Beef. Not only is it what’s for dinner, but it’s also the agricultural commodity at the center of the latest controversial economic policy made by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The American cattle rancher has been ignored by policymakers, leading to a slowly dying industry left to contend with the important task of feeding us on a daily basis.
In an effort to reduce record-high beef prices across the United States, the Trump administration has decided to quadruple its reduced tariff quota for Argentinian beef imports to 80,000 metric tons. The U.S. has also promised a $20 billion currency exchange with Argentina and the sourcing of an additional $20 billion in private investment for the country.
Additionally, imports from other countries, such as Brazil, have been effectively halted after a 76% tariff on Brazilian beef imports and a total halt on livestock from Mexico due to concerns about the screwworm parasite damaging the U.S. food supply.
Ranchers have been able to benefit from higher beef prices and are able to make a profit from their cattle, but that isn’t always the case. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum have criticized this move as shockingly not “America First” for an administration claiming to prioritize its own producers before foreign entities.
We are currently in the midst of a government shutdown, and our strategic priority is to support industries in other countries?
Farming and ranching are two of the toughest and most volatile industries in the U.S. It’s quite difficult to make a profit, and oftentimes farming operations need to rely on safety nets such as taxpayer-funded subsidies and disaster-relief funds. With record-high beef prices, you would assume that most of that money would be going to farmers and ranchers. However, you would be very wrong.
Most cattle operations are often controlled by meatpacking companies, which command large portions of the market and coerce many farmers into deals that often don’t have the farmers’ best interests in mind. While these powerful companies can enjoy lucrative profits, many ranchers are left with pennies on the dollar and are struggling with their businesses.
The last thing you should do when ranchers are already struggling is prioritize and fund foreign producers of beef instead of addressing the existing problems within your own country’s cattle industry — especially when your own policy proposal has experts uncertain if it’s even going to be effective.
Argentina only makes up around 2% of the current total of U.S. beef imports. If imports were quadrupled, it wouldn’t make much difference in the total cost of beef and would only have a noticeable impact on the price of ground beef instead of more premium cuts, such as steak, because of the type of product being imported.
With higher tariffs and bans on imports from other countries, such as Mexico and China, this increase in Argentinian beef imports will not drastically affect the total supply of beef in the U.S., keeping the price close to where it’s at.
Even if you are in favor of this policy because it would supposedly bring down the price of beef for consumers, it wouldn’t even accomplish what it sets out to do. This policy hurts ranchers and benefits nobody in return.
There are even claims by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that these cattle could be contaminated with foot and mouth disease, or FMD. Argentina has claimed that it has been free of FMD for over 25 years, but it’s concerning that the same officials who want to import more beef from Argentina are also saying that there is a risk of spreading a costly disease into our own cattle populations.
So why do ranchers continue to elect people into office who not only fail to support their interests, but also outright propose policy that harms them?
It’s most likely because any alternative party or candidate fails not only to prioritize their own issues, but also to acknowledge them whatsoever. Ranchers aren’t dumb; they can see when people fail to even meet them in the middle and make the active choice to support their initiatives. Why would they vote for the party that refuses to acknowledge their existence when at least Republicans say they respect farmers and ranchers?
Just because ranchers can be ignored by both political parties doesn’t mean that it’s okay. There are people in office right now whose main responsibility is to represent farmers’ and ranchers’ interests. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins ‘94 is one of those people.
Rollins claims that she is doing everything in her power to support farmers, but has been quick to support policies that do the exact opposite. Trump’s tariffs have significantly increased the cost of inputs for many farming operations, yet she continues to say they protect the interests of both farmers and consumers.
Instead of being what the agricultural industry needs, Rollins instead chooses to participate in culture wars, fight to cut SNAP benefits to our most vulnerable and prioritize large farming corporations over the average farm. It’s a shame that even those in our government’s highest offices, tasked with supporting American agriculture, fail to live up to these standards.
The farmer and rancher haven’t just been abandoned. They’ve been strategically cut off from making changes that are absolutely necessary in exchange for giving profits to the largest companies. It’s an insult to the foundation of our country and the people who work every day to put food on all of our tables.
I hope that one day we can realign our priorities and make changes that actually build a strong infrastructure for our farmers and ranchers to succeed. Until that day comes, I don’t see the beef between ranchers and the U.S. going down like the price of beef.
Wyatt Pickering is a business honors and finance junior and opinion columnist for The Battalion.
