Against the backdrop of an ongoing affordability crisis and the midterm election push, the Trump administration’s effort to reduce beef prices appears to be falling short. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation in August to temporarily increase the amount of beef in the United States by importing 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings into the country at a reduced tariff rate. Imports were scheduled for 90 days, from September to November. “This deal will lower prices for Americans while making room for our great American beef herd to grow again,” Trump wrote in Truth Social when announcing the policy. But as of Oct. 19, the United States had imported just 59,423 metric tons of beef, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or just 20% of the goal. And ground beef averaged $6.79 per pound in September, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from $6.92 in August but still up from $6.32 a year ago. This 7% year-over-year increase in beef, due to continued high demand as well as declining herd sizes, has far outpaced the 2.5% to 2.9% increase in overall U.S. food prices, which has become representative of the country’s affordability issues. Trump has identified meat prices as a key issue to address during the second half of his term, as he directs his policy toward the typically loyal Republican base of farmers. “It really became unacceptable to the voter,” Trump said last month. “And we have to get elected, because if we’re not going to get elected, your ranchers and farmers are going to be in big trouble.” But farmers and agricultural economists alike doubt that 300,000 tonnes of imported beef will lead to price cuts, arguing that the initiative is at best ineffective and at worst a financial strain during an already challenging period for the industry. “The simple assumption was that if we could increase the supply of beef in the United States, that should reduce prices,” Derrell Peel, an agribusiness professor specializing in livestock farming at Oklahoma State University, told Fortune. “Unfortunately, the beef industry is much more complex than that.” The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment. Why Trump’s push to reduce beef costs is falling short Part of why Americans don’t see a noticeable difference in beef costs is because the type of meat shipped from abroad doesn’t often make it to retail shelves, Peel said. Lean beef trimmings are often combined with fatty trimmings produced from cattle in American feedlots. This beef combination is typically used in fast food restaurants, not the grocery stores where many American consumers seek relief. The use of these lean cuts as a complement to domestic fatty cuts also means that the demand for this type of beef is already modulated. The beef industry can import lean cuts to meet demand, and even absorb tariffs to do so, according to Peel, and therefore an influx of supply at a cheaper cost does not solve the underlying problem of retail costs. “When you remove the tariff, it becomes cheaper, but it doesn’t necessarily increase demand because we only need a limited amount,” Peel said. “We were getting everything we wanted.” Additionally, Brazil and Argentina, which account for much of the beef imported from the United States, have their own supply problems due to low beef inventory. Glynn Tonsor, a professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University, argued that if Trump really wanted to lower beef prices, the best way to do it would be to not interfere with prices to begin with, allowing them to rise. “If demand for beef is eroded, beef prices will be eroded,” he told Fortune. Demand for beef has remained high even as prices have soared, rising 5.9% in the first six months of 2026 compared to the same period a year earlier. Tonsor blames demand, and not smaller cattle herds, for the higher prices. Herd sizes have been declining for 60 years, he noted, making them a predictable factor for the industry and therefore only partly responsible for rising beef prices. If prices remain high, they will effectively destroy demand and eventually drive prices down. But that would also slow imports, not increase them, Tonsor said, meaning there would be no need or reasonable expectation for 300,000 metric tons of beef to enter the country. American farmers’ beef under Trump Farmers are largely uninterested in an intervention that would reduce beef prices. American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall called on Trump to reverse the policy in a statement last month, arguing that imports would depress cattle prices and could cost ranchers $300 to $400 per head. “Simply put, the plan undermined a fragile recovery in the livestock industry and did no good to consumers,” Duvall said. What’s stopping farmers from becoming more upset about Trump’s import policy is its lack of effectiveness, Peel said. More imports would depress cattle prices, but the modest rebound has not had an overwhelming impact on the industry. Instead, what bothers farmers most is the president’s interference in an industry that has historically favored free markets, Peel explained. “Nothing is simple here,” he said. “There’s no easy answer when it comes to anything you want to do in terms of policy to influence this market.”
