10/23/2025
We've been raising cattle in the U.S. for decades, and every season you learn something new: about weather, feed costs, markets, and how razor-thin margins can be. So when the President says he may import beef from Argentina to lower U.S. grocery prices, we sit back, look at the herd, and think: “Someone forgot to ask the rancher.”
Earlier this month President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that the U.S. “would buy some beef from Argentina … If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”
On its face you might say: “Well, if beef is expensive, more supply could help.” But from where we stand — in the pens, on the pasture, watching calves born, cattle sold, feed bills paid — this proposal raises a host of questions and few assurances.
What’s driving our beef shortage?
Here at home we’re facing difficult conditions: drought, high feed and fuel costs, and years of herd reductions. Many producers pulled back when losses were mounting. As one industry commentary puts it, “already this year … increasing imports under current rules ultimately benefits foreign suppliers … while putting U.S. ranchers on the losing end.”
So when domestic supply is tight, you’d think the focus would be on rebuilding our herds and infrastructure — not opening the gate to large foreign imports that could make it harder to do just that.
Why ranchers are worried?
Here are a few of the key concerns from our vantage point:
1. Market signal and herd rebuilding
When the administration hints at importing more foreign beef, it sends a signal to U.S. producers: maybe we shouldn’t invest now in growing our herd because competition from abroad might suppress prices down the road. As one industry group noted: “When policymakers hint at intervention … they can shake the market’s foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing.”
For ranchers who finally saw a modest return and were thinking about expanding, this kind of uncertainty is a big deal.
2. Trade-equity and “America First”
Many of us support policies that say “Buy American, grow American.” But when the U.S. is telling its ranchers they’re the backbone of the country, while simultaneously discussing increased beef imports from Argentina, it feels contradictory. One analysis put it bluntly: “Importing Argentinian beef would send U.S. cattle prices plummeting — and with the meat-packing industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either.”
If we’re going to talk about protecting U.S. agriculture, we want consistency.
3. Biosecurity and quality concerns
Argentina has had issues in the past with foot-and-mouth disease, and while trade partners may have assured safety mechanisms, ranchers are right to ask: are all risks covered? The trade commentary highlighted this: “Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which if brought to the U.S., could decimate our domestic livestock production.”
We’re not just worried about one season’s profit — we’re worried about the long-term viability of our herds.
4. Effectiveness for consumers
If the goal is to lower grocery beef prices, will importing Argentine beef really get there? Some economists referenced in one article say no — they argue it “will not significantly affect domestic prices.”
So if the claim is “cheap beef for consumers,” we want to see the math, not just the rhetoric.
What we’d like to see instead
If we were making recommendations (and we are, speaking as ranchers), we'd like the administration to focus on policies that strengthen domestic production and benefit both the ranchers and consumers. For example:
Incentives for ranchers to rebuild herds: tax credits, grants, or cost-sharing for breeding stock, fencing, and infrastructure.
Better access to grazing lands and feed resources, especially where drought has hit hard.
Strengthening transparency and competition in the meat-packing chain — so more of what the consumer pays gets back to the producer, not just the middlemen.
Ensuring any import policy is truly complementary and limited, not a flood that undermines the domestic base.
We're not opposed to trade or to smart imports. But we are opposed to a deal that appears to prioritize short-term consumer price messaging over long-term stability of U.S. ranchers and domestic production. If we weaken the base of our beef industry, we risk having less control over supply, more vulnerability to foreign shocks, and fewer opportunities for family ranchers like us.
Mr. President, we appreciate the concern about beef prices. We share it. But my ask is this: don’t rebuild the U.S. steak dinner on the backs of U.S. ranchers. Let’s rebuild it with them. That means investing in American ranching, not undermining it by opening the floodgates to imports when our herds are stretched and our costs are high.
Our cattle are born here, graze here, and run here on this land. We’ve got skin in the game. Before the nation invests in beef from abroad, invest in the folks who make the beef here.
