Business
Commentary: Why are beef prices so high? Blame tariffs, drought and a disgusting parasite
It has become routine practice to turn to Trump administration spokespersons to learn how Democrats and illegal immigrants are the source of all our problems. The high price of beef? Check.
Here, for example, is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explaining for Fox News on Sunday why beef prices have been soaring:
“This is the perfect storm,” he said, “something we inherited.” (That’s the blaming the Democrats part.)
The beef segment remains our only soft spot.
— Tyson Foods CEO Donnie King
“Also,” he continued, “because of the mass immigration, a disease we’d been rid off in North America made its way up through South America as these migrants, they brought some of their cattle with them. So part of the problem is we’ve had to shut the border to Mexican beef.”
As is sometimes the case with Bessent, there’s a tiny nugget of truth in his words, surrounded by a bodyguard of misrepresentation.
The truth nugget is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture shut the border to Mexican cattle in March, in order to block the spread to the U.S. of the New World screwworm, a gruesome parasite that has been found in Central and South American herds.
But Bessent’s image of immigrants smuggling their infected beeves across the border is transparent fantasy. The USDA’s announcement of the blockade didn’t tie the screwworm peril to immigration, illegal or otherwise, but to commercial imports. The agency also stated that the infestation hadn’t yet penetrated farther north than Oaxaca and Veracruz, 700 miles from the U.S. border.
The Treasury Secretary’s spiel can properly be seen as standard Trumpian deflection.
That’s because at least some of the run-up in beef prices at the supermarket can be blamed on Trump policies, including his tariff on beef imported from Brazil, which has been a major exporter to the U.S. Trump himself implicitly acknowledged this Friday, when he announced that he was scrapping tariffs on beef and other foodstuffs to bring prices down.
Trump’s budget-cutting also has contributed to the crisis. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in June announced a “five-pronged plan” to combat the parasite south of the border. What she didn’t mention was that in March, the Trump administration cut off funding for anti-screwworm efforts operated by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization as part of its decimation of the U.S. Agency for international Development.
That said, much more is driving beef inflation than tariffs and the screwworm. And an examination of all the root causes indicates that things are likely to get worse at the meat counter before they get better. A recovery in beef prices, according to agricultural experts, may take years.
The root of the beef price problem: The size of the U.S. cattle herd peaked in 1975 and is now lower than it has been since 1951.
(USDA)
Before going further, let’s look at the raw numbers. It won’t be news to most shoppers that beef prices have been on a long-term ascent. The average price of uncooked beef steaks reached a record $12.26 per pound in September, up 15.2% from just before Trump took office.
That’s the tail of a long trend, however: The price was $3.64 in January 1998, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meaning that it has more than trebled during a period in which the overall consumer price index merely doubled.
In recent months, major food processing companies have felt more than a slight pinch. Donnie King, chief executive of Tyson Foods, which owns such lunch meat and sausage brands as Hillshire Farms, BallPark, Jimmy Dean and Aidells, told investors at its fourth-quarter earnings roundup Nov. 10 that “the beef segment remains our only soft spot.”
The company reported an adjusted operating loss of $426 million on beef in fiscal 2025 and projected a loss of up to $600 million in the category for the 2025-26 fiscal year, in part because cattle costs had increased by $1.84 billion, a far larger cost increase than it experienced for any other input. It said that its earnings have been protected by gains in chicken, which has attracted shoppers shunning beef. Overall, for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 27, Tyson reported a profit of $507 million on revenue of $54.4 billion.
That brings us to the real factors driving beef prices higher. To a great extent, they’re secular. One is a long-term decline in the size of the U.S. cattle herd, which has fallen to about 87.2 million head of cattle and calves, its lowest level since 1951. Among the factors in that slide was a drought that struck the cattle-raising prairie states starting in 2020 and lasting through 2022. The all-time peak in the U.S. herd came in 1975, when it reached 132 million head.
Hay prices shot up by about 45% in 2022. With feed costs consuming the value of livestock, ranchers sold off their herds or stepped up the slaughter of their cows and heifers — producing a short-term glut of beef at store shelves but mortgaging their future supply.
Raising an animal from calf to marketable beef takes at least three years. Tyson executives told investors that they had seen signs that ranchers were finally rebuilding their herds, but that means a continued shortage of beef in the years just ahead.
Into this uncertain environment, Trump threw another complication: tariffs. These included a 50% levy on imports from Brazil, which Trump imposed in July not as a protectionist step, but because he was discontented with the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for an alleged coup plot. (Bolsonaro was convicted and sentenced in September to more than 27 years in prison.)
That was a problem because, although foreign beef doesn’t account for a large share of overall beef consumption, it’s important for some categories, notably “lean beef trim,” which gets mixed in with fattier U.S. ground beef to yield the hamburger meat favored by American consumers. Brazil’s production of lean trim helped its beef exports reach more than 25% of all U.S. beef imports.
The long-term rise in beef prices has provoked market participants into a spate of finger-pointing, not all of which is groundless. In 2019, consumer advocates accused Tyson, Cargill and other meat-packers in a lawsuit of conspiring to fix beef prices. Tyson and Cargill settled the accusations against them last month without acknowledging guilt, Tyson paying $55 million and Cargill, $33.5 million. Two foreign-owned companies, JBS USA and National Beef Packing, are still in court.
Others have pointed to putative profiteering by cattle ranchers, whose profits per animal have spiraled higher, even as many have pared the size of their herds.
One might also point to American consumers, who haven’t moderated their beef buying enough to subject the commodity to the rigors of supply-and-demand economics.
The administration’s approach to the rise in beef prices has been chaotic and incoherent. Last month, Trump said he would alleviate the price spike by importing more beef from Argentina.
The proposal garnered instantaneous backlash from American cattle producers. They said the plan “only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices,” in the words of Colin Woodall, CEO of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. The group noted that Argentina accounts for a bare 2% of U.S. beef imports, meaning that even a significant expansion of the trade flow would do little to moderate prices.
In sum, there’s little Trump can do to influence beef prices, except to make the situation worse, as happened because of his tariffs. Now that he has reversed course and lifted his thumb off the Brazil trade, prices might improve, if modestly. But all those other factors such as drought, the long-term decline in domestic herds and disease, will still be with us, for some time.
Business
Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT