Replacing Brazil, Not US Ranchers: Trump's Case to Switch to Argentine Lean Trimmings

The Biden years left American families with a stubborn fact, beef stayed expensive while the cattle herd shrank. Trump’s second term confronted that reality directly, first by telling the truth about supply and price, then by using trade tools to rewire where our supplemental beef comes from. The announced beef arrangement with Argentina fits that wider strategy. It is not a subsidy, it is a swap, it sources the lean trimmings we already import from a friend, at a lower tariff cost, and away from a supplier now facing punitive duties because of broader disputes. The result is modest relief in ground beef prices and no hit to US cattlemen who remain constrained by biology, weather, and time.

Start with the market we actually have, not the one critics imagine. Roughly half of all beef eaten in the US is hamburger, and hamburger, unlike steaks, is a blend. US feedlot cattle produce abundant fatty trim, close to 50% fat, as a by‑product of the marbled cuts that pay the bills. To achieve 80/20 or 90/10 blends, packers have to mix that domestic fat with very lean beef, often 90% or more, that historically comes from two places, cull cows in the domestic herd and imports of lean processing beef. When the cow herd is tight, as it is now after drought‑driven liquidation, the domestic source of very lean trim falls short. Imports fill the gap. This is not conjecture, it is the standard explanation offered by beef economists, industry white papers, and USDA market notes. Without imported lean trim, a sizable share of domestic fat trim would be downgraded to tallow rather than sold as hamburger, consumers would pay more, and overall beef demand would soften.

That context makes the Argentina move straightforward. Argentina is already a meaningful player in US imports, the fifth‑largest supplier by volume, with shipments measured in the tens of millions of pounds. Brazil by contrast surged to become the second‑largest supplier, in early 2025 even the largest, riding record high US prices and record low US cow inventories. When the administration imposed heavy retaliatory tariffs on Brazilian goods, raising Brazilian over‑quota duties to a prohibitive level, it signaled that Brazil’s beef would likely recede, perhaps to zero next year. If a major supplier steps out under punitive rates, someone else must step in, or retail prices will climb still higher. The announced US‑Argentina understanding does just that, it removes the 10% tariff applied to Argentine quota trimmings and expands practical access, making Argentine lean trim competitive without subsidy and without increasing total import volumes. The composition shifts, the total does not.

Some readers may worry about displacement, will cheaper Argentine beef depress US production. No. The key distinction is product type. US ranchers specialize in grain finished, well marbled cattle that generate steaks and roasts, plus fatty trim. Argentine shipments, like those from Australia and New Zealand, are overwhelmingly lean processing beef headed into grinders. These are complements, not substitutes. They make each other valuable. Lean imports allow US packers to sell every ounce of domestic fat trim as part of burger blends instead of sending it to the renderer. The imported lean does not replace a single T‑bone or brisket from a US steer, it enables the full monetization of the animal that the rancher has already raised. This is why in years with record imports, cash cattle prices still set record highs, the domestic shortfall dominates the price formation and imports simply cap the extremes.

A second confusion is volume. Could Argentina flood the market if tariffs vanish. Again, no. Argentina’s total exportable supply is finite, bounded by its own very high domestic beef consumption and by production cycles. Its share of global beef trade is modest, single digits, and its 2024 shipments to the US were a small fraction of what Brazil sent. Even a doubling or tripling of Argentine sales to the US would barely register as a share of total US beef use. Analysts have run the arithmetic and concluded that even extreme scenarios would amount to a couple of points of US supply at most, nowhere near enough to knock down domestic production. In practice, the Argentina opening will backfill the hole left by Brazil and partially offset tight supplies from Australia and New Zealand while their herds rebuild. It is a reallocation of import sources, not an expansion designed to undercut US ranchers.

Price effects deserve careful treatment. The promised benefit is not a price collapse, it is marginal relief concentrated in ground beef. Consider the mechanics. A blender’s cost is the weighted cost of lean and fat inputs. Domestic fat trim is tied to fed cattle values, which are elevated because the herd is small. The lean component is either domestic cow beef, which is scarce when ranchers are holding back heifers to rebuild, or imported lean. If the US replaces tariff‑burdened Brazilian lean with tariff‑free Argentine lean, then, all else equal, the input cost falls by a few cents per pound. A few cents at the input stage yields a few percent at the retail case once grinding, packaging, and retail margins are included. Multiple agricultural economists have described the likely effect in just this way, a very slight moderation in ground beef costs, perhaps on the order of 2% to 5% compared to the counterfactual. That is enough to matter to families, especially because beef has been the standout in grocery inflation, but it is not enough to dent the profitability of US cattle, which is set by the scarcity of finished animals.

One might object that imports, however targeted, still lower overall beef prices and so must hurt ranchers. The data from 2024 and 2025 answer that objection. The US imported record volumes in 2024 and even larger volumes early in 2025, yet fed cattle and feeder prices also set records. The tightness of the domestic herd overwhelmed any marginal dampening from imports. Imports filled a hole rather than created a glut. In fact, by keeping ground beef from becoming unaffordable, imports helped preserve total beef demand, which in turn supported the cutout values that make ranchers whole. A shrunken herd takes years to rebuild. In that rebuilding window, measured in seasons not weeks, it is better to keep consumers in the category with reasonably priced hamburger than to push them into permanent substitution toward chicken or pork. That is the conservative, pro producer, pro consumer equilibrium, maintain demand now, rebuild supply patiently, and avoid demand destruction that would punish ranchers later.

Another objection targets food safety. Did the US lower standards to admit Argentine beef. No. Argentina regained access in 2018 only after USDA and FSIS verified sanitary systems and equivalence, after a 17 year absence related to animal health. Since then, Argentine exporters to the US have operated under the same inspection and residue regimes that govern other eligible countries. The present arrangement changes tariffs, not sanitary rules. If anything, sourcing more from a competent democracy with aligned standards is safer than relying on suppliers in more opaque jurisdictions. The risk control remains where it should be, in science based inspection and certification, not in tariffs.

A third objection is political, why reward Argentina. The answer is that trade policy is a tool for both domestic price stability and strategic alignment. Argentina under President Milei has pursued market reforms, pro US diplomacy, and liberalization in the classical sense. It is in the US interest to see that project succeed. Allowing Argentine producers to earn dollar revenues by selling a commodity we already buy is a low cost way to bolster a friendly government. At the same time, the administration sent a clear signal to Brazil by raising duties amid broader disputes about trade behavior, treatment of political allies, and alignment with China. If Brazil chooses to forgo the US market rather than adjust, the US should have ready alternatives. Strengthening links with Argentina, Mexico, Canada, and Australia does that without binding the US to any one provider. Diversity is resilience.

The deal’s legal mechanics are narrower than the political debates make them sound. Historically Argentina faced a quota arrangement under which in quota volumes entered at a very low rate while over quota volumes faced a duty above 25%. In practice, the binding point for lean trim was the differential with other sources, not the absolute rate. Removing the 10% in quota tariff and clarifying access allows Argentine lean to land at a price that competes directly with other import origins that now face higher costs, particularly Brazil under the punitive regime. This works with, not against, the quota architecture and the tariff rate schedule that Congress already placed in statute. It is a targeted calibration, not a wholesale rewrite of trade law.

There is also a useful economic analogy. Think of the US beef complex as a two input production process for a ubiquitous consumer good. Input A is domestic fat trim, abundant and tied to the value of fed cattle. Input B is very lean trim, scarce domestically in the rebuild phase and therefore sourced abroad. If you lower the tax on Input B from a friendly supplier, while raising it greatly on a less friendly supplier, you reduce the expected cost variance of the production process and you reduce the level of cost as well. You have not increased the total use of Input B beyond the quantity that demand already requires, you have only changed who supplies it. The optimized production process then keeps the composite good, hamburger, within reach for consumers, which keeps the entire demand schedule for beef higher than it otherwise would be. The upstream effect is to support the prices of fed cattle that yield Input A. In plain language, cheaper lean imports keep the value of domestic fat trim higher, which is good for ranchers.

Critics sometimes invoke a slippery slope. If we ease Argentine access today, will we not open the door to a flood tomorrow that does undercut US producers once herds recover. This confuses policy tools with policy judgment. The same administration that opened Argentina on tariff grounds also used tariffs aggressively against Brazil. The tools can be dialed either way as conditions change. If and when US cow numbers rebuild and domestic lean supplies are ample, the case for large lean imports weakens on economic grounds, and the case for tightening access strengthens. For now, however, American families are paying high prices for ground beef because the biological lag in cattle means we cannot conjure animals out of thin air. Imports of lean trim are the bridge that connects today’s tightness with tomorrow’s recovery. It is sensible to build that bridge with a friendly nation that wants to sell to us under clear rules, rather than cling to a misaligned supplier under punitive rates.

It is worth emphasizing what the Argentina deal does not do. It does not alter country of origin labeling rules. It does not change sanitary inspection. It does not allow unlabeled foreign steaks to masquerade as domestic. It does not grant any exporter a monopoly. It does not cap US production. It does not turn off the price signals that are already encouraging ranchers to retain heifers and expand when moisture and forage permit. All of that remains. The deal works in the seam of the market most sensitive to price, the ground beef segment, and it does so by replacing Brazilian lean with Argentine lean, plus marginal volumes from Mexico, Canada, and Australia as needed. If Brazil’s punitive tariff pushes its exports toward zero, and that is a plausible forecast given the math, then the capacity freed up in the US market must be filled by someone else or consumers will face fresh spikes. Argentina is the obvious candidate to take a significant piece of that share because its trimmings can now enter without the 10% duty and because its exporters already meet US inspection requirements.

The prudential case has a final strategic dimension. The US benefits when the Western Hemisphere is stable, prosperous, and aligned with our interests. We do not benefit when key food inputs depend on regimes that are adversarial or internally volatile. The shift from Brazil to Argentina, supplemented by North American partners and traditional allies in Oceania, reduces that exposure. It also sends a message about the rewards of alignment. Help us keep American grocery bills in check, sell us the narrow input we need, respect our sanitary rules, and we will preference you over a competitor who takes the opposite tack. That is the kind of conditional cooperation that conservatives should applaud, because it connects foreign policy to the daily life of citizens without drift into ideological adventurism.

This is therefore a textbook case of a targeted, pro consumer, pro producer trade adjustment. It relies on a correct diagnosis of the beef market, that lean imports are complements to, not competitors with, US production in the present herd cycle. It channels imports from a friend at a lower tariff, and away from a counterpart facing punitive rates. It reduces the risk of another leg higher in hamburger prices. It leaves premium steak markets untouched. It preserves safety standards. It supports a hemispheric ally embarked on reform. And it keeps the door open to recalibration as domestic circumstances change. The steelman view is simple, the deal is a win for US families, a non event for US ranchers’ core business, and a vote of confidence in a democratic partner. If we care about stable grocery bills, resilient supply chains, and sensible diplomacy, that is what prudence looks like.

If you enjoy my work, please share my work and subscribe https://x.com/amuse.

---

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification, unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline‑driven outlets.