Cattle Futures Shift Amid Policy Uncertainty
- Media Logic Radio
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
By Noah Wicks Published on November 13, 2025
Lingering uncertainty about the Trump administration’s beef sector plans and prospects for reopening the border to Mexican cattle have fueled volatility in cattle prices without lowering beef prices in the grocery store.
Cattle futures prices fell in the days after President Donald Trump publicly expressed dissatisfaction with high beef prices and suggested importing more Argentine beef into the U.S., although prices rebounded some as of Monday.
Trump first raised the prospect of increased Argentine imports on Oct. 19 and, later that week, defended the idea on his Truth Social platform after pushback from major beef industry groups.
Economists say retail beef prices aren’t likely to decrease anytime soon due to persistent low inventory and high demand. While some economists believe herd expansion could begin as early as next year, they have not seen firm indications yet and once the process begins, it will take years for the animals to fully develop.
December live cattle future closing prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange dropped significantly from mid-October going from 243.650 cents per pound on Oct. 20 to 221.350 on Nov. 7, according to CME data. They have since risen some, reaching 228.550 cents on Monday.
December feeder cattle also saw large declines that have since rebounded some. Feeder cattle closing futures prices went from 372.675 cents on Oct. 20 to 326.400 on Nov. 7 before rising to 335.65 on Monday.
Oklahoma State University economist Derrell Peel told Agri-Pulse last week, when futures prices were still falling, that he expected the drops to be short-lived, but added that “when the futures market changes,” the impact can also spill into cash markets. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service data indicates the free on-board price for live cattle has fluctuated in some markets in recent weeks, as have prices for dressed delivered cattle.
“We’ve got the president saying things directly about high cattle and beef prices, so that … spooks the market,” Peel said, adding that he believes the impact will be short-term, given that supply and demand generally has not changed.
American Farm Bureau Federation economist Bernt Nelson said recent drops in futures prices have “hit the cash market pretty hard.” While he said the effects have been “a little bit variable” throughout the country, he added that fed cattle sales have generally been $5 to $6 per hundredweight lower across the board.
“There are a lot of cattle that head to market this time of year and so for cash prices to fall right now, it’s really not a good time for that to happen for a lot of our guys," he said.
Colorado cattle producer Steve Nein said when he sold some calves at an auction a few weeks ago, prices were down. He estimates he received around $100 a head less than he would have if he’d sold before prices dropped.
“I lost some money,” he said.
Rich Nelson, chief strategist at the agricultural market research firm Allendale, told Agri-Pulse that three stories have been shaping futures traders’ actions in recent weeks: Trump’s comments about importing additional Argentine beef, uncertainty surrounding when screwworm restrictions limiting cross-border movements of Mexican cattle will be lifted, and requests by Brazil’s president to drop tariffs on Brazilian products.
“This market has been in a relentless rally trying to find a price, an artificially high price, to encourage producers to begin expansion,” he said. “If these three stories do come to fruition, then we are not going to restart this expansion discussion and we’ll still be at a relatively low U.S. beef supply level for the next four years, easily.”
On futures, Bernt Nelson with AFBF said Monday that while prices had risen some, they may once again fall in the future amid ongoing volatility, in part fueled by tight supplies.
“This demonstrates just how volatile these markets are, which is not uncommon when we’re seeing tighter supplies of a commodity like this,” he said.
On Friday, Trump ordered an investigation into major U.S. meatpackers, citing his frustration with cattle prices falling even as beef prices have not. In a Truth Social Post, he said: “While Cattle Prices have dropped substantially, the price of Boxed Beef has gone up — Therefore, you know that something is “fishy.” We will get to the bottom of it very quickly. If there is criminality, those people responsible will pay a steep price!”
In a statement, Julie Anna Potts, the president and CEO of the Meat Institute, which represents the meatpacking industry, pointed to tight cattle supplies and strong demand as the source of high beef costs for consumers. She said packers have been “operating at a loss” for more than a year.
“The beef industry is heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent,” Potts said. “The government’s own data from USDA confirms that the beef packing sector is experiencing catastrophic losses and experts predict this will continue into 2026.”
On Monday, Tyson Foods reported a $94 million loss in adjusted operating income from its beef segment in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025 and projected an adjusted operating loss of between $600 million and $400 million from beef in FY26.
University of Wisconsin law school professor Peter Carstensen believes Trump’s claims against the meatpackers are an effort to divert attention away from ranchers' frustrations over the prospect of importing
Argentine beef. However, he said “there are some real potential questions” that can be raised about meatpacking practices, though he added that proving claims like price fixing in court can be challenging.
“There are potential antitrust cases that can be made, I think, involving some of the practices of the meatpackers,” he said. "The problem is going to be fitting what you can show as the conduct into one of the antitrust legal buckets... I just don’t know how likely they are to do that.
Editor’s note: December live cattle future closing prices were 243.650 cents per pound on Oct. 20, not Oct. 16.
This article was originally published by Agri-Pulse. Agri-Pulse is a trusted source in Washington, D.C., with the largest editorial team focused on food and farm policy coverage.
