There are two related EOs:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/supporting-americas-ranchers/
I was so annoyed after reading #1 that I did not write anything before, but since I promised to follow up on Trump’s tweet from the week before, here is my assessment of the EOs.
The first EO imho is a nothingburger, exemplified by this poorly thought out sentence:
My Administration has already acted to support ranchers by, for example: enforcing voluntary “Product of USA” labeling to give American ranchers the recognition they deserve for producing in the United States
How do you enforce something that is voluntary?
And since foreign meat has had no label, Americans still would not know where most of the meat in the supermarket comes from.
Maybe steps will be taken to allow farmers to kill wolves that kill their livestock. I guess that is a good thing. But it is a very small thing that costs nothing.
The E.O. discusses mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL)—not voluntary. This is what farmers want. But it is unclear whether the administration will actually be able to do anything about it, and whether they will want to after the 90 days of study.
But what truly bothered me about this MCOOL thing is that the Senate Ag Committee already passed a bipartisan amendment to include it in this year’s Farm Bill in late July. If the Farm Bill gets finalized this year, MCOOL will be included in it. I get the feeling that the Trump administration is piggybacking off the Senate effort to implement mandatory country of origin labeling and trying to take credit for it.
The second E.O. I missed, since I was only expecting one to be issued. It might eventually turn out to be good, but it might be all fluff. Below is the EO language with my comments highlighted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. American ranchers want to be able to butcher, process, package, and sell their meat to consumers across State lines while maintaining the highest standards of food safety and avoid being overcharged by monopolistic practices by meat processors. But where in this E.O. is there any help that would allow farmers to butcher and process their own animals? Why then include this sentence? Was a good provision removed from the EO at the last minute?
It is the policy of the United States to support these goals and reduce barriers to ranchers processing their own product for sale to consumers by promoting fair competition in livestock and meat markets; protecting producers and small processors from unfair, deceptive, or monopolistic practices; and expanding legitimate market opportunities for American-raised livestock and meat products consistent with applicable law. This order directs more vigorous enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (Public Law 67-51, 42 Stat. 159,7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (the “Act”), [this 100 year old Act is meant to investigate, prosecute and prevent fraud by packers against ranchers] and the maximum use of existing authorities to facilitate greater interstate market access for eligible meat products while maintaining the highest standards of food safety that help make United States born, raised, harvested, and processed food the best in the world. To me, the last sentence does not make sense. All USDA-inspected meat can cross state lines, and no USDA-UNinspected meat can do so, apart from a tiny exception that is very rarely exercised and applies to much less than 1% of meat sold. The exception (CIPS) is referred to below. The real “maximum use of existing authorities to facilitate greater market access” would be for USDA to anounce that it will not enforce the requirement for USDA inspections for very small producers. This would allow them to avoid the stranglehold of the meatpackers, promote competition, and meatpacker fraud would be less of an issue.
Sec. 2. Robust Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall, consistent with the Act, and all other applicable law:
(i) prioritize and expand investigations into potential violations of the Act by packers and other covered entities, with particular attention to unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices; undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages; and practices that restrain commerce or manipulate prices;
(ii) increase resources, staffing, and investigative capacity within the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service, the USDA Office of General Counsel, and the USDA Office of Inspector General;
(iii) coordinate closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ), in keeping with the September 26, 2025, memorandum of understanding between the USDA and the DOJ Antitrust Division, to refer cases for appropriate enforcement and to pursue complementary antitrust actions where appropriate; [What has been done since that MOU was signed a year ago to promote enforcement?]
(iv) within 60 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a report detailing current enforcement actions, resource needs, and a plan for heightened enforcement for the coming year.
(b) The Secretary shall review existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise them to strengthen protections for producers and ensure effective deterrence of prohibited conduct.
Sec. 3. Expanding Interstate Market Access for Eligible Meat Products. (a) The Secretary shall take actions consistent with applicable law to expand opportunities for interstate shipment of meat products, including by:
(i) accelerating outreach and streamlining processes to increase State participation in the USDA’s State Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIPS) Program, and the Talmadge-Aiken Cooperative Inspection Program;
(ii) creating technical assistance and training programs for small and very small meat processors; [Train them in what?]
(iii) establishing, or collaborating with partners to establish, an easily accessible web resource with comprehensive information regarding local meat slaughter and processing availability, including federally inspected establishments that facilitate interstate shipment; [We need more small slaughterhouses, not another website for crying out loud]
(iv) modernizing meat inspection to sharpen focus on core food safety, boost processing efficiency and technology, and lower costs to add value for ranchers and consumers; [Does this mean speeding up the lines and giving the packers the right to help inspect themselves, as the USDA has already done during this administration?]
(v) removing unnecessary Food Safety Inspection Service inspection reporting requirements and overly prescriptive requirements, consistent with applicable law, that do not advance essential food safety needs; and
(vi) establishing a coordinator position within USDA to implement these actions and serve as a conduit to ranchers and small and medium sized processors.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report assessing current participation in the State-Federal cooperative inspection programs, identifying remaining statutory or regulatory barriers to greater interstate market access for State-inspected products, and providing recommendations for action to address any such challenges. [They want to expand the CIPS program, which has had few takers because it is burdensome—ushering in more bureaucracy when we need less]
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report identifying Federal statutory provisions, as well as trade considerations, that restrict or prohibit State-inspected or custom exempt meat products from entering interstate commerce. [You don’t need 60 days to identify the statutes restricting state inspected meat from interstate sale or custom-exempt meat from any sale (The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967)—this is a hint that the authors of this EO are not serious.]
(d) The Secretary shall take actions as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to establish a Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers guaranteed loan program for small and regional beef processors to help these processors continue operation, expand their footprint, and increase diversity of animal proteins being processed. [The $hundreds of millions USDA has recently gifted to packers for expanding meat processing has paralleled other processors shutting down plants—resulting in less overall capacity to process meat in the US. Will this loan program have any impact?]
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Agriculture.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 4, 2026.
As you can see, the end result might be helpful, or not. Who knows. If this is the best the administration can come up with to mollify farmers 2 months before the midterms, it is a sorry effort.
IPAK-EDU is grateful to Meryl’s CHAOS letter (Critical Health Analysis and OpinionS) as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More
Leave a Reply