Not Magic: Why Trump’s Argentina and Brazil Beef Deal Is a Policy Illusion, Not a Solution

Imports won’t fix beef prices—deregulation and local access will.

and

Oct 19, 2025

As whispers grow of a new Trump-era beef deal with Argentina—and possibly Brazil—farmers warn it could repeat the same “magic” that failed to fix egg prices. Behind the headlines, global meatpackers stand to gain while American ranchers fight for the right to sell their own beef at home.

It’s perfectly healthy—and deeply American—to question political leadership, even when we agree with it.
Criticism, when done in good faith, isn’t betrayal; it’s accountability.

I’ve supported many of President Trump’s efforts to strengthen American industry and agriculture. But when a policy move risks hurting the very farmers and ranchers who feed this nation, it deserves scrutiny. This isn’t about partisanship—it’s about principle: protecting U.S. food sovereignty, supporting domestic producers, and strengthening the American rural economy.

That’s why, when Trump said he had “worked our magic” on a deal to lower beef prices, I felt compelled to look deeper.

The “Magic” Beef Deal

When former President Donald Trump declared that he had “worked our magic” on a deal to bring down beef prices, the remark made headlines—yet came with no details, no paperwork, and no official statement.

It’s not the first time he’s used that phrase. Last winter, Trump claimed he had “worked his magic” on a deal to lower egg prices—and that “magic” turned out to be importing eggs to temporarily cool costs. It didn’t fix the market then, and it won’t fix beef now.

At the time, the Yanasa TV analysis argued that this was a missed opportunity. Rather than letting prices naturally rise and encourage small producers to expand flocks and invest in new capacity, the administration turned to imports—a move that effectively protected large corporate producers by keeping prices artificially low.

Now, the same playbook appears to be unfolding with beef.

Argentina, Brazil, and the Global Meat Corridor

The first wave of speculation centered on Argentina, where Trump recently held a private meeting with libertarian President Javier Milei. Argentina’s government has rapidly deregulated its farm sector—lifting export taxes, authorizing live-cattle exports for the first time in decades, and revising Resolution 110/2024 to simplify distribution of its 20 000-metric-ton U.S. beef quota.

That alone made Argentina a prime candidate for a “magic” import deal.

But there’s now another layer: Brazil.
Shortly after his meeting with Milei, Trump spoke by phone with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and senior Brazilian trade officials met with U.S. counterparts in Washington the same week.

Why does that matter?
Because Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter, shipping more than three times what Argentina does—and its industry is dominated by JBS, the same multinational conglomerate that controls a massive share of U.S. meatpacking and distribution.

If a “beef deal” includes Brazil, it could mean more than a trade tweak; it could mean greater consolidation of the global beef market under corporate control.

That’s not a pro-America outcome—it’s a globalist one.

The Hard Reality of Import Math

Tariff Barriers Still Exist—Unless Waived.
The United States operates a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system for Argentina: 20 000 metric tons per year at a token in-quota tariff of about $0.044/kg. Anything above that pays a 26.4 percent tariff. Brazil operates under a similar cap. Unless Washington expands quotas or waives duties, the effect on consumer prices will be marginal.
Competing Export Commitments.
Most Argentine and Brazilian beef already heads to China, the EU, and the Middle East, where prices are higher. To redirect meaningful volume here, they’d have to cut prices or abandon existing buyers.
Corporate Intermediaries.
Even if imports rise, they’ll flow through the same packers—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef—that already dominate U.S. processing. Imports don’t increase competition; they expand the control of those who already hold it.

So while a foreign import deal might look like “market relief,” it can’t crash U.S. beef prices without deliberate policy engineering—and even then, the benefits would accrue mostly to global processors, not American consumers or ranchers.

Lessons From the “Magic” Egg Deal

We’ve seen this before.
When egg prices spiked last winter, the “magic” solution was to import eggs rather than address structural issues like corporate consolidation, feed costs, and disease management.

At the time, Yanasa TV argued that the right response was to let the market correct naturally—allow prices to rise enough to spur local investment. That’s how small farms expand and markets rebalance.

Instead, importing eggs became a form of industry protectionism, keeping retail prices just low enough to protect large integrators while choking out small-scale producers.

The same thing happens in Canada’s tightly controlled egg cartel, where rigid quota systems and bureaucratic enforcement have even led to farmers being charged or jailed for selling outside the state-approved network. (See Yanasa News: “Jailed for Fighting the Egg Cartel.”)

Importing beef may wear a different label, but it’s the same mechanism: a centralized market fix that props up the giants and punishes the independents.

R-CALF USA: Facts Over Propaganda

On October 17, 2025, R-CALF USA released a powerful commentary dismantling what they called the “import propaganda.”
They pointed out that:

The U.S. beef cow herd is the smallest it’s been in seventy years.
Beef demand and consumption are both up over the last decade.
Cattle prices have hit historic highs for 2.5 years straight.
Consumer beef prices have remained at record levels for 5.5 years.

And yet, global packers insist the U.S. must “import more” to lower prices.

The data says otherwise.

Four decades ago, imports of beef and cattle accounted for about 10 percent of U.S. consumption.
Today, imports have grown 2.5 times, reaching roughly 6.4 billion pounds—about 22 percent of domestic consumption.

Despite this flood of foreign beef, prices for consumers are higher than ever.
Since 2017, beef imports have increased by 43 percent, and retail beef prices have also risen 42 percent.

If imports truly lowered prices, those lines would diverge. They haven’t.

R-CALF’s conclusion is blunt: imports aren’t a solution—they’re the problem.
They’ve crowded out domestic production, reduced profitability for ranchers, and driven half of America’s independent cattle operations out of business over the past forty years.

Protecting the U.S. market from cheap imports isn’t protectionism—it’s preservation.

Why Beef Imports Won’t Fix Prices

Tariff barriers restrict impact.
Without major changes, imports remain capped and costly.
Domestic supply is tight.
The U.S. herd is at its lowest since the 1950s. Price pressure reflects scarcity, not trade restriction.
Speculation amplifies volatility.
Hedge funds and speculative traders have poured into CME cattle futures, inflating markets beyond fundamentals.
Corporate concentration distorts competition.
Four companies process about 85 percent of American beef. Imports will only deepen that concentration.
Import dependency undermines sovereignty.
Food security can’t depend on foreign governments or shipping lanes.

The Real Fix: Deregulation and Domestic Market Access

If the goal is lower prices and stronger supply, the path runs through regulatory reform, not foreign dependency.

1. The PRIME Act

The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act would let states legalize sales of custom-processed meatinside their borders.
Under today’s federal law, meat from “custom-exempt” facilities can only be eaten by the owner and their household—not sold at markets, restaurants, or grocery stores.

The PRIME Act would reopen that in-state channel, empowering small processors and family farms while keeping safety oversight in state hands.

2. Lower Licensing Thresholds

States can ease costly, one-size-fits-all licensing requirements that deter on-farm butchering and micro-processing. Scaling inspection and handling fees to operation size would unleash hundreds of new small businesses.

3. Rebuild Local Infrastructure

Federal grants, low-interest loans, or tax credits for small slaughterhouses and cold-storage facilities would shorten transport distances, create rural jobs, and cut costs for both farmers and consumers.

Together, these steps would expand supply, strengthen local food systems, and naturally moderate prices—without foreign imports.

New Hampshire: A Case Study in Federal Overreach

In 2025, New Hampshire legislators tried to do exactly this.
House Bill 396 would have allowed in-state restaurants and retailers to buy beef processed at custom-exempt facilities—meat raised, butchered, and sold entirely within the Granite State.

It was common-sense reform. But the bill ran into the brick wall of 9 CFR 303.1, the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Because New Hampshire lacks its own red-meat inspection program, federal law overrides state authority. Even if the bill had passed, it would have been unenforceable.
By March, HB 396 was shelved and quietly died in committee.

The message is clear: states can’t fix their food systems without federal permission.

Until Congress passes the PRIME Act or similar reforms, states remain bound by a centralized regulatory regime written for corporate packers—not community farmers.

Why Big Meat Prefers Imports to Deregulation

Global conglomerates like JBS and Tyson fear deregulation far more than imports.

Imports expand their control. They already own the infrastructure to import, process, and distribute.
Local reform threatens their monopoly. Letting small processors sell direct would cut them out.
Complex regulations shield them from competition. Compliance costs keep newcomers out while the giants absorb them easily.

Imports keep the illusion of competition alive, while deregulation would create real competition.

The Global Backfire: Argentina and China

This isn’t theoretical—it’s déjà vu.
After receiving U.S. financial support, Argentina quickly brokered a massive soybean deal with China, diverting markets away from U.S. farmers.
Now, with talk of importing their beef, we risk repeating the same mistake: funding our competitors while undermining our producers.

The Bigger Picture: Choice, Competition, and Food Security

True food security is built on diversity and decentralization, not dependence.

Choice lets consumers direct their dollars toward local food.
Competition keeps prices honest.
Local investment circulates wealth through rural towns.
Resilience grows when communities feed themselves.

If the U.S. unlocked state-level markets and empowered local farmers, we’d see immediate private-sector investment in new facilities and regional supply chains. Prices would stabilize through efficiency and accessibility, not foreign volume.

Conclusion: It’s Not Magic — It’s Misdirection

Trump’s “magic” beef deal—whether with Argentina, Brazil, or both—may sound like quick relief, but it’s political optics, not policy progress.

At best, it offers short-term headline value.
At worst, it deepens dependence on foreign suppliers and strengthens the same multinational packers that have hollowed out rural America.

A truly pro-American food policy would:

Deregulate the farm gate.
Empower states like New Hampshire to feed their own people.
Rebuild local infrastructure.
Protect domestic producers from predatory global consolidation.

That isn’t magic—it’s common sense.

Deregulate. Reinvest. Rebuild.
That’s how we put more beef on American tables, restore fairness to our markets, and secure the future of American food for generations to come.