There’s nothing that makes farmers and ranchers madder than when someone messes with their markets and cuts into their farm-gate prices.
So, you can only imagine the reaction when President Donald Trump announced he would sign an executive order in the next two weeks to allow up to 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings to enter the United States with no out-of-quota tariff for 90 days, in exchange for a commitment from exporters to discount the products by 25%.
Trump made the initial announcement on his social media site, Truth Social, saying the deal will “substantially lower the price of ground beef for working American families. … This deal will reduce prices for Americans while giving space for our Great American Beef Herd to grow again.”
After the initial announcement Aug. 21, there was some confusion and a lot of controversy. Trump did not specify which countries will be eligible for the out-of-quota deal, but the administration official said that in exchange for lifting the tariffs, foreign beef exporters will provide a 25% discount on beef that will be passed along to consumers.
Trump said in his post that the 90 days will buy U.S. ranchers time to rebuild their herds.
This announcement comes as there are historically low U.S. cattle inventories, significant changes in the domestic beef packing sector, and the planned reopening of the border to Mexican feeder cattle. Ranchers, who are finally enjoying record U.S. cattle prices, but still struggling with high input costs and drought in many areas of the country, were understandably confused and upset.
The move was praised by the U,S. Department of Agriculture, but harshly criticized by cattle groups.
Beef industry and members of Congress push back
Many in the cattle industry oppose the planned executive order.
“Cattle farmers and ranchers are responding to strong market signals and historically high demand, and we are already working to rebuild after years of ongoing drought, high input costs and other challenges that have reduced U.S. cattle numbers. Today’s announcement and other market interventions throw cold water on the prospect of herd expansion and sacrifices long-term stability for short-term messaging,” Colin Woodall, NCBA’s CEO, said in a statement.
Woodall said NCBA is disappointed in the announcement, stating that “flooding the market with government-subsidized, below-market beef is not the way to rebuild the American cattle herd.” He added that American cattle producers want to lower prices for consumers.
The United States Cattlemen’s Association said in a statement that there’s “no clear evidence” that increasing beef imports will lower retail prices. USCA also said that the 300,000 metric tons represents approximately half of the total U.S. beef export volume so far in 2026.
“You don’t put America first by putting U.S. cattle producers last. This move will weaken our markets and gamble with food safety in the process,” USCA President Justin Tupper said in a statement. “U.S. ranchers have endured years of low cattle prices and trade uncertainty, and now they are being used as pawns in a 90-day political timeline.”
The National Milk Producers Federation expressed concern about the intervention.
“Policy-created disruption threatens the billions of dollars invested by U.S. dairy farmers and manufacturers to grow supply of beef and dairy products,” NMPF President and CEO Gregg Doud said. “This decision risks a reduction in the price dairy farmers receive for their cull cows and higher profits for foreign beef exporters, all for a potentially nominal decrease in the retail ground beef price.”
He said the move will have a “short-term, muted economic impact for consumers” and isn’t likely to lower prices.
Doud noted this is the second time the administration has removed duties for beef. The administration in February allowed 80,000 metric tons of Argentine beef to enter the U.S. tariff-free, according to a White House fact sheet.
The American Farm Bureau Federation also criticized the decision, arguing the move would translate to a 60% increase in imports over the 90-day period.
“We appreciate the president’s goal of reducing grocery costs, but short-term measures could have long-term negative effects for consumers and for ranchers who are making decisions on whether to retain or expand their herd. Growing dependence on foreign-grown food could ultimately lead to even higher grocery costs and reliance on other nations for our food security,” AFBF’s President Zippy Duvall said in a statement, urging the administration to reconsider its plan.
Lawmakers complain, too.
Some lawmakers also were quick to criticize the move. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, a frequent Trump critic, called it a “slap in the face” to domestic cattle producers and consumers.
“Worse than socialism! Dumping foreign beef in U.S. markets can temporarily lower prices but it won’t incentivize American farmers to raise more beef,” Massie said on X. He proposed bringing back country-of-origin labels and urged passage of his bill, the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption, or PRIME, Act.
The measure would allow states to establish a pilot program for facilities to sell processed meat and meat food products directly to consumers within that state. The bill was included in the House-passed farm bill.
Will the decision slow herd rebuilding?
It’s still unclear how this decision will impact the Trump administration’s desired goal of incentivizing cattlemen rebuild their herds. But in an analysis on Southern Ag Today, four leading economists wrote: “Fundamentally, this announcement does not help the U.S. cattle industry rebuild the herd.
“Producers are already facing higher input costs, particularly for fuel and fertilizer, while drought conditions have expanded across much of the major cattle-producing states. Those factors were already making herd expansion a difficult decision. Producers must now also consider the potential for unexpectedly lower cattle prices and increased market volatility at a time when retaining heifers and expanding cow inventories requires a significant long-term financial commitment.”
Editor’s note: Sara Wyant is publisher of Agri-Pulse Communications Inc., www.Agri-Pulse.com.
