By Kenneth Rapoza, Alliance for a Prosperous America
About two weeks ago, Trump got into a fight with American ranchers. They are trusted members of MAGA, so it was a strange fight to pick them. But Trump was seeing the rising cost of beef (By 14.7% within 12 months), something we all complained about in the Biden years, hitting ranchers with a dope rope from Muhammad Ali. He blamed them for beef inflation. He said he would import more Argentine beef is duty-free Hopefully prices will come down.
“The ranchers I love don’t understand that the only reason they’re doing well, for the first time in decades, is because I put tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50 percent tariff on Brazil,” Trump said. books. “They should also lower their prices, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking as well!”
His comments sparked violent reactions on social media. To the man, everyone was against Trump.
In one of the largest defections from Trump, former Trump officials and 14 Republicans met led by House Speaker Jason Smith of Missouri. He said Importing more beef “undermines American livestock producers.” They are right.
Importing beef is one of the reasons we are in this mess. Beef imports have reached record levels in recent months, and have never led to lower prices. This has led to a decline in herds in the United States. Low supply means higher prices.
Weaken the herd: Imports make livestock farming less attractive
The United States imports Standard folders of beef and veal – between 150,000 and 185,000 metric tons per month as of mid-2025. Record imports have not lowered prices.
This week, the Alliance for a Prosperous America (CPA), an advocacy group for local producers, including ranchers, He said In the face of Trump’s import push, increased imports have moved in tandem with higher prices, the exact opposite of the Trump administration’s rationale for reopening Argentine beef imports.
“Retail prices continue to rise even as domestic production collapses, proving that imports are not the answer,” said Andrew Rechenberg, a CPA economist. “Imports cannot replace a healthy, expanding domestic herd.”
Every time prices rise, Washington looks abroad for a cheap and risky solution rather than signaling to local ranchers that we support their growth. This approach has hollowed out America’s livestock industry by allowing imports – primarily from New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, Canada and Brazil – to displace US ranchers. Our local herd has fallen 86.7 million heads – The youngest since 1951.
On the other hand, major multinational meatpackers, including two Brazilian companies – JBS and National Beef – are depressing domestic prices by pitting American ranchers against low-cost beef from developing countries to force American ranchers to sell at unsustainable prices. These prices may be appropriate for Mexican or Argentinian ranchers, but not for American ranchers.
“Prime Directive”: Multinational corporations create chaos
“Big Ag” meat companies are wreaking havoc on the market.
Four companies control approximately 81 to 85 percent of the U.S. cattle market, giving them the edge in pricing power. If American cattle owners don’t like the price, JBS will only import live cattle from Mexico or now beef from Argentina.
These guys are not former cowboys who go to bull riding events and have a couple of Tennessee Walkers on their property. They may also have been a dealer in mortgage-backed securities around 2007.
In February 2025, JBS agreed to pay $83.5 million to settle an antitrust class action alleging that it, along with Tyson, Cargill and National Beef, colluded to suppress farm gate bids and inflate downstream margins — one of several ongoing cases documenting coordinated bidding, data sharing and production control across the sector.
Some ranchers are trying to go it alone, with direct-to-consumer models. Many are hobby farmers, and earn most of their money elsewhere. For those who do it as a full-time endeavor, herd expansion is difficult for several reasons: Investing in additional U.S. herd supplies becomes less attractive if it has to compete with increasing imports. Those who can and want to expand often compete for land against corporate farms. Others have properties that cannot be expanded by more than two acres.
Independent ranchers who use a direct-to-consumer distribution model are also not cheaper for consumers. They rely on smaller, independent meatpackers. These people are essentially organized for extinction by their states of origin. It’s a wonder they can make a profit.
One farmer in Vermont told me that small processors often face higher compliance costs per unit of production than large factory farms. This puts them at a competitive disadvantage and limits their ability to compete with more consolidated meatpackers that have different lines of business, compounding the cartel-like power of meatpackers.
For a small meat processing facility, the true cost of regulation and compliance includes significant initial and ongoing financial outlays for food safety plans, facility and equipment upgrades, and laboratory testing. These direct expenses of tens of thousands of dollars per regulation are compounded by indirect costs, such as farm labor and consultants you have to contract to perform audits every year for things like hazard analysis and sanitation standards.
American ranchers need loosening restrictions on imports and some regulatory relief for smaller players to make their growth attractive to independents. Americans who don’t like factory farming and are willing to pay more for it will have more options. Ranchers will have more buyers instead of the Big Four.
The United States was a net exporter of beef. We have been a net importer for at least three years.
The shift to imports was a decision pushed by global meatpackers. As a result, beef has become another item like health insurance, rent and electricity bills that drive up the cost of living. The issue of the high cost of living is a huge headwind for Trump, and he knows it. That’s why he’s trying to lower prices by flooding the United States with Argentine beef. In the short term, it might work out a little. In the long run, it only exacerbates the problems.
“The solution is to rebuild America’s cattle herd and restore sustainable ranching at home,” Rechenberg said, adding that Trump should limit the Section 232 tariff quota on beef and cattle imports to protect American ranchers and make health standards a national security priority. One reason beef prices are so high is that the USDA, under pressure from independent ranching groups, agreed to ban live cattle imports from Mexico due to screwworm infestation.
The CPA also believes that Trump should enforce packaging and antitrust law to limit collusion, require transparency in setting packaging prices, and allow the Department of Justice to pursue these companies for anti-competitive practices.
These measures would create a real demand signal for American ranchers. This would give them clarity in the market to invest and expand herds rather than reduce them, thanks to ongoing import pressures.
Kenneth Rapoza is an industry analyst at the Coalition for a Prosperous America. He is a former Wall Street Journal staff correspondent in Brazil and was a senior correspondent for Forbes covering Brazil, Russia, India and China between 2011 and 2020.
Editor’s note: Schumer close here. Instead of putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats imposed a government shutdown of health care for illegal immigrants. They own this.
Help us keep reporting the truth about Schumer’s suspension. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.