Rural America is Trump country. Drive past farms and ranches of the Midwest and you’ll find “MAGA” flags plastered on grain bins, hung on hay bales, and displayed in the window of every seed store for miles. That’s why President Donald Trump’s recent beef policy proposals are such a betrayal.

Trump announced Oct. 16 his administration is working on a deal to lower beef prices by importing foreign meat.

“That would be the one product that we would say is a little bit higher than we’d want it … and that’s gonna be coming down pretty soon too,” Trump said. What seems like a harmless statement actually spells trouble for American ranchers.

Trump claims beef prices are too high. In fact, beef prices reflect the practical reality facing ranchers. Years of drought have diminished American cattle herds. High prices are simply the result of supply and demand in a free market, in which ranchers are paid a fair price for their products. That’s not inflation; it’s reality.

In every other industry, wages rise with inflation. Through raises, Americans’ incomes remain proportional to the rising cost of living. Ranchers are the exception in the modern market. Current price regulation keeps costs low for the consumer, at the expense of producers. The “high” prices Trump referenced are, in fact, proportional to an inflated economy. Beef is actually cheaper today relative to average income. Case in point: In 1980, the average wage was $6.74/hour and a pound of grass-fed local beef cost around $3.40 (50% of the average hourly wage). Now in 2025, that same pound of beef costs about $9.40/lb compared to an average wage of $24.42/hour (only 38% of the average hourly wage).

A healthy beef market benefits consumers and producers. Consumers receive high-quality American beef, and producers can turn an honest profit, maybe even enough to expand their herd to replenish the dangerously low beef reserve. Any scheme to lower prices upsets this balance.

In the aftermath of Trump’s comments, beef markets plummeted. American producers lost millions as speculation turned against a now-volatile market. Ranchers’ livestock plans depend on the market. Buying and selling is a delicate dance, in which the cost of feeding livestock is weighed with market prices. But when politicians make reckless comments, markets become mayhem and ranchers pay the price. The market’s reaction spells it out clearly — there is worse to come if Trump continues down this path.

Trump’s plan for lowering prices is simple: Flood the market with cheap Argentinian beef. In other words, it’s outsourcing. Bringing in cheap, inferior foreign products to undersell domestic prices is something the Trump administration claims to oppose. America is already in a significant beef trade deficit with Argentina. Are ranchers not included in “America First”? But when asked why he supports a policy favoring Argentina over America, Trump doubled down: “Argentina is fighting for its life… If I can help them survive in a free world [I will], I happen to like the president of Argentina.”

Since when do the interests of foreign countries supersede Americans’ livelihoods? This is the same Trump who enacted immigration reform to reduce the flow of cheap foreign labor into America. It’s the same administration that renegotiated trade deals and enacted manufacturing tariffs to protect American industries. Trump insists the high costs of tariffs are worth the long-term benefit of American economic independence. He’s right. We should be reducing dependence on other nations. Food independence is a fundamental factor in American strength; this administration should not exclude ranchers from the deal.

This plan hurts more than ranchers, though. Per the Kansas Livestock Association, “Government intervention will have the opposite effect of the administration’s desire to grow the beef herd. Faced with the possibility of artificial government suppression of beef prices, ranchers will decide to liquidate rather than retain heifers, further shrinking an already record-small cattle herd.” The cost of artificially low food prices is a weaker and internationally-dependent America.

Not only are these policy proposals a slap in the face to American ranchers, they’re also antithetical to Trump’s America-first agenda. If he continues to pursue this plan, Trump will alienate his strongest base, weakening the whole country in the process. He must change course and remain consistent in policy by supporting domestic producers. One hopes he would recognize the significant contributions of American ranchers, both to his own success and to the country at large. They feed the country and in return are exploited; they deserve better from a president they have supported so strongly. Make American agriculture great again.

Addison Randel is a senior studying history.