Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you for that generous introduction. I am thrilled to join so many of America’s independent cattle producers for your annual conference. As President Trump recognized in his recent proclamation on beef, “[c]attle ranchers have played an integral role in United States history, helping to forge an American identity[.]”[1] I couldn’t agree more. Looking around this room, I see incredible American stories.
For myself and for many of us who have chosen to join the Trump Administration and contribute to its vital work for the people of this great country, that means spending most of our waking hours in government office buildings in Washington, D.C. It is critical for us to get out into the rest of the country and to learn from hardworking American citizens, and I only wish I could spend more time with you here in beautiful South Dakota.
Antitrust Enforcement Priorities in the Trump Administration
In my role in the Antitrust Division, I get to hear people tell me every day what they think antitrust enforcement is all about. Many think about the latest big company merger reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. While investigating those deals is an important part of what we do, our work as antitrust law enforcers extends much more broadly. It includes an essential focus on rooting out corporate misconduct that makes our country’s citizens worse off by harming the competition that we depend on for our economic security. That is why one of the principal laws we enforce — America’s first antitrust law, the Sherman Act — is known as “a comprehensive charter of economic liberty.”[2]
Under the leadership of President Trump and Acting Attorney General Blanche, we have reoriented antitrust law enforcement around what we call “America First” antitrust. That describes our ambitious agenda of prioritizing our enforcement efforts on illegal activity that has the greatest demonstrable harm to our nation’s consumers. That is what the American people expect and deserve from those who are entrusted with the power to make a difference in their daily lives. We act quickly and decisively when we learn that the laws we enforce are broken and our country’s citizens are paying the price.
America First antitrust means that we are vigilant in looking for evidence of anticompetitive harm to this nation’s producers and consumers. Let me start with consumers, because they are an essential part of the focus of competition enforcement. We all know prices for goods and services for everyday life shot up during the previous administration, and American families have suffered the consequences. As with everything in the economy, there are many reasons for these hardships, ranging from prior failed policies to other economic challenges. At the Antitrust Division, however, we have made it a core part of our mission to identify situations where illegal, anticompetitive conduct — such as conspiracies among companies to stop competing — has contributed to rising prices.
That is not the only focus of America First antitrust, however. Antitrust law considers harm not only to consumers, but also to other trading partners, including the small and independent businesses that are the lifeblood of our economy. We are constantly looking out for instances where dominant buyers unlawfully exercise their market power against smaller market participants in ways that harm the competitive process. This unlawful conduct affects many parts of the economy, and it is something we pay particular attention to in agricultural markets. That is because, for example, family farmers are often forced to both buy necessary inputs from, and sell their output to, a small set of large, often dominant companies.
Promoting Competition in Agricultural Markets
Within the America First antitrust framework, a particular point of emphasis for the Antitrust Division is our focus on the security of America’s food supply chain. This is a priority of the Trump Administration and the Department of Justice at the highest level. When we think about America First antitrust, many of the markets that are the most essential to the American way of life and to our nation’s households are markets for food and the upstream inputs that go into the meals that we share with our families and friends every day.
Last December, President Trump took action by issuing an Executive Order to combat “anticompetitive behavior, especially when carried out by foreign-controlled corporations,” which he explained “threatens the stability and affordability of America’s food supply.”[3] The President directed the Justice Department and our fellow enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission to “take all necessary and appropriate actions to investigate food-related industries within [our] established areas of expertise and determine whether anticompetitive behavior exists in food supply chains in the United States.”[4] We appreciate R-CALF USA’s support of this important effort.[5]
At the Justice Department, the President’s message is received, and we have multiple food- and agriculture-related investigations open as we speak. In the Antitrust Division’s offices in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago, we are hard at work investigating anticompetitive risks in agricultural markets on a daily basis. As a law enforcer, I am limited in what I can say about pending investigations, but I am proud to share some of our recent accomplishments.
Let me start with a literal kitchen table issue. Grocery bills for all sorts of meat products have risen sharply in recent years. During an Antitrust Division investigation, we learned that the big meat processors participated in an information-sharing service called Agri Stats. For decades, Agri Stats collected detailed information on prices, output, and costs directly from meat processors and redistributed it back to those processors in granular detail. The big meat processors that subscribed to Agri Stats used Agri Stats to share competitive secrets with each other so they could get an advantage in their negotiations with buyers for supermarket and restaurant chains. Agri Stats refused to provide this competitive information to those buyers.
The Antitrust Division took Agri Stats to court and, this past month, we forced Agri Stats to agree to dramatic changes to its practices that will eliminate its ability to anticompetitively share nonpublic price information and the most detailed data on production and costs, as well as to provide its reports to willing buyers for grocery stores and restaurants.[6] The defendant in our case was Agri Stats, but let me be clear — the major chicken, turkey, and pork processors were Agri Stats’ co-conspirators in a scheme that raised costs for American families. The processors that subscribed to and shared their information using Agri Stats included the vast majority of broiler chicken, pork, and turkey products produced in this country.[7]
The effects of this anticompetitive information-sharing scheme were similar to that of a cartel: our nation’s families paid higher prices for chicken, turkey, and pork. Indeed, the Antitrust Division’s economists found there were stark price impacts from participating in Agri Stats’ scheme. Astoundingly, when Agri Stats discontinued certain information sharing programs that allowed the largest turkey and pork processors to share highly sensitive information, the prices for turkey and pork decreased by at least 8%, and potentially as much as 15%.[8] This was, in a very real sense, a tax on those food products paid by all of us to the big meat processors. The evidence suggests that the impact on chicken prices was similar.
As a result of the Antitrust Division’s actions, we expect chicken prices in this country to go down and to avoid price hikes that would otherwise occur in pork and turkey. Getting this fantastic result for the American people was a Herculean effort by every attorney, economist, paralegal, and staffer on this case team – all of whom represent the best of the Justice Department with consummate professionalism and consistent, round-the-clock teamwork – and it is one of my proudest achievements to date as the Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Conduct.
Next let me turn from meat to crops. The two largest field crops farmed in the United States are corn and soybeans, and the markets for both corn and soybean seeds have become concentrated. Last month, the Antitrust Division also announced that, during our open investigation into seeds, one of the largest seed trait producers, Bayer Crop Science, removed potentially anticompetitive provisions in its seed loyalty program.[9]
First, Bayer had a practice of requiring independent seed companies to meet sales targets for both corn and soybean to receive discounts as part of its loyalty program. As antitrust enforcers, that gave us concern that Bayer was anticompetitively “tying” corn and soybean seeds. Second, Bayer’s loyalty program included incentives that could limit independent seed companies’ willingness to license technology from Bayer’s competitors. Again, as antitrust enforcers, we were concerned that these incentives would prevent free and fair competition in the markets for seeds.
During the course of the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation, Bayer ended these provisions, and the company committed that it would not reinstate the provisions for at least the next seven years. We are proud that our work is leading to immediate, direct, and long-term benefits for our nation’s farmers and agricultural companies, and we will keep our focus on achieving great outcomes for the American people.
In the Antitrust Division’s agriculture-related investigations, we have looked at a variety of interactions among market participants. These include direct interactions between competing firms, other interactions involving upstream and downstream markets, and information sharing, such as the conduct that was the focus of our Agri Stats enforcement action that I described. While there is potential for information sharing to deliver benefits to market participants, we increasingly see competitors using information exchanges to take collective advantage of consumers and smaller market participants. The Antitrust Division continues to aggressively investigate and address such anticompetitive practices.
In all investigations, there are complexities in understanding the details of each of these interactions and how they might involve greater or lesser risks of anticompetitive conduct. During investigations where we find illegal activity, we also think carefully about potential remedies that could restore competition. This too can pose challenges, such as when illegal activity took place in the past or when changes in the industry have made former competitive dynamics impossible to replicate. We must be creative but also sensitive to the practical difficulties posed by competitive dynamics in changing markets.
As we continue to prioritize enforcement in agricultural markets, be assured that we understand how large corporations often wield their market power to not only raise prices on consumers, but also to squeeze American ranchers, farmers, and small businesses — whether through unfair purchasing practices or other business methods that unfairly harm those who drive these vital American industries. The Antitrust Division plays a crucial role in policing such anticompetitive practices and ensuring that competition is robust in agricultural industries so that our country’s ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers see meaningful competition for their products and services, and we are all in.
And we do not work in a silo at the Justice Department. We collaborate with our fellow federal agencies and departments to execute on the agenda of the Trump Administration for the American people, including with the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Secretary Rollins. Both the DOJ and the USDA are committed to effective enforcement that promotes free market competition, lowering input costs, and benefiting farmers, ranchers, cattlemen, and consumers. We have an active partnership with the USDA designed to protect competition in key agricultural markets such as feed, fertilizer, fuel, seed, equipment, and other essential goods.[10]
Importantly, the Antitrust Division cannot succeed in tackling anticompetitive harm and illegal conduct without the help of our nation’s citizens. Although, as I mentioned, I spend more days than I would like in a government office building, we are not an ivory tower. To be effective and practical, we depend on engaging with members of the public who have information to share. This is true in agricultural industries as it is across the economy. It is one reason why it is so important that we meet with you, so we can hear those stories. Anyone with information about anticompetitive conduct in agricultural industries can contact our Citizen Complaint Center. You can find the phone number and email address on our website.[11] You can also submit tips to both the DOJ and the USDA about livestock and poultry market competition at www.FarmerFairness.gov.
Antitrust Enforcement and the Cattle Industry
Now let me turn to an item at the top of the Antitrust Division’s agenda that is of particular interest to this audience. Again, I start with President Trump, who has provided tremendous leadership on issues that matter to farmers, ranchers, and cattlemen. In November, the President directed the Justice Department “to launch an investigation into the nation’s largest meatpacking companies for potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation.”[12] The “Big Four” meatpackers have come to dominate 85 percent of the U.S. beef processing market, and serious questions have been raised about whether these meatpackers have exploited American consumers, ranchers, and cattlemen. We have answered President Trump’s call and, as Acting Attorney General Blanche confirmed last month, the investigation is well under way.[13]
The increasing concentration among meatpackers is a crucial consideration when examining this industry, because as the level of concentration in a market increases, there is a greater likelihood that rival companies may pull their competitive punches or stop competing altogether and instead look for ways to coordinate with one another. The victims of such anticompetitive coordination can include consumers to whom they sell their products, as well as small and independent businesses that provide necessary inputs — such as, in the cattle industry, ranchers and cattlemen. Concentration can also increase risks up and down the supply chain — for example, consider how a fire at a meatpacker’s slaughter plant, or a cyber-attack on a meatpacker, can have significant consequences to cattle and beef markets.
Another important fact is the evolution of contracting practices in the industry. Historically, meatpackers mostly acquired cattle in cash markets. As the “Big Four” meatpackers have grown in size, there has been a shift to alternative marketing arrangements. On their own, there is nothing necessarily good or bad in changes to contracting practices. At the Justice Department, we are law enforcers, not industry regulators, and we have neither the power nor the expertise to tell industries how they should operate. Nonetheless, as practices within an industry change, especially at a time when concentration within the industry has increased, we are attentive to whether changes may relate to an increased ability of contracting partners to exercise market power and to harm competition. And if dominant firms are unilaterally imposing onerous terms in ostensibly “negotiated” agreements that are solely intended to undermine the competitive process, we want to hear about it, and do something about it.
Ranchers and cattlemen also face other substantial challenges, including some that are not related to competition but have serious impacts. As you all know well, there is a historically low cattle herd size. This is a generational change for the ranchers and cattlemen who are directly affected and for everyone who cares about cattle in America. There is also an ongoing, unprecedented drought affecting the largest cattle-producing states in the nation’s central beef belt, as well as the increasing impact of the recurrence of the New World Screwworm. These difficulties and others have been devastating and present additional risks going forward, but do not necessarily fit into an antitrust law framework. As the Justice Department continues to investigate into beef markets, we also consider how we can partner with other agencies to identify and address particular challenges.
As we have conducted our meatpacking investigation, we have also closely monitored the progress of private actions in the Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation cases.[14] As you know, the plaintiffs in those private cases allege that meatpackers conspired to restrict the cattle supply, inflate wholesale beef prices, and suppress prices paid to ranchers. R-CALF USA has been a leader in that private litigation, and I expect we will hear more about those cases during Pat McGahan’s antitrust litigation update tomorrow morning. When Congress wrote the antitrust laws, it designed a system where federal law enforcement is complemented by private litigation. We respect that system, and we will continue to watch the private cases in this space and look for opportunities where federal enforcement is appropriate.
It is important to add that we have not prejudged any outcomes of the thorough and vigorous investigation that we are conducting. As with all of our enforcement matters, the Antitrust Division is guided by the law and the facts.
I again want to emphasize how much of our work depends on hearing from you. I know that Bill has been a vocal advocate in encouraging folks in the industry to come forward and share with us the challenges you have faced,[15] and I reiterate that call here today. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have information that could be helpful to our investigations.
Conclusion
Let me end with a parting thought. Every year, the American economy grows in complexity. These changes can provide great benefits to Americans, while also presenting challenges for law enforcement to keep up with new kinds of markets and economic activities. But under President Trump’s leadership, we never forget the significance of antitrust law to the markets that are most important to our security as a nation—and food, farming, and ranching are at the heart of it. I appreciate your attention this afternoon, and I am grateful for this opportunity to engage with you. I am excited to get to know you better over these next couple of days, and know that you always have an open door at the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. Thank you.
[7] Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial Brief 3-4, United States v. Agri Stats, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-3009 (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2026), ECF No. 715.
[14] In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 0:22-md-03031 (D. Minn.).
Leave a Reply