Chemistry Council, the Alliance for Chemical Distribution, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the National Industrial Transportation League and The Fertilizer Institute [12]. CPKC also quoted a July board warning that it "will not tolerate retaliation" and will keep its processes "fair, transparent, and open to all stakeholders" [12]. In the public version of the filing, the passages quoting Vena directly are blacked out [12].

CPKC said the request stands apart from its case on the merits and that it is not seeking delay or denial on procedural grounds [12]. It said it will file its comments by the board's deadlines [12].

Union Pacific's answer

Union Pacific said in July that Vena's remarks had been quoted out of context and denied that he threatened anyone [12].

That same month, executive vice president of marketing and sales Kenny Rocker wrote that several customers had told him they faced backlash from BNSF and CPKC after voicing early support for the deal [12]. CPKC says both railroads rejected that claim as baseless [12].

Responding to the termination request, Union Pacific spokeswoman Robynn Tysver told Trains that the merger's opponents are afraid to compete [12]. She said the combination has the backing of more than 2,000 stakeholders, among them more than 500 shippers [12].

Where the review stands

The board lifted its pause on the proceeding on 18 August 2026 and set a schedule that pushes the last steps into late May 2027 [3]. BNSF, CSX, Reading Blue Mountain & Northern and groups including the Freight Rail Customer Alliance and the National Grain and Feed Association had asked for the longest evidentiary period the law allows, 395 days [3].

Comments on the merits are due by 18 November 2026, with responses due by 16 February 2027 [9]. On 18 September the board voted 4-0 to deny three motions to dismiss the revised application, filed by BNSF, CSX and five shipper associations [10]. The board stressed that the five-page decision "does not reflect any determination on the merits" and "is not an endorsement" of the railroads' arguments [10].

Richard Kloster, the board's newest member, sworn in on 5 June, wrote a separate concurrence [10]. He said the application showed a lack of transparency and depth: the applicants had submitted thousands of pages of documents but offered little detail on how they would address competitive concerns [10]. He called the opponents' arguments "significant" and "compelling" while noting they faced "a very high bar" [10].

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern still expect the transaction to close in the second half of 2027 [5].