There is something deeply backward about the way America tries to solve problems. When an industry struggles under high costs, limited competition and layers of regulation, our first instinct is often to create a program. When businesses still cannot make the numbers work, we offer grants, loans, subsidies, technical assistance or another initiative designed to help them survive.
Sometimes those programs are necessary. But there is a question we should be asking much earlier:
Why don’t we remove the obstacle before we fund the workaround?
MORE BEEF FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE
America has a beef problem. Cattle numbers are historically low, beef production is tight, processors are struggling with high cattle acquisition costs, and consumers are paying the price.
The Trump administration has responded partly by increasing access to imported lean beef trimmings. In February 2026, President Trump increased the in-quota quantity for lean beef trimmings from Argentina by 80,000 metric tons. In August, the administration temporarily opened an additional 300,000 metric tons of specified lean beef trimmings to the lower in-quota tariff rate, divided into three monthly tranches.
That does not mean the government ordered 300,000 metric tons of beef to be imported. It means eligible imports were given additional access to the lower tariff rate.
As a short-term attempt to relieve pressure on beef prices, there is logic to it.
But it also raises a bigger question.
If America does not have enough affordable beef, why is our first response to make it easier to bring more beef into the country before exhausting every reasonable way to make it easier for American producers to produce, process and sell more of their own?
WASHINGTON HAS STARTED LOOKING AT THE BARRIERS
To its credit, the Trump administration appears to recognize at least part of this problem.
On September 4, President Trump signed an executive order directing USDA to examine barriers affecting livestock markets and meat processing. Among other things, the order directs USDA to expand interstate shipment opportunities, streamline participation in inspection programs, modernize meat inspection and remove unnecessary FSIS reporting requirements and overly prescriptive requirements that do not advance essential food-safety needs.
That is exactly the kind of review we need.
But it also exposes something worth asking:
How many agricultural problems are we currently spending money to work around when we could instead remove part of the problem?
Consider meat processing.
USDA’s Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers program, or SPUR, provides $500 million in temporary support for qualifying small, independent and mid-size beef slaughter facilities. USDA says the program is intended to stabilize independent and regional slaughter capacity while processors deal with historically high cattle acquisition costs caused by unusually low cattle numbers and market conditions.
Separately, USDA’s Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program Phase 4 made another $60 million available in fiscal year 2026 to expand processing capacity and diversify the industry.
These programs are not inherently bad. In fact, maintaining regional processing capacity may be essential.
And government regulation did not single-handedly create America’s processing shortage. Cattle supply, labor, capital costs, consolidation, geography and market economics all matter.
But when the federal government is simultaneously spending hundreds of millions of dollars preserving and expanding processing capacity while directing its own agencies to identify unnecessary requirements and barriers, we should pay attention.
Before we spend another dollar helping a processor survive the system, we should know which parts of that system are actually necessary.
FOOD SAFETY IS NOT THE ENEMY
This is where the conversation needs some discipline.
Food-safety rules exist for a reason. Sanitation, disease prevention, traceability and safe handling are not bureaucratic luxuries. Nobody benefits from weakening standards that actually protect consumers.
But regulation should have a measurable purpose.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service says 29 states operate state meat and poultry inspection programs covering roughly 1,450 establishments, all of which are small or very small. Those state programs must enforce requirements that are at least equal to federal requirements.
Yet meat produced under ordinary state inspection generally cannot enter interstate commerce.
There is a Cooperative Interstate Shipment program that allows certain state-inspected establishments to sell across state lines, but participating plants must meet federal requirements under a “same as” standard and operate under additional federal oversight.
That distinction may be justified in some areas.
But it deserves scrutiny.
Which differences between ordinary state inspection and federal-equivalent interstate inspection materially protect consumers, and which add cost or complexity without producing a meaningful food-safety benefit?
That is the question.
Not “How do we eliminate food safety?”
How do we eliminate unnecessary friction while keeping the rules that actually keep people safe?
YOU CANNOT EDUCATE SOMEBODY OUT OF AN IMPOSSIBLE BALANCE SHEET
The same pattern appears elsewhere in agriculture.
USDA’s Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program has $44,443,140 available for fiscal year 2026. The program supports education, mentoring, outreach and technical assistance for beginning farmers and ranchers.
Those are useful things.
USDA also operates separate lending and financing programs, so BFRDP should not be mistaken for the government’s entire response to beginning-farmer capital needs.
But look at the problems facing someone trying to enter agriculture today.
Land.
Equipment.
Feed.
Fertilizer.
Fuel.
Insurance.
Processing.
Transportation.
Infrastructure.
You can teach someone how to write a business plan. You can give them a mentor. You can send them to a workshop.
But you cannot educate somebody out of an impossible balance sheet.
ALASKA MAKES THE CONTRADICTION EASY TO SEE
Here in Alaska, the problem becomes even more obvious because nearly everything is magnified by distance.
USDA operates the Micro-Grants for Food Security Program for Alaska and other eligible jurisdictions, supporting small-scale food production and food-security projects.
USDA has also funded Alaska through the Local Food Purchase Assistance program. Alaska’s original LFPA agreement dates to 2022, with additional funding later provided through LFPA Plus.
The purpose is worthwhile: purchase food from local and regional producers and distribute it through feeding programs.
But USDA’s own description of Alaska’s program acknowledges that small and medium-sized producers face barriers involving both inputs and sales, and that Alaska farmers struggle to compete with outside producers for government food-purchasing programs and wholesale contracts.
Read that again.
We have programs designed to help local producers overcome barriers that the government itself acknowledges exist.
At some point, we need to stop asking only how much money should be allocated to help people navigate those barriers.
We need to ask why the barriers are there.
REMOVE THE OBSTACLE FIRST
Government has legitimate roles in agriculture.
Food safety matters. Animal disease prevention matters. Disaster assistance matters. Research matters. Infrastructure matters. In a place like Alaska, geography creates costs that no regulatory reform is going to magically erase.
There will always be situations where grants, loans and public investment make sense.
But those tools should not become substitutes for fixing broken systems.
Before creating a grant to overcome a cost, ask why the cost is so high.
Before creating a loan to overcome a barrier, ask whether the barrier needs to exist.
Before paying businesses to navigate a system, ask whether every layer of that system serves a necessary purpose.
Before creating another program to connect producers with customers, ask what prevents them from connecting without it.
If the answer is legitimate food safety, disease control or another clearly necessary protection, keep it.
If the answer is outdated law, duplicative requirements or bureaucracy that no longer serves a meaningful purpose, change it.
America does not need government to solve every agricultural problem.
Sometimes government simply needs to stop trying to subsidize its way around the barriers it created.
Then get out of the way and let Americans get back to feeding people.
SOURCES
USDA FSA — Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers (SPUR)
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/strengthening-processing-us-ranchers-spur-program
USDA Rural Development — Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program Phase 4
https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/business-programs/meat-and-poultry-processing-expansion-program-phase-4
USDA FSIS — State Inspection Programs
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs
USDA FSIS — Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative-interstate-shipping-program
USDA FSIS — Directive 5740.1
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5740.1
USDA NIFA — Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/beginning-farmer-rancher-development-program
USDA AMS — Micro-Grants for Food Security Program
https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/mgfsp
USDA AMS — Alaska Local Food Purchase Assistance
https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/lfpacap/exec-summaries/alas
USDA AMS — Alaska LFPA Plus
https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/lfpacap/plus/signed-agreements/ak
White House — Further Ensuring Affordable Beef for the American Consumer
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/further-ensuring-affordable-beef-for-the-american-consumer/
White House — Promoting Fair Competition in Livestock Markets and Expanding Market Access for American Meat Producers
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/promoting-fair-competition-in-livestock-markets-and-expanding-market-access-for-american-meat-producers/
Stop Building Programs. Start Feeding People.
Eden's Edge 
Leave a comment