Bugs for thee, beef for me: How big business monopolizes meat



President Trump is right to turn his gaze toward the meatpacking industry. It’s one of the dirtiest businesses in America — not just in hygiene, but in habit. I grew up around beef cattle, familiar with the blood and bone that keep this machine alive.

What was once a farmer’s trade has become a monopoly’s empire. Four corporations now control nearly 85% of U.S. beef processing. They set the prices, squeeze the ranchers, and pass the pain to consumers — all while preaching “market efficiency,” that modern hymn for exploitation.

When the men who raise the cattle can’t afford to eat steak and the companies that kill them post record earnings, something stinks — and it isn’t the beef.

The transformation wasn’t sudden. It crept in, one merger at a time, one farm foreclosure after another. The local slaughterhouse — once a fixture of every rural county — vanished, replaced by sprawling steel citadels where flesh and spirit move down the same assembly line. The small family business that once sponsored Little League or donated to the parish fundraiser is gone, its name buried beneath a global brand logo. What remains is meat without meaning: shrink-wrapped, standardized, and severed from life.

Bled dry

The result is as dire as it is deliberate. Independent ranchers are being bled dry. Farmers sell out not because they want to, but because the alternative is bankruptcy. When four conglomerates dictate what you earn, what you buy, and what you eat, the free market ceases to be free — it becomes feudal. The serfs still wear denim and drive pickups, but they serve the same masters: corporate overlords with billion-dollar appetites and offshore addresses.

Consumers don’t fare much better. They pay more for lesser cuts, duped into believing the illusion of abundance. The supermarket shelves are full of choice, but the choice has already been made. The labels may differ, but the profits lead to the same boardrooms. When the men who raise the cattle can’t afford to eat steak and the companies that kill them post record earnings, something stinks — and it isn’t the beef.

RELATED: 'Farmer' George Clooney wouldn't last a minute with my family's sheep

Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/Andia/Getty Images

Corporate cleavers

The story is no different across the Atlantic. In Europe, the meat trade has been quietly butchered by the same corporate cleavers. Small abattoirs — the lifeblood of rural France, Ireland, and Spain — have disappeared beneath the weight of regulation and consolidation. What used to be an honest trade of handshakes and hanging carcasses is now ruled by faceless conglomerates answering to Brussels and shareholders in Frankfurt. The European Union speaks loftily of “sustainability,” but its policies have done more to sustain monopolies than livelihoods.

Ask a French farmer about EU policy, and you’ll get a shrug somewhere between despair and disgust. In Ireland, cattle farmers — men like my father, who once fed nations through famine and war — now feed debt. In Germany, abattoir workers live in company dorms, shipped in from Eastern Europe to keep costs down. The romance of the pastoral has been replaced by the cold arithmetic of the spreadsheet.

From beef to bugs

Meanwhile, consumers are told to eat less meat “for the planet.” How convenient for the corporations that now sell the alternatives — lab-grown patties and insect protein, neatly packaged in recyclable guilt. They’ve found a way to profit from both sides of the moral ledger: first by monopolizing real meat, then by marketing its replacement. It’s a master class in hypocrisy and a catastrophe for the working class.

Trump’s decision to investigate the industry won’t fix a century of collusion overnight, but it is a long-overdue reckoning. For decades, Democrats and Republicans alike treated Big Meat as too big to question. The lobbyists wrote the laws, the lawyers buried the lawsuits, and the bureaucrats looked away. The result is a landscape where cattle ranchers depend on corporations that despise them and consumers rely on supply chains that could snap at any moment.

Food, the most basic human need, has become another instrument of control. When you own the meat, you own the man. Farmers used to raise herds; now they herd invoices and inspectors.

It’s tempting to believe that this system is simply broken. It isn’t. It works exactly as designed — to enrich the few and exhaust the many. The old rural ideal of self-reliance has been slaughtered on the altar of efficiency. What we are left with is a parody of plenty: full shelves, empty towns, and even emptier pockets..

Trump’s probe may not slay the beast, but at least someone is willing to pull back the curtain and show the nation what’s really being carved up. For decades, the Big Four packers have sliced the market to ribbons, fixing prices while farmers starved and consumers paid the bill. Now, for the first time in generations, there’s a man in power with the will to carve them up instead. Call it poetic justice: The butchers may finally find themselves on the block.

Indiana Attorney General Subpoenas Amazon, Sues Indianapolis Schools Over Migrant Trafficking

Attorney General Todd Rokita issued subpoenas for information about potential labor trafficking from Amazon, the city of Fort Wayne, and a nonprofit supported by numerous businesses.

America First antitrust isn’t ‘socialism’ — it’s self-defense



In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Robert Bork Jr. attacked Gail Slater, President Trump’s new assistant attorney general for antitrust.

I remember watching with sadness and dismay in 1987 as Mr. Bork’s father, the late Judge Robert Bork, endured a malicious and unfair confirmation process that ended with the Senate rejecting his nomination to the Supreme Court. Now, to my regret, his son has “borked” Slater in much the same way.

The heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them.

Rather than engaging with Slater’s actual record, Bork resorted to baseless claims. He suggested her antitrust philosophy boils down to a simplistic belief that “big is bad, little is good.” That isn’t her philosophy, she’s never said that, and it’s dishonest to imply otherwise.

The Trump administration’s antitrust team isn’t capitulating to monopolies. It’s doing the opposite — charting a course that breaks from the status quo of the last four years of Joe Biden and eight years under President Obama.

Monopolies rightly understood

Bork claims that Gail Slater and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson “discarded the consumer welfare standard,” the long-standing antitrust principle that limits government action to cases where consumers suffer harm. But Bork sets up a straw man. Slater never said anything of the sort — not in her speech, not even by implication.

In fact, Slater made her position clear: She supports “respecting the original public meaning of the statutory text and the binding nature of Supreme Court and other relevant precedent.” That’s not a rejection of the consumer welfare standard.

Bork also misrepresented Slater’s concern over monopolistic control by tech platforms. He mocked her for saying these companies “control not just the prices of their services, but the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication.” Bork scoffed: “What prices? Facebook, Instagram, Google, LinkedIn, and YouTube don’t charge consumers a penny.”

RELATED: YouTube deserves its own antitrust scrutiny

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Image

Slater might have spelled out more clearly how these platforms profit through exploitative practices and suppress conservative voices through debanking, shadow-banning, and viewpoint discrimination. But her time was limited. Bork’s refusal to acknowledge the damage done to conservatives by monopolies that dominate the flow of information is not just blind — it’s disgraceful.

I, for one, applaud a Justice Department finally willing to confront monopolies not just over dollars, but over speech. Americans deserve protection whether the cost of control impinges upon their wallets or their freedom.

This isn’t Biden 2.0

Calling Slater a continuation of Biden’s antitrust policy is the coup de grâce of Bork Jr.’s “borking” campaign. The claim doesn’t hold up. From day one, Slater made clear her intention to restore objectivity and restraint to antitrust enforcement — anchored in law, not ideology. Biden’s FTC and Justice Department had weaponized antitrust, targeting deals that posed no real threat to consumers, often on laughably flimsy grounds.

Bork, in another op-ed, pointed to the Biden administration’s lawsuit against Visa over razor-thin fees as an example of legitimate enforcement. But Visa wasn’t harming consumers. The lawsuit looked more like an effort to strong-arm a private firm into acting as another weapon in the administration’s anti-conservative arsenal — just as it had done with major banks and social media platforms.

The Biden administration even blocked the merger of Spirit and JetBlue, smaller carriers that offered real competition to the Big Four airlines. The move led to bankruptcy, obviously hurting consumers. Had Democrats won last November, the Big Four likely would have been expected to repay the favor politically.

But those were Biden’s decisions — not Slater’s. She has already made clear she intends to reverse course. She’s not in office to weaponize antitrust law. Her aim is to enforce the law and uphold precedent.

In an April interview with Sohrab Ahmari, Slater didn’t mince words: “If you’re doing a merger that’s benign, we’ll just get out of the way.” In her first public address on April 21, she pledged to give economists a stronger role in enforcement and criticized regulation that “saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.”

That doesn’t sound like central planning. It sounds like a welcome return to sanity.

Deregulation by prevention

So why is Bork trying to paint her as Chairman Mao? Probably because Slater understands what many in D.C.’s think-tank class still miss: Big Business isn’t always Big Government’s victim. More often, they work together. Corporate giants gain dominance, then lobby for regulations that kneecap smaller competitors.

Bureaucrats play along because it’s easier to deal with one entrenched firm than a dozen fast-moving upstarts. That’s not capitalism — it’s cartel economics. And for once, a president is pushing back.

Slater has made it clear that monopolies don’t just crush competition — they endanger core American freedoms. She watched Big Tech silence dissent during the 2020 election. Her response? Use antitrust to reduce the need for government, not expand it.

That’s the heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them. Call it what it is — deregulation by prevention. It’s the opposite of socialism. In truth, restoring power to the people, not the government, is exactly what the founders envisioned. Just read the 10th Amendment.

A seismic shift

FTC Commissioner Mark Meador, a Trump appointee, points out that “consumer welfare” doesn’t just mean cheap products. It also means protecting Americans from economic overlords who silence dissent, distort democracy, and punish disfavored speech. Sound familiar?

Meador rightly rejects the progressive notion that “bigness” is always bad. But he also rejects Bork-style libertarianism that shrugs at monopolies unless they raise prices. That view ignores what consumer welfare really demands — fair markets, not just cheap goods.

The 2024 election wasn’t just a political win for Trump. It marked a seismic shift in what the Republican Party stands for.

Democrats now serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and multinational conglomerates. Trump’s GOP champions the working American — the factory worker, the tradesman, the small business owner.

Too often, well-meaning but outdated Republicans cry “socialism” when anyone dares challenge corporate power. But they’re not defending capitalism. They’re defending a rigged system. And voters finally noticed.

Trump wasn’t sent back to Washington to coddle monopolies or rubber-stamp mergers. He was sent to drain the swamp — including the one where corporate lobbyists and bureaucrats make backroom deals to preserve their government-aided monopoly grip. If that makes the old guard nervous, they can always file a complaint — with one of their apps.

New Laws Restrict Indiana Treasurer Who Protects Americans From Debanking

The banking industry is attempting to take programs from Indiana's state treasurer because he works to protect Christians and conservatives.

Majority of US employers polled say immigration enforcement will impact their workplaces, cause staffing shortages



The employment law firm Littler recently surveyed 349 executives, in-house lawyers, and senior human resource professionals across various industries about their chief concerns in view of the federal government's shifting priorities. The Trump administration's clampdown on illegal immigration was apparently top of mind — a potential wink at big business' reliance on illegally imported labor.

When asked how great an impact the expected "enforcement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Homeland Security Investigations and the Department of Homeland Security, and compliance with their respective requirements" will have on their workplace over the next 12 months, 26% of respondents said they anticipate a "significant impact," and 44% said they anticipate a "moderate impact." The remainder suggested there would be no impact at all.

When asked to what extent their organizations were concerned about "workforce staffing challenges as a result of the Trump administration's immigration policies," 32% of respondents answered "slightly concerned," 20% answered "moderately concerned," and 6% said "very concerned."

"Large employers are more concerned than their counterparts about ICE/DHS enforcement (84% expect a significant or moderate impact on their workplaces) and workforce staffing challenges (69% expressed concern, versus 58% overall)," said the report.

Employers in manufacturing and retail/hospitality were apparently the most concerned about the other shoe dropping when it comes to the administration's enforcement of federal immigration law.

'There is no shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force.'

Eighty-three percent of employers in manufacturing, compared with 75% of all employers, listed immigration at the top of the policy changes that would impact their businesses over the next year.

Where retail/hospitality employers were concerned, 89% indicated ICE and DHS enforcement will have a significant or moderate impact on their workplaces.

The Pew Research Center indicated that as of 2022, there were roughly 8.3 million illegal aliens in the workforce. The largest share of illegal aliens in the workforce reportedly serve in construction.

"Though employers have reasonable cause for worry — it is anticipated, after all, that Trump 2.0 will increase ICE/HSI I-9 audits to up to 15,000 a year and ICE raids to more than 100 a year — workplace enforcement actions as of the writing of this report have not yet resulted in any formal ICE raids of employer worksites," said the report.

The report strongly insinuated that these concerns pertain to the impact of the administration's targeting of illegal aliens, as it notes "employers may be underestimating the impact of Trump 2.0 on legal immigration, which declined by about 40% during the president's first term and could have costly consequences for employers that are unable to bring in the necessary talent."

Jorge Lopez, chair of the firm's immigration and global mobility practice group, told Axios, "I was just flabbergasted by how high the concern was among our clients."

White House spokesman Kush Desai framed the potential staffing shortages as an opportunity to draw from neglected depths of the American talent pool.

"Over 1 in 10 young adults in America are neither employed, in higher education, nor pursuing some sort of vocational training," Desai told Axios. "There is no shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force, and President Trump's executive order to modernize workforce training programs represents this administration's commitment to capitalizing on that untapped potential."

The survey also found that nearly 85% of respondents anticipate that changes to workplace regulations and policies regarding DEI will impact their businesses during President Donald Trump's first year back in office.

According to Littler, 60% of organizations with over 10,000 employees are concerned about DEI-related litigation.

Despite these concerns, only 55% of respondents are considering making some changes to their DEI policies and programs, and the remainder are not contemplating new or further rollbacks.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Statehouse Republicans Work With Democrats To Make Florida Purple Again

The establishment’s revival in Florida threatens Republican victories in the state long-term and Florida’s policy leadership across the country.

U.S. Corporations Love Abortion Tourism Because It Means They Don’t Have To Pay For Parenthood

Businesses talk about the importance of family but often treat children as either a burden to be discarded or as optional luxury goods.

Indiana’s GOP-Run Government Working On 11 Land Deals With Chinese Communist Businesses

Today lawmakers vote on whether to slightly limit Chinese attempts to purchase strategically located Indiana property.