President Donald Trump’s proposal to import more beef from Argentina in an effort to lower record U.S. beef prices has met resistance from American ranchers and skepticism from agricultural experts.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America, and other agricultural groups have criticized the plan, expressing concern over its potential impact on domestic ranchers and feedlot operators. These organizations are typically strong supporters of the president but oppose this initiative.
South Dakota rancher Brett Kenzy commented, “I love ‘Make America Great Again’ rhetoric. I love ‘America First’ rhetoric. But to me this feels a lot like the failed policies of the past — the free trade sourcing cheap global goods.” Kenzy emphasized that he wants consumers, not the government, to decide if beef is too expensive.
Experts point out that Argentine beef represents only about 2% of total U.S. beef imports. Kansas State University agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor noted that even doubling imports from Argentina would not significantly affect prices because Argentina cannot produce enough beef to offset losses from other sources like Brazil and Mexico. The United States imported 72.5 million pounds of Argentine beef through July, compared with over 15 billion pounds produced domestically. Most imported beef is used for lean trimmings in ground beef production; steak prices are unlikely to change much as a result.
Tonsor explained that policy changes can create uncertainty for ranchers: “We’re always going to have uncertainty in the world. But the more uncertain something is, the less likely most are to put money on the line.”
Argentine producers see opportunity in increased exports. Augusto Wallace said, “Whenever an additional buyer comes, it’s beneficial for everyone, right? For all the producers.” However, economists warn that exporting too much could raise prices for Argentine consumers.
American ranchers argue that boosting imports contradicts Trump’s earlier tariff policies intended to support domestic production and competitiveness. Bill Bullard, president of R-CALF, stated: “It’s a contradiction of what we believed his new course of action was. We thought he was on the right track.”
Texas A&M livestock economist David Anderson remarked on recent improvements for ranchers: “Ranchers are finally getting prices that are going to make up for some really bad years in the past with the drought, low prices and high costs. We finally get some good prices. And we start talking about government policy to bring down prices.”
Bryant Kagay of Kagay Farms in Missouri reported a decline in cattle prices following Trump’s comments about intervention but noted partial recovery since then.
Kagay expressed concerns about broader trade issues: “I continue to see things that I don’t really think are in the best interest of our country and the average citizen,” he said. “I guess I hope he starts to see that and quits worrying about punishing opponents and winning whatever battle he’s involved in, and then tries to do what’s best for everybody.”
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told CNBC that while seeking lower consumer prices remains a goal, supporting ranchers is also a priority. She promised further details soon regarding both the Argentina plan and broader efforts such as expanding land access and processing capacity.
Rollins said: “The bigger supply — even aligned with a bigger demand — is going to allow those prices to come down, but also to have a vital industry for these ranchers to be able to survive, which is what we’ve got to do.”
Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) stated after discussions with Trump administration officials: “It’s very important that we support our cattle ranchers.”
Cory Eich, a South Dakota rancher near Epiphany, does not view increased Argentine imports as an immediate threat or expect significant operational changes at this time.
