There are two sides to every story, but in this case, there are several. What has unfolded in the markets over the last two weeks following President Donald Trump’s comments and a Truth Social post is beyond frustrating. The details aren’t adding up, so I’m examining what happened.
The president’s comments and Truth Social post lit a fire and tripped the futures markets, causing an immediate selloff. All futures contracts were limit down for multiple days, before rallying back some. At the time of this column’s writing, two days of growth had happened, but there is still a long way to fully recover. Furthermore, our entire industry felt betrayed.
We cannot forget how disconnected the futures and cash market have become. While they are correlated, we must remember that they serve entities differently in that they are risk management tools and are used accordingly. One of the most frustrating points in beef production is that the price of beef does not directly determine the price of cattle. There is also disconnect between the consumer and rancher. Consumers determine the price of beef on the shelf, but that doesn’t correlate to higher prices for live cattle.
With this in mind, I’ve written about this topic at length regarding how beef cattle production has been and will continue to be under attack—through regulation and legislation. Through various industry groups and now independent operators working in D.C., ag should be tallying many wins right now with this administration. We simply need to be on the same page across several fronts so that we can seize this moment for the future of beef production. What happened to the beef industry coming out of D.C. on Oct. 21and 22 shook up our entire system. The details have started to trickle out, but there are still some unanswered questions that need clarification.
We do know that Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) scheduled a meeting for the Common Ground Coalition on Tuesday, Oct 21. WLJ was told the 12 attendees hold or have held multiple positions for other organizations including LMA, NCBA, USCA and R-CALF, USA. This group met with several lawmakers for over two and a half hours discussing key initiatives that multiple groups have been working on. The day prior to the meeting, and again on the day of their meeting, a few members of this group were given an invite to the White House.
They were then told the president wanted them there to make “a big announcement,” but weren’t told what the announcement was. This was the first red flag for the group—stepping into a national announcement without more information. Then, the president’s first comments reached the airways. This is when he indicated his thoughts that “beef was too high … and it’s going to come down very soon … we worked our magic.” This was the second red flag for the group and was enough for them to say this likely isn’t an announcement they want to be a part of. They declined the invite out of fear they would be standing behind the president when he announced more beef coming in from Argentina, which the beef industry doesn’t support.
Cue Jack Payne of Nevada and Hayden Ballard of Utah. With the first group not responding to the president’s invite, these two were able to have their own impromptu meeting with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, SBA Director Kelly Loeffler, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to a Facebook post. Payne and Ballard informed their social media followings of the myriad issues discussed. For the record, I see good in most of the topics of conversation; I just have a hard time with how this situation played out. After the meeting, Payne shared to Facebook about his meetings and included that he was in the office as Trump’s second post on Truth Social went out. Payne’s post was later edited with this part taken out.
But in a conversation with Payne, he told me himself that he heard Trump directing a staffer what to write and Payne was entering the office as the Truth Social post was sent. For me, this is missing some context. It appears to me President Trump was upset at the original group but took aim at the whole industry. From an outsider’s perspective, I wonder if the fire was stoked rather than tempered. I think both groups had good intentions; however, I think D.C. now sees a couple of players who do not play well with others, showing a weakened stance on some major issues. In a circumstance like this, the net gain is usually zero or less.
I can see all angles in these two situations. I can see why the trade organizations declined the invite. I can then see why Trump may have been offended. I can also understand Payne’s perspective. What I can’t see is why we can’t work together for the small rancher. This shows complete division, which perpetuates implosion. Our industry is attacked constantly from the outside, so why are we doing this from within? Like Trump’s dealings when he sees a bigger picture. Argentine beef won’t impact our market, but that relationship can impact global superpowers. It’s a step to a bigger step. Same with issues in ag. We must take the wins when we can, and advocate accordingly. But most importantly, we must work together. After all, we are down more than 100,000 producers over the last decade. More division only harms us. — LOGAN IPSEN
3 Comments