Dairy Trade

These Half-Dozen U.S. Ag Trade Missions Aim To Diversify Global Demand

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:39:38 GMT

Trump’s USDA team has announced its agribusiness trade missions for the year ahead.

“Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products,” says Luke Lindberg, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs.

Lindberg points to a three-point plan Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ team is deploying:

Get better trade agreements.
Build willing buyer and willing seller relationships.
Hold trading partners accountable.

According to Lindberg, the goal is it “helps to cultivate, it helps to diversify, so we’re not solely focused on one or two key buyers. I think if you go to many business owners and ask them, would you rather have one buyer that buys 80% of your products or would you rather have some diversification to lots of buyers who have ups and downs of their own, I think many of them would say they prefer the diversification model.”

So far, six agribusiness trade missions have been announced for 2026 with the goal of growing global markets, increasing exports and strengthening the agricultural economy.

The six mission destinations, and potential agricultural focus areas, include the following.

1. February 2026, Jakarta, Indonesia

Since 2020, annual U.S. ag exports to Indonesia have hovered between $2.75 billion and $3.25 billion. Overall, it’s the 11^th largest trade partner for U.S. ag goods.

Indonesia is the fourth-largest market for U.S. soybeans following China, the European Union and Mexico. According to U.S. Census Bureau trade data, in 2024 Indonesia imported from the U.S. $1.2 billion in soybeans, $198 million in wheat and $139 million in cotton. This past July, the Indonesia private sector and the U.S. wheat industry signed a memorandum committing to purchasing at least 1 million metric tons of U.S. wheat between 2026 and 2030 plus a minimum of 800,000 metric tons of wheat in 2025 (prorated).

The Trump administration has worked to address long-standing barriers to U.S. agricultural trade and expanding market access into Indonesia with a trade agreement eliminating tariffs on more than 99% of U.S. products.

2. April 2026, Manila, Philippines

U.S. ag exports to the Philippines have more than doubled since 2010. In 2024, the total value was $3.5 billion, making it the ninth-largest customer for U.S. ag trade.

With limited domestic production, the Philippines imports nearly all of its dairy products, and specifically $365 million comes from the U.S. Poultry exports to the Philippines totaled $187 million, with a majority of that in frozen chicken leg quarters.

The U.S. gained market share for ethanol imports into the Philippines, having doubled volumes in 2024 with a value of $138 million.

Beef and beef products are the sixth-largest group of ag products the Philippines imports from the U.S. This category has also experienced recent growth by increasing 58% from 2023 to 2024. The U.S. is second to Brazil in market share for beef imported into the Philippines.

In 2024, the Philippines imported $120 million of pork and pork products from the U.S. The country’s local supply has been declining because of African Swine Fever.

According to an announcement in July, the Trump administration said the Philippines will charge zero tariffs for U.S. exports into their market, while the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs to the U.S.

3. May 2026, Istanbul, Turkey

According to USDA analysis, Turkey has grown its strength as an importer of raw materials and then reexported finished products. This includes importing wheat for flour and cotton for apparel.

Because of its geographic location, Turkey has also grown as a strategic regional transshipment hub, connecting U.S. exporters with trade partners across the Caucasus region.

In September, Turkey lifted its retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. ag products: rice, tree nuts, distilled spirits and more. The Trump administration says a focus for the upcoming agribusiness trade mission will be to address nontariff barriers to trade, which includes import bans on U.S. animal protein.

4. August 2026, Australia and New Zealand

The Trump administration says its trade breakthroughs with Australia will give greater access to U.S. beef exporters. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is structured to give comprehensive duty-free market access.

Other protein sectors have significant trade established with Australia. In 2024, $328 million worth of U.S. pork and pork products were imported. And $173 million of U.S. dairy products were brought into the country.

New Zealand imported $520 million worth of U.S. ag goods, including: soybean meal, dairy ingredients (lactose and whey), fresh fruit and distiller’s dried grains.

5. September 2026, Saudi Arabia

This agribusiness trade mission will focus on technical issues and nontariff barriers. Saudi Arabia is the 23^rd largest ag export market for the U.S., and it is a gateway to the $3 billion market for U.S. ag goods that is the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.

Over the past 10 years, the country has increased its imports of U.S. hay by 540% to its recent total of $152 million in 2024.

Corn, tree nuts and rice are also key ag goods exported from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, totaling $239 million, $169 million and $123 million, respectively.

6. November 2026, Vietnam

USDA says this trade mission will focus on preferential access for specialty cheese and meats as well as improved market access for U.S. peaches and nectarines.

U.S. ag exports to the country peaked in 2018 at $4 billion and in 2023 were around $3.1 billion. Ranked from highest value to smallest, the top five ag products exported from the U.S. into Vietnam in 2023 were: cotton, soybeans, distillers grains, soybean meal and tree nuts.

For meat and meat products, the key prospects include frozen/chilled beef (boneless and bone-in), frozen chicken (leg quarters, legs and paws), and turkey.

Dairy could be a growth market for U.S. exports into Vietnam as nonfat dried milk powder has led the segment to total $146 million of imports in 2023. Fresh cheese (for foodservice/restaurants) is in demand by younger generations despite not being part of a traditional diet in the country.

USDA also points to fresh fruit as a growth category for the country, namely apples, cherries and grapes.

Trade Turbulence Could Shake Up Dairy Exports to China

Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:37:59 GMT

Ongoing trade tensions and tariff negotiations between the U.S. and China are beginning to impact dairy markets, particularly for dry whey, whey permeate and lactose — products in which the U.S. is a leading global supplier.

More than half of U.S. dry whey and lactose production is shipped overseas, with China standing out as the largest buyer. But as trade disputes intensify, concern is growing that China might look elsewhere to meet its demand.

A Quick Tariff Recap
On April 2, President Donald Trump announced a new 34% tariff on goods imported from China into the U.S. Since then, that rate has increased to 84%. In response to the hike, China imposed a 34% retaliatory tariff on U.S. products entering the Chinese market.

But the back-and-forth retaliations didn’t end there. On April 9, the U.S. introduced further changes, announcing a 90-day pause on new tariffs for all countries except China, during which a universal 10% tariff would apply. However, for Chinese goods, tariffs are expected to increase to 125%.

U.S. Exports of Lactose and Whey
In 2024, the U.S. exported 409,000 metric tons (mt) of lactose, about 58% of the global market, according to a recent report from Rabobank. Of that, 110,000 mt were shipped to China, which accounted for 43% of total global lactose imports. In comparison, the European Union and United Kingdom combined exported only 33,000 mt of lactose to China.

While recent retaliatory tariffs are likely to put a dent in U.S. lactose exports to China, some volume may remain competitive. U.S. lactose is priced significantly lower, averaging around $834 per metric ton, compared to European prices, which range between $1,183 per metric ton and $1,918 per metric ton. Even with tariff retaliations, U.S. lactose could still offer better value in some segments when compared to the EU.

“The intensifying trade conflict between these two major trading partners could lead to shifts in lactose and whey trade, with potential export opportunities for Europe, Oceania and South America,” says Mary Ledman, global sector strategist for dairy at Rabobank.

“However, due to its competitive pricing, some U.S. lactose will likely still find a market in China. U.S. dry whey and permeate exports to China, on the other hand, are likely to fall significantly, with domestic U.S. prices for these commodities also declining,” Ledman says. “The trade war could result in lower prices for U.S. dairy producers, slimmer margins for traders and higher prices for Chinese end users and consumers.”

Phil Plourd, head of insights at Ever.ag, notes U.S. dairy exporters are already on edge.

“China takes a lot of U.S. whey products — dry whey, whey protein concentrates, permeate, lactose,” he says. “U.S. manufacturers and marketers had to be plenty concerned with the initial 34% levy announced by China late last week. Today, we’re up to 84%, which only makes things more challenging.”

Still, he acknowledges that the situation remains fluid, and both sides could be looking for ways to adapt.

“Even so, as is likely to be the case with many commodities and many countries, buyers and sellers are going to have to figure some things out,” Plourd says. “Do buyers have many immediate alternatives? Do sellers? Have buyers front-loaded, buying time for both sides to see how the dust settles? Over the short run, the unfolding actions aren’t a positive for prices. But it’s still early in this whole process.”

Will History Repeat Itself?
During a similar trade dispute in 2019, when China imposed a 25% tariff on U.S. whey products, U.S. exports of dry whey and permeate to China declined by 55%, and domestic prices fell by more than 35%. Lactose exports fell 33% during the same time period.

“When China implemented its 25% retaliatory tariff on U.S. imports in 2019, the U.S. dry whey market felt the brunt of this retaliation,” Ledman says. “At the time, China was also dealing with declining swine production due to an outbreak of African swine fever, resulting in lower whey and lactose exports to China for animal feed.”

However, with current tariffs now significantly higher than 2019, Ledman believes market pressure could be even more pronounced in the months ahead.

“RaboResearch expects the U.S. dry whey and corresponding milk markets to respond similarly to China’s new retaliatory tariffs in 2025, with the potential for more downside risk, given that the tariff is more punitive, totaling 36% as of April 10, and because the U.S. is experiencing an increase in production due to expanding cheese and whey production capacity.”

More Ripple Effects Likely to Come
As global trade flows adjust, there might be opportunities for Europe, Oceania and South America to expand their presence in the Chinese market. However, a mix of costs, product quality and supply constraints make this far from guaranteed.

In the meantime, the U.S.-China trade conflict adds another layer of uncertainty to global dairy markets.

Your Next Read:
Navigating the Tariff Tightrope When it Comes to Dairy Products

Grassley: I Still Support Trump, But Congress Should Lead On Trade, Tariffs

Mon, 07 Apr 2025 18:08:57 GMT

With financial markets spiraling deeper into the red, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is pounding the table in support of a bill that would wrestle back the executive branch’s authority to enact unilateral world trade decisions without Congressional approval.

The senior senator from Iowa has long held the belief the U.S. Constitution gives Congress direct oversight in regulating foreign commerce. Grassley says the legislature has deferred this authority to the executive branch since the 1960s, and it’s time to claw that power back within the walls of Congress.

“The impression is that I’m doing this because of what Trump did last week. It has nothing to do with that,” Grassley told AgriTalk host Chip Flory on Monday. “This president is doing what Congress gave him the power to do, right? I felt the same way in 2019 and I tried to get some changes then.”

Now, Grassley says he is simply piggybacking on the heightened awareness of trade tariffs after last week’s “Liberation Day” announcements from the Rose Garden. He still supports the President’s overall agenda and is hoping for the best-case scenario – which would entail a worldwide negotiation process to balance trade deficits among the U.S. and its trade partners.

“If he’s successful in putting tariffs on other countries to get them to sit down at the table to bring all tariffs down, I’m going to say he did a better job than my approach of negotiating tariffs down,” Grassley says, adding that the administration can immediately help farmers by supporting a new 5-year Farm Bill and directing the EPA to approve year round E-15 fuel availability.

Under the proposed bipartisan legislation – which is co-sponsored by a handful of U.S. Senators from across the nation – the Trade Review Act of 2025 would require congressional approval of new unilateral tariffs proposed by the executive branch within 60 days.

Over the weekend, senior Trump administration officials, including USDA chief Brooke Rollins, made the rounds on the Sunday morning political TV programs to try to assure corn and soybean farmers – who have suffered profit line hits from two years of inflated operating expenses and low commodity prices – that the President’s tariff strategy would eventually pencil out to long-term gains in domestic manufacturing and crop export markets.

Then, on Monday morning, Trump posted on social media saying he will impose an additional 50% in tariffs (on top of the current 54% rate) on China by April 9 if the country did not back off the 34% retaliatory tariffs it enacted on American goods. Ag economists say the China tariffs will have a devastating impact on U.S. crop and meat exports, and many believe the tariffs have effectively handed Chinese feed and fiber demand to Brazil.

Related: As China Retaliates and Hits U.S. With a New 34% Tariff, What’s the Possible Impact on Ag?

(iStock/Lori Hays)

The U.S. today is China’s largest ag trading partner, but 2024 import data shows that relationship could be fading fast: shipments of U.S. farm goods into China nearly halved from 2022 levels, when China purchased almost $43 billion in U.S. ag products. Last year, that figure plummeted to $29 billion, and many expect the tariffs will slash that figure even lower. China has also torn up or suspended several trade deals with U.S.-based poultry producers, and some experts fear a decrease in demand for U.S. pork products could be devastating to American hog farmers.

Related: Pork Producers Resist Urge to Panic, Respond to New Tariffs

Overall, despite alarm bells being sounded from basically every corner of the economy, the senate’s current longest-tenured member is hopeful there’s a light at the end of this long, roller coaster tariff tunnel for America’s farmers and ranchers.

“If we can export our stuff in a free way, it’s going to help the economy of the United States, and it’s going to help our consumers if we don’t have tariffs on products coming into the United States,” Grassley says. “I’m supportive of the President’s effort to get a better deal for Americans, especially for our farmers because we export about a third of our production, and that’s where farmers want to get it.”

Your Next Read: Ag Markets Try to Recover Early Monday, Except Cattle

Trump Sows Confusion on Tariffs for Canada and Mexico, Floats 25% Duty for EU Goods

Wed, 26 Feb 2025 21:25:22 GMT

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday raised hopes for another month-long pause on steep new tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, saying they could take effect on April 2, and floated a 25% “reciprocal” tariff on European cars and other goods.

A White House official, however, said Trump’s previous March 4 deadline for the 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods remained in effect “as of this moment,” pending his review of Mexican and Canadian actions to secure their borders and halt the flow of migrants and the opioid fentanyl into the U.S. Trump sowed confusion during his first cabinet meeting on Wednesday, when he was asked about the timing for the start of the duties for Canada and Mexico and replied that it would be April 2.

“I have to tell you that, you know, on April 2, I was going to do it on April 1,” Trump said. “But I’m a little bit superstitious, I made it April 2, the tariffs go on. Not all ofthem but a lot of them.”

Trump’s comments prompted jumps in the value of the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso versus the greenback.

Canada’s Finance Ministry and Mexico’s Economy Ministry both declined to comment on Trump’s remarks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the fentanyl-related actions were paused for 30 days but referred to “overall” tariffs on April 2. He did not specify whether the March 4 deadline was still in effect.

“So the big transaction is April 2, but the fentanyl-related things, we’re working hard on the border,”
Lutnick said during the cabinet meeting. “At the end of that 30 days, they have to prove to the president that they’ve satisfied him in that regard. If they have, he’ll give them a pause, or he won’t.”

EU Tariff Rate

Trump has targeted early April for imposing reciprocal tariffs that would match the import duty rates of other countries and offset their other restrictions. His trade advisers consider European countries’ value added taxes to be akin to a tariff.

Trump, asked whether he has decided on a tariff rate for goods from the European Union, replied: “We have made a decision, and we’ll be announcing it very soon, and it’ll be 25%, generally speaking, and that’ll be on cars, and all of the things.”

He said the EU is a “different case” from Canada and takes advantage of the U.S. in different ways.

“They don’t accept our cars. They don’t accept, essentially our farm products,” Trump said, adding that the EU was formed “in order to screw the United States.”

Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, is in Washington and will meet U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, a spokesman said. She is not slated to meet with any Trump administration officials.

New U.S. Trade Representative Confirmed

Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted 56-43 to confirm Jamieson Greer as Trump’s new U.S. Trade Representative, putting a veteran of the Republican president’s first-term trade wars fully on the job.

Greer, who served as chief of staff to former USTR Robert Lighthizer, won the support of five Democrats, including both senators from Michigan, the center of the U.S. auto industry.

Trade groups welcomed Greer’s confirmation, lauding his commitment to consulting with industry and standing up for U.S. businesses, farmers and workers. “We share Ambassador Greer’s desire for an active and pragmatic trade policy that creates

U.S. jobs and more resilient supply chains,” said Jake Colvin, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.

Greer told senators during his Senate confirmation hearing that he wanted to quickly renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade to ensure China does not use it as a back door to the U.S. market to avoid other tariffs.

“Right out of the gate, I expect that we’ll be taking a second look at the USMCA,” Greer said.

Asked what changes he would like to see in the pact, Greer zeroed in on further tightening automotive content rules.

“I think we should look at the rule of origin for automobiles and aerospace and other things to look and see if we need to have any kind of restriction on content or value added from foreign countries of concern, or non-market economies,” he said, using language that U.S. trade officials often use to describe China.

(Reporting by David Lawder and Andrea Shalal; additional reporting by Bo Erickson and Ryan Jones in Washington, Brendan O’Boyle in Mexico City and Ismail Shakil in Ottawa; Editing by Dan Burns, David Gregorio and Paul Simao)

East and Gulf Coast Dockworkers Now on Strike Over Wage Demands, Halting Key U.S. Cargo Shipments

Tue, 01 Oct 2024 12:53:50 GMT

A disruptive strike at ports along the East and Gulf Coasts began today as the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) walked out, affecting 14 port authorities and key cargo shipments. The first strike since 1977, it halts the flow of goods ranging from bananas to beef, pork and poultry, to industrial materials, leading to potential shortages and price hikes.

The ILA is demanding a significant 77% wage increase over six years, while the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) late Monday offered last-ditch effort of a nearly 50% raise over six years, triple employer contributions to employee retirement plans, strengthen health care options, and retain the current contract language around automation and semi-automation. It hoped that offer would lead to resumption of collective bargaining.

The ILA rejected the offer and stated that its wage demands were still not being met. The union said in a statement sent on Monday morning that USMX “continues to block the path toward a settlement on a new Master Contract by refusing ILA’s demands for a fair and decent contract and seems intent on causing a strike at all ports from Maine to Texas.”

The Biden administration is urging both sides to reach an agreement, but federal intervention under the Taft-Hartley Act is unlikely. The Taft-Hartley Act grants a U.S. president the power to suspend a strike for an 80-day “cooling off period” in cases where “national health or safety” are at risk. ILA President Harold Daggett threatened an intentional worker slowdown in moving containers if the Biden administration forces the union workers back to the docks using the Taft-Hartley Act. “You’re better off sitting down and let’s get a contract and let’s move on with this,” he said.

Bargaining for a new six-year contract between dockworkers, represented by the ILA, and shipping companies and operators are represented USMX, started in February 2023. According to a 2020 report by the Waterfront Commission, the regulator that oversees New York Harbor, more than half of the longshoremen based there made $150,000 or more. The ILA is asking for a $5-an-hour raise for each of the six years of the new contract, which means the hourly rate could reach $69 by 2030, a 77% pay increase. The union is also asking for better benefits and opposing the use of automated technologies at ports.

Murky member figure. While the union says there are about 45,000 members covered by the contract, the USMX puts the number of port jobs closer to 25,000, with not enough jobs for all the workers in the union to work every day.

Impacts: For the week ended last Friday, nearly $14 billion in trade arrived at these ports, including New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, Norfolk, Virginia, Savannah, Georgia, Miami, New Orleans and Houston, with $2.7 billion in trade arriving on Friday alone. On average, it takes one week to clear out one day of a port closure. As much as 43% to 49% of total containerized goods entering the U.S are processed through ports on the East Coast and Gulf Coast.

A one-week strike would cost the U.S. economy about $2.1 billion according to an estimate Monday from the Anderson Economic Group (AEG), a Michigan research firm with expertise in estimating the cost of strikes and other disruptions. Most of that would be a $1.5 billion loss in value of some of the goods that wouldn’t be delivered on time, such as perishable goods. Transportation companies, including ship lines and ports, would lose $400 million, while striking workers and those who might be temporarily laid off, would lose $200 million in wages. Losses would start to accelerate the longer the strike continued, said Patrick Anderson, the president of AEG. “A strike lasting longer than a week will begin to impact retailers and manufacturers as supply chain movement grinds to a halt.” But he said estimates of $1 billion a day in losses are exaggerated, especially considering the preparations many shippers had made in advance of the strike deadline. To hit those numbers “you’d have to sink the ships… A strike at the port delays trade, but does not destroy it,” he said.

____________________________________________________________

Your Next Read: Expect Significant Impact on Pork and Beef Industries if East and Gulf Ports Strike

Port Employers Exchange New Contract Offers with Longshore Union in Bid to Avert Strike

Port Employers Exchange New Contract Offers with Longshore Union in Bid to Avert Strike

Tue, 01 Oct 2024 01:31:42 GMT

Port employers said they have exchanged new contract offers with the International Longshoremen’s Association, just hours before a strike deadline takes effect that would shut down container handling at East and Gulf Coast ports.

“In the last 24 hours, the United States Maritime Alliance and ILA have traded counter offers related to wages,” the employers said in a statement posted to their website. “The USMX increased our offer and has also requested an extension of the current Master Contract, now that both sides have moved off their previous positions. We are hopeful that this could allow us to fully resume collective bargaining around the other outstanding issues — to reach an agreement.”

The group of terminal operators and ocean container lines said their new offer would increase wages by nearly 50%, triple employer contributions to union retirement plans, strengthen health care options, and retain the current language around automation and semi-automation. No further details were disclosed.

The ILA earlier rejected the employers’ offer, but with negotiations said that the union has lowered slightly its demand for a 77% wage increase over six years of the master contract, and that the USMX has increased their initial offer.

Your Next Read: Chances of a Strike at East Coast and West Coast Ports are Growing; Here’s How it Could Impact Farmers

USDA Allocates $300 Million to Diversify Export Markets for U.S. Agriculture

Tue, 21 May 2024 13:42:48 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on May 21 that USDA is allocating $300 million to 66 U.S. organizations, under the new Regional Agricultural Promotion Program (RAPP), to build demand for American food and farm exports in high-potential markets around the globe.

RAPP was launched by Vilsack in October 2023, authorizing $1.2 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation funding to help U.S. exporters expand their customer base beyond traditional and established markets, focusing on regions such as Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South and Southeast Asia, where consumer demand and purchasing power are growing, USDA explained in a release.

“USDA and the entire Biden-Harris Administration are focused on creating more, new and better markets for U.S. producers and agribusinesses, and exports are a critical part of that effort,” Vilsack said. “By enabling U.S. exporters to expand their footprint in diverse and dynamic new markets, RAPP will help make them more competitive and resilient in an increasingly volatile global trading environment. We know the potential is out there, but it takes time and money to grow new markets. USDA is pleased to be able to provide the start-up capital to help tap into these opportunities, because if we are serious about reversing the decline of small and mid-sized farms, and building wealth that stays in rural communities, it’s crucial that we create and sustain diverse market opportunities abroad as well as at home.”

Gaining market share in diverse and dynamic markets will help U.S. exporters better weather global shocks and better compete in an increasingly volatile global marketplace, the RAPP website explained. RAPP will help recipient organizations carry out hundreds of projects encompassing a wide variety of products and markets in this initial round of funding, USDA noted. Some of the projects include:

• U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) will receive $21 million and plans to expand its export efforts to new markets in the ASEAN region and throughout Africa, as well as enhance its investment in the convenience store segment in South Korea, Central America and Colombia.

• The U.S. Dairy Export Council will receive $10 million and plans to expand its presence in Africa by utilizing RAPP funding to better understand and develop dairy import regulations and regulatory frameworks in many markets.

• The Cranberry Institute will receive $1 million and plans to conduct trade education seminars and other consumer-focused activities to target export opportunities in India, Brazil, Colombia and Southeast Asia.

• The Hazelnut Marketing Board will conduct market research and trade missions to facilitate support market development in several African countries.

Other top funded organizations include the American Soybean Association ($28.5 million), Cotton Council International ($19 million), Food Export USA Northeast ($17.5 million), U.S. Grains Council ($17 million), Food Export Association of the Midwest USA ($15.5 million), U.S. Wheat Associates ($13 million), Wine Institute ($13 million), and Blue Diamond Growers/Almond Board of California ($10 million).

“USMEF is honored to participate in RAPP and we thank Secretary Vilsack and the staff at USDA for their vision and leadership in implementing this program,” USMEF President and CEO Dan Halstrom said in a statement. “The additional investment in foreign market development is very timely and will be especially helpful in expanding demand for U.S. red meat in emerging export markets. USMEF also appreciates the role Congressional leaders played in the development of RAPP. We thank them for their support of this program and for prioritizing Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) funding in the new Farm Bill.”

To view the complete list of organizations that received RAPP funding, please visit the following link: FY 2024 RAPP Funding Allocations .

USMCA Up for Debate in Mexico This Week

Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:16:27 GMT

This week’s talks in Cancun, Mexico between U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai, Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng, and Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro will allow them to assess the state of the agreement and discuss a series of disputes. Issues include:

• U.S. and Canadian concerns about Mexican energy and biotech policies

• U.S. concerns on Canadian dairy barriers

• Canadian objections to U.S. softwood lumber duties

Another issue is auto rules of origin regulations. Canada and Mexico previously contested the Trump administration’s approach to implementing these rules, arguing the U.S. interpretation was more burdensome than originally negotiated. Even though they won the case in December 2022, the Biden administration has yet to modify the approach, inviting possible retaliation from Canada and Mexico.

Stakeholders plead for answers

U.S. business groups want the Biden administration to formally request a dispute settlement panel to challenge Mexican energy policies that they believe are a violation of the USMCA that went into force three years ago.

The American Petroleum Institute and more than a dozen other business groups raised the energy concern in an 11-page letter to Tai ahead of her attendance today and tomorrow at a meeting of the USMCA Free Trade Commission in Cancún, Mexico.

“We commend the Biden administration’s decision last year to request consultations under the USMCA regarding Mexico’s energy policies,” the groups said in the letter. “However, we are concerned by the Mexican Government’s failure to fix the issues raised by the United States. Mexico continues to hinder the operations of private companies in its energy sector, contrary to its own laws.”

Tai requested consultations with Mexico on the energy issues nearly one year ago on July 20, 2022, and was joined by Canada in the dispute. However, neither country has taken the next step of asking for a panel of trade experts to hear their complaint and decide whether Mexico has violated the three-year-old pact.

Regarding U.S. disputes against Mexico’s biotech corn policies and Canada’s dairy market access barriers, the U.S. has formally requested a dispute settlement panel to issue a decision.

USMCA dispute bottom line

USTR officials said that while the issues on biotechnology, dairy and energy may come up during the discussions, the dispute settlement process was the “primary” venue for such discussions.

“While there are areas of disagreement, of course, some of which may come up in these bilateral meetings, they do not outweigh the productive nature of our trade relationship,” an official said.

The official said those items are not “walled off” from being discussed, the primary format on those topics is the consultations that are ongoing.

Expiration date stamped on the USMCA

The USMCA has an expiration timeline of 16 years, with the opportunity for extension depending on the consensus of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The review process starts in year six (2026), where each country can express desire to extend or can raise issues to be addressed. In the latter case, annual reviews will continue until the issues are resolved or the agreement ends in year 16.

Biden Says He Will Not Immediately Remove Phase 1 Trade Deal With China

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:56:41 GMT

(Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has said that he will not immediately act to remove the Phase 1 trade agreement, which President Donald Trump inked with China, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

In an interview with a Times columnist, Biden said that the United States needed to get leverage back to use in negotiations with China.

“I’m not going to make any immediate moves, and the same applies to the tariffs,” Biden said. “I’m not going to prejudice my options.”

“In my view, we don’t have (leverage) yet,” he added.

The United States needs to develop a bipartisan consensus and increase government-led investments in research and development, infrastructure and education to better compete with China, according to the president-elect.

“I want to make sure we’re going to fight like hell by investing in America first,” Biden said.

Under the Phase 1 agreement signed earlier in the year, China agreed to increase purchases of American products and services by at least $200 billion over 2020 and 2021.

The deal also leaves in place 25% tariffs on a $250-billion array of Chinese industrial goods and components used by U.S. manufacturers, and China’s retaliatory tariffs on over $100 billion in U.S. goods.

Biden’s team will pursue policies targeted at China’s “abusive practices,” including “stealing intellectual property, dumping products, illegal subsidies to corporations” and forcing “tech transfers” from U.S. companies to their Chinese counterparts, according to the interview.

On Iran, Biden said he stood by his views that his administration would lift sanctions if Tehran returned to “strict compliance with the nuclear deal.”

Last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said Iran would fully implement its 2015 nuclear deal if Biden lifts sanctions, which Zarif said could be done swiftly through “three executive orders”.

“In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile program,” Biden added.

(Reporting by Aakriti Bhalla and Shubham Kalia in Bengaluru; Editing by Christian Schmollinger, Sam Holmes and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Canada’s Dairy TRQs Under Fire Again

Mon, 16 May 2022 15:40:30 GMT

Trade Minister Damien O’Connor said New Zealand submitted a request for consultations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) regarding Canada’s dairy tariff rate quotas (TRQs). It is the first time such a dispute settlement has been sought by any country under the CPTPP. “Many of Canada’s dairy TRQs remain unfilled, and this represents a tangible loss to New Zealand’s dairy exporters… The value to New Zealand of this lost market access is estimated to be approximately $68 million over the first two years, with this expected to increase year on year as the size of these quotas increase under CPTPP.”

Unlock more Pro Farmer analysis - try 1-month for $1.

Canada has seven days to respond, after which the two countries can formally try to resolve the issue. New Zealand’s complaint follows a similar dispute over Canada’s quotas by the U.S. and Mexico, who took their case to a dispute settlement panel under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. That panel found Canada’s approach was inconsistent with its commitments, although Canada said the finding was “overwhelmingly in Canada’s favor.” Some observers privately say the U.S. is not pressing Canada hard enough to resolve the dairy trade dispute.

More from Pro Farmer.

Vilsack Focused on Farmer Profitability

Tue, 09 Mar 2021 15:48:56 GMT

In his opening days of his second stint as head of USDA, Tom Vilsack is focused on farmer profitability and opening markets to build that profitability.

“I’m talking about deepening our presence in export markets, because that’s going to continue to be an important component to trying to bring profitability back into farming for more and more farms,” Vilsack told AgriTalk Radio’s Chip Flory. “I’m talking about the necessity of having local and regional food systems that provide farmers an alternative market where they aren’t necessarily limited to a commodity price that’s fixed on the Board of Trade. I’m talking about the ability to have more open and transparent and fair markets, particularly within the livestock area, and having more competition for the livestock that’s being raised by our farmers.”

The markets focus also allows for inclusion of a big agenda of the Biden Administration – climate change mitigation.

“I’m talking about new markets, the opportunity to basically encourage farmers to sequester carbon and be paid for it,” Vilsack added. “Encourage farmers to capture methane and reuse it and convert it, and taking agricultural waste and converting it into a variety of different products, which now creates, instead of waste, an ingredient that can be sold on a market.”

The Biden Administration has made it clear that mitigating climate change is a priority for all federal agencies and that USDA is looking closely at forming some sort of carbon market, but details on what that action will look like for farmers has been cloudy. Vilsack offered up a few more details to AgDay’s Clinton Griffiths, saying he’s looking at two tracks for addressing climate change.

“It’s taking a look at the current farm bill programs that we have and making sure that they are targeted and focused in providing help and assistance to the climate-smart regenerative practices we know work to improve soil health and also to sequester carbon. And to encourage and incent more of that activity by using the regular farm bill programs,” he said.

The second part, of course, is designing a carbon market. Vilsack told Griffiths the current carbon markets are designed to benefit investors. He wants to craft a carbon marketplace designed specifically for agriculture.

“There are 138 million market credits out there today on various markets, only two and a half million of those credits in the carbon area are focused on farming and agriculture,” Vilsack said. “Now what we need is one that’s specifically designed for farmers that provides the opportunity for farmers to absolutely benefit financially from investments that they would make in improved soil health and in carbon sequestration. If we are to have that kind of market, it’s going to be necessary for us to figure out ways in which the incentives work for farmers, ways in which we can accurately measure and quantify the results so that we’re in a position of being able to provide significant resources and significant income opportunities for farmers in the future. And do right by the environment, and also potentially create new job opportunities in rural places as well.”

FSA Staffing Issues

As Farm Service Agency offices observe social distancing requirements due to COVID-19 it’s forcing many employees to work from home and farmers have expressed concerns about being able to submit paperwork on time.

Vilsack said they are working to staff up offices, but ultimately it depends on safety and the rate of vaccinations.

“We’re going to try to open up those offices as quickly as we can, but we have to do it as safely as we can, consistently pursuant to what we know from CDC is appropriate under the current circumstances,” he said. “Here’s the key, the more people who get vaccinated, and the more quickly we get them vaccinated, the greater the chances are that we can return to the new normal. And that new normal obviously will involve reopening offices, sort of on a on a case by case basis.”

CFAP Review

USDA is holding up payments from the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) as part of a global review of Trump Administration policies that were enacted during the lame-duck period. That review covers both $2.3 billion in CFAP 1 & 2 money that was targeted largely for contract hog and poultry producers and the entire $13 billion in the CFAP 3 program that included $20 per acre payments for many program crops.

Vilsack hinted there may be some changes coming for those CFAP priorities.

“The reason [USDA is reviewing CFAP] is that we’re taking a bit of time to study precisely where the previous resources have been invested to determine where the gaps are. Congress, when they passed the third relief package, basically identified a number of areas they thought needed additional attention. I use the biofuel industry for example, that’s one industry that didn’t get much help, if any, from the COVID relief packages in the past. Is that something that could potentially be assisted and helped with this third tranche of money?” Vilsack asked.

What else could benefit from USDA’s review of CFAP?

“There’s so much need here, within the supply chain. There is the need to basically make sure that our ag workers in the processing facilities are adequately protected, and there were expenses incurred as a result of these protections. Do we need to do more in that area? Do we need to help the biofuel industry? Are there specialty crop producers that weren’t really part of a more large scale, commodity-based set of payments in the past?” he said. “The great thing about American agriculture is its enormous diversity, but it represents a real challenge in the face of a national pandemic where all aspects of agriculture got impacted, being able to provide help and assistance to as many people as we possibly can.”

Vilsack said while payments may still be several weeks away because of the need for rulemaking in some instances farmers will “have a good sense of where we think the resources need to be directed and in what level within the next couple of weeks or so.”

Trump Administration Leaves a Lasting Impact on Agriculture

Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:10:10 GMT

As President Donald Trump enters his final days in office, the House of Representative’s last minute move to impeach him for a second time is stealing headlines. And with the loss of social media access, Trump’s response has been muted. While the final weeks of Trump’s presidency have been a whirlwind, the impact he’s had on agriculture the past four years isn’t going unnoticed.

“I think in the last four years, ag has gotten a lot of recognition,” Kentucky farmer Ryan Bivens told AgriTalk’s Chip Flory during the farmer forum. “Agriculture has been at the forefront. We had trade issues that were going on. And, at the end of the day, I think we’re going to look back and realize how much we truly have gained.”

While farmers like Biven say the Trump Administration is leaving its mark on agriculture, Farm Journal Washington correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer says one of the positives from the outgoing Administration was the President’s focus on farmers.

“He communicated to different groups, especially to agriculture. And no president- in my over 40 years of covering the business of agriculture from Washington- have I ever seen a president talk about agriculture and trade policy as much as our president,” says Wiesemeyer.

Mixed Reviews

Looking back at the past four years, that attention is mixed.

“There’s both good and bad in Trump, and that goes along so many different topics,” says Wiesemeyer.

From Trump ‘s stance on trade, to the easing of regulations, those in Washington say the past four years have been a whirlwind because you never knew what the end result would be. Tyson Redpath works with The Russell Group in Washington, D.C. He says the Trump Administration may be remembered for many things, but one may be a trademark of this administration.

“I think the tumult and the unpredictability, the uncertainty,” says Redpath. “I’ve probably uttered that word more in the last four years – ‘uncertainty’ - than i ever have previously in my career and not knowing what was coming next.”

Trump and Trade

The unpredictability was also a product of one of the President’s pinnacle policy priorities: trade.

“The president was very clear about his desire to change NAFTA and to renegotiate NAFTA,” says Redpath.

While the end result was the new U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), the negotiations seemed like a rollercoaster, with talk of the Trump Administration completely withdrawing form trade negotiations.

“I think it was in April or the springtime of 2017, when we heard we were pulling out of NAFTA, it was absolutely decided,” remembers Redpath. “And in short of some important members of Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue himself talking to the President about why withdrawing from NAFTA would be harmful and explaining how potentially deleterious and catastrophic for those largest trading markets [it would be], we might have found ourselves in that situation.”

From renegotiating NAFTA to taking a tough stance on China, Wiesemeyer says the impact of Trump’s trade policy on agriculture is mixed.

“That’s because he was both the arsonist and the fireman when it came to China,” says Wiesemeyer. “Not that he shouldn’t have taken China on. It’s a mixture when it comes to trade policy. He should have taken China on; he should have made Americans first and he did on trade. He negotiated some pretty good bilateral trade agreements. But again, he’s got a mixture of negatives and positives.”

And while Trump built some trade relationships, others may need time to heal, as the impacts of the trade war with China continue to play out.

“We now see the end product of that campaign promise with the Phase One agreement, that now it looks like it’s proven to be something of a positive for American farm sales to China, now totaling somewhere between $26 and $27 billion,” says Redpath. “That’s up 62% from last year, but of course, that’s coming off at relatively low point.

Purdue and CME’s Ag Economy Barometer shows the highs and lows farmers experienced over the past four years. While commodity prices drove some of the fluctuations in farmer sentiments, so did the uncertainty on trade.

However, in the beginning, farmer optimism rose on Trump’s election, a sentiment shift driven solely by the thought a Trump presidency would ease regulations.

“One of the signature issues is regulations, that he put more common sense to regulations,” says Wiesemeyer. “He really did them on a cost-benefit analysis that if the costs were not overtaken by benefits, then he didn’t do them.”

USDA’s Focus on Farmers

Another positive for Wiesemeyer is the team Trump and others put together at USDA; a team who oversaw not just the implementation of the Farm Bill, but the distribution of a record amount of ad hoc aid for farmers and ranchers.

“He got a very good USDA team,” says Wiesemeyer. “You look from the under secretaries to the deputy secretary, I think they were one of the best groups that I’ve dealt with in my career. Several of them were farmers, and I think that that helped. And Trump let him alone. And he didn’t do that with every department, so, I think they facilitated what was needed throughout his four years.”

One of those key team members is Undersecretary Bill Northey, who told AgriTalk’s Chip Flory he’s proud of how USDA worked to help farmers the past four years.

“Our effort was to be able to understand the impacts and try to bridge those to help a producer get past those impacts that are caused from off their farm,” says Northey. “Whether it’s trade disruptions with China, and especially for commodities that are impacted by China, or whether it was coronavirus and the impact to some of the producers because of that.”

For farmers like Bivens, those actions didn’t go unnoticed.

“I think we had some true friends in this administration to agriculture,” Bivens told AgriTalk.

As the verdict is still out on just how big of a mark President Trump and his team will have on agriculture in the years ahead, those in Washington say it will take years to know what Trump meant for trade and other agricultural policy.

“So much of what happened the last four years, certainly shapes and dictates what happens the next four years,” says Redpath. “I think at times, it’s important that we all remember you can’t make an honest assessment of the last four years until you see what comes in the subsequent years.”