American Cattle Ranchers Want Trump to Address Key Industry Challenge

President Donald Trump’s plan to increase beef imports aims to lower consumer prices, but cattle ranchers across America argue it fails to address what they see as the fundamental problem: the outsized market power of major meat processing companies.

“Meat packers have created a system where they win no matter what—at the cost of everyone else,” explains Will Harris, a fourth-generation cattleman who owns White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. Harris, whose family-run operation handles every aspect of production from raising cattle to processing and selling beef, has a comprehensive view of how pricing works throughout the supply chain.

At the center of the beef industry sit the so-called “Big Four” processors—Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef. These corporate giants control approximately 85% of the processing for grain-fattened cattle that eventually become the steaks, roasts, and other beef products found in American supermarkets.

“The U.S. beef market is so highly concentrated that a small number of dominant packers control processing, distribution, and pricing,” Harris told Fox News Digital. “This allows them to pay ranchers less for cattle while charging consumers more at the store. When cheap imported beef enters the system, it allows packers to increase their margins.”

This sentiment resonates deeply with ranchers across the country’s cattle-producing regions. In Texas, rancher Cole Bolton of K&C Cattle Company identifies the same structural problem.

“What the real issue is, is the price differential between the big four packers and what they’re paying us for the product,” Bolton said. He notes that these economic pressures aren’t new to the industry: “Ranchers have dealt with such thin margins of profitability for the last 20 years.”

The U.S. cattle industry faces multiple challenges beyond market concentration. Years of severe drought conditions across key ranching states have forced many producers to reduce their herds. Combined with rising feed costs and an aging population of ranch owners, these factors have contributed to the U.S. cattle inventory dropping to its lowest level in more than seven decades.

This supply shortage has created a price squeeze that affects both producers and consumers. While ranchers struggle with thin profit margins, consumers face higher prices at the meat counter. President Trump’s executive order allowing additional beef imports from Argentina is designed as a short-term solution to ease consumer prices.

However, both Harris and Bolton caution that while increased imports might provide temporary relief, they won’t solve the industry’s structural problems. “Imports should be a bridge, not a long-term replacement,” Harris emphasized. “We must rebuild the American cattle herd, protect American farmers and ensure transparency, so consumers understand where their beef comes from.”

He added that long-term affordability depends on rebuilding domestic production capacity rather than creating permanent dependence on foreign beef sources. The process of rebuilding the U.S. cattle herd will require significant time and investment, as the biological cycle of cattle production means any expansion happens gradually over multiple years.

Bolton echoes this reality, asking for consumer patience during the recovery process. “I think it’s going to take a while to fix this crisis that we’re in with the cattle shortage. My message to consumers is simple: Folks, be patient. We’ve got to build back our herds,” he told Fox News Digital.

The industry has weathered multiple consecutive challenges in recent years—market volatility, pandemic-related disruptions, extreme weather events, and persistently high input costs. These compounding factors have created what many in the industry describe as a perfect storm affecting both supply and pricing.

As the debate over imports continues, the fundamental question remains whether addressing market concentration in meat processing might provide a more sustainable solution for both ranchers and consumers than temporary trade adjustments.