Did someone forward you this newsletter?

Get your own copy by subscribing here [[link removed]], and to share this story click here. [[link removed]]

Is Food & Power landing in your spam? Try adding [email protected] to your contacts.

Photo by iStock/ Hitra [[link removed]]

Bigger Tensions Behind Trump’s Beef with Cattle Ranchers [[link removed]] [[link removed]]

President Trump infuriated American ranchers last week with his decision [[link removed]] to quadruple the amount of beef that Argentina can export to the U.S. at a lower tariff rate, raising the country’s tariff quota from 20,000 metric tons to 80,000. The trade deal is part of a larger $40 billion bailout package [[link removed]] to support President Trump’s political ally, President Javier Milei [[link removed]], through a currency crisis (which also helps some wealthy investors with personal ties [[link removed]] to the Trump administration). Trump claims the surge in Argentinian beef imports will reverse rising beef prices for U.S. consumers.

Several Republican lawmakers [[link removed]] and prominent [[link removed]] rancher [[link removed]] groups [[link removed]] spoke out against Trump’s decision, calling it a betrayal of America First principles. “If the goal is addressing beef prices at the grocery store, this isn’t the way,” said Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, in a statement [[link removed]]. “Nebraska’s ranchers cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from under them when they’re just getting ahead or simply breaking even.” President Trump took to Truth Social [[link removed]] to defend his decision and chide angry ranchers, saying, “The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States.”

Beef prices have increased by 15% [[link removed]] over the past 12 months due to tight supply [[link removed]]; America’s beef cattle herd is at a historic low [[link removed]], following years of drought and pandemic price disruptions [[link removed]]. Imports are also down due to both tariffs [[link removed]] on Brazil and the screwworm-driven import ban on Mexican [[link removed]] beef. Economists doubt [[link removed]] that increasing imports from a smaller beef supplier [[link removed]] such as Argentina will actually lower prices for consumers. However, the news drove the largest drop [[link removed]] in cattle feeder futures in four years.

Ranchers worry the deal will erode what some have called their first good year in a long time [[link removed]]. “There couldn’t be a worse time for this to happen, as many producers are getting ready to sell this year’s production,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF, in a statement [[link removed]]. Beyond the near-term effects on cattle markets, the Argentina deal hits a much bigger nerve for ranchers, namely, the threat of unlabeled imports and the concentrated multinational meatpackers that benefit from them.

Just four meatpackers process 85% of all U.S. beef [[link removed]]. Ranchers charge that this lack of competition drives down cattle prices [[link removed]] and widens the gap [[link removed]] between what consumers pay for beef and what ranchers receive for their cattle. In 2019, R-CALF brought an antitrust suit [[link removed]] against dominant beef packers, alleging they coordinated bids and otherwise conspired to depress cattle prices and increase their profits. JBS paid $83.5 million [[link removed]] to settle these claims, while other packers, such as Tyson, continue to challenge [[link removed]] the charges in court.

Ranchers also face pressure from unlabeled or mislabeled imports. Powerful beef processors such as JBS, Cargill, and Marfrig, operate in many countries and they want to be able to sell beef as a commodity, swapping their sources from around the world as it best suits them. This is why dominant beef packers have bankrolled lobbying campaigns [[link removed]] to thwart [[link removed]] longstanding efforts to require mandatory country-of-origin labeling on beef.

Most food carries a mandatory country-of-origin label. Congress previously required [[link removed]] one for beef until the World Trade Organization deemed it unfair in 2015, prompting Congress to repeal [[link removed]] mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef and pork in 2016. Bipartisan lawmakers have perennially reintroduced bills to challenge this decision [[link removed]]. Most recently, Representatives Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced [[link removed]] the Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act.

In an apparent attempt to appease angry ranchers, the USDA released a suite of policies [[link removed]] last week to “ fortify the American beef industry.” [[link removed]] The plan includes opening up more federal lands to grazing, tweaking some safety net programs, dispersing another round of grants for small processing plants, and temporarily reducing overtime and holiday meat inspection fees for smaller meat processors.

USDA also affirmed that it would maintain and enforce a Biden administration rule that cracks down on deceptive, voluntary “Product of U.S.A.” labels. Even though country-of-origin labels are not required, some packers voluntarily add “Product of U.S.A.” labels because American consumers are willing [[link removed]] to pay more for domestic beef. Until recently, a loophole allowed beef that was born, raised, and slaughtered abroad to carry a “Product of U.S.A.” label if it passed through a U.S. facility. USDA’s new rule ensures that only meat from cattle born, raised, and processed in the U.S. can carry this voluntary label. USDA will enforce this rule starting January 1, 2026.

On the issue of fair markets, USDA’s plan merely reiterates current policy to publish sample cattle contracts and other beef industry data. Meanwhile, the administration is sidelining other Biden-era meatpacking regulations. USDA’s deputy secretary, Stephen Vaden, recently disparaged [[link removed]] new rules cracking down on the controversial poultry tournament payment system and other discriminatory and deceptive tactics by meat processors. Vaden called the rules “un-American” and said their enforcement is on hold. Advocates are concerned that USDA will repeal the rules. Vaden also supported increasing line speeds in pork and poultry plants, something meatpacking workers’ unions have long opposed due to the increased likelihood of workplace injuries.

Find and share this story originally published on [[link removed]] Food & Power [[link removed]] . [[link removed]]

What We're Reading

Seven years after distributor United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI) acquired SuperValu and its grocery stores, UNFI will close four of these stores [[link removed]] in Maryland. These Shoppers banner stores specialized in discount groceries and community members say [[link removed]] that the closures will turn their neighborhoods into a food desert. (USA Today/NBC4 Washington)

Republican leaders say [[link removed]] they will block a bill to extend SNAP benefits, which are set to end on Saturday due to the government shutdown. 25 state attorneys general sued the USDA [[link removed]] for not tapping into emergency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing in November. (Politico)

China agreed to end its boycott on U.S. soybeans. ( New York Times [[link removed]])

Donate to Support Food & Power [[link removed]] About the Open Markets Institute

Our team of reporters, lawyers, and economists works to revive competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Follow F&P on Twitter [[link removed]] | Subscribe [[link removed]] to this Newsletter | F&P Website [[link removed]] | Contact Us [[link removed]]

Tweet [link removed] Share [[link removed]] Forward [link removed]

Written by Claire Kelloway

Edited by Anita Jain and Phil Longman

Open Markets Institute

655 15th St NW Suite 310

Washington D.C., xxxxxx

Unsubscribe [link removed]