Business
Why America’s ‘Beautiful Beef’ Is a Trade War Sore Point for Europe
Hendrik Dierendonck, a second-generation butcher who has become, as he describes it, “world famous in Belgium” for his curated local beef, thinks Europe’s way of raising cattle results in varied and delicious cuts that European consumers prize.
“They want hormone-free, grass-fed,” Mr. Dierendonck explained recently as he cut steaks at a bloody chopping block in his Michelin-starred restaurant, which backs onto the butchery his father started in the 1970s. “They want to know where it came from.”
Strict European Union food regulations, including a ban on hormones, govern Mr. Dierendonck’s work. And those rules could turn into a trade-war sticking point. The Trump administration argues that American meat, produced without similar regulations, is better — and wants Europe to buy more of it, and other American farm products.
“They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful,” Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said in a televised interview last month. “And theirs is weak.”
Questions of beauty and strength aside, the administration is right about one thing: European policymakers are not keen on allowing more hormone-raised American steaks and burgers into the European Union.
Further opening the European market to American farmers is just one ask on a laundry list of requests from the Trump team. American negotiators also want Europe to buy more American gas and trucks, to change their consumption taxes and to weaken their digital regulations.
Trade officials within the European Union are willing to make many concessions to avert a painful and protracted trade war and to avert higher tariffs. They have offered to drop car tariffs to zero, to buy more gas and to increase military purchases. Negotiators have even suggested they could buy more of certain agricultural products, like soy beans.
But Europeans have their limits, and those include America’s treated T-bones and acid-washed chicken breasts.
“E.U. standards, particularly as they relate to food, health and safety, are sacrosanct — that’s not part of the negotiation, and never will be,” Olof Gill, a spokesman for the European Commission, the E.U. administrative arm, said at a recent news conference. “That’s a red line.”
It is not clear how serious the Americans are about pushing for farm products like beef and chicken. But the topic has surfaced repeatedly. When U.S. officials unveiled a trade deal with Britain on Thursday, for instance, beef was part of the agreement.
But according to Britain, the deal would simply make it cheaper for Americans to export more hormone-free beef to the country and would not weaken British health and safety rules, which are similar to those in the E.U.
When it comes to the European Union, the United States can already export a large amount of hormone-free beef without facing tariffs, so an equivalent deal would do little to help American farmers.
But diplomats and European officials have repeatedly insisted that there is no wiggle room to lower those health and safety standards. And when it comes to meat-related trade restrictions more broadly, there is very little. Chicken, for instance, faces relatively high tariffs, and there is limited appetite to lower those rates.
That’s because Europe is protective of both its food culture and its farms.
Where America tends to have massive agricultural businesses, Europeans have maintained a more robust network of smaller family operations. The 27-nation bloc has about nine million farms, compared with about two million in the United States.
Subsidies and trade restrictions help to keep Europe’s agricultural system intact. The European Union allocates a big chunk of its budget to supporting farmers, and a mix of tariffs and quotas limit competition in sensitive areas. E.U. tariffs on agricultural products are around 11 percent overall, based on World Trade Organization estimates, though they vary hugely by product.
And the bloc could place higher tariffs on U.S. farm goods if trade negotiations fall through. Their list of products that could face retaliatory levies, published Thursday, includes beef and pork, along with many soy products and bourbon.
But it’s not just tariffs limiting European imports of American food. Strict health and safety standards also keep many foreign products off European grocery shelves.
Take beef. Mr. Dierendonck and other European farmers are banned from using growth stimulants, unlike in the United States, where cattle are often raised on large feedlots with the use of hormones. European safety officials have concluded that they cannot rule out health risks for humans from hormone-raised beef.
To Mr. Dierendonck, the rules also fit European preferences. The lack of hormones results in a less homogenous product. “Every terroir has its taste,” he explains, describing the unique “mouth feel” of the West Flemish Red cow he raises on his farm on the Belgian coast.
But farming beef without hormones is more expensive. And American exporters have to adhere to hormone limitations when they send steaks, hamburgers or dairy products to E.U. countries, which European farmers argue is only fair. Otherwise, imports produced using cheaper methods could put European farmers out of business.
“We cannot accept import products that do not meet our production standards,” said Dominique Chargé, a cattle farmer from the west of France who is also president of La Coopération Agricole, a national federation representing French agricultural cooperatives.
The result is that the United States does not sell much beef to Europe. It makes more economic sense for U.S. farmers to sell into markets that allow hormone-raised cattle.
One frequent American complaint is that European health standards are more about preference than actual health.
American scientists have called the risks of hormone use in cows minimal. And though E.U. officials and consumers frequently sneer at America’s “chlorinated chickens,” that rallying cry is a bit dated. American farmers have for years been using a vinegar-like acid, and not chlorine, to rinse poultry and kill potential pathogens.
Some studies in Europe have suggested that such treatments are not a replacement for raising a chicken in a way that makes it pathogen-free from the start. American scientists have concluded that the rinses do their job and are not harmful to humans.
“I don’t know that it’s really about the science,” said Dianna Bourassa, a microbiologist specializing in poultry at Auburn University. “In my microbiological opinion, there are no health implications.”
From the perspective of European farmers, though, whether the health risks are genuine is besides the point. So long as European voters oppose chemical-treated chicken and hormone-treated beef, Europe’s farmers cannot use those farming techniques.
“When you speak to our farmers, it’s about fairness,” explained Pieter Verhelst, a member of the executive board of a Belgian farmers’ union, Boerenbond. “The policy framework we start with is totally different, and those issues are mostly totally out of the hands of farmers.”
And European consumers do seem to support E.U. food and farming rules.
Farmer protests last year loudly opposed more beef imports from South American countries, in part over concerns that the cows might be raised with a growth hormone. An Obama-era trade deal died in part thanks to popular anger over “chlorine chicken” (“Chlorhünchen,” to derisive Germans.)
E.U. public opinion polling has suggested that policies that promote farming and farmers are very popular. In a 2020 poll fielded in-person across the bloc, nearly 90 percent of Europeans agreed with the idea that agricultural imports “should only enter the E.U. if their production has complied with the E.U.’s environmental and animal welfare standards.”
In Europe, including at Mr. Dierendonck’s butchery and farm, there’s a value placed on the old-fashioned, small-scale way of doing things, policymakers and farmers agreed. Mr. Dierendonck does buy some American beef for customers who ask for it — it’s easy to cook, he said — but it’s a small part of the business.
“I like American beef very much, but I don’t like it too much,” said Mr. Dierendonck, explaining that to him, the beef his European suppliers provide is varied, like a fine wine. “For me, it’s about keeping traditions alive.”
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is asking a judge to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of rival TV station owner Tegna — the latest in a flurry of merger twists.
Nexstar announced late Thursday that it had consummated the Tegna takeover — despite a lawsuit that Bonta and seven other Democratic state attorneys general had filed in federal court the previous day.
The state officials sued to block the union of the station groups, alleging the new colossus would violate antitrust rules and a federal law limiting broadcast station ownership.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
Hours after that filing, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau in Washington approved Nexstar’s deal — clearing the way for the nation’s largest TV station group owner to swallow the third-largest station group.
The purchase gives Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, 265 television stations.
On Friday, Bonta and the other attorneys general asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to freeze the takeover until a hearing on the matter.
“Nexstar/Tegna is not a done deal,” Bonta said Friday in a statement. “I will not let these corporate behemoths merge without a fight.”
It was not immediately clear when a judge might rule on the request for a restraining order.
Bonta appeared at a lawmakers’ hearing in Burbank on Friday to explore the impacts of another huge merger: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Bonta’s office has opened an investigation into the Paramount-Warner merger, but Bonta said Friday that no decision has been made on whether he or other attorneys general will seek to block it.
For now, he is focused on derailing the Nexstar-Tegna deal.
“We filed a suit before that deal closed,” Bonta told The Times. “We think our case is extremely strong. There is no way this should be approved.”
At issue is whether the FCC had the power to grant a waiver that would allow Nexstar to control TV stations that reach nearly 80% of U.S. households. In 2003, Congress set the station ownership cap at 39% of the country.
The Department of Justice also gave its blessing to close the deal.
The three FCC commissioners did not vote on the matter — despite pleas from the lone Democrat on the panel who advocated for an open process.
Approval of the merger was rapid after President Trump endorsed the consolidation on Feb. 7.
“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote in his social media post.
“Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar – Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level,” Trump wrote. “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”
In a statement Thursday, Nexstar founder and chief executive Perry Sook thanked Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, saying Nexstar was “grateful” they recognized the “dynamic forces shaping the media landscape” and allowed the transaction to move forward.
Multiple strikes
in Tehran
At least 37 energy oil refineries, natural gas fields and other energy sites in nine countries have been damaged since the United States and Israel began bombarding Iran, a New York Times analysis found. Some have been struck by drones. Several have been hit more than once.
As the attacks escalate, both sides increasingly view energy as a potent target — one that is capable of inflicting severe economic pain. Iran depends on oil and natural gas to keep the lights on and its government running, while the United States wants to prevent prices from soaring further and damaging the underpinnings of the global order.
The question is no longer just when Iran’s tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but critical passage on its southern coast, will ease enough for most ships to pass. It is also how long it will take to complete repairs needed to produce and process oil and natural gas in the first place.
“The longer this war goes on, the more likely it is that the two sides are going to play their strongest energy-leverage cards,” said Clayton Seigle, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research group. “The attacks on facilities are not easily reversible.”
To count the number of attacks and disruptions at energy facilities in the region, The New York Times reviewed statements from government, state-run and private energy companies. The Times also reviewed lists compiled by ClearView Energy Partners and the Institute for the Study of War, two research firms, and subsequently verified their findings.
Through Friday, The Times had found a total of 45 attacks, though there is no official accounting and more may have occurred. Strikes occur seemingly every day.
The importance of energy in the war became even clearer after Israel struck facilities tied to Iran’s South Pars gas field on Wednesday. Iran responded by lashing out across the Gulf. At least 10 sites were damaged this week, The Times found, including an energy hub in Qatar, as well as oil refineries in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The various attacks sent oil and natural gas prices soaring as traders worried that much of the Gulf’s energy could remain effectively landlocked for a while, possibly months. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, briefly topped $119 a barrel on Thursday morning before retreating. Oil fetched less than $73 a barrel before the war started on Feb. 28, a price that reflected the possibility of a war.
“It’s been the cumulative effect that’s really driven this crisis,” said Raad Alkadiri, a Washington-based political risk analyst who specializes in energy and the Middle East.
While oil has been front and center, analysts are especially concerned about the damage to the world’s largest natural-gas export terminal, called Ras Laffan, on Qatar’s coast.
The sprawling facility, which is operated by the state-owned QatarEnergy company, cools natural gas into liquid that can be loaded onto tankers and shipped. But Qatar said on the third day of the war that it had stopped producing liquefied natural gas, citing military attacks.
This week’s strikes caused further damage, compromising 17 percent of the country’s L.N.G. export capacity, QatarEnergy said on Thursday, adding that repairing the damage could take up to five years.
There is no easy replacement for that fuel, which is used to generate electricity and heat homes. And there is little spare L.N.G. capacity in other countries.
Other points of vulnerability include the oil export terminals where the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are rerouting oil to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. One of those areas, in the Emirates, was targeted as recently as this week. A refinery near the other, in Saudi Arabia, was also hit by a drone.
“It could become a lot worse if the craziness continues to prevail,” said Charif Souki, a former chief executive of Houston-based Cheniere Energy, a large L.N.G. company. “But there are so many people who have a vested interest in not letting it get too far out of hand.”
Indeed, countries around the world have agreed to release oil from emergency stores to stem rising prices. The U.S. military is also attacking Iranian vessels and drones to try to clear the Strait of Hormuz, and the Trump administration said it would lift sanctions on Iranian oil to nudge prices down.
In many cases, it is hard to know how severe the damage has been to a facility.
As Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners put it, “The last thing they probably want to do is tell Iran, ‘You missed me, try again.’”
Even when companies have been more forthcoming, their disclosures have sometimes only raised more questions.
Mr. Souki said he was surprised to hear that QatarEnergy expected it would take up to five years to repair its L.N.G. facilities. “I think he’s hedging his bets at the moment,” Mr. Souki said, referring to QatarEnergy’s chief executive. “You can always give good news later.”
Artificial intelligence powerhouse Anthropic’s battle with the Pentagon has sparked some soul-searching in Silicon Valley that could reshape the tech sector’s complicated relationship with war and the White House.
Anthropic is the San Francisco-based startup behind the chatbot Claude and some of the most powerful AI on the market. In its negotiations with the military, it has demanded guardrails on how its technology is used.
The military said it refused to be beholden to a corporation and pushed back, labeling Anthropic a threat akin to an enemy foreign power and blocking it from some government contracts.
Tech leaders have quietly backed Anthropic, saying that AI isn’t ready for some weapons and that strong-arming companies is counterproductive and antidemocratic. President Trump called Anthropic a bunch of “left-wing nut jobs.”
How this showdown plays out will affect not only Anthropic’s booming business but also the way tech titans and other corporations work with an administration known for lashing out at resisters, said Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“On the one hand, it could cause the government’s other Silicon Valley suppliers to be more compliant, lest they be treated like Anthropic has been,” he said. “On the other hand, it could lead more companies to avoid doing business with the government at all to avoid the risk of something like this happening to them.”
As some tech trailblazers in recent years have become more comfortable with developing weapons, Southern California has emerged as a hub for defense tech startups. With a long history in defense, it has the factories, engineers and aerospace expertise to turn venture funding and military demand into weapons, satellites and other advanced systems.
The fallout from Anthropic’s showdown with the Trump administration will help determine the local winners and losers in the sector in the coming years.
While many of the key players in tech have been reluctant to join the brawl in a high-profile manner, the positions on different sides are laid out in a court case that Anthropic has pursued to get off the Pentagon’s blacklist.
Anthropic filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California and a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 9. The company is asking the court to overturn its designation as a “supply chain risk” and block the Trump administration from enforcing the government’s ban on its technology.
“The consequences of this case are enormous,” Anthropic’s lawsuit said. “The federal government retaliated against a leading frontier AI developer for adhering to its protected viewpoint on a subject of great public significance — AI safety and the limitations of its own AI models — in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Some of Anthropic’s biggest concerns are that its technology could be used for government surveillance or autonomous weapons. It has been asking for assurances in the wording of its contracts that its AI would not be used for these purposes. While the government said it would not use the tech for those purposes, it was unable to provide Anthropic with the assurance it wanted.
Tech industry groups, Microsoft and workers from Google and OpenAI have backed Anthropic in its legal fight against the Trump administration, adding their own views to its case.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the U.S. government said in a court filing that the Defense Department started to wonder whether Anthropic could be trusted.
“Anthropic could attempt to disable its technology or preemptively alter the behavior of its model either before or during ongoing warfighting operations, if Anthropic — in its discretion — feels that its corporate ‘red lines’ are being crossed,” the government said in the filing.
The Department of Defense and Anthropic declined to comment.
The tech industry has a long, complicated history of working with the military. In the 1960s, the Department of Defense developed the internet’s predecessor, ARPAnet, to help keep military and government computers secure.
For much of this century, the big tech companies, as well as their investors, have often tried to avoid developing or promoting things that helped spy on people or kill them. Google, once known for its motto “Don’t Be Evil,” didn’t renew a controversial Pentagon contract, Project Maven, in 2018 after thousands of workers protested over concerns that AI would be used to analyze drone surveillance footage.
That has changed in recent years as there has been more money to be made in tech fixes for military problems.
Benjamin Lawrence, a senior lead analyst at CB Insights, said that advancements in AI and major events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, helped fuel a surge in venture capital investment in defense tech.
“It caused a huge shift with a lot of traditional investors looking at defense tech in a more positive light because you have a sovereign democratic nation that was invaded,” he said.
The world’s most powerful tech companies have been partnering with defense tech startups and securing government contracts.
Google has been offering AI tools to civilians and military personnel for unclassified work. The Department of Defense also awarded a $200-million contract to Google Public Sector, a division that works with government agencies and education institutions, to accelerate AI and cloud capabilities.
The industry’s allegiance with the White House and its military ambitions was strengthened with the arrival of the second Trump administration. Many of the top executives of the tech world have been supporting and advising Trump.
The recent strong-arming of one of the thought leaders of the AI revolution, however, has given many pause. Some of the resistance echoes the earlier era when the tech industry was suspicious of how governments would use its innovations.
The tech industry finds itself in a tricky spot after Anthropic’s clashes with the Pentagon. In late February, the public feud escalated after Trump assailed Anthropic and ordered government agencies to stop using its technology. His administration labeled Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” prompting the company to sue.
Trump’s actions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts it has with private parties, according to Anthropic’s lawsuit. Federal agencies have started to cancel contracts.
Last week, tech industry groups such as TechNet, whose members include Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Google and other major companies, said in an amicus brief that blacklisting an American company “engenders uncertainty throughout the broader industry.”
“Treating an American technology company as a foreign adversary, rather than an asset, has a chilling effect on U.S. innovation and further emboldens China’s efforts to export its own government-backed AI technology,” the brief said.
Microsoft has also backed Anthropic, urging the court to temporarily block Trump from blacklisting the AI company. Labeling Anthropic as a supply chain risk means that Microsoft and other government suppliers will have to use “significant resources” to determine how excluding Anthropic would affect their contracts.
The U.S. government said in its filing that its concerns with Anthropic focus on its conduct and are unrelated to its speech. But Anthropic and the tech industry say the move would hurt their businesses.
In addition to Trump’s harsh criticism of the company, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accused Anthropic of delivering a “master class in arrogance and betrayal.”
Anduril’s founder, Palmer Luckey, backed the Pentagon’s position, stating that it should be elected officials, not corporate executives, making military decisions. Anthropic countered, stating in a blog post it “understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions.”
As this battle plays out, some experts say Anthropic would probably have an upper hand in court.
In its lawsuit, Anthropic said the Trump administration violated a law for labeling a company a supply chain risk, noting it doesn’t have ties to a U.S. “adversary,” such as China or Iran.
Anthropic also said the Trump administration retaliated against the company for its speech and other protected activities, violating the 1st Amendment.
“They’re just lashing out,” said Rozenshtein of the University of Minnesota Law School. “I think that’s a lot of what this is.”
Metro Detroit Weather Forecast, March 21, 2026 — 8:45 AM Update
Former 49ers defensive coordinator Robert Saleh ‘pumped’ for Dre Greenlaw’s return to San Francisco
Examining the Buzz About Brooks and Dallas
Spring storm starts up on Sunday – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
Denver Broncos mock draft: Post-Jaylen Waddle trade
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Read the Ruling in The Times’s Lawsuit Against the Pentagon
NYC Mayor Mamdani’s wife glorified terrorists in online posts, criticized US military: report
Curro Rodríguez: from bankruptcy to global water empire
Jury finds Elon Musk misled investors during Twitter purchase
Pritzker pushes prosecutions of Trump officials as part of Dem ‘Project 2029’ agenda
-
Detroit, MI3 days agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Oklahoma7 days agoFamily rallies around Oklahoma father after head-on crash
-
Nebraska1 week agoWildfire forces immediate evacuation order for Farnam residents
-
Georgia5 days agoHow ICE plans for a detention warehouse pushed a Georgia town to fight back | CNN Politics
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts community colleges to launch apprenticeship degree programs – The Boston Globe
-
Alaska6 days agoPolice looking for man considered ‘armed and dangerous’
-
Southwest1 week agoTalarico reportedly knew Colbert interview wouldn’t air on TV before he left to film it
-
Michigan1 week agoMichigan-based Stryker hit with cyberattack