A plan to increase ground beef imports in an effort to decrease beef prices is drawing concern from industry groups, which warn the move could affect cattle prices and undermine consumer trust.
In a Aug. 21 Truth Social post, President Donald Trump announced he had completed a deal to “substantially lower the price of ground beef for working American families.”
For the next 90 days, he wrote, the U.S. will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported with no out-of-quota tariff. He added that there is a commitment to sell the beef at 25% below current market prices.
“This deal will reduce prices for Americans while giving space for our Great American Beef Herd to grow again,” Trump said.
Trump did not indicate the source of the ground beef or with whom he reached an agreement, only telling reporters later that day that “there are a few countries, but they’re going to be sending in the highest quality beef.”
White House officials said that Trump planned to formally sign an executive order within the following two weeks.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins told reporters Aug. 25 that she was not privy to talk about details of the decision. “I think the conversations are still going on, and that’s Ambassador (Jamieson) Greer who’s finalizing what exactly that looks like, and I think the president’s involved in that as well,” she said.
Farm Bureau analysis
John Newton, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) vice president of public policy and economic analysis, said in a Market Intel report that higher ground beef prices aren’t the result of a sudden or easily reversible shortage.
He also noted that import timing could work against the industry’s herd-rebuilding goal.
“Importantly, this announcement comes when beef imports into the U.S. are already record high and during the very window of time that many ranchers will be selling their cattle,” he said.
Newton pointed to the historically low beef cow inventory as one of the primary reasons ground beef prices are higher. He said that efforts to rebuild the cattle herd are “fragile at best,” noting that the number of beef heifers kept for replacement was up 3% from 2025 in the latest cattle inventory report.
“Despite the historically low cattle herd, due to a number of packing plant closures across the U.S., continued efforts to increase beef imports, and the phased reopening of the border with Mexico, cash cattle prices have fallen 14%, or nearly $40 per hundredweight, in recent months,” Newton said.
At the same time, the beef cutout value has climbed to near historic highs, which contributes to higher retail prices, he said.
Drought conditions have also forced producers to liquidate cattle or put them on feed.
Since 2020, production costs for cow-calf producers are up more than $400 per head, or nearly 30%, Newton said. While recent years have been some of the best economic years for cow-calf producers, the positive returns are above variable costs only. When considering fixed costs such as land, taxes and machinery, returns above the total cost of production for cow-calf operations have been negative for 30 years, he continued.
“It is for these reasons that efforts to increase beef imports will further undermine the economic incentive for ranchers to make the investment to rebuild the herd,” Newton said.
“Finally seeing the returns needed to justify reinvesting in their herds, cow-calf producers are beginning to hold on to their heifers and starting to rebuild,” he said. “A surge of imports coinciding with the fall calf-selling season and the drop in cattle prices that would come with those imports would jeopardize that.”
Measure faces industry opposition
Ranching and agriculture groups largely rebuked the announcement.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) said that while American cattle producers also want to keep groceries affordable for consumers, government-subsidized beef is not the way to rebuild the cattle herd.
“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,” said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall in a statement. “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.”
NCBA encouraged cattle producers to tell Congress and the White House to oppose plans to increase foreign beef imports. The group created a form letter to submit to elected leaders, which is available at tinyurl.com/5e65es5j.
In addition, NCBA, along with the Livestock Marketing Association, AFBF and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), submitted a letter to Trump expressing their concern with his proposal.
“We urge you to reverse course on this 90-day import plan and work with us instead on solutions that strengthen, rather than weaken, America’s capacity to feed itself,” the letter read. “We stand ready to work with you on policies that keep food affordable, protect producers and consumers, and preserve a viable future for the U.S. cattle industry.”
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, USA (R-CALF) said increasing foreign beef imports doubles down on a “failed strategy” to substitute foreign beef for rebuilding the domestic herd.
“We urge the administration to reconsider this approach and instead restore competition in cattle markets, implement import controls that provide producers the confidence and market opportunity to rebuild the domestic herd, and restore mandatory country of origin labeling so consumers can distinguish American beef from imported beef,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF, in a statement.
R-CALF, along with 12 state and local cattle associations, penned a letter Aug. 24 to Trump urging him to reconsider his proposal.
“We share your concern that the beef supply chain is not functioning as it should, resulting in historically high beef prices for consumers,” the letter read. “However, we believe the solution lies in addressing the beef supply chain rather than treating the symptoms of low domestic supplies and historically high beef prices.”
Letter signatories included cattle associations from California, Colorado, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming.
The USCA warned that the import measure would sideline U.S. producers, threaten cattle prices and risk undermining consumer confidence.
“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,” said USCA President Justin Tupper in a statement. “The recent recall of beef from Argentina showed clearly that our current system is already strained. We want Americans to be able to buy beef, but prices cannot be pushed down at the expense of food safety.” — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
