President Donald Trump has found a new way to fight the price effects of tariffs: remove them.
On Friday, Trump announced via Truth Social that for the next 90 days, the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported without tariffs. He stated that foreign suppliers had committed to selling the beef at 25 percent below current market prices.
The White House indicated Trump would formalize the move with an executive order within two weeks. However, the administration has not identified the countries or companies that will supply the meat.
The timing is hard to miss: The 90-day window runs into the November midterm elections. Republicans face growing voter anger over living costs, and beef prices have become one of the most visible examples.
The policy creates an awkward problem for one of Trump’s favorite economic arguments. He has repeatedly insisted that foreign countries pay American tariffs. But his beef policy rests on the opposite premise: removing a tariff to lower the price Americans pay for food.
The administration is removing a tariff specifically because it expects the change to lower the price Americans pay for food. However, this does not mean every dollar of a tariff becomes a dollar of higher retail prices. Supply, demand, transportation, processing, and retailer margins also matter.
But the policy acknowledges the basic mechanism Trump often obscures: American importers pay tariffs when products enter the United States. Those costs can then move through the supply chain.
The U.S. International Trade Commission found that under Trump’s first-term tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods, U.S. importers bore nearly the full cost, pushing prices higher. Import prices rose roughly in line with the tariffs. Other studies have similarly shown this pattern.
Beef is a different market, but the underlying mechanism remains the same. Trump had already embraced that logic in February when he increased the tariff rate quota for Argentine lean beef trimmings by 80,000 metric tons. His own proclamation stated the additional imports were necessary because domestic supply was inadequate to meet demand at “reasonable prices.”
The White House fact sheet even stated that the administration was increasing tariff-free imports “to boost supply and make ground beef affordable for American consumers.”
This contradicts Trump’s broader claim that tariffs do not raise costs for Americans. Trump has laid much of the blame on his predecessor, writing: “As everyone knows, under President Biden, beef prices soared at their fastest rate and the American beef herd fell to its smallest size in modern history.”
Beef prices did rise sharply under Biden, especially during the inflation surge of 2021 and 2022. However, they continued to increase after he left office. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, the average price of uncooked ground beef was about $5.82 per pound in January 2025, but by July 2026 it had climbed to $7.12—a roughly 22 percent increase since Trump returned to office.
The increases remain steep. Beef and veal prices were 9.4 percent higher in July than a year earlier. Ground beef was up nine percent. In January, the annual increases reached 15 percent for beef and veal and 17.2 percent for ground beef, per BLS data.
The cattle herd also shrank under Biden, falling from 93.6 million cattle and calves in early 2021 to 86.7 million in January 2025. However, the contraction predated his presidency. USDA data show the herd peaked at 94.7 million in 2019 and then declined for six consecutive years through 2025.
Natural events intervened: drought and wildfires reduced forage and feed supplies, contributing to the shrinking cattle herd. Ranchers have also faced elevated production costs. The effects of Trump’s own tariffs added to those pressures by raising the price of imported fertilizer, equipment, and other farm inputs. The American Farm Bureau (AFB) warned that farmers rely on imports for “crucial supplies like fertilizer and specialized tools” and that tariffs would drive up those costs.
More recently, restrictions on Mexican cattle tightened supplies after the spread of New World screwworm.
But cattle supply is only one part of the price on the supermarket shelf. Between the rancher and the consumer sits a highly concentrated meatpacking industry. Just four companies—JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef—dominate roughly 85 percent of U.S. beef processing.
USDA data show that in most parts of the country, ranchers and farmers now have two to four buyers for their cattle or hogs. The agency also found recent evidence of reduced competition, lower cattle prices, and wider spreads between what packers pay for cattle and what they receive for wholesale beef.
Trump himself has blamed the meatpackers. Last November, his White House accused the “Big Four” of wielding “monopoly power” and stated industry concentration had contributed to higher prices for consumers. Trump ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation.
Therefore, cheaper imported beef does not automatically mean proportionately cheaper hamburger. The move immediately drew fire from American cattle producers. Cattle futures fell to eight-month lows after Trump’s announcement. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) warned that the policy could discourage ranchers from expanding their herds. CEO Colin Woodall accused the administration of sacrificing “long-term stability for short-term messaging.” The group argues that lower cattle prices would weaken the very incentive ranchers need to rebuild the depleted U.S. herd.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association was sharper, with President Justin Tupper stating: “You don’t put America first by putting U.S. cattle producers last. This move will weaken our markets and gamble with food safety in the process.”
The group also noted that the import surge could depress cattle prices while doing little for shoppers and warned there is “no clear evidence” that Trump’s plan would significantly lower retail beef prices. It further cautioned that the policy could weaken confidence among ranchers considering whether to invest in rebuilding their herds.
Republican lawmakers from cattle states quickly joined the backlash. Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer wrote: “Flooding the market with foreign beef hurts our livestock industry and undermines the long term solution: growing the U.S. cattle herd to meet demand.”
Nebraska Senator Pete Ricketts offered a similar warning, arguing that the move would hurt local producers. Montana Senator Tim Sheehy said he had advised Trump against the policy for a year and pointed to meatpacker concentration, stating American ranchers have struggled against the “packer monopoly for decades.” Cheaper imports, he warned, would make rebuilding the herd harder and “harm our ranching families who feed the nation.”
Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, one of Trump’s closest Senate allies, called the move “ill-advised” and urged Trump to reconsider. In Iowa, Republican Representative Ashley Hinson stated: “I want to lower prices but this is a bad idea.” Representative Zach Nunn also called the push for more foreign beef imports “the wrong answer.”
Senator Chuck Grassley added that American cattlemen should come first under “America First” policies. South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds summed up his reaction in two words: “This Hurts!” Senate Republican Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming stated: “Americans want U.S. beef on the table—not foreign imports.” North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis blasted the plan, saying: “If you think that providing subsidized beef for some period of time is going to make farmers happy and prices go down on a systemic basis, you’re wrong. Doesn’t happen.”
For a policy meant to ease voter frustration over beef prices, Trump has managed to unite ranchers and a sizable bloc of his own party against it.