President Trump Calls for DOJ Antitrust Investigation Into U.S. Meatpacking Industry

President Trump has called for an antitrust investigation into companies involved in the U.S. meatpacking industry. On November 7, 2025, President Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation. We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply. . . .”

Shortly after, the White House published an article in which it wrote that, “President Donald J. Trump directed the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the nation’s largest meat packing companies for potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation.” The White House’s article goes on to state that the investigation will target, “foreign-dominated conglomerates that control America’s meat supply and have been accused of artificially inflating prices at the expense of farmers, ranchers, and working families.”

Within hours, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X that an investigation was underway, with the investigation being led by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

White House Names “Big Four” Meatpackers as Targets, But More Companies Could Face Scrutiny

In its November 7, 2025 article, the White House specifically names the “Big Four” meatpackers—JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef—as targets of the Justice Department’s inquiry. It accuses these companies of exercising “monopoly power,” and states that the Justice Department’s investigation will focus on whether these companies have violated federal antitrust laws, “through coordinated pricing or capacity restrictions.”

However, other companies could face scrutiny as well. The Justice Department’s investigation is not limited to the “Big Four,” and as the investigation develops, we could see more companies facing allegations of participating in price-fixing schemes and other anticompetitive practices.

This Isn’t the First Time the Meatpacking Industry Has Come Under Federal Investigation

Notably, this isn’t the first time the meatpacking industry has come under federal investigation. The Justice Department also launched an investigation in 2020 in response to questions about the increasing gap between the prices of live cattle and boxed beef. According to reports, members of Congress asked the Justice Department for updates on the investigation in 2022 and then earlier this year, but did not receive a response. Reports also indicate that JBS and Tyson Foods both acknowledged receiving subpoenas in connection with this investigation, though it is unclear whether they were the only companies being targeted.

Egg Producers Are Also Facing Antitrust-Related Scrutiny from the Justice Department

Along with targeting the meatpacking industry, the Justice Department is also targeting egg producers. In April of this year, Reuters reported that the United States’ largest egg producer, Cal-Maine Foods, was “cooperating with a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into high egg prices and whether producers have conspired to raise them.” Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater was chosen to lead this investigation as well; and, at the time, Reuters cited Slater as stating that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division was prioritizing efforts to target “anticompetitive conduct in U.S. consumer markets.”

Potential Allegations in Federal Antitrust Investigations Targeting U.S. Consumer Markets

Federal antitrust laws prohibit companies from engaging in a variety of anticompetitive practices. While companies can file lawsuits under these laws’ “private right of action” provisions, the Justice Department can also pursue both civil and criminal enforcement when warranted.

These enforcement actions can expose companies to substantial penalties.

For example, the Sherman Act contains broad prohibitions against “unreasonable” restraints of trade that are harmful to consumers. This includes both horizontal and vertical pricing restraints that result in artificially inflated market prices. Under the Sherman Act, companies can face criminal fines of up to $100 million—and even more in some cases. The Justice Department can pursue criminal fines in cases involving violations including (but not limited to):

• Market allocation and other forms of collusion between competitors
• “[M]onopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize”
• Price fixing, elimination or reduction of discounts, and other “unreasonable” restraints of trade

Justice Department investigations under the Sherman Act can also lead to investigations under the Federal Trade Commission Act (or vice versa). As noted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), “[t]he Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act.” While the Federal Trade Commission Act exclusively authorizes civil enforcement, fines under the act can be substantial—and they can significantly increase the risks of facing antitrust-related scrutiny in consumer protection-focused investigations.

The Clayton Act applies in some federal antitrust cases as well, though enforcement under this statute primarily focuses on cases involving mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions. But, with the Justice Department prioritizing antitrust enforcement at President Trump’s direction, companies targeted in these cases must be prepared to evaluate all potential allegations and defend themselves by all means available.

Put our highly experienced team on your side

Dr. Nick Oberheiden

Founder

Attorney-at-Law

Lynette S. Byrd

Former DOJ Trial Attorney

Partner

Brian J. Kuester

Former U.S. Attorney

Hon. Kevin McCarthy

55th Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (ret.)

Government Consultant

Mike Pompeo

Of Counsel

Former U.S. Secretary of State

John W. Sellers

Former Senior DOJ Trial Attorney

Linda Julin McNamara

Federal Appeals Attorney

Nicholas B. Johnson

Former Prosecutor

Roger Bach

Former Special Agent (DOJ)

Chris J. Quick

Former Special Agent (FBI & IRS-CI)

Michael S. Koslow

Former Supervisory Special Agent (DOD-OIG)

Ray Yuen

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

Responding to Subpoenas, Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs), and Other DOJ Antitrust Investigation Inquiries

While some companies may find out that they are facing federal investigations when they see their names in the news or on the White House’s website, others will not learn that they are facing scrutiny until they receive a subpoena, civil investigative demand (CID), or another formal inquiry from the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. These inquiries are powerful weapons in the Justice Department’s investigative arsenal, and responding to one of these inquiries can itself present serious legal risks.

Inadvertently disclosing incriminating information, failing to disclose information that is required to be disclosed, failing to effectively assert the attorney-client privilege, and other similar types of mistakes can all make DOJ antitrust investigations far riskier than necessary. As a result, it is imperative that targeted companies respond effectively, and engaging experienced federal antitrust defense counsel is the first step in this process.

With experienced defense counsel engaged, companies can make informed and strategic decisions based on the specific circumstances at hand, and they can begin taking steps toward targeting a favorable resolution that avoids unnecessary consequences. Broadly, responding effectively to a subpoena, CID, or other inquiry and preparing to effectively defend against a high-stakes federal antitrust investigation involves:

• Carefully Reviewing the Subpoena, CID, or Other Inquiry – If your company has received a subpoena, CID, or any other formal inquiry from the Justice Department, it will be critical to carefully review the inquiry to evaluate both the substantive focus of the investigation and the scope of your company’s response obligations. With that said, the full scope of the investigation may not be apparent from the Justice Department’s initial inquiry, and your company’s defense counsel may need to engage with the Antitrust Division to discern the scale of the investigation and the legal risks involved.
• Developing a Strategy for Submitting a Timely and Compliant Response (or Challenging the Inquiry, If Warranted) – Responding to subpoenas, CIDs, and other formal inquiries in complex and large-scale antitrust investigations can be a substantial undertaking. However, the Justice Department has made clear that this is not an excuse for noncompliance. With this in mind, upon receiving any inquiry for which a response is required, it is critical to begin developing a strategy to submit a timely and compliant response (or challenge the inquiry, if warranted).
• Conducting a Comprehensive Risk Assessment Based on the Scope of the Investigation – Upon learning that they are being targeted by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, companies should also promptly begin working with their defense counsel to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment. This risk assessment should take the full scope of the investigation into account, and it is critical that the appropriate internal and external personnel are involved.
• Assessing Substantive and Strategic Defense Options – After comprehensively assessing their risk, then companies can shift their focus to assessing their substantive and strategic defense options. Depending on the circumstances at hand, strategic options could range from targeting a pre-trial resolution that avoids liability to targeting a settlement with the Justice Department that avoids criminal prosecution.
• Working to Achieve a Favorable Resolution as Quickly and Quietly as Possible – In all cases, companies targeted in Justice Department investigations should focus on seeking to achieve a favorable resolution as quickly and quietly as possible. At Oberheiden P.C., we have extensive experience helping corporate clients favorably resolve high-risk Justice Department investigations, and several of our attorneys worked at the Justice Department before entering private practice.

When issues such as alleged collusion and monopolization within the meatpacking industry involve presidential directives and garner national headlines, a certain amount of publicity will be unavoidable. But, by taking a proactive, informed, and strategic approach to managing the DOJ antitrust investigation, targeted companies can position themselves for favorable outcomes without undue liability or reputational harm.

Request a Confidential Consultation with a Federal Antitrust Defense Lawyer at Oberheiden P.C.

If you would like to speak with a federal antitrust defense lawyer about a DOJ antitrust investigation at Oberheiden P.C., we encourage you to contact us promptly. Please call 888-680-1745 or get in touch online to arrange a complimentary initial consultation today.