Farmers Need Fair Markets, Not More Mixed Signals from Washington
By Sarah Carden, research and policy director at Farm Action and an organic vegetable farmer
(This article has been significantly updated with additional reporting as of November 8, 2025.)
President Donald Trump campaigned on standing up for American farmers and ranchers. Yet in his second term, many of the administration’s decisions have benefited foreign competitors and global agribusiness giants instead of the farmers and rural communities he vowed to champion.
The administration’s recent $40 billion bailout of Argentina is a clear example. U.S. farmers were blindsided by the decision to use Treasury funds to stabilize a direct soybean competitor while domestic prices were collapsing. Within days of receiving U.S. financial support, Argentina dropped its 26% export tax, and China quickly purchased more than a million tons of soybeans.
Meanwhile, U.S. soybean growers, already reeling from China’s halt in purchases since May, were forced to sell portions of their 2025 crop at the lowest prices in years due to cash-flow pressure and limited storage. When China later announced plans to buy 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans, the real winners were not farmers, but global grain traders who had already purchased grain at harvest lows.
This disconnect between promises and outcomes is not limited to crop farmers. The administration’s proposal to expand beef imports from Argentina generated the same unease among cattle producers. The White House argued it would lower prices for consumers. But that argument misdiagnoses the real problem. Beef prices are high not just because of a smaller domestic cattle herd, but because four corporations—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef—control roughly 85% of beef processing in the United States. Their market power allows them to squeeze ranchers on the buying side and consumers on the retail side, while posting record profits.
Against that backdrop, President Trump’s November 7 call for a Department of Justice investigation into meatpacker conduct is welcome. If the administration is genuinely committed to restoring competition, this announcement must not end with the investigation, but with legal action aimed at reducing the concentration in the cattle and beef market.
If the administration truly wants to support U.S. cattle producers, it must go further and demand that Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling be part of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement during its 2026 Joint review. This action would allow U.S. cattle producers to distinguish their beef from imports from countries such as Argentina.
Other actions expose contradictions in the administration’s stance on monopoly power in agriculture. While USDA and DOJ signed an agreement to coordinate agricultural competition policy, the administration quietly eliminated a grant program that helped states investigate and prosecute anti-competitive behavior.
Additionally, the United States Department of Agriculture cut programs like the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program and Local Food for Schools, removing more than a billion dollars in federal procurement that supported local farmers, food hubs, and rural economies. That money will now flow back to the multinational suppliers who already dominate federal purchasing.
Taken together, these actions signal inconsistent, often conflicting approaches to corporate power in agriculture.
If the administration wants to fulfill its promises to rural America, it must fully align its policies with its rhetoric. That starts with confronting consolidation across the food system, restoring fair and transparent markets, and investing in the farmers and ranchers who keep this country fed—not the corporations that profit from their struggle.
Only by tackling monopolies head-on can we rebuild a farm economy that works for the people who grow our food and for the communities they sustain.
