September 9, 2026

Trump’s Beef Announcement That Influences the Character of Our Nation

By: Art da Rosa, PE, MPA, CFM

When President Trump recently announced that local ranchers could process their own beef, it sparked several important conversations. Local conversations in Idaho are generally positive, as most Idahoans see the existing beef industry as being overregulated. However, there are some who do not see it that way. I see this as a pattern to change our economy away from the free-market system.

President Trump Announcement Regarding Overregulation

In late August 2026, President Trump made a sweeping statement targeting the concentrated control of the American beef industry, pledging administrative actions to allow local farmers and ranchers to process and sell their own meat.

USDA’s continuous-inspection regime, whatever its original intent, requires a scale of capital investment that only large companies can absorb. A rancher who wants to process a few dozen head a year for local sale can’t spread that cost the way a plant slaughtering a thousand a day can. So, the rule, sold entirely in the language of hygiene, has functioned for decades as something else too: a wall that keeps the biggest four players from ever having to compete with the rancher down the road.

As Glenn Beck reported, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association opposed weakening federal inspection standards, stating that “weakening federal meat inspection and food safety standards is not the answer.” I cannot verify that this group truly represents the cattlemen, but they stand to lose from deregulation. Their concern is not baseless—decentralizing inspection does carry real food-safety tradeoffs, and that risk deserves an honest hearing alongside the competition argument.

These regulations (or overregulation) did not happen overnight. In 1906, Congress passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act. In 1967, Congress passed the Wholesome Meat Act. These laws set the tone for the beef industry. To be clear, the President of the United States is duty-bound to honor these laws.

There is another layer, though. The laws cited above do not address the frequency and method of inspection, nor do they address the facility testing requirements and many other protocols. These are addressed in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) – administrative regulations added, by Federal agencies, on top of the laws already passed by Congress. The clearest example is USDA’s 1996 Pathogen Reduction Rule, which added mandatory in-house pathogen testing and written food-safety plans without any new act of Congress.

For years, independent ranchers have argued that the administrative state—under the guise of uniform safety standards—built a regulatory wall around meat processing. By pricing out local custom butchers through mandatory overhead costs, federal mandates effectively handed an 80%+ market share to four multinational conglomerates: Tyson, Cargill, National Beef, and JBS (initials of founder José Batista Sobrinho; formally JBS S.A., and since 2025, JBS N.V.), a Brazilian-founded company. Together, they control 85% of the country’s slaughter capacity. These companies operate under the regulatory umbrella of Title 9 of the CFR.

President Trump’s announcement was meant to reduce the size and reach of the added regulations set by federal agencies.

Free Market vs Mercantilism

Now, let’s zoom out and talk about the economic system that America operates under. Most Americans think that our nation operates under a Free-Market economy. The truth is different.

In his Farewell Address, President Washington warned:

“…our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing…”

Washington warned us that preference, favors, targeted regulations, and tariffs will end up hurting a free-market system and force us towards a mercantilist system.

Steel tariffs are the clearest example, because unlike meat inspection, nobody even pretends they’re about anything other than protecting a domestic industry. American steelmakers lobbied hard for the tariffs imposed under Section 201 in 2002 and Section 232 starting in 2018, and both were defended in the language of national security and American jobs. Meanwhile, monopoly, protectionism, and elitism crept in.

The steel and beef industries are clear examples, because tariffs and regulations are visible. These are examples of forcing the American economic system away from Free-Market to Mercantilism. There are more.

Another example. The proliferation of certifications creates barriers that have little correlation with actual competency. A worker might need multiple licenses and certifications, each requiring time and money, many of which the industry itself designed. These certifications primarily serve to reduce competition and increase costs for consumers.

In the engineering field, there has been an explosion of various certifications that often include knowledge peripheral to actual job performance. The stated purpose is quality assurance. The practical effect is controlled supply, maintained pricing, manufactured scarcity, and elitism.

There’s something else at stake beyond economics. When society organizes itself around credential requirements and regulatory gatekeeping, it changes the character of the nation itself.

The Founders envisioned education as enlightenment—cultivation of mind and judgment. Modern credential systems have increasingly made education vocational and gatekeeping. You don’t learn to think; you obtain certifications. You don’t demonstrate competence; you accumulate credentials. This creates a society organized around official validation and institutional hierarchy rather than practical ability and mutual trust.

Closing Remark

The Trump administration’s beef processing decision raises the right question, even if the specifics remain debated. Rather than assume all regulations serve public protection, we should ask: Which ones actually do? Which ones serve primarily to protect incumbent industries? Could we maintain legitimate safety standards without the gatekeeping apparatus?

This isn’t about deregulation as ideology. It’s about distinguishing between regulations that genuinely serve the public and regulations that have become mercantilism by another name.

A free society requires the capacity to work, to start businesses, and to compete without requiring permission from regulatory bodies controlled by incumbent industries. When regulations make that difficult to achieve, they’ve crossed from protection into a protection racket.

The beef processing question is just the beginning. The larger issue is whether America will remain committed to actual competition and free enterprise—or whether it will continue organizing itself around credential hierarchies and regulatory gatekeeping that benefit the few at the expense of opportunity for the many.