Mitchell Kaminski
COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)
President Donald Trump’s plan to bring more foreign beef into the U.S. market is intended to help lower prices for consumers, but Missouri cattle producers and agricultural economists question how much shoppers will actually save, and whether the move could hurt the domestic cattle industry in the long run.
Trump said the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported over the next three months without being subject to out-of-quota tariffs.
He also said the beef would be sold at 25% below current market prices, although the administration has not specified which companies made that commitment or which foreign exporters are involved.
The move comes as Americans continue to face historically high beef prices. The nation’s cattle herd has fallen to its lowest level since the 1950s following years of drought, high feed and input costs, and herd liquidation.
A May report from the American Farm Bureau Federation noted imports entering under quota generally face a tariff of 4.4 cents per kilogram, while imports above quota face a 26.4% tariff. According to the report, for beef valued at about $7 per kilogram, the difference can amount to more than $1.80 per kilogram in tariff costs.
The Trump administration’s decision would temporarily eliminate those higher out-of-quota tariffs for the additional imports.
But Wesley Tucker, a University of Missouri field specialist in agricultural business, said the high price of beef is largely the result of a supply-and-demand imbalance. Years of drought and low profitability discouraged cattle producers from expanding their herds at the same time consumers continued to demand beef.
“As a nation, we are still suffering from drought and that is still holding back cattle numbers. That is having a major impact across the country, although not as big an impact in Missouri lately this year.” Tucker said. “It really is a perfect storm of low supply and an increased high demand at the same time. So the reality is, yes, the drought and low profitability for a number of years created a situation where there was no incentive for cattle producers to expand and to grow their herds, and because of the drought they were having to reduce their numbers.”
That demand has remained strong despite higher prices, Tucker said, with consumers often choosing ground beef over other meat options such as pork and chicken.
“One of the big reasons beef is too high is because the consumer has chosen to demand it. The question I like to ask is ‘Is beef too high if that’s what the consumer says they want?’ Just look at how much cheap pork and cheap chicken is available at the grocery store shelf whenever you go to buy food for the weekend,” Tucker said. “The reality is the consumer is saying, I may not be able to afford that steak, but I can instead of choosing an alternative meat source that’s just pork or chicken, I’m going to choose hamburger instead of steak.”
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association and Missouri Farm Bureau have all voiced frustration with the Trump administration’s decision, with Missouri Farm Bureau president Garrett Hawkins writing in a statement:
“This proposal does not solve the underlying causes of high food prices and unfairly places the blame on American farmers and ranchers. We strongly urge the Administration to reverse this decision and support American cattle producers.”
What does it mean for shoppers?
Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former senior adviser in the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development at the USDA, said the administration’s strategy is essentially a short-term attempt to increase supply and bring down grocery costs.
But he said it does not address the underlying shortage of cattle.
“One of the things about these quick fixes in short term to try to lower prices, it never solves the fundamental problem,” Ajilore said. “We already know that with cattle farmers, they’re already struggling with drought. They’re struggling with higher costs. We’ve have increased costs of fertilizer because of the war in Iran. We’ve had tariffs that’s impacted their input costs. And generally, this is going to have a harsh impact on them without solving the problem of lower supply. So it’s just going to make it even a bigger struggle for these cattle farmers.”
For consumers hoping the additional imports will translate into significantly cheaper steaks and roasts, Tucker said there is an important distinction.
Most of the imported beef is expected to be lean, grinding beef used for hamburgers and food service rather than the higher-quality cuts shoppers typically purchase as steaks and roasts.
“Realize this beef that we’re talking about importing from these countries is grinding beef. It’s the lean, grinding beef that ends up in your food service long term. It’s not like it’s coming in as a packaged product ready to go in the grocery store. So we’re talking about huge chunks of processed beef that’s going to come in, go to the packer to be cut up and worked on, and then eventually make it to your fast food stations and a little bit of it into your grocery stores,” Tucker said.
Even if importers pay less for the beef, Tucker questioned whether those savings will necessarily make their way to consumers.
“That beef may have been going to come into the country at a higher tariff anyway and so it comes in at a cheaper price,” Tucker said. “What is the middleman’s incentive to pass that price through to the consumer? Do you really think just because that supplier of McDonald’s gets a little bit of cheaper product, that they’re going to lower the price of a Big Mac suddenly?”
Ajilore added the additional imports would represent only a small portion of the overall beef market.
“It will have an impact, but it’s just going to be so small,” Ajilore said. “So, for example, they’re importing 300,000 metric tons of ground beef, and that’s about 2% of the total market. And so if it does have an impact, we’re looking at maybe a quarter, maybe $0.35 lower.”
Ajilore believes consumers should be skeptical of expectations for a dramatic drop in grocery prices.
“When it comes to lowering prices, it’s a really complicated process and there are no quick fixes. And if any politician is promising a quick fix, then you have to be wary of that.”
Missouri cattle producers push back
Missouri ranks among the nation’s leading beef-producing states, and the cattle industry has been one of the brighter spots in the state’s agricultural economy in recent years.
Mike Deering, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, said producers have benefited from strong cattle prices, but those profits come after years of rising costs.
“The last couple of years, in terms of the cattle market has really been the bright spot of the ag industry as a whole in Missouri. Our crop friends and others are not doing as hot, but we’ve been doing pretty well in the cattle industry,” Deering told ABC 17 News. “As far as the input cost, those are still through the roof and high and so it’s not it’s profitable, better than it has been, but it’s still not as glamorous as some people try to make it.”
Deering also pushed back on the idea that consumers are demanding relief from beef prices, pointing to continued strong demand.
“We have a historic consumer demand right now. So as these prices that you watch tick up, you’ve seen the demand follow that, which is unusual. But the consumer demand is going up, up, up. Consumers are sending a signal to cattle producers that the product isn’t too high and when it does get too high, they let us know,” Deering said. “I don’t really buy into beef prices are too high. We’re not hearing an outrage on that from consumers at all. And when you look at beef and you look at agriculture, we’re not crude oil. So when people go to the grocery store, they have choices.”
The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association has argued that bringing in more foreign beef at a discounted price could discourage producers from rebuilding the nation’s cattle herd.
Deering said he believes the problem is not necessarily the imports themselves, but the government’s decision to manipulate the market by offering them at a lower price.
“It really overshadows a lot of the great things that this administration has done for the cattle industry in terms of tax relief and other tax exemptions. And the list goes on and on. They’ve done a lot of good things and so this kind of overshadows some of that to some degree because it’s totally unnecessary,” Deering said. “It’s not necessary the imports that cause us all the heartburn it’s the market manipulation. When you are buying this product at 25% under market price and you’re undercutting the American producer, that’s where we have a problem.”
Deering believes the solution is to allow cattle prices to respond to supply and demand without government intervention.
“Let the markets work and stop the government interference. I don’t care if it’s Kleenex or beef, get the government out of it,” Deering said.
Tucker echoed that argument, saying lower prices now could actually make it less attractive for cattle producers to make the long-term investment needed to rebuild the herd.
“It’s actually creating the opposite effect, and it’s dis-incentivizing producers to make the long term investment investment and expanding the herd,” Tucker said. “So the likelihood that they’re going to grow the herd now is less than it was before this happened. It’s probably not going to lower the price that consumers are paying all that much, but it’s actually possibly going to make the situation worse.”
Tucker said allowing the market to work could eventually lead to lower prices as producers respond to higher cattle prices by expanding their herds.
“The cure for high prices is high prices. The best way to keep the best way to lower beef prices is to let the market work,” Tucker said. “When the prices were high, it was creating an incentive for them [cattle farmers] to grow and expand. If you let the market work, in a few years they will expand and increase the herd and prices will come down. But when the government gets involved and tries to manipulate it, rarely does it have the effect that they want.”
According to Deering, Missouri cattle producers are now left to adjust to a decision they had no control over.
“What is done is done but if our government officials, if our elected leaders would stop doing that and manipulating with the market, interfering with the marketplace, that would be very helpful. I’ve been grateful for our congressional delegation, for the most part, speaking up and saying, hey, this isn’t right. So standing against this decision has hopefully will get will get the attention it deserves,” Deering said.
The debate also comes as farmers face pressure from other directions, including higher input costs and trade tensions with Canada. Ajilore said Missouri producers could face additional pressure if retaliatory tariffs reduce demand for American agricultural exports.
“Missouri, one of the biggest export markets is Canada. For Kansas, it’s the second-biggest one. And now your going to have lower export demand,” Ajilore said. “You already have higher-rising costs because of tariffs, because of the war in Iran. And so, farmers just continue to struggle. And we’ve seen this in the data to the number of bankruptcies.”
In 2025 alone, Chapter 12 farm bankruptcies surged 46%, with Ajilore predicting those numbers could get even worse this year.
For consumers, Tucker said the administration’s promise of a 25% reduction is unlikely to materialize at the grocery store.
“I think the likelihood of that 25% price reduction is very, very minimal. But I think the other thing the other story that I think keeps getting overlooked, is President Trump has chosen to have to focus on the price of beef because he says the price of beef is too high,” Tucker said. “Well, there’s lots of other products that you can look at. Look at the price of a bag of potato chips or the price of a bag and get a gallon of gasoline. There are lots of things that are too high today. Why he has chosen beef to be the target? I do not know.”
Click here to follow the original article.
