Trade

China Grants 5-Year Extension to Hundreds of U.S. Beef Plant Registrations

Fri, 15 May 2026 18:23:57 GMT

China has granted a five-year extension to hundreds of U.S. beef plant export registrations, marking the first major movement in months on a trade issue that has constrained access to one of the most important overseas markets for American beef.

According to a Friday statement from the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), China’s General Administration of Customs (GACC) has extended registrations for 425 overdue U.S. beef establishments in China’s CIFER system. In addition, 77 new U.S. beef establishment registrations have been added, effective May 15, 2026, with each valid for five years. However, 38 beef establishments remain suspended. Of those, 25 were previously expired and have now been administratively renewed, but they are still not eligible to export.

The announcement adds a significant new development to a week of confusion and shifting signals around U.S. beef access to China. On Thursday, Bloomberg and Reuters reported that China appeared to have renewed export registrations for hundreds of U.S. beef plants during high-level talks between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Beijing. But those listings later reverted to “expired” on China’s customs website, with no official explanation, fueling uncertainty across the industry.

As recently as Friday morning, there had been no clear confirmation that broad renewals were in place. The USMEF update now provides the most concrete indication yet that at least partial restoration of access is underway, even as some facilities remain blocked.

Restoring Plant Registrations Was Top Priority for USMEF

For USMEF, restoring those registrations is priority number one, and even said before the high-level meeting this week that this type of meeting would be the perfect stage to restore the registrations..

“We have been at an impasse now for almost a year with these plants,” says Dan Halstrom, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation. “The vast majority of the U.S. plants — 400-plus — are either delisted or were never relisted in their registration system in China. So in my opinion, it’s going to take an event like this to maybe jar this loose and break it loose. We’re cautiously optimistic that having this high-level meeting between President Xi and President Trump might just do that.”

Halstrom said while beef is only one piece of the broader trade relationship, these talks could provide the political momentum needed to reopen access.

“There are so many issues outside of beef and even outside of agriculture that are being discussed,” he says. “But time will tell. A meeting like this could absolutely be what we’ve been waiting for.”

From a $2 Billion Market to a Fraction of That

How high are the stakes? According to Halstrom, they’re significant. He says following the Phase One trade agreement in 2020, U.S. beef exports to China exploded. According to Halstrom, exports grew from roughly $300 million in 2020 to more than $2 billion by 2022.

But after the registration lapse last year, exports sharply declined.

“If you remember back to 2020 with the Phase One deal with China, that was a home run for the U.S. beef industry,” Halstrom says. “In 2020, we were exporting about $300 million of U.S. beef. We peaked out in 2022 at a little over $2 billion. Then in 2023 and 2024, we were around $1.6 billion. But after the plants were delisted last year, we dropped to a little under $500 million. So at a very high level, that’s the impact we’re talking about.”

And that loss isn’t just showing up on export balance sheets. It’s hitting cattle values at home.

Halstrom estimates access to the China market adds roughly $150 to $165 per fed animal harvested in the U.S.

“China has become a very important market because of the way it helps maximize the value of the carcass,” he explains. “There are products, especially variety meats that have significantly more value in China than they do here domestically. Items like backstrap and aorta are in very high demand there. If those products suddenly don’t have a home in China, it impacts the value chain almost immediately.”

Why China Matters to the Cutout

Halstrom says the impact also extends into traditional muscle cuts, especially short plates.

“Today, beef short plates are trading roughly around $2.50 per pound,” Halstrom says. “We estimate that if these plants were relisted and access was restored, you could see short plate values increase by more than a dollar per pound in relatively short order. That’s substantial.”

Halstrom also points out China’s importance stretches beyond just direct exports into the country. It really impacts all of Asia.

“It’s not just about what gets sold directly to China,” he says “The China market creates a halo effect across Asia because a lot of these same items are traded between China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. So when China is actively buying, you immediately see stronger demand and stronger pricing across the region for products like short ribs, chuck flap and short plates.”

That broader demand ripple helps support overall cattle prices in the U.S.

“More customers rather than fewer is what impacts the cutout,” Halstrom says. “And there’s no doubt there’s been big money lost over the last year because these plants have not been relisted.”

More Than Just Plant Registrations

Halstrom stresses the expired registrations are only one layer of the issue that needs to be addressed.

“It’s not just the plant relistments,” he explains. “That’s phase one of what we need to have done. A large percentage of these plants are also dealing with technical and non-tariff trade issues, including residue-related issues that have caused additional delistings. So there are really two phases here — first getting these plants relisted in the registration system, and then working through these broader trade barriers.”

He said the U.S. Trade Representative’s office is fully aware of the challenges facing the industry and is listening.

“We’ve been dealing with USTR on these issues and they are very well informed on it,” Halstrom says. “The other thing from an agriculture perspective is encouraging the Chinese to go back and look at what they already committed to with the Phase One agreement back in 2020.”

Demand Is Still There

Despite the political tensions, Halstrom said the commercial appetite for U.S. beef in China hasn’t disappeared.

“One important point here is these are not government-to-government transactions. These are our customers,” Halstrom says. “They want the product and we want to sell it. The commercial business is still there.”

He pointed to major retailers and foodservice buyers already positioned to resume purchases quickly if access returns.

“Sam’s Club comes to mind immediately because they’re one of the leading modern big-box retailers in China,” Halstrom says. “Costco has warehouses there as well, and we also have foodservice customers lined up and ready to go. So we do not need to rebuild the commercial business. The customers are there, willing and able to buy U.S. beef. What we need is for the U.S. government and the Chinese government to work together to restore access so we can get back on track.”

As of the latest industry checks this week, registrations for most U.S. beef plants still had not been renewed.

New Data: Is U.S. Agriculture Facing a Typical Cycle or a ‘Geopolitical Reset’?

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:56:53 GMT

The latest Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows a bit more pessimism from respondents on the current state of the ag economy as well as how the present compares to one year ago.

Farm Journal regularly reaches out to a vetted list of 80 ag economists from across the industry. Providing directional insights, 10 of the 16 economists who responded to the April survey believe the ag economy is in a worse state than it was a year ago. Slightly fewer than half expect conditions to be “somewhat better” in 12 months, while one-third still anticipate further decline.

“I just haven’t really changed my level of pessimism regarding this year. This is going to be a tough year. There’s no doubt about it,” says Michael Langemeier with Purdue University.

The conflict in Iran weighs heavy on economists’ minds; high fertilizer prices and high energy costs dominate concerns. This overshadows the previous looming concerns of the trade fragility and export deficit. The previously announced government payments are in the rearview mirror.

Wes Davis from Meridian Agribusiness Advisors agrees that profit margins squeezed by high input costs are the top concern.

“When we talk about the more pessimistic view of the ag economy, fertilizer prices driven by the outbreak of war in Iran is certainly top of mind,” he says.

But Davis says there have been some positive tailwinds for commodity prices over the past few months, and there’s ‘no slowdown’ in demand for animal proteins.

“Those tailwinds continue to be present,” he says.

A Fundamental “Structural Shift”

Three-quarters of the economists believe U.S. agriculture is undergoing a permanent structural shift rather than a typical cyclical phase. They cite increased competition from Brazil, changing trade policies and the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence as factors reshaping the industry for the long term.

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

“I’m thinking of this one as the geopolitical and input reset,” Davis says. “What I mean by that is, where things go and how we interact with the global ag economy when this cycle or when this shift is over will be different. The way that farmers get their agrichemicals, their fertilizers, their vitamins/trace minerals for feed, their tractors will all be different.”

Davis brings up the farm bill as another example. He questions whether the structural shift in policy is moving away from supporting “commercial farm preservation” and more toward “rural economic development.” This distinction could change the long-term framing of ag policy.

While Davis’ perspective is in the majority, Langemeier offers a counterpoint. He says this today reminds him a lot of the 2014 to 2019 period when there were about six years in a row of relatively low crop margins.

“I know there are a lot of changes going on, and certainly we’re worried about the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture compared to Brazil, particularly for soybeans,” he says. “As one example, I think the AI developments actually could be positive, and so I don’t necessarily see why that would necessarily mean a structural shift that would be negative.”

Geopolitical Impacts on Input Costs

The conflict in Iran and broader Persian Gulf instability are identified as primary drivers of agriculture’s economic health. Economists are specifically concerned about how these tensions are “pinching margins” by driving up the costs of energy and fertilizer while commodity prices remain relatively low.

“The negative impact of the Iran conflict has been increased fertilizer and energy prices. I did some crop budget calculations: If you hadn’t bought your fertilizer and most of your fuel is yet to be purchased prior to the Iran conflict that’s a pretty large effect on corn break-even price. I calculate it to be 25 cents a bushel. And when your break-even price is already at $5, which is way above what the futures price adjusted for basis is this fall, that’s certainly not helping matters,” he says.

It’s not just fertilizer and fuel. It’s other input categories in row crop agriculture and livestock production as well.

Noting input prices are 15% to 20% higher than pre-COVID levels, Davis points out that prices for active ingredients have gone up 20% to 30% since the conflict in Iran started.

“This continues to exacerbate that question around how long are we going to continue to see input prices increasing?” Davis says. “The other things that are less talked about but are starting to show up in pricing data are things like low inclusion additives for livestock feeds, so things like vitamins and trace minerals are starting to show up in pricing increases as well as they are being disrupted in trade flow and a slowdown of exports from China.”

Langemeier adds to the question around input pricing increases, saying it’s unknown if the uncertainty and elevated costs will go into 2027.

Strategic Deferment of Capital Expenses

To manage tight margins, farmers are expected to prioritize paying down debt over investing in land, equipment/technology, capital improvements and labor. Machinery and equipment purchases are the top items likely to be reduced or deferred in 2026, with half of economists also warning that cuts to fertilizer and crop protection could start impacting yields.

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

“The number one thing as always is farmers want to be paying down debt,” Davis says. “Equipment is going to continue to be in a trough, and my expectation is that tractor sales year over year are still going to be 10 to 15% lower this year versus last year.”

He also foresees a continued transition to generic crop chemicals for the next two years.

Davis makes a distinction regarding which farms could survive this pinch on profitability. He describes a “tale of two economies” where disciplined farms with high liquidity can still find financing to grow, while those who grew aggressively at the peak of the cycle are facing a “pullback” from lenders. This adds a layer of nuance to the “commercial viability” discussion.

Langemeier provides a sobering warning about how farmers are managing the third year of low margins. He notes a trend of farmers starting to borrow against their land (non-current debt) to cover operating expenses — a pattern seen during the 2014 to 2019 downturn. He emphasizes the urgent need for “contingency planning” and a “Plan B” for debt repayment this fall.

“Usually, farms will try to cover their owner withdrawals and repay debt before they even think about making down payments on machinery. Capital expenditures always get squeezed when cash flow is tight. That’s just the way it works. We’re in one of those situations where capital expenditures are just going to be lower, primarily machinery and buildings,” Langemeier says.

The Next Guatemala? USMEF Sees Massive Upside for U.S. Beef and Pork in Ecuador

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 19:22:33 GMT

Ecuador recently became the ninth country to sign an agreement on reciprocal trade with the U.S. And while it will take some time to implement, once in place, the deal will greatly expand opportunities for U.S. beef and pork in Ecuador, according to U.S. Meat Export Federation Vice President for Economic Analysis Erin Borror.

Tariffs of 20% on beef and 45% on pork are mostly phased out, although there are exceptions on pork.
A 30% tariff on processed pork products which will remain in place.
The agreement recognizes all USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspected facilities as eligible for export to Ecuador, removing the need for individual facility approvals.

“The tariff on beef is basically 20% and that’s phased to zero in the agreement over three years,” Borror explains. “For pork, tariffs of 45% are mostly phased out. There are some exceptions on further processed products and sausages that will see tariffs remain at 30%.”

Borror says one of the key wins in these reciprocal trade agreements is getting countries to recognize FSIS, the U.S. food safety authority, as the competent authority.

“They will recognize all FSIS-inspected facilities as eligible to export, rather than going through onerous questionnaires, plant-by-plant audits and maintaining plant lists which have gotten to be unmanageable,” she says.

Borror expects export growth to be similar to what was seen in Guatemala after passage of the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

“Both of those countries have a population of close to 18 million people,” she says. “Their GDP per capita is somewhere close to $7,000, so very similar. And if we take Guatemala, U.S. beef export growth from 2006 to 2025, saw growth from $3 million to $105 million. For pork, the market went from $10 million to $148 million.”

In 2025, the U.S. exported virtually no pork to Ecuador and only $3 million in beef. She says there is great potential in Ecuador.

Reciprocity and Balance: The New Blueprint for U.S. Agricultural Trade Agreements

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:01:54 GMT

Ambassador Julie Callahan is the chief ag negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative, and she reports positive momentum toward rebuilding trade agreements equating to a positive U.S. ag trade balance.

“We came into a situation in January 2025 where the US ag trade deficit was ballooning in a really unsustainable manner,” she says.

At the beginning of 2025, USDA forecasted a $50 billion deficit for U.S. agricultral trade.

“Compare that to an agricultural trade surplus in 2020 when President Trump left office, of a $6 billion surplus. So we were $56 billion in the hole, you might say, at the beginning of the administration, but through the efforts of the president ensuring trading partners understand they need to treat U.S. farmers and ranchers right, we are seeing real shifts in our trade balance and chipping away at the deficit toward a surplus.”

Trade Wins Highlighted by Government Officials

Callahan points to eight signed trade agreements with: Malaysia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Bangladesh, Taiwan and Indonesia. She says these are binding agreements, where the foreign governments are:

lowering tariffs for U.S. ag products
removing unfair trade practices
and lifting regulatory barriers

“These are serious binding trade agreements that will deliver real value for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says. And when asked if Congressional action to codify agreements is necessary, Callahan says that action would be supported but should not be necessary.

“These foreign governments have made binding commitments in terms of adjusting tariff schedules, they are also making regulatory changes. USTR will be enforcing these agreements. They are enforceable.”

Examples of enforceable commitments include:

Indonesia removes its import licensing requirements
Malaysia accepts facilities on their registration list as long as FSIS has them on their list

The Future of the U.S./China Trade Relationship

At the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Lyu Jiang, minister for economic and commercial affairs at the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., characterized the U.S. and Chinese relationship being a phase of stabilization.

When prompted to react, Callahan agreed saying, “We very much want a stable, predictable, transactional relationship with our Chinese counterparts. We do want to normalize, bring reciprocity and balance back to our trade relationship and ensure that U.S. farmers, and ranchers can benefit from the Chinese market again.”

She says her office is balancing the agricultural stakeholders wanting access to the large-scale Chinese market with a strategy to also diversify trade partnerships as to not be too reliant on a single country.

“We are working through the agreement on reciprocal trade to diversify our markets so we don’t overly rely on China,” she says. “We are looking to address that very serious situation where China may see agriculture as a pain point for the United States.”

With the upcoming meeting of President Trump and President Xi in April, Callahan says her team and the larger U.S. trade team is working to prepare and set the stage for a positive outcome. Callahan points to specific issues to be worked through and market focuses spanning crops and livestock.

“Both sides want the meetings to be a success,” she says. “Certainly, in the meetings leading up to the president level discussion, we will be having open and frank conversations with China where we need to see areas of improvement. That’s not limited to soybeans to sorghum. Our beef producers don’t have access to China due to China’s unfortunate actions that are not renewing facility registrations.”

The Review of USMCA

With a goal of “reciprocity and balance across north America” the trade team is working on its review of the North American trade deal.

“We absolutely understand the importance of USMCA for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says.

Describing this as a “comprehensive review” she says that spans:

Look at what is working
Maintain what is working
Improve on areas not be delivering the benefits U.S. farmers and ranchers expect

She brings up the overall trade balance with Canada and specifically, Canadian dairy.

“With Canada, we went from a $3 billion deficit in 2020 and now we have an $11 billion ag trade deficit. So there are certainly areas for improvement, and we’re taking all of our stakeholders’ comments into consideration,” Callahan says.

The Corn Fed Advantage? What’s Really Driving Growing Global Demand for U.S. Beef

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 20:54:14 GMT

Final 2025 export numbers are in, and while U.S. beef exports reflected the realities of tighter cattle supplies and lost access to China, the broader global demand story remains historically strong, according to Dan Halstrom, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation.

Speaking during Commodity Classic, Halstrom detailed not only where exports landed in 2025, but what the numbers mean for cattle producers, grain farmers and the industry’s outlook in 2026 as the United States’ ability to supply high-quality corn-fed beef is feeding some of that growth in demand.

2025 Beef Numbers: China Drives the Decline

Looking back at 2025, Halstrom says most of the anticipated decline in beef exports materialized due to tight cattle supplies. But the magnitude of the drop largely centered on one country.

“Looking at the beef side, yeah, we’re down about 10%, 11%,” he says. “But majority of that is China.”
Halstrom says if you take out China, beef demand is steady compared to 2024, which was a historic year.
The issue with China traces back to last April, when China did not renew export registrations for approximately 400 U.S. beef establishments.

“Unfortunately, that was implemented, the ban on the establishments, or they didn’t renew the establishments last April, and that’s the primary reason we’re down,” Halstrom explains.

However, he was quick to point out that removing China from the equation changes the narrative significantly.
“So you take China out of the mix, our value is steady with a year ago, and we’re only down a couple percent on volume,” he says. “So I think that’s the real story here.”

While regaining access to China remains a priority, and could be a topic of discussion when China and the U.S. are poised to hold trade talks in April, Halstrom says the broader global marketplace is performing at exceptionally high levels.

“Obviously, it’s a real priority to try to get China back going again and it’s top of USTR’s list,” he says. “But the real story is that the rest of the world demand is record-breaking and it is really performing.”

With a potential meeting planned between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in early April, Halstrom said he is cautiously optimistic.

“Well, I’m optimistic it will be, yes,” he said when asked whether trade would be part of the discussion. “Because, in my opinion, this is a political thing.”

He adds that from an administrative standpoint, restoring plant listings could be straightforward.
“The actual relisting of 400 establishments is relatively easy, if they choose to do it, in my opinion, from what we’ve heard,” Halstrom says. “So a momentous event like Trump and Xi spending a few days together, as it is planned in early April, could potentially be a breakthrough moment — and at least the first step in a breakthrough.”

Demand is “As Good As I’ve Ever Seen It”

Even without China fully active, Halstrom repeatedly returned to one theme: demand.

“Demand is not a problem,” he said. “The under-supply of cattle is a problem, we all know that, but demand is as good as I’ve ever seen it.”

He pointed to emerging shifts in buyer behavior, particularly in Latin America.

“There’s markets like Guatemala, Central America, even Mexico, that are demanding Choice and higher-graded beef from the U.S.,” he said. “That didn’t use to five to 10 years ago.”

The scale of the shift is notable given current price levels, according to Halstrom.

“Who would have thought that I would never have thought a place like Guatemala would be demanding Prime beef from the U.S. when the cutout for Choice is $360 and higher,” Halstrom says “It’s unbelievable what’s going on.”

After more than four decades in the meat export business, he described the current environment as unprecedented.

“I’ve been in this business now 43, 44th year,” he says. “We’re in an unprecedented area of demand for our product.”

The Corn-Fed Advantage

Halstrom attributed much of that sustained global interest to the unique characteristics of U.S. production.

“A lot of it is the corn-fed product that creates this marbling and this rich taste,” he says. “Nobody else in the world can copy it.”

That differentiation continues to allow U.S. beef to compete at premium price levels, even in developing markets that historically prioritized lower-cost protein options.

Corn and Soybean Growers Aren’t Just Exporting Grain

During Commodity Classic this week, Halstrom emphasized the measurable return meat exports generate for crop producers.

“We actually just finished the computations for 2025,” he says. “Every bushel of corn, $0.58 per bushel of that value is attributable to exports of U.S. pork and beef.”

The soybean impact was even more striking.

“On the soybean side, it was a little over $1 a bushel, just attributable to pork exports,” Halstrom says.
Halstrom says U.S. grain producers aren’t just exporting grain. They’re also exporting meat.

The 2026 Wild Card

Asked what single factor he is watching most closely in 2026, Halstrom again circled back to demand.
“Demand,” he says. “Demand is as good as I’ve ever seen.”

With historically tight cattle supplies likely to persist, maintaining that appetite at elevated price levels will be critical.

“It’s really hard to explain unless you’ve seen it,” Halstrom said of the current export climate. “It’s unbelievable what’s going on.”

If demand continues at today’s pace, and if China reenters the market, the ripple effects could extend well beyond the beef complex, reinforcing value throughout the feed and grain sectors once again.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Use of Emergency Powers for Trump's Tariffs

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:32:48 GMT

In a landmark ruling with major implications for U.S. trade and agriculture, the Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. The 6-3 decision confirms that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president authority to issue broad import duties.

The Supreme Court case known as “Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump” is an end to a legal battle that started nearly a year ago. The tariffs at issue, which were originally imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were first challenged in court in April 2025 when companies, including educational toy makers Learning Resources and hand2mind, sued in federal court shortly after the duties were announced. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump the court ruled, “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”

“IEEPA gives the president significant authority over transactions involving foreign property, including the importation of goods. But in that generous delegation, one power is conspicuously missing,” said the decision. “Nothing in IEEPA’s text, nor anything in its context, enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. And needless to say, without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.”

The Court’s ruling on Friday has major implications.

Initially, grain futures weakened after the ruling. Soybeans turned lower on fears the decision takes away a key bargaining chip ahead of Trump’s April meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, raising questions about whether Beijing will follow through on additional soybean purchases. The ruling, however, could be supportive in the event it prompts China to drop its tariff on U.S. soybean imports.

Stocks rallied, with major U.S. indexes extending gains after the ruling, while Treasury yields jumped and the U.S. dollar weakened against major rivals.

The decision is a blow to President Trump’s economic agenda. The president imposed what he called reciprocal tariffs on several countries in April 2025, calling trade deficits a national emergency.

What This Means for Trump’s Tariffs

Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, had previously struck down these tariffs as exceeding executive authority. The Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, which means tariffs imposed solely under IEEPA now lack a valid legal foundation. Importers could see injunctions halting collections, and companies that already paid duties may seek refunds, potentially putting billions of dollars of federal revenue at risk.

But not all Trump-era tariffs are affected. Duties imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which are deemed as national security tariffs, as well as the ones under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which are China-related tariffs, rely on separate statutory authority and remain intact unless challenged independently.

What This Means for Farmers, Agriculture and the Future of Trade

For agriculture, the ruling adds uncertainty to future trade leverage strategies. Many farm groups have viewed tariffs as both a negotiating tool and a source of retaliation risk.

The Court’s decision reinforces separation-of-powers limits, signaling that major shifts in tariff policy must originate in Congress, not through broad interpretations of emergency statutes.

Now that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs has been struck down as exceeding executive authority, tariffs based solely on that law are unlikely to stand without congressional approval, while those enacted under other trade statutes remain in place, for now.

The ruling narrows presidential flexibility on trade and could reshape how future administrations approach tariff policy.

President Trump Reacts By Announcing New Tariffs

Speaking later in the day on Friday, President Trump announced he would issue a new 10% “global tariff,” while also arguing the Court’s decision limited one tool but clarified others, claiming the justices had effectively strengthened presidential trade authority by narrowing the scope of IEEPA rather than tariffs themselves.

In a swift response to the high court’s decision, Trump announced Friday that he will sign an executive order imposing a new 10% “global tariff,” just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down his sweeping “reciprocal” import duties in a 6-3 ruling.

The new tariffs will be invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and layered on top of other levies that remain in place following the court’s decision. Speaking during a White House press briefing, Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” for lacking “the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

The court’s ruling invalidated the legal foundation underpinning many of the tariffs Trump has argued are essential to strengthening the U.S. economy and rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. Despite the setback, Trump signaled he will pursue alternative avenues to maintain and expand tariffs without congressional approval.

“I don’t have to,” Trump said when asked why he would not work with lawmakers. “I have the right to do tariffs.”

His remarks grew increasingly pointed, including criticism of Justices he nominated who joined the majority. Trump said he believed their decision was “terrible” and “an embarrassment,” underscoring his frustration with the outcome.

Tariffs imposed under Section 122 can remain in effect for up to 150 days. Any extension beyond that period would require approval from Congress.

Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs

Farmers for Free Trade quickly weighed in following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the President’s authority to impose global tariffs under IEEPA.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward restoring predictability and the rule of law in American trade policy,” says Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade. “Tariffs imposed under IEEPA have been devastating for American farmers, driving up costs for inputs like fertilizer, equipment, and parts while triggering retaliatory tariffs that cut off critical export markets. Farmers have been caught in the crossfire, paying more for what they need while losing access to the customers they depend on.”

Kuehl notes while the ruling removes one source of uncertainty, concerns remain that new tariffs could be imposed through other legal avenues.

“Any new approach would likely invite the same retaliation from our trading partners that has already caused so much damage to American farmers. Tariffs hurt farmers on both ends, raising what they pay and reducing where they can sell,” he says.

The priority should now be stabilizing trade relationships and expanding market access for U.S. agricultural products, Kuehl adds, urging the administration to work with Congress on comprehensive trade solutions that “open markets rather than close them.”

According to Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economics at Fitch Ratings, the Court’s ruling is a material rollback because more than 60% of the 2025 tariffs effectively vanish. The U.S. effective tariff rate drops from about 13% to around 6%, removing more than $200 billion in expected annual tariff collections.

“Call it Liberation Day 2.0 — arguably the first one with tangible upside for U.S. consumers and corporate profitability,” he says. “However, the bigger macro takeaway is not just ‘lower tariffs,’ but ‘higher tariff-regime uncertainty.’ The odds that tariffs reappear in a revised form remain meaningful. Layer on potential tariff refunds, and you introduce a messy operational and legal overhang that amplifies economic uncertainty.”

In response to the ruling, the American Soybean Association (ASA) issued the following statement from Scott Metzger, ASA President and Ohio farmer: “The case at the Supreme Court has been closely followed by soybean farmers who have seen the cost of inputs rise over the past year due to tariffs. U.S. soybean growers are reliant upon imports for critical farming tools like fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and agriculture equipment. Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally. Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress to strengthen market opportunities and support a stable farm economy for generations to come.”

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying the limits of IEEPA and reaffirming that broad, country-specific tariffs fall outside its intended scope.

“While targeted tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt instrument can disrupt markets, raise consumer costs, and place unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain,” IFPA said in a statement. “IFPA does not believe tariffs should be used as a default response to every trade concern facing the United States, nor should this ruling simply prompt a shift to other tariff authorities. Instead, IFPA hopes this ruling allows policymakers to move beyond broad tariff actions and continue working toward lower trade barriers that ensure affordable access to fresh produce and floral products.

“While tariffs have been one challenge for the fresh produce and floral sectors, IFPA appreciates the administration’s commitment to easing regulatory burdens and supporting American agriculture and looks forward to working with policymakers on long-term solutions — such as equitable trade agreements, regulatory reform and workforce stability — that strengthen food security and ensure affordable, accessible produce for all families.”

What Now? Exploring Alternatives to IEEPA Tariffs

While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes the legal foundation for tariffs imposed under IEEPA, it does not mean U.S. import duties are going away anytime soon. According to a recent op-ed , President Trump still has options when it comes to using tariffs as a tool. However, trade experts say while there are other options, statutory guardrails may limit some of the more rapid changes seen under IEEPA.

According to the recent analysis, the possible alternatives include:

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: The basis for existing China tariffs. This gives the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to target “unfair” foreign trade practices, allowing for unilateral action once investigations conclude.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Used for national security tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and other goods. Courts have been deferential to the administration’s claims, and new tariffs under this authority could generate revenue comparable to IEEPA tariffs.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Intended to address balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges or quotas. While the statute has never been used for this purpose, it allows short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent, which could be reimposed in cycles without a congressional vote, though this strategy would likely face legal challenges.

As the op-ed points out, the Supreme Court ruling eliminates one controversial path for tariffs, but Washington still has multiple avenues to impose import duties, and legal challenges are almost certain to follow any new moves.

A Trade Win for Beef and Pork: U.S. and Taiwan Sign Agreement on Reciprocal Trade

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:31:22 GMT

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the signing of an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade between the United States and Taiwan that includes significant market access gains for U.S. red meat.

“The Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with Taiwan will eliminate tariff and nontariff barriers facing U.S. exports to Taiwan, furthering opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, fishermen, workers, small businesses and manufacturers,” Ambassador Jamieson Greer said . “This agreement also builds on our longstanding economic and trade relationship with Taiwan and will significantly enhance the resilience of our supply chains, particularly in high-technology sectors.”

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins praised the agreement on X, saying this will open up real markets and boost opportunities for rural communities.

New trade deal with our partner, Taiwan!
🇺🇸🤝🇹🇼

THANK YOU @POTUS and @USTradeRep. Under the new U.S.–Taiwan Reciprocal Trade Agreement, Taiwan is cutting or eliminating tariffs on nearly all U.S. agricultural exports — from animal protein like beef, pork, and dairy to corn,… https://t.co/44xmlzP04o
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) February 13, 2026

U.S. Beef’s Potential to Grow Export Opportunities
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says this will strengthen one of the most important and fastest-growing markets for U.S. beef. Taiwan is the fifth largest market for U.S. beef, with exports valued at about $650 million, and the U.S. is the largest supplier of beef to Taiwan.

“There is still potential for further growth with the increased access for all U.S. beef products, including those in high demand for yakiniku barbecue and trendy burger concepts,” U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) said. “The elimination of tariffs on U.S. beef will definitely improve our competitiveness.”

Foreign markets play a critical role in producer profitability with beef exports accounting for more than $415 per fed cattle processed in 2024, NCBA President Gene Copenhaver explained.

“Strong, science-based trade agreements are essential to adding value for U.S. cattle producers, and Taiwan has emerged as one of the strongest international markets for U.S. beef,” Copenhaver said. “Duty-free access improves competitiveness and provides long-term certainty for producers who depend on export markets to maximize the value of every animal. American cattle producers look forward to this expanded market access for years to come thanks to the work of President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer.”

Securing Greater Market Access for U.S. Pork
It’s also a step forward for the U.S. pork industry as U.S. pork has been “widely disadvantaged in Taiwan,” USMEF said. The EU and Canada currently dominate Taiwan’s pork imports.

“USMEF is optimistic that reducing both tariffs and nontariff barriers will help enable larger U.S. pork exports to Taiwan, as USMEF remains focused on regaining Taiwanese consumer trust in U.S. pork,” USMEF said.

Organizations say this trade deal reinforces science-based standards consistent with the World Organization for Animal Health and Codex Alimentarius.

“I would like to thank President Trump and Ambassadors Greer and Callahan for their hard work,” said Lori Stevermer, a Minnesota pig farmer. “This agreement stands to boost U.S. pork exports by cutting tariffs in half. It also requires Taiwan to follow maximum residue levels (MRLs) set by Codex for ractopamine in pork fat, kidney, liver and muscle. While not always as obvious as a tariff reduction, by accepting USDA FSIS inspections, audits and export certificates, this agreement reduces the nontariff barriers we face and allows opportunities for more plants to export pork. Overall, U.S. pig farmers will have greater market access to a country that loves pork and that’s good for our farms and businesses.”

Additionally, within six months Taiwan must recognize the African swine fever protection zone established by the U.S.

“Our 15-plus year endeavor to break down trade barriers in the high-value market of Taiwan has paid off,” said NPPC president Duane Stateler, an Ohio pork producer. “This means more U.S. pork on international tables and more opportunities and prosperity for American producers.”

Read the Fact Sheet on U.S.-Taiwan Agreement on Reciprocal Trade

2026 Beef Economics: How Global Trade is a Fast Moving Lever

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:16:57 GMT

In part 1 of my 2026 beef economy series, we focused on domestic supply: fewer cattle, fewer pounds and the cattle cycle still doing cattle cycle things. In part 2, we will focus on trade, and this is where 2026 gets jumpy. Trade is a fast-moving lever in the beef complex. It can swing packer profitability, cattle prices and consumer affordability long before the domestic herd can respond.

Here’s the framework:

Imports are the pressure-release valve for ground beef and, in tight years, a quiet support beam for beef affordability.
Exports are the carcass value engine, especially for items the U.S. consumer does not consistently bid up (hello, variety meats).
Currency and policy are the accelerants that turn normal market movement into a bar fight.

The cattle inventory report just made imports more important

The latest USDA NASS cattle inventory report (Jan. 30, 2026) is a clean reminder that domestic supply is not expanding fast enough to bail anyone out in 2026.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

Key Statistics:

Total cattle and calves: 86.2 million head (Jan 1, 2026).
All cows and heifers that have calved: 37.2 million head.
Beef cows: 27.6 million head, down 1% year over year.
Calf crop (2025): 32.9 million head, down 2%.
All cattle on feed: 13.8 million head, down 3%.
Also worth noting: beef replacement heifers were reported up 1% to 4.71 million head (early hint of intent, not proof of a rebuild, yet).

Here’s why that is bullish imports.

A smaller beef cow herd and a smaller calf crop keep the domestic supply base tight. Tight domestic supply does two things at once:

It keeps more pressure on lean availability over time, which increases reliance on imported lean trim to keep ground beef moving.
It makes the U.S. more willing to pull imported product to fill gaps and protect retail sets, especially when consumers trade down.

“Bullish imports” does not mean imports are cheap. It means the need for imports increases when domestic supply stays tight.

The 2026 trade direction: higher imports, lower exports

The USDA ERS baseline for 2026 is still pointing to more imports and fewer exports.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

2026 beef imports forecast: 5.525 billion lb. (up from 2025).
2026 beef exports forecast: 2.425 billion lb. (down from 2025).

That is the setup:

More imports can cool the grind and help affordability.
Lower exports can take air out of carcass value and increase competition for product placement at home.

Imports: the grind pressure valve, and a backstop for affordability

In 2026, imports you care about most are:

Lean trim and manufacturing beef for ground beef pricing and availability.
Some primal/subprimal imports that help retailers/foodservice maintain price points and promotional flow when domestic product gets too expensive.
Live cattle flows (Mexico and Canada), because when live movement changes, regional supply gets weird fast.

The USDA FAS global outlook supports this direction: U.S. beef imports are forecast up in 2026 as the U.S. works through tight domestic supplies, including reduced cow and bull slaughter as the cycle shifts.

That is the “imports are bullish” logic tied directly to the cattle report. If the domestic herd is not adding supply, imports do more of the balancing.

Exports: the packers carcass optimization engine

This is where the domestic narrative often misses the point.

Exports are not just about ribeyes to rich people. A meaningful chunk of export value is in items that clear better overseas than they do at home.

Beef variety meats and specialty cuts have been a material contributor to export volume and revenue in recent years. If exports soften, it is not only “less volume.” It is a mix problem and a value problem, which shows up in carcass value and ultimately in packer margin.

Now combine that with where U.S. exports actually matter most: Japan, South Korea, and China are core destinations, with Mexico and Canada always in the conversation. These trade partners are vital to the packers success, as they largely consumer what the U.S. consumer doesn’t.

So if policy restrictions and tariffs intensify, the export engine does not stop, but it gets more competitive and less profitable.

The volatility drivers that will matter most in 2026

You don’t need a long list. In 2026, the big three are enough to move markets, margins, and consumer affordability in a hurry.

1. Tariffs and trade policy
Tariffs are not an abstract geopolitical talking point. They are a cost input.

When a tariff hits imported beef or imported inputs, the cost shows up first at the importer, then gets pushed through the chain. That matters in 2026 because imports are one of the key tools to cap grind inflation and protect beef affordability in a tight domestic supply year.

Compounding effects of multi-national tariffs will create more trade volatility in 2026. As China imposed a lower quota on imports of beef, this could shift more imports from Australia and Brazil into the U.S. If the U.S. were to change policy on tariffs, it could change the trajectory once again.

2. Currency
Currency is the quiet multiplier.

(The Big Bad Packer)

A stronger U.S. dollar generally:

Makes U.S. beef less competitive in export channels
Makes imported beef more attractive into the U.S. market

A weaker dollar generally does the opposite.

In a year like 2026, when domestic supply is tight, currency can shift the balance fast. It can change whether exports clear cleanly, whether imports show up quickly, and whether packers get enough help from trade to keep the carcass moving without margin bleeding even more.

3. Mexican cattle imports and border flow risk
If you want a volatility lever that can reprice regional supply, this is it.

Live cattle flows from Mexico are not just a footnote. When those flows change, the impact is strong:

Regional cattle availability shifts
Plant procurement gets tighter or looser depending on location
Cow and grind economics can move because the system is already tight

In 2026, this is a real risk category because border actions, animal health protocols and enforcement can change quickly. Even without a full shutdown, added friction at the border can slow movement and create the same effect as a supply shock in the regions that rely on those cattle.

That is why Mexican cattle imports belong in the “big three.” It’s not because they drive the entire U.S. supply curve. It’s because they drive volatility when the overall system has no slack.

Tariffs and affordability: the 96% reality check

Here’s the part that should get more airtime in beef circles, because it connects directly to affordability.

New research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that U.S. importers and consumers bear about 96% of the tariff burden, with foreign exporters absorbing only about 4%.

Why this matters in beef trade:

When out-of-quota tariffs or broader tariff actions hit imported beef, it behaves like a consumption tax.
It raises the cost basis for imported product.
And those costs tend to get passed through, which makes beef affordability harder for the consumer, not easier.

So in 2026, imports may be bullish in volume and necessity, but tariffs can still make them an expensive form of relief.

2026 Global Trade Watchlist

Weekly import pace and pricing for lean trim and manufacturing beef
Live cattle flow changes tied to SPS and animal health actions
Currency moves that change export competitiveness and import appetite
Any new tariff actions, plus the pass-through reality that importers and consumers bear most of the cost

Trade conclusion: 2026 is a margin year, and trade is a major lever

Trade volatility in 2026 will be a major swing factor in:

Packer profitability (carcass value and placement options)
Cow prices and grind economics (lean availability and import cost)
Consumer affordability (whether imported relief is available and affordable)

The cattle inventory report tells you the domestic supply base stays tight. That makes the U.S. more reliant on imports for balance. But policy and tariff realities tell you that “reliant” does not mean “cheap.”

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Trump Signs Executive Order Quadrupling Beef Imports from Argentina to Keep Ground Beef Affordable

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 22:39:04 GMT

In a move aimed at easing pressure on U.S. beef supplies and keeping prices in check for consumers, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Feb. 6, 2026, temporarily quadrupling imports of lean beef trimmings from Argentina under the U.S. tariff-rate quota (TRQ).

The action comes as USDA confirmed just last week the U.S. cattle herd is now at a 75-year low . Not only are producers showing no signs of herd rebuilding, the White House says low cattle supplies can be attributed to droughts and wildfires in 2022 that impacted key U.S. cattle-producing states, including Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, which have constrained domestic beef production.

Compounding the supply challenges are restrictions on cattle imports from Mexico following detections of the New World screwworm have limited feedlot stocks, contributing to a record-low U.S. cattle herd.

“As President, I have a responsibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can afford to feed themselves and their families,” the proclamation states. “To increase the supply of ground beef for U.S. consumers, I am taking action to temporarily increase the quantity of in-quota imports of lean beef trimmings under the U.S. beef TRQ.”

The proclamation authorizes an 80,000 metric ton increase in in-quota lean beef trimmings imports for 2026, which will be allocated entirely to Argentina. The additional beef will be distributed in four quarterly tranches of 20,000 metric tons each, beginning Feb. 13, 2026, and continuing through the end of the year.

Record Beef Prices Drive Action

U.S. consumers have seen beef prices climb steadily in recent years, with ground beef reaching an average price of $6.69 per pound in December 2025, which was the highest level recorded since the 1980s. Despite higher prices and the availability of alternative proteins, demand for beef remains strong, prompting record beef imports of 4.64 billion pounds in 2024, a 24% increase over the previous year.

But this is not the first time President Trump has proposed measures to address rising beef costs. In October 2025, he told reporters at the White House, “We are working on beef, and I think we have a deal on beef. The price of beef is higher than we want it, and that’s going to be coming down pretty soon too. We did something,” without elaborating.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) responded at the time with a strong warning, criticizing the President’s approach. NCBA CEO Colin Woodall says. the plan risked “damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

He emphasizes concerns about trade imbalances, the risk of introducing foreign animal diseases from Argentina, and the importance of focusing on domestic solutions such as New World screwworm facilities, regulatory reforms, and disease prevention programs.

The Trump administration, however, argues the current import expansion is a necessary response to natural disasters and market disruptions that have reduced domestic beef supply. The administration will continue monitoring supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures that may be necessary to ensure stable beef prices for American families.

This proclamation highlights ongoing challenges facing U.S. cattle producers, including climate-related disruptions, disease risks, and supply chain pressures, while signaling the administration’s willingness to leverage international trade to stabilize consumer costs.

Are Beef Prices Too High? Consumer Demand Signals No

Since the president’s initial comments in October, there’s been a debate about if beef prices are too high. Oklahoma State extension livestock specialist Derrell Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Terrain’s Don Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Economists Weigh In: Can Beef Prices Be Lowered Without Harming Producers?

In October, Trump’s initial comments tanked the cattle market. To better understand whether retail beef prices can be reduced without affecting cattle markets, Farm Journal spoke with two economists and livestock market experts. When asked if there’s a way to lower beef prices without impacting cattle futures, both economists say the short answer is, “no.”

“Simple answer is no,” says Close. “I would add to that that when we look at beef prices in relationship to the other proteins, I would absolutely say that pork and broilers have been a beneficiary of the record high beef prices. No doubt. But they are not yet to a point that they are a detriment to beef prices; beef is still gaining market share relative to other proteins.”

David Anderson, extension livestock economist at Texas A&M, echoed that perspective. “I think it’s a great, interesting question, but from the ranch to wholesale beef to retail beef, these prices are all related,” Anderson says. “If it was possible to do something that actually brought down retail prices to consumers, it’s going to have an effect upstream, downstream, however you want to call that. But even then, I’m not sure there’s much you can do to bring down retail prices. We’ve got a product that’s in demand. Even though we look at our nominal retail beef prices that are record high, I think that for consumers, beef delivers value for the money and they’re going to keep buying. That and tighter supplies is a recipe for higher prices. People continue to buy. There’s a bunch of big trends there, heck, let’s eat more protein, you know, and that helps the whole meat complex: beef, dairy, eggs, beans, you name it. So while this supports cattle prices, it also means there’s not a whole lot you can do to bring down beef prices significantly.”

New U.S.-Argentina Trade Deal Sets Stage For President Trump’s Latest Proclamation

The move this week follows a new trade and investment agreement between the United States and Argentina, signed earlier this week by USTR Jamieson Greer and Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno. The agreement provides preferential market access for U.S. goods, eliminates or reduces tariffs on a wide range of products, and enhances cooperation on economic and national security issues.

On agriculture, Argentina has agreed to open its market to U.S. poultry and poultry products within a year and simplify export regulations for U.S. beef and pork. The agreement also requires Argentina to accept U.S. food safety and regulatory standards for meat and poultry, while prohibiting restrictions on U.S. use of certain cheese names, such as asiago, feta, or camembert.

USTR officials said the deal will also enhance cooperation on export controls for sensitive items, protect telecommunications infrastructure, and prevent digital trade barriers that could affect U.S. tech companies. Although China is not mentioned in the text, the agreement is designed to strengthen U.S.-Argentina coordination in addressing unfair trade practices from third countries.

What’s Ahead?

The Trump administration will continue monitoring domestic beef supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures necessary to maintain affordable prices for American consumers. While some in the cattle industry remain cautious about importing Argentinian beef, the administration frames the decision as a short-term solution to natural disasters and market disruptions that have tightened domestic beef availability.

USDA Trade Team Returns from Malaysia with a Focus on These Key Ag Products

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:25 GMT

As a follow up to the Oct. 26, 2025, trade deal announced by President Donald Trump, the USDA trade team just returned from a recent Trade Reciprocity for U.S. Manufacturers and Producers (TRUMP) mission.

Luke Lindberg, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, says there were good, productive meetings toward elevating the relationship between the U.S. and Malaysia, which ranks as the 26^th largest ag trade market.

“These TRUMP missions were one of the aspects of [Agriculture] Secretary [Brooke] Rollins’ and my three-point plan to really ramp up U.S. agricultural exports. So, the president’s done a tremendous job of negotiating these new agreements around the world, and our job is to get on the ground with farmers, with U.S. agribusinesses, and start to make deals happen,” Lindberg says. “The analogy I’ve been using is the president is opening the door, and it’s our job to drive a bus through it.”

The trip to Malaysia had a delegation of 16 agribusinesses and trade associations. In recent years, the biggest U.S. agricultural exports to Malaysia have been soybeans, dairy products, cotton, vegetables and nuts.

“The whole barnyard kind of came with us this time around, because one of the things that the U.S. trade representative’s team and we did with USDA and the White House was we actually got Malaysia to agree that the U.S. food system is safe, and that’s in the language of the agreement,” he says.

Of the specific categories he shared, there was progress on many fronts including:

Soybeans — In 2024, Malaysia imported almost 452 metric tons of U.S. soybeans. Lindberg says U.S. leaders met with the largest soy crush facility, and he sees opportunities for growth.
Dairy — In total for 2024, Malaysia imported $118 million in dairy products. “We’ve seen a tremendous increase in dairy access and opportunities there, 23% growth this past year for dairy,” Lindberg says.
Ethanol — “We had a great conversation around ethanol opportunities,” Lindberg says. “Malaysia is a regional distributor of fuels, and so working ethanol into the fuel supply chain that can really spread throughout the ASEAN region, a lot of good opportunities out there.”
Beef — “We visited a very successful restaurant group in Malaysia that’s been begging for U.S. beef for a long time,” Lindberg says. “They’ve actually invested in a beef processing plant in the United States to get their beef halal certified so that they’re ready to go for when the actual duties shift and the regulations come into full force.”

Lindberg says a key tenant of the trade deal is to reduce or eliminate all tariffs.

“A lot of our producer groups haven’t been able to compete on a level playing field in Malaysia in the past, and now they have that access and that opportunity,” he explains. “When our groups can compete on a level playing field, I think we win more often than we lose.”

Next steps include a Malaysian delegation visiting Washington, D.C., next week.

“We’re marching forward here with a great opportunity on the horizon. I think it’s progressing nicely,” Lindberg says. “These rapid-response missions are largely driven by building these kind of new opportunities that really didn’t exist yesterday and exist today. In the next couple months, we’ll see full implementation of the deal, and that’ll really be the access-opening opportunity for our producers.”

Looking ahead this year, Lindberg says the USDA trade team is “hyperfocused” on fixing the agricultural trade deficit. With 2026 agribusiness trade missions announced for Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Australia and New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, he highlights time spent in Southeast Asia is a strategy to build trade in a region with growing GDP and positive consumption trends for U.S. agricultural goods.

“It’s going to be a dynamic year for U.S. trade,” Lindberg says. “I keep saying to folks: Trade agreements are great, but sales are the goal.”

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:40 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

These Half-Dozen U.S. Ag Trade Missions Aim To Diversify Global Demand

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:46:09 GMT

Trump’s USDA team has announced its agribusiness trade missions for the year ahead.

“Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products,” says Luke Lindberg, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs.

Lindberg points to a three-point plan Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ team is deploying:

Get better trade agreements.
Build willing buyer and willing seller relationships.
Hold trading partners accountable.

According to Lindberg, the goal is it “helps to cultivate, it helps to diversify, so we’re not solely focused on one or two key buyers. I think if you go to many business owners and ask them, would you rather have one buyer that buys 80% of your products or would you rather have some diversification to lots of buyers who have ups and downs of their own, I think many of them would say they prefer the diversification model.”

So far, six agribusiness trade missions have been announced for 2026 with the goal of growing global markets, increasing exports and strengthening the agricultural economy.

The six mission destinations, and potential agricultural focus areas, include the following.

1. February 2026, Jakarta, Indonesia

Since 2020, annual U.S. ag exports to Indonesia have hovered between $2.75 billion and $3.25 billion. Overall, it’s the 11^th largest trade partner for U.S. ag goods.

Indonesia is the fourth-largest market for U.S. soybeans following China, the European Union and Mexico. According to U.S. Census Bureau trade data, in 2024 Indonesia imported from the U.S. $1.2 billion in soybeans, $198 million in wheat and $139 million in cotton. This past July, the Indonesia private sector and the U.S. wheat industry signed a memorandum committing to purchasing at least 1 million metric tons of U.S. wheat between 2026 and 2030 plus a minimum of 800,000 metric tons of wheat in 2025 (prorated).

The Trump administration has worked to address long-standing barriers to U.S. agricultural trade and expanding market access into Indonesia with a trade agreement eliminating tariffs on more than 99% of U.S. products.

2. April 2026, Manila, Philippines

U.S. ag exports to the Philippines have more than doubled since 2010. In 2024, the total value was $3.5 billion, making it the ninth-largest customer for U.S. ag trade.

With limited domestic production, the Philippines imports nearly all of its dairy products, and specifically $365 million comes from the U.S. Poultry exports to the Philippines totaled $187 million, with a majority of that in frozen chicken leg quarters.

The U.S. gained market share for ethanol imports into the Philippines, having doubled volumes in 2024 with a value of $138 million.

Beef and beef products are the sixth-largest group of ag products the Philippines imports from the U.S. This category has also experienced recent growth by increasing 58% from 2023 to 2024. The U.S. is second to Brazil in market share for beef imported into the Philippines.

In 2024, the Philippines imported $120 million of pork and pork products from the U.S. The country’s local supply has been declining because of African Swine Fever.

According to an announcement in July, the Trump administration said the Philippines will charge zero tariffs for U.S. exports into their market, while the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs to the U.S.

3. May 2026, Istanbul, Turkey

According to USDA analysis, Turkey has grown its strength as an importer of raw materials and then reexported finished products. This includes importing wheat for flour and cotton for apparel.

Because of its geographic location, Turkey has also grown as a strategic regional transshipment hub, connecting U.S. exporters with trade partners across the Caucasus region.

In September, Turkey lifted its retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. ag products: rice, tree nuts, distilled spirits and more. The Trump administration says a focus for the upcoming agribusiness trade mission will be to address nontariff barriers to trade, which includes import bans on U.S. animal protein.

4. August 2026, Australia and New Zealand

The Trump administration says its trade breakthroughs with Australia will give greater access to U.S. beef exporters. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is structured to give comprehensive duty-free market access.

Other protein sectors have significant trade established with Australia. In 2024, $328 million worth of U.S. pork and pork products were imported. And $173 million of U.S. dairy products were brought into the country.

New Zealand imported $520 million worth of U.S. ag goods, including: soybean meal, dairy ingredients (lactose and whey), fresh fruit and distiller’s dried grains.

5. September 2026, Saudi Arabia

This agribusiness trade mission will focus on technical issues and nontariff barriers. Saudi Arabia is the 23^rd largest ag export market for the U.S., and it is a gateway to the $3 billion market for U.S. ag goods that is the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.

Over the past 10 years, the country has increased its imports of U.S. hay by 540% to its recent total of $152 million in 2024.

Corn, tree nuts and rice are also key ag goods exported from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, totaling $239 million, $169 million and $123 million, respectively.

6. November 2026, Vietnam

USDA says this trade mission will focus on preferential access for specialty cheese and meats as well as improved market access for U.S. peaches and nectarines.

U.S. ag exports to the country peaked in 2018 at $4 billion and in 2023 were around $3.1 billion. Ranked from highest value to smallest, the top five ag products exported from the U.S. into Vietnam in 2023 were: cotton, soybeans, distillers grains, soybean meal and tree nuts.

For meat and meat products, the key prospects include frozen/chilled beef (boneless and bone-in), frozen chicken (leg quarters, legs and paws), and turkey.

Dairy could be a growth market for U.S. exports into Vietnam as nonfat dried milk powder has led the segment to total $146 million of imports in 2023. Fresh cheese (for foodservice/restaurants) is in demand by younger generations despite not being part of a traditional diet in the country.

USDA also points to fresh fruit as a growth category for the country, namely apples, cherries and grapes.

Farmers Need the Certainty Provided Under USMCA More Than Ever, Lawmakers Say

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:31:32 GMT

The benefits of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are hard to deny. Kenneth Smith Ramos, a former lead negotiator for the Mexican government who was deeply involved in the negotiation and ratification of USMCA, discussed the mutual benefits USMCA has delivered for the agricultural sectors in both the U.S. and Mexico during the recent USMEF Strategic Planning Conference. Not only has the agreement enhanced food security in both countries, but he said it has also bolstered the profitability of many agricultural sectors through free trade.

The U.S., Canada and Mexico are scheduled for a joint review of the trade agreement in July. Smith, who is now a partner in the regulatory and trade consulting firm AGON, says the possible outcomes of the USMCA review range from a very limited review to the threat of “rupture” if the agreement is reopened and the U.S. threatens to withdraw. He said he anticipates something in between, with portions of USMCA – some of which may be contentious – opened up for renegotiation.

“We see a complex USMCA review, but we do not see a scenario where there is an imminent collapse of the agreement,” Smith said during the conference. “There will be turbulence, but we do not see the plane crashing.”

Smith added that it is critical for the U.S., Mexican and Canadian agricultural sectors to remain vigilant in explaining the benefits of USMCA and the importance of maintaining it as a trilateral pact.

Much Needed Certainty

Congressional Agriculture Trade Caucus cochairs Reps. Jim Costa (D-CA), Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), and Adrian Smith (R-NE) led more than 100 members of the House of Representatives in urging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to “carefully” examine changes to USMCA.

“USMCA was truly a landmark agreement for American Agriculture when it entered force, and its positive impact on U.S. agriculture has yet to reach its maximum benefit,” the members wrote. “At a time when economic challenges threaten the livelihood of family farms, producers need the certainty provided under USMCA more than ever.”

In the Nov. 20 letter to USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer, the lawmakers said the outcome of the review should advance American agriculture and food production. They asked the trade agency to “work closely with Congress and consider the significant positive impact North American trade has on our communities. Any changes to the agreement should be carefully examined to ensure U.S. agriculture is not negatively impacted.”

Lawmakers pointed out that USMCA streamlined compliance measures and harmonized regulations, thereby generating cost savings for U.S. farmers, producers, and ranchers. In 2024, the U.S. was the world’s largest agricultural exporter, with total ag exports valued at $176 billion.

“The agriculture section of the USMCA provides much needed certainty within North America through its tough and effective rules on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, agricultural biotechnology, intellectual property, and technical barriers to trade,” the letter said. “U.S. agricultural exporters depend on the binding nature of these provisions to access our closest markets and make sales, which has directly benefited the farmers, ranchers, and producers that we represent. Further, these rules-based, science-driven commitments set a strong example for other trading partners hoping to achieve similar access to the U.S. market.”

Earlier this month, the National Pork Producers Council and more than 125 agriculture and food organizations also urged USTR to be cautious in making changes to USMCA, which they said has facilitated and streamlined the flow of commerce throughout the three countries. The positive impact USMCA has had on U.S. agriculture, they added, “has yet to reach its maximum benefit. At a time when economic challenges threaten the livelihood of family farms, producers need the certainty provided under USMCA more than ever.”

“U.S. pork producers export over 25% of their pork,” NPPC noted in Capital Update. “With Mexico and Canada as their first and fourth largest export markets, respectively, USMCA has provided continuity and removed market uncertainty in those markets.”

Gregg Doud, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation pointed out that USMCA has delivered real value for America’s dairy farmers.

“While several dairy compliance issues remain to be addressed in the 2026 Joint Review, the duty-free trade into Mexico that USMCA preserved has allowed U.S. dairy exporters to partner with Mexico to meet growing demand,” Doud said.

Read More:
No Trade Agreement Can Boast the Success of USMCA, The Meat Institute Says

U.S. Drops 40% Tariff on Brazilian Beef in New White House Executive Order

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:31:41 GMT

A White House Executive Order issued Thursday modifies the scope of earlier tariffs placed on products from Brazil, effectively removing the additional 40% duty applied to Brazilian beef. The change reverses part of a July trade action that had imposed elevated import duties on multiple categories of Brazilian goods. It’s the latest effort by the Trump administration to bring food prices down for Americans.

Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter, and its product plays a key role in filling U.S. demand, especially in processing beef and manufacturing trim. The tariff increase earlier this year had raised costs for processors and food manufacturers, tightening supply availability and contributing to price pressure.

This latest move follows an Executive Order signed on Friday that modified the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Friday EO exempted several agricultural products from tariffs , including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

What Thursday’s Executive Order Does

According to the new order, certain agricultural imports from Brazil are now exempt from the extra ad valorem tariff that had been layered on top of existing duties. Beef is among the commodities specifically impacted — meaning importers will no longer pay the higher tariff rate that had been in effect since mid-summer.

A complete list of the products that will no longer face the 40% tariff was posted online. That list includes the following beef products:

Fresh or chilled beef
Frozen beef
Edible bovine offal, fresh or chilled
Edible bovine offal, frozen
Salted, dried, smoked or brined beef

Read More: What Does Talk of $10 Ground Beef Mean to Producers?

Why the White House Lifted the Tariff

In the Executive Order, President Donald Trump specifically referenced the call he had with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Oct. 6, which he said addressed concerns in the previous Executive Order that added the additional tariffs.

“These negotiations are ongoing. I also have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14323,” said Trump in the Executive Order. “For example, in their opinion, certain agricultural imports from Brazil should no longer be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323 because, among other relevant considerations, there has been initial progress in negotiations with the Government of Brazil.”

The Executive Order went on to say: “after considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me and the status of negotiations with the Government of Brazil, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the scope of products subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323. Specifically, I have determined that certain agricultural products shall not be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323.”

Accordingly, an updated version of Annex I to Executive Order 14323 is attached to this order, which shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on Nov. 13, 2025. In my judgment, these modifications are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14323.

Background on Tariffs on Brazilian Beef

The Trump administration issued an executive order on July 30, 2025, instituting an additional ad valorem duty of 40 % on many products of Brazilian origin. That 40% duty was in addition to an existing 10% tariff under a separate “reciprocal tariff” measure —bringing the total effective tariff to about 50% on most affected Brazilian goods.

Fear of Trump Dumping Tariffs Caused Selloff in Cattle Earlier This Week

Even the fear of Trump removing the steep tariff on Brazilin beef caused cattle prices to tank earlier this week.

Brad Kooima with Kooima Kooima Varilek told Michelle Rook on Monday that concerns of the tariff being lowered was part of the selloff in the cattle futures last week and why the market started off lower Monday.

Kooima said futures stabilized after it was confirmed the 50% tariff on Brazil beef was only lowered 10%.

Looking ahead, Rook reports the other major issue hanging over the cattle market is when the Trump administration will reopen the Mexican border to live cattle import. Some reports say the Trump administration is pushing for that to happen in January.

Read More: Did the Administration’s Plan to Lower Beef Prices Wreck the Bull Run in the Cattle Market?

Optimism Reigns Despite Volatility in U.S. Red Meat Industry

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:23:40 GMT

Demand for U.S. red meat remains robust in key destinations where customers crave the quality and consistency of U.S. pork, beef and lamb, despite significant obstacles in the international marketplace, explained U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) president and CEO Dan Halstrom at the USMEF Strategic Planning Conference in Indianapolis.

Pork exports are modestly below last year’s record pace, but he says the gap stems mostly from a period early in 2025 when China’s retaliatory tariffs increased and the U.S. industry faced uncertainty about plant eligibility.

“Although export data is only available through July due to the government shutdown, pork shipments are on record pace to leading market Mexico, as well as to Central America and Colombia,” USMEF reports.

Halstrom says beef exports have been hit harder by barriers in China, where U.S. beef not only faces retaliatory tariffs, but also unwarranted plant delistings and China’s failure to renew registrations for the vast majority of U.S. beef plants and cold storage facilities. Fully reopening the world’s largest beef import market to U.S. beef will require several actions on China’s part, and the lockout could extend into 2026.

“This is obviously a political card that’s being held by the China side,” Halstrom says. “One thing I’m very confident in is that [the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative] is well aware of our position, well aware of what’s involved, and very well-informed. I do think they’ll get it worked out eventually, I just can’t tell you when – no one can.”

Free Trade Agreements are Key
Protecting and defending existing free trade agreements is an urgent priority, Halstrom says. He is optimistic that ongoing negotiations with several trading partners may lead to new opportunities for U.S. red meat, especially in Southeast Asia.

Over the past decade, red meat exports to free trade agreement partner countries have expanded by more than 30%, and exports to these destinations now account for 76% of total shipments, he says.

Invoking the Paul Harvey quote, “In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these,” Halstrom reminds USMEF members that the industry has endured tremendous trade setbacks in the past, including widespread market closures due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and plunging consumer confidence and buying power in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

“Remember that we overcame all those obstacles,” Halstrom says. “I believe that with the knowledge in this room, and with continued cooperation and collaboration, we can overcome anything.”

A Complicated Relationship
Keynote speaker Jan Lambregts, head of RaboResearch Global Economics & Markets, discussed the complexities of the U.S.-China trade relationship.

“I’m not quite sure if you will like this news, but I don’t think there will be a comprehensive deal coming soon between China and the U.S.,” Lambregts shares. “What the U.S. is demanding is access to Chinese markets. What China will never give is access to the Chinese market because that’s not how they’ve been winning in trade during the past 30 to 40 years.”

Both countries are playing for time, he says. China has been cut off from high-end semiconductors and needs time to develop its own semiconductor sector. Similarly, the U.S. needs time to build its rare earths capacity, including development of extraction and processing capabilities.

“In the meantime, the U.S. is basically sending all its allies the same message: What was previously free defense now must be paid for, because we (the U.S.) need to be compensated. And by the way, if you want to trade with China, there are conditions now,” Lambregts says.

Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:04:16 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

No Trade Agreement Can Boast the Success of USMCA, The Meat Institute Says

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 21:13:19 GMT

The Meat Institute is calling on the Trump administration to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for its benefits to American meat and poultry companies and the entire U.S. animal protein value chain.

“USMCA has been a boon for the American meat, livestock and poultry sector, along with the broader American food and agriculture economy and ancillary industries,” said Julie Anna Potts, The Meat Institute president and CEO, in a news release. “It has provided steady income to American farmers, ranchers, and meat and poultry exporters; it has created jobs for American truck drivers, ports, and transportation companies; it has strengthened American food retail and food service establishments; and it has accomplished all of this through transparent rules that allow American businesses to proactively plan supply chains and develop durable customer relationships.”

USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020, substituting the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to create more balanced, reciprocal trade supporting high-paying jobs for Americans and grow the North American economy, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) .

“The domestic U.S. meat and poultry industry’s long-term economic viability, though, depends on robust international trade, particularly as domestic per capita consumption of meat and poultry remains stable, and 95% of consumers live outside the U.S,” The Meat Institute wrote in comments submitted to the USTR on Nov. 3. “International trade is, therefore, vital to the long-term strength of the U.S. meat and poultry industry, the American workers it supports, and the rural and farm communities it sustains.”

In 2024, U.S. meat and poultry exports exceeded $24.6 billion. Meat and poultry product exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for $7.5 billion of that total. Annually, approximately 14% of U.S. beef production, 15% of U.S. poultry production and 25% of U.S. pork production are exported, the organization noted. As well, exports add value to every animal produced, and in turn, increase demand for U.S. corn and soybeans.

“The Trump Administration’s America First Trade Policy Agenda has reinvigorated American trade policy and has reasserted American leadership to advance U.S. meat, poultry, food, and agriculture trade in a manner that revitalizes our farm communities and supports broad-based economic growth. President Trump’s negotiation of the USMCA during his first term resulted in the world’s gold-standard trade agreement,” the letter said. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, USMCA has bolstered U.S. meat, poultry, and livestock trade, has led to increased market integration in North America, and must be preserved without significant changes that would disrupt the U.S. meat and poultry industry’s substantial access to the Canadian and Mexican markets.”

The Meat Institute says it’s clear USMCA’s access terms – zero tariffs on most meat, poultry and livestock trade – have underpinned American economic and job growth, particularly in rural and farm communities across the U.S.

“No other trade agreement can boast the same success,” Potts said. “President Trump deserves enormous credit for this extraordinary achievement.”

See The Meat Institute’s full comments in response to the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) “Request for Comments on the Operation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada.”

Beef Producers React to USDA's Plan to Fortify Industry and Trump's Social Media Comments

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 21:22:53 GMT

In an effort to strengthen the American beef industry and reinforce and prioritize the rancher’s critical role in national security, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and other cabinet members announced a suite of actions on Wednesday.

Since 2017, the U.S. has lost over 17% of family farms — more than 100,000 operations over the last decade. The national herd is at a 75-year low while consumer demand for beef has grown 9% over the past decade. Because increasing the size of the domestic herd takes time, USDA says it is investing now to make these markets less volatile for ranchers over the long term and more affordable for consumers.

“America’s food supply chain is a national security priority for the Trump Administration. We are committed to ensuring the American people have an affordable source of protein and that America’s ranchers have a strong economic environment where they can continue to operate for generations to come,” Rollins says in a press release . “At USDA we are protecting our beef industry and incentivizing new ranchers to take up the noble vocation of ranching. Today, USDA will immediately expedite deregulatory reforms, boost processing capacity, including getting more locally raised beef into schools, and working across the government to fix longstanding common-sense barriers for ranchers like outdated grazing restrictions.”

The plan includes three coordinated priorities:

Protecting and improving the business of ranching
- Strengthening the foundation of U.S. cattle production through endangered species reforms, enhanced disaster relief, increased grazing access (approximately 5 million acres), increased access to capital, and affordable risk management tools.
Expanding processing, consumer transparency and market access.
- Lowering long-term costs by cutting inspection costs by up to 75% for small processors, increasing marketing options for consumers with Product of USA labeling and ensuring consumers have clear, truthful information about American beef.
Building demand alongside domestic supply
- Growing the domestic herd while boosting domestic and international demand so that ranchers are not trapped in the boom/bust cycle that has defined past cattle markets. This strategy includes boosting long-term demand to reduce prices for consumers while growing markets for ranchers through significant farm-to-school grans and protein-focused dietary guidelines.

The plan is available through the USDA website.

Trump Takes to Social on Beef

President Donald Trump shared his perspective on beef industry success on X.

“The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% tariff on Brazil,” Trump posted.

Following the post, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) made a post on Facebook in response and also released a statement on the president’s steps to undercut U.S. cattle producers:

“In a misguided effort to lower the price of beef in grocery stores, President Trump said he plans to increase the volume of beef being imported from Argentina. Efforts to manipulate markets only risk damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “It is imperative that President Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins let the cattle markets work.”

”The U.S. already faces a deep trade imbalance with Argentina, one that is made worse by the President’s plan. During the past five years, Argentina has shipped beef valued at more than $800 million to the U.S., while purchasing only $7 million of U.S. beef. Furthermore, Argentina is a nation with a long history of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and USDA has not completed the necessary steps to ensure Argentina can guarantee the safety of the products being shipped here, further endangering America’s cattle herd.

“If President Trump is truly an ally of America’s cattle producers, we call on him to abandon this effort to manipulate markets and focus instead on the promised New World Screwworm facilities in Texas; making additional investments that protect the domestic cattle herd from foreign animal diseases such as FMD; and addressing regulatory burdens, such as delisting of the gray wolf and addressing the scourge of black vultures,” Woodall said, concluding the statement.

Your Next Read: Is Argentina Beef the Answer to Lowering Beef Prices?

Pork Industry Encouraged by Preferential Market Access in US-EU Trade Framework

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 18:58:37 GMT

The White House announced a United States-European Union Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade on Aug. 21. The Framework Agreement aims to resolve trade imbalances and maximize the U.S. and EU’s combined economic power in an ongoing process to improve market access and increase the U.S./EU trade and investment relationship, according to the Administration.

“America’s pork producers are encouraged by the specific inclusion of pork in the U.S.-EU framework to address tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. We look forward to continued collaboration to address longstanding market access issues,” says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) president Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio.

U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) president and CEO Dan Halstrom is encouraged to see that the European Union will provide preferential market access for pork and bison meat, has committed to streamlining requirements for U.S. pork sanitary certificates, and intends to address other non-tariff barriers affecting agricultural trade – including its deforestation regulation.

“These changes are long overdue, and USMEF greatly appreciates the Trump administration making agricultural market access a top priority in negotiations with the EU and with other key trading partners,” Halstrom says. “The U.S. has been a net importer of red meat from the EU due to the vast barriers the EU imposes on imports, and addressing the EU’s tariff and non-tariff barriers is absolutely essential for U.S. export growth.”

For decades, pork trade between the U.S. and the EU has been weighted to favor EU interests, NPPC says. In 2024, the U.S. exported $7 million of pork products to the EU while importing over $709 million from the EU. To compare, the U.S. currently exports more pork to Honduras than to the 27 countries total that make up the EU.

Halstrom adds that it’s critical that U.S. beef exports to the EU – which are already heavily restricted – face no further regulatory obstacles related to deforestation. With U.S. agriculture posing negligible risk to global deforestation, USMEF thanks the Trump administration for securing a commitment from the EU to address concerns of U.S. producers and exporters regarding the EU Deforestation Regulation.

Industry Hopeful for U.S.- Indonesia Trade Deal to Expand Red Meat Markets

Fri, 25 Jul 2025 20:58:53 GMT

With the announcement of the U.S. and Indonesian framework for a trade agreement, more access for U.S. beef and pork could become a reality.

U.S. Meat Export Federation Vice President of Economic Analysis Erin Borror says the U.S. has had limited access to Indonesia. While tariffs are low at 5%, significant non-tariff trade barriers that have also been in place. These include import licensing regime, the commodity balance and facility registration, or plant-by-plant approvals for U.S. beef.

“Those kind of three pillars of market access barriers are how Indonesia has really managed imports for decades at this point,” Borror says.

Removing all non-tariff barriers would open the doors for beef demand in Indonesia.

“The opportunity there is $250 million annually,” Borror says. “That’s a short run estimate. If we remain out of that China market, having Indonesia compete on these short plates, short ribs, chuck short ribs, a number of the offal items, would be tremendous.”

In addition, U.S. pork faces similar trade barriers in Indonesia, a country with 30 million non-Muslims who have shown a growing demand for U.S. pork. Exporters and importers have seen that barrier in action so far this year.

“Trying to manage those pork imports through its variety of commodity balance and import licensing regimes, we’ve already had a doubling in our volumes to Indonesia on the pork side, albeit from a small base, but you see that strong growth,” Borror adds. “African Swine Fever remains rampant kind of in the region.”

She sees potential as Indonesian customers keep asking for more U.S. pork.

Big Wins for Beef Exports: What It Means for the Industry

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 21:25:05 GMT

Australia has moved to reduce restrictions on U.S. beef imports as an attempt to smooth trade talks with the Trump administration and avoid tariffs. The U.S. beef industry has had several trade wins this week with frameworks also announced with top beef export markets like Japan and South Korea.

The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) took effect in 2005 and was intended to allow U.S. beef to be sold in Australia. During the past 20 years, Australia has used countless tactics to delay implementation of the agreement and prevent any shipments of fresh or frozen U.S. beef from entering Australia.

Kent Bacus, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association executive director of government affairs, says during the same 20-year period, “They’ve been able to ship roughly $29 billion worth of beef to our market, but because of a lot of bureaucratic red tape and all in the name of biosecurity Australia has kept us out.”

🇺🇸👍 Another trade win for American beef industry@POTUS has secured greater ag market access to Australia for U.S. beef producers. Statement from @SecRollins ➡️ https://t.co/OtSdn8smu6 pic.twitter.com/lxAkAqu40t
— Dept. of Agriculture (@USDA) July 24, 2025

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a statement congratulating President Donald Trump on the Australia announcement.

“American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, healthiest beef in the world. It’s absurd that non-scientific trade barriers prevented our beef from being sold to consumers in Australia for the last 20 years,” she says.

NCBA President and Nebraska Cattleman Buck Wehrbein adds, “NCBA has spent decades working to correct this trade imbalance, and we are proud to have a president who is willing to fight for American farmers and ranchers, expand export markets and fix unfair trade agreements across the world.”

With the announcement, Australia has approved importation of U.S. fresh and frozen beef of all ages, allowing the U.S. to ship product very soon.

“This is a big win for us,” Bacus says.

He explains this paves the way for complementary trade and growth as Australia is currently not a big market for U.S. beef. It is an opportunity for the U.S. to develop a consumer base in Australia for higher end cuts.

Japan Framework Released

Bacus says the new framework with Japan , also extends gains from the existing Free Trade Agreement and he hopes the president is eventually able to negotiate the tariff on U.S. beef down to zero.

“That tariff is phasing down to 9%, we’re about halfway there, but we really need to kind of push that along because Japanese consumers want our product,” he says.

Dan Halstrom, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) president and CEO, says, “USMEF greatly appreciates the Trump administration’s agreement with Japan, reassuring and expanding opportunities in the No. 2 export destination for U.S. beef and pork.

“In President Trump’s first term, the critical U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement was reached, returning U.S. red meat to a level playing field in Japan and restoring its position as an extremely reliable market,” Halstrom says. “According to the information released by the White House, the new agreement focuses on reinforcing the long-term economic partnership between the U.S. and Japan, which for decades has delivered tremendous benefits for the U.S. livestock and meat industries and for Japanese consumers, importers and customers.”

Other Frameworks and Opportunities

South Korea and the U.S. reaffirmed their commitment to reach a trade agreement ahead of the Aug. 1 U.S.-imposed deadline when U.S. tariffs are set to rise.

South Korea’s framework would also expand the FTA struck in 2012. Bacus says they’re pushing to get BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) beef restrictions still in place since the U.S. regained market access in 2008 removed.

“For Korea, all we asked was for consultations to remove that 30-month restriction that we have due to BSE,” he says. “We know that is a sensitive issue for Korea, but quite honestly, there’s no scientific justification for keeping us out. And we have developed a lot of trust with Korean consumers.”

Since the FTA in 2012, Korea has become the largest export market for U.S. beef with sales of more than $2 billion annually.

Bacus also mentioned progress is being made with Indonesia and other Asian Pacific countries. He appreciates Trump’s push to get the U.S. back to the negotiating table.

“For the last four years, the Biden administration had stepped away from that. We were not talking about market access. We weren’t talking about a lot of significant trade issues,” he says. “We were able to get a couple of technical things resolved, but overall, there weren’t real benefits being delivered for agriculture, and that has shifted. And other countries know that other countries are looking to avoid this Aug. 1 deadline for retaliation. This presents a good opportunity for us to basically make up for a lot of lost time.”

China Hopes Continue

Bacus says they are closely watching next week’s talks between the U.S. and China.

The third round of discussions is set to take place in Stockholm and while it isn’t likely to result in a deal, it is an important step in the process.

He emphasizes that China did not fulfill their purchase obligations under the Phase One deal and has also failed to renew export certifications for 394 U.S. beef plants, which is effectively keeping the U.S. out of the Chinese market.

“China could be a good market, but we cannot put all of our eggs in one basket,” he summarizes. “We need to really build demand around the world and build relationships with trusted partners, starting with our allies. We’re hopeful that we can resolve issues with China, but we have to be realistic in the fact that China will play these games from time to time, and we need access to markets we can trust, that are dependable and that are going to live up to their word.”

Possible 50% Tariff on Brazil Also a Win

President Trump has also threatened to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports, which would include beef.

Bacus says NCBA would like Brazil’s market access to be fully stripped due to concerns regarding Foot and Mouth Disease but this move would effectively help level the playing field.

“In the last five years, we’ve only been able to export $21 million worth of U.S. beef to Brazil,” he says. “Meanwhile, they’ve sold about $4.5 billion worth of beef into this market. A lot of that is lean trim, we fully understand, but you’ve got to look at that significant imbalance and look at the cause of that, and it’s these unfair trade practices.”

He adds Brazil shouldn’t have access to the U.S. until it can demonstrate it has an equivalent level of food safety and animal health.

President Trump Threatens New Round of Tariffs Over the Weekend: Here’s the Latest

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:39:36 GMT

U.S. commodity markets were down to start the week in Sunday night trade as the markets digested the latest tariff announcement by President Donald Trump. On Saturday, President Trump threatened to impose 30% tariffs on Mexico and the European Union starting on August 1. The announcement came after a string of new tariff threats last week, as the Trump administration’s deadline for trade deals came due.

On Monday, President Trump continued with tariff talk, saying he would implement “severe tariffs” on Russia unless a peace deal is reached with Ukraine within 50 days.

He provided few details on how they would be implemented but described them as 100% secondary tariffs, meaning they would target Russia’s trading partners in an effort to isolate Moscow in the global economy.

The latest tariff threats weren’t good news for farmers looking to price fertilizer for fall, as StoneX Group says Russia is the United States’ top destination for both urea and UAN imports. StoneX points out Russia’s market chair has “grown substantially in recent years.”

Monday’s news follows a week where many anticipated trade deals. Instead, President Trump made a series of announcements with new tariffs. The new tariffs on Mexico and the European Union, which Trump announced Saturday, capped off a week of sweeping tariff threats.

Earlier in the week, Trump warned of a possible:

50% tariff on all copper imports
50% tariff on all goods from Brazil
35% tariff on Canadian goods
25% tariff on goods from Japan
25% tariff on imports from South Korea
200% tariff on imported pharmaceuticals

The positive side of the announcements is the Trump administration says any products covered under the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (UMCA) won’t face the new tariffs.

President Trump also sent letters to both Japan and South Korea last week, saying their goods will be taxed at 25% starting August 1st.

The President posted the two letters he sent to those countries’ leaders on his Truth Social site. In the letter to South Korea, he stated when it comes to Korea’s tariff and non-tariff polices and trade barriers, the relationship between the two countries has been far from reciprocal. He added the 25% tariff was far less than what he says is needed to eliminate a trade deficit disparity.

The letter to Japan added if Japanese companies decide to build or manufacture a product within the U.S., there will be no tariffs. Japanese and U.S. negotiators have been working for several weeks to try and reach a deal.

Lack of Progress Impacts Commodity Prices
The lack of trade announcements last week was just one factor that caused corn prices to tank, according to AgMarket.net’s Matt Bennett. While rain in the upper Corn Belt was also bearish for the markets, little to no movement on trade is also pressuring prices.

“We had no trade announcements, and then we continued to talk about tariffs. The unfortunate reality right now is it appears the administration is playing the long game, trying to get people to come to the table with better trade deals than what we currently have seen. But it certainly isn’t doing any favors for the corn market,” Bennett said on U.S. Farm Report this weekend. “I think something like a big trade agreement certainly could tilt the tide more in the favor of the corn market moving higher. Until you get that, with weather being as good as what it is, there’s nothing there.”

It’s not all bearish, though. Arlan Suderman of StoneX Group says the 50% tariff on Brazil is actually bullish for beef.

“We already have a shortage of protein in America with the cattle herd being shrinking over recent years because of lingering drought in the western half of the country, and supplies are tight. We’re just getting to the point of trying to rebuild those supplies, which holding back heifers, tightens up the supply of meat even more. We’re feeding to record-high carcass weights to try to fill the void. We’re increasing imports to record levels. Brazil is the primary supplier of those imports: 27% of our imports come from Brazil in the first five months of the year, according to the latest data we have available, that’s 666 million pounds. That’s 4% of consumption,” Suderman says.

If you think 4% doesn’t sound like a big deal, Suderman says it is - especially considering meat demand in the U.S. has turned out to be inelastic.

“We’ve been shifting from a starch-based diet more heavily toward protein-based. And as the prices go up, we’re actually increasing demand for beef and the other proteins - but we don’t have the supply of it. I think that could be a real problem going forward for the meat industry and the meat supply. We will have to find somewhere else to get that meat,” Suderman says.

Are Trade Deals Close?

While President Trump initially stated he had reached trade agreements with 200 countries, only a few have been officially announced. These include deals with China, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam, however. Negotiations with other countries are ongoing, with the administration extending the deadline for tariff-related negotiations to August 1.

The European Union says it was working on sealing a trade deal with the U.S. by the end of this month, and the European Commission president says the EU was working closely with the Trump administration to reach a deal.

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:16:37 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

Trade Dominance or Trade Domino? Trump Announces Trade Deal with Vietnam

Wed, 02 Jul 2025 19:48:15 GMT

Less than a week before the Trump administration’s 90-day pause on many reciprocal tariffs with several countries is set to expire, President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam on Wednesday. The deal, according to Trump, allows the U.S. “total access” to Vietnam’s markets with a zero tariff on U.S. products exported to Vietnam.

A deal with Vietnam could benefit U.S. commodities that face higher tariffs, including fruits, nuts, pork and beef exports.

The president made the announcement on his Truth Social site, saying Vietnam will pay the U.S. a 20% tariff on any goods sent into the U.S. and a 40% tariff on any goods that originate in another country and then are transferred to Vietnam before coming to the U.S.

🚨 pic.twitter.com/i35oMvbEvW
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 2, 2025

When trade talks started with Vietnam last month, Vietnamese officials had pledged to boost purchases of American goods, including farm products and energy. However, no specific trade volumes were announced with the trade deal.

What’s the potential for agriculture? Dan Basse, founder and president of AgResource Company, says this could help gain greater access for fruits, nuts and horticulture products, which have tariffs ranging from 15% to 20%, versus corn, soybeans and soybean meal.

“In the case of corn and soybeans and meal and wheat, we’re talking about tariffs today that are 1% to 2%, that’ll go to zero, so it’s something, don’t get me wrong, it’s 5¢ or 10¢ in a bushel of corn, maybe 7¢ to 12¢ on beans, but it is not the panacea that’s going to get a lot of Vietnamese demand going forward,” Basse says.

The trade deal came as a bit of a surprise on Wednesday. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this week that while the focus of the administration is getting the One Big Beautiful Bill across the finish line this week, that focus shifts back to trade next week. Bessent warned countries could be notified of sharply higher tariffs as a deadline approaches.

Is this trade deal the start of a domino of trade deals that could fall ahead of next week’s deadline? It’s possible, but Stand Grain’s Joe Vaclavik says many more are needed to shift the sentiment in the commodity market to a bullish tone.

“Get a trade deal with China that mirrors Phase One, that includes large purchase agreements, then it’s a game changer,” Vaclavik says. “But anything less than that, as of right now, I don’t think is going be a market mover or a game changer from a supply and demand standpoint.”

Vaclavik agrees with Basse, in that Vietnam alone isn’t a huge demand story for corn and soybeans.

“I think you’re going to see a lot of these announcements like with Vietnam where it sounds great, but Vietnam consumed 16 million metric tons of corn last year. That’s not enough to really put them on the map as something that’s going to move the market. You need a China, a country who consumes 300 million metric tons of corn per year to come in and agree to agree and also agree to buy. And that’s how you move the needle.”

Push for More Protein?

Protein exports are also an area of opportunity. U.S. dairy exports have shown strong growth into Vietnam, with increases in nonfat dry milk powder, whey, and lactose.

As for meat exports, figures from the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) show shipments to Vietnam in 2024 included:

5,052 metric tons of beef and beef variety meat valued at $43 million
and 4,662 metric tons of pork and variety meat with a value of $10 million.

The U.S. current ranks fifth in top exporters to Vietnam, but it’s key to note the U.S. is the largest trading partner with Vietnam that does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). With talks of tariff reductions, it could hep make U.S. pork more competitively priced compared to big competitors like Brazil, the European Union and Canada. Those countries currently have duty-free access to Vietnam.

The current tariff rates vary by product, including:

Chilled beef carcass/ ½ carcass: 30%
Chilled beef bone-in: 20%
Chilled beef boneless: 14%,
Frozen beef bone-in/frozen carcass 20%
Frozen boneless beef: 14%
Chilled pork: 22%
Frozen pork: 10%
Offal: 8%.

Fact sheet on meat exports to Vietnam

(USMEF )

Vietnam’s Growing Population

Farm Journal’s Michelle Rook visited Vietnam earlier this year and saw firsthand the potential growth. Vietnam has a 100 million people and a growing middle class looking to add protein to their diet. With limited soybean crushing capacity, the country currently depends on soybean meal imports for their livestock and aquaculture feed needs.

She reports the country’s soy processing industry is small with only four plants, which import 2 million tons of soybeans annually, including from the U.S. According to Rook’s reporting, that could be an area where soybean exports could grow, fueling Vietnam’s growing aquaculture and livestock production.

You can read and watch Rook’s in-depth reporting here .

Breaking News: Mexican Ports to Reopen in Phases for Cattle Trade Starting July 7

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:55:31 GMT

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced today a risk-based phased port re-openings for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7.

The announcement is following the extensive collaboration between USDA–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) experts and their counterparts in Mexico to increase New World screwworm (NWS) surveillance, detection and eradication efforts. The port reopening timeline is:

Douglas, Ariz. – July 7
Columbus, N.M. – July 14
Santa Teresa, N.M. – July 21
Del Rio, Texas – Aug. 18
Laredo, Texas – Sept. 15

After each reopening, USDA will evaluate to ensure no adverse effects arise.

Progress Being Made to Stop Progress of NWS

According to USDA, progress has been made in several critical areas since the ports were closed on May 11 , including:

Resolution of challenges with conducting flights in Mexico that has allowed the team to consistently conduct sterile NWS fly dispersal seven days each week
Dispersal of more than 100 million flies each week
USDA sent five APHIS teams to visit, observe and gain a deeper understanding of Mexico’s NWS response. The APHIS teams were allowed the opportunity to share feedback.

USDA says there has not been a notable increase in reported NWS cases in Mexico, nor any northward movement of NWS over the past eight weeks.

“At USDA we are focused on fighting the New World screwworm’s advancement in Mexico. We have made good progress with our counterparts in Mexico to increase vital pest surveillance efforts and have boosted sterile fly dispersal efforts. These quick actions by the Trump Administration have improved the conditions to allow the phased reopening of select ports on the Southern Border to livestock trade,” Rollins says. “We are continuing our posture of increased vigilance and will not rest until we are sure this devastating pest will not harm American ranchers.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says it supports the plan to strategically reopen key ports of entry.

“NCBA and our state affiliates have spent months working with USDA to safeguard the U.S. cattle industry from the threat of New World screwworm. We strongly support USDA’s five-pronged plan to fight the screwworm, which includes bolstering sterile fly production by renovating a facility in Metapa, Mexico, and by building a new fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in south Texas,” says NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “Today’s announcement to reopen key ports of entry is a measured, thoughtful approach by Secretary Rollins to allow some trade while also ensuring the American cattle industry is protected from this pest.”

While the Douglas, Ariz., port presents the lowest risk based upon the geography of Sonora and a long history of effective collaboration between APHIS and Sonora on animal health issues, USDA intends to reopen additional ports in New Mexico, and if it is proven safe to do so, in Texas, over the coming weeks. Additional port openings will be based on APHIS’ continuous reevaluation of the number of cases and potential northward movement of NWS, Mexico’s continued efforts to curb illegal animal movements, and implementation of further rigorous inspection and treatment protocols.

“We trust Secretary Rollins made this decision with the latest information from USDA staff in Mexico, and we know she will continue holding her counterparts in the Mexican government accountable for eradicating screwworm,” Woodall adds. “NCBA and our state affiliate partners will continue working with USDA and key members of Congress to protect the United States from New World screwworm.”

Continuing Efforts

USDA is working with Mexico’s National Department of Health, Food Safety and Food Quality (SENASICA) on outreach, education and training efforts to raise awareness and put producers on high alert about NWS, along with utilizing their well-functioning central laboratory for diagnosing cases. While Mexico has made great progress on animal movement controls and surveillance, additional progress will help ensure the remaining U.S. ports reopen. Enhanced animal movement controls to stem illegal animal movements from the south, along with robust surveillance and NWS risk mitigations beyond check points will be critical in pushing back NWS. APHIS technical teams continue to engage with SENASICA to improve the overall NWS posture in Mexico and implement the rigorous steps needed to keep this pest away from our border.

Mexico will also begin renovation of its sterile fruit fly facility in Metapa this week, with renovation expected to be completed by July 2026. Renovation of this facility will allow for production of between 60-100 million sterile NWS flies each week. This is a critical step towards reaching the goal of producing the estimated 400-500 million flies each week needed to re-establish the NWS barrier at the Darien Gap.

Only cattle and bison, born and raised in Sonora or Chihuahua, or that are treated according to cattle and bison NWS protocol when entering these states, will be eligible for import. See Importing Live Cattle and Bison From Mexico to the United States for more information on cattle and bison import requirements.

In addition, reopening the Del Rio (Aug. 18) and Colombia Bridge (Sept.15) ports will be contingent on Coahuila and Nuevo Leon adopting the same NWS protocols for cattle and bison as those now required of Sonora and Chihuahua for cattle or bison entering those states.

Equine may import from anywhere in Mexico. They require a seven-day quarantine at the port of entry and must import in accordance with the equine NWS protocol and other requirements detailed on USDA APHIS | Import Horses from Mexico webpage . Approved equine facilities are available at the Santa Teresa, N.M., port and will be available for entry of horses when that port is reopened.

In May 2025, USDA suspended imports of live cattle, bison, and equines from Mexico into the U.S. due to the continued and rapid northward spread of NWS. During the weeks of June 2 and June 16, teams of APHIS experts conducted robust onsite assessments of Mexico’s NWS response efforts to fully reassess the risk of NWS incursions to the U.S. posed by importation of Mexican cattle across our southern border.

Your Next Read: Open Heifers Explained: What You Need to Consider to Increase Preg Rates

Is Food Inflation Heating Up July 4th Grills?

Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:44:50 GMT

Two industry reports are shining a light on the cost of a July 4^th barbecue.

The economists at Wells Fargo calculate an at-home holiday party for 10 will cost $130. The menu includes chicken breasts, beef sliders, hot dogs, fresh fruit, a vegetable platter, potato salad, corn bread, cake, apple pie, ice cream, beer, wine and soda.

Dr. Michael Swanson, chief agricultural economist within Wells Fargo’s Agri-Food Institute, says year-over-year food inflation is 2.2%.

For notable food prices from the July 4^th report, he cites the following:

Ground beef: Up 7.4%
Boneless chicken breasts: Up 1%
Watermelon and strawberries: Down 0.6%
Potatoes: Up 1%
Egg prices: Up 40%
Ice cream (1.5 quart): Up less than 1%

Swanson says beef prices year over year have been running 6% to 8% higher.

“When you talk to somebody who’s a processor or a packer, there’s not a part of the cow that moves independent from the other parts of the cow so it’s all right in that category 6% to 8% on a year over year basis the last couple of months based on CPI,” he says.

He says for cost-savings, chicken offers the greatest opportunities in the protein category.

“When you look at the composite pricing from USDA, it’s right around $2.42 to $2.45 a pound — including everything from wings and breasts,” he says.

As for hot dogs, Swanson says the blend inside the casing will drive the price.

“If you go with the all-beef frankfurters, yes, they’re up substantially. If you look for a sausage or bratwurst that has a blend of pork and beef in it, you’re probably finding a much better bargain. Pork has been pretty flat year over year,” he says.

Swanson says the effects of highly pathogenic avian influenza are still being reflected in higher egg prices for menu items such as deviled eggs and salads.

As for ice cream, Swanson says the increase in cost is being attributed to additional labor expense in production.

“We’re seeing a little bit of inflation in that category, but just very modest. We have a good supply of cream and milk in the country right now. The dairymen are doing wel. So, what that reflects is kind of that cost of transformation,” he says.

Wells Fargo uses NeilsenIQ data for its analysis.

American Farm Bureau Market Basket Survey
Using its annual survey, The American Farm Bureau Federation says this year’s food prices are resulting in the second-highest cost for an at-home July 4^th barbecue since 2013 when the survey began.

“High prices don’t mean more money for farmers, however. Farmers are price takers, not price makers. Their share of the food retail dollar is just 15%. The cost of running their farm is up — from labor and transportation to taxes,” says AFBF associate economist Samantha Ayoub.

Per AFBF, this year’s cost for an Independence Day cookout will cost $70.92 for 10 people. Included in the calculations are cheeseburgers, chicken breasts, pork chops, potato salad, strawberries and ice cream.

Last year was the highest cost found by the survey at $7.39 per person.

Year-over-year retail price increases in 2025 include:

2 lb. of ground beef: Up 4.4% to $13.33
Pork and beans: Up 20¢ to $2.69
Potato salad: Up 6.6% to $3.54

Notable reductions, compared to 2024, in food prices per the survey were:

3 lb. package of pork chops: Down 8.8% to $14.13
Chips: Down 10¢ to $4.80 a bag
Hamburger buns: Down 2.6% to $2.35

Rollins Defends Trump Policies at House Ag Committee Hearing

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:40:18 GMT

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the Trump administration’s aggressive overhaul of farm, food and trade policy in testimony before the House Ag Committee Wednesday, in what was her first appearance in front of this house committee.

Sharing a post-event recap, Tom Sell of Combest, Sell & Associates told AgriTalk host Chip Flory it was a strong dialogue with Congress.

“She is getting her hands around just the enormity of the challenge at USDA,” he says. “This is a massive bureaucracy with a lot of really important functions that we kind of take for granted. We always say in American politics that the American consumer takes the American farm for granted, and that’s true, but even in the American farm country oftentimes we take the critical services that USDA provides for granted.”

Rollins Defends USDA Cuts

In her testimony, she revealed USDA has terminated over $5.5 billion in contracts, grants and DEI-related training programs, including nearly 1,000 employee trainings. Several House Ag Committee members had follow up questions about USDA’s cuts, including the impact of the 6000 DOGE firings at the agency, that were later reinstated by the court.

Rep. Jill Tokuda, (D) – Hawaii, said USDA staff had informed her the administration’s goal was to get to 2019 staffing levels, requiring a 23% cut in personnel. She asked Rollins if the courts had not stopped the administration if she would have stood by the firings and pushed for additional firings.

Rollins answered, “We are adequately staffed to meet our mission.”

Tokuda added she had heard from farmers that felt USDA was not adequately staffed to support the programs they needed.

Cuts to Nutrition Programs, SNAP Changes

The Secretary was also pushed on USDA’s recent cuts to food and nutrition programs and SNAP changes to exclude items such as soft drinks. Rollins described sweeping reforms to USDA’s nutrition programs–which account for $400 million in daily spending–including:

Approving state waivers (Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana) to restrict unhealthy foods in SNAP as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.
Reminding states to enforce SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents.
Tightening citizenship and identity verification standards for benefit eligibility.

Rollins cited a Government Accountability Office finding of $10.5 billion in improper SNAP payments were made in fiscal year 2023, blaming “state-level failures to verify identity and citizenship.”

“I think that a wholesale review of all these programs is necessary,” she said.

Ag Labor Challenges and ICE Raids

Rollins discussed the impact the administration’s immigration strategy is having on the ag workforce, as ICE raids occur in dairies and meat plants.She says Labor and Homeland Security are working together on the issue.

“To ensure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that these farmers and ranchers have the labor that they need.So the President is hyper focused on that understanding the challenges currently at hand but please note we are in daily contact about how to solve for that quickly,” she explained.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza and New World Screwworm Eradication

Rollins spotlighted USDA’s prioritization and action on animal health issues such as eradicating highly pathogenic avian influenza, plus their New World Screwworm program and assured the committee they weren’t done.

“We’re really close, I’ll be making a major announcement next week on the very next step which will probably be even more aggressive than anyone in history on the New World Screwworm and I think that you and everyone on this committee will be very pleased.”

Trade Achievements

Rollins emphasized trade achievements made since January, criticizing the Biden administration for “four years of inaction” that she argued led to a deteriorated agricultural trade balance.

She cited among the highlighted gains:

A new U.S./UK trade agreement to expand agricultural exports and reduce non-tariff barriers.
Market access breakthroughs in Costa Rica, Panama, South Africa and India — USDA-led trade missions to Thailand and Guatemala, and six global trade shows with $282 million in projected exports.

She also announced upcoming trips to India, Vietnam, Japan, Peru and Brazil before Sept. 30 to continue advancing President Trump’s trade priorities.

Disaster Relief for Farmers and Ranchers

Plus, Rollins reviewed USDA’s emergency relief work, including:

$10 billion in Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) payments, which began being issued in March.
$20 billion in ongoing disaster aid, including $340 million through the Rural Development Disaster Assistance Fund.
Automatic 2023–2024 livestock drought relief payments tied to Livestock Forage Disaster Program eligibility.