Category: Trade

In September 2026, the United States and China established the U.S.-China Board of Trade, creating a framework through which government officials can discuss trade issues and oversee trade initiatives between the two countries. Announced during the recent state visit by President Xi Jinping, the Board is intended to provide a regular forum for addressing trade concerns and exploring areas of mutual commercial interest (The White House, 2026). Unlike traditional trade agreements, which typically involve comprehensive negotiations and formal legislative approval, the Board functions as an executive-level arrangement through which officials can meet, exchange proposals, and consider targeted trade initiatives.

The Board’s first major initiative is the 30-for-30 Framework, announced on September 27, 2026. Under this arrangement, officials from both countries identified reciprocal lists of products representing approximately $30 billion in annual bilateral trade value on each side, with a view toward providing more favorable tariff and regulatory treatment. In simple terms, the framework seeks to expand trade in selected products rather than negotiate a broad trade agreement covering entire sectors of the economy. Whether the initiative ultimately leads to substantial increases in bilateral trade remains uncertain, but it establishes a process through which products may be considered for reduced trade barriers (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2026).

How will agriculture fare under the 30-for-30 Framework? China has historically been one of the most important foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products, yet trade was significantly disrupted by the tariffs and trade tensions that emerged in recent years. U.S. agricultural exports to China approached $40 billion in 2022 but declined to approximately $8 billion by 2025 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026). Given this decline, the inclusion of agricultural commodities among the products identified for possible tariff relief has attracted considerable attention.

At this stage, any assessment of the framework’s implications for agriculture is necessarily speculative. The arrangement remains a work in progress, and future tariff reductions, product coverage, and implementation details will continue to be shaped by ongoing discussions between the two countries. As a result, it is too early to determine how the framework may ultimately affect agricultural trade. Nevertheless, the product list proposed by the Chinese government may provide some initial insight into the sectors viewed as potential areas for expanded trade.

Table 1 provides a broad overview of the products included in China’s proposed import list under the 30-for-30 Framework. Based on the more than 1,600 tariff lines identified in the translated schedule (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2026), the list appears to be heavily concentrated in food and agricultural products, which account for an estimated 83% of all tariff lines. Forestry products represent approximately 10%, while medical equipment, fibers, and other industrial products comprise relatively small shares. Among individual chapters, live animals, processed fruits and vegetables, wood products, oilseeds and seeds, vegetables, fish and seafood, fruits and nuts, and meats account for the largest number of tariff lines. These estimates should be interpreted with caution because the final product coverage may change. Even so, the composition of the proposed list suggests that agriculture and related sectors are likely to play a central role in any future expansion of U.S.-China trade under the framework.

Table 1. Composition of China’s Proposed 30-for-30 Import List by Broad Sector

Sector	Tariff lines	Share of tariff lines (%)
All Products (total tariff lines)	1,619	100.0
Food and Agriculture (HS 01 to 24)	1,341	82.8
Forestry (HS 44 to 46)	162	10.0
Fibers (HS 50 to 53)	40	2.5
Medical Equipment (HS 90+)	48	3.0
Other Industrial Products	28	1.7

References

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 2026. Ambassador Greer Issues a Statement on Announcement of Recommendations from the U.S.-China Board of Trade. Press Releases (September 27, 2026). https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/september/ambassador-greer-issues-statement-announcement-recommendations-us-china-board-trade

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026. Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/Default.aspx.

The White House. 2026. U.S.-China Board of Trade. Releases (September 27, 2026). https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/09/u-s-china-board-of-trade/

---

Muhammad, Andrew. “What the U.S.-China Board of Trade Could Mean for American Agriculture.“ Southern Ag Today 6(41.4). October 8, 2026. Permalink

Authors: Shawn Wade and Darren Hudson, International Center for Agricultural Competitiveness, Texas Tech University

Sugar is sweet… especially for foreign sugar producers who find themselves at the receiving end of generous subsidies and other policies meant to protect their domestic production.

Sugar remains one of the most highly protected commodities in the world, with import tariffs (or tariff rate quotas, TRQs) being the most common policy tool. Applied tariffs range from 0 to 100% globally, with the United States on the low end according to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Many of the largest producers, including China, India, and Turkey, have applied tariffs of far more than 20% (Figure 1), whereas the U.S. is at 12.1%.

Added to the import controls, many of the largest producers utilize production/input subsidies, tax credits, and state monopoly trading mechanisms which give their producers significant advantages over U.S. producers. In fact, monetary transfers to Chinese and Indian producers have been around $2-3 billion per year since 2005, nearly 3x the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) average. A 2024 U.S. government report submitted to the WTO documented $17.6 billion in subsidies to Indian sugar producers in 2022 alone, even after a WTO dispute panel ruled that India had violated its WTO commitments on sugar.[1]

And, the proliferation of ethanol mandates has provided significant indirect support to sugar prices, especially where sugar is the primary feedstock. By contrast, the U.S. sugar program is designed to operate at “no net cost” to the U.S. taxpayer, and U.S. biofuel policies are not related to sugarbeet or sugarcane production.

With U.S. production being below self-sufficiency (<= 90% of domestic production), the door is open to sugar imports from more highly subsidized markets. Our analysis (linked below) outlines the policies in place around the world that impact sugar markets.

This is an especially timely analysis as the U.S. sugar industry is asking the U.S. Trade Representative to use Section 301 authorities in response to what the industry is calling “unreasonable and discriminatory trade practices.” [2]

Sugar is a popular target in the subsidy debate, but it is helpful to understand just how much support is being provided around the world to inform that debate.

Figure 1.  Average Applied Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Import Tariffs for HS17 (Sugars and Sugar Confectionary), Last Reported Year for Each Country.

To view the entire report go to the Texas Tech International Center for Agricultural Competitiveness website: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/aaec/icac/

---

[1] Study available at:  https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/AG/W245.pdf&Open=True

[2] See https://sugaralliance.org/sugar-expert-testifies-on-unfair-trade-practices-harming-american-farmers-workers/41277

---

Recommended citation format: Wade, Shawn. “Sugar is sweet, just sweeter in some places…” Southern Ag Today 6(39.4). September 24, 2026. Permalink

Prior to the reopening of the Chinese market in 2017, China was a negligible destination for U.S. beef exports; however, imports subsequently expanded rapidly, reaching a peak of approximately $2.1 billion in 2022 and establishing China as the third-largest market for U.S. beef exports, behind Japan and South Korea (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026a). All of this changed in 2025. Rising trade tensions between the United States and China led to higher tariffs and the lapse of export establishment registrations for many U.S. beef suppliers (Muhammad, 2025). As a result, U.S. beef exports to China fell sharply, reversing much of the progress made in recent years.

Figure 1 shows the rapid growth and subsequent collapse of Chinese imports of U.S. beef and beef products between 2018 and the first half of 2026. Imports expanded from less than $20 million per quarter in 2018 to more than $500 million in the third quarter of 2022, reflecting China’s emergence as a major destination for U.S. beef exports. Although imports moderated during 2023 and 2024, quarterly values remained historically high before declining sharply in 2025. The downturn coincided with rising trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, and disruptions to export establishment registrations, causing imports to fall from over $330 million in the first quarter of 2025 to less than $10 million by the fourth quarter. By the first half of 2026, imports had fallen to their lowest levels (less than $5 million by the second quarter) since the reopening of the Chinese market to U.S. beef in 2017.

Looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and 2027, the outlook for U.S. beef exports to China remains challenging despite China’s continued need for imported beef. Following a recent safeguard investigation on the impacts of beef imports on domestic producers, China implemented a country-specific tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system on January 1, 2026, concluding that rising imports had caused serious injury to the domestic cattle industry. Under a TRQ system, a specified quantity of imports may enter at the normal tariff rate, while imports exceeding the quota face substantially higher duties. In China’s case, imports above each country’s quota allocation are subject to an additional 55% tariff, greatly increasing the cost of accessing the market once quota limits are reached. The U.S. quota was set at 164,000 metric tons in 2026 and rises only modestly to 168,000 metric tons in 2027, limiting the scope for export growth even if demand for U.S. beef recovers (Dokken, 2026). For context, China’s imports of U.S. beef averaged approximately 169,500 metric tons per year between 2022 and 2024 (Trade Data Monitor, 2026). In effect, the policy places a ceiling on the volume of U.S. beef that can enter China under more favorable tariff conditions while discouraging additional shipments through significantly higher import costs

Additional challenges extend beyond the quota itself. Most U.S. beef products continue to face a 10 percent reciprocal tariff in addition to normal import duties, while exporters and importers remain concerned about establishment eligibility, customs clearance risks, and residue testing requirements. At the same time, U.S. beef continues to face a price disadvantage relative to major South American suppliers, particularly Brazil (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026b). As a result, any recovery in U.S. beef exports is likely to be gradual and constrained by both policy barriers and market conditions. Consequently, the extraordinary growth achieved in the Chinese market between 2018 and 2024 may prove difficult to replicate in the coming years, leaving the future of U.S. beef exports to China highly uncertain.

Figure 1. Quarterly Chinese Imports of U.S. Beef and Beef Products: 2018-2026

References

Dokken, V. 2026. China Announces TRQ Following Beef Safeguard Investigation. GAIN Report No. CH2026-0001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.

Muhammad, A. 2025. “Recent Trade Tensions Cause U.S. Beef to Lose Ground in China, Spurs Gains for Australia and Brazil.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.4) (October 30, 2025). https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/30/recent-trade-tensions-cause-u-s-beef-to-lose-ground-in-china-spurs-gains-for-australia-and-brazil/

Trade Data Monitor. 2026. https://tradedatamonitor.com/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026a. Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/Default.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026b. Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report No. CH2026-0108. Foreign Agricultural Service.

---

Recommended citation format: Muhammad, Andrew. “Trade Tensions and the Uncertain Future of U.S. Beef Exports to China.” Southern Ag Today 6(37.4). September 10, 2026. Permalink

U.S. agricultural trade has faced a lot of headwinds in recent years. Events such as the global pandemic, international military conflicts, increased competition, a slowing global economy, domestic weather events, a 75 year low in cattle inventory, slumping crop prices, high input prices, and a relatively strong dollar have adversely impacted trade flows and the overall U.S. farm economy.  These events, along with trade policy battles with our major export buyers – China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, would lead many to conclude that U.S. ag exports have likely plummeted amidst these challenging global events.

Last year, U.S. ag exports did finish 12% off its record high value of $196 billion in 2022 but have remained in the $170 billion dollar level for four of the past five years (2021-2025), compared to averaging $143 billion during the previous five-year period (2016-2020). Amidst multiple trade challenges, the most recent five-year period has actually been the highest U.S. ag export value in history.

In reality, lower prices for several commodities have constrained recent U.S. export values.  Isolating on trade volume, U.S. export quantities during this turbulent period have remained near record levels.  USDA data reveal that aggregate ag export quantities for 2025 are the third highest on record and only 2.5% below the largest level achieved in 2021.

Looking at the data more closely, one market, China, accounted for over 100% of the loss in U.S. ag export value since 2022. The value of U.S. ag exports for 20 of our top 25 foreign markets increased from 2022 to 2025, with some of our major ag export markets like Mexico, the European Union, South Korea, Colombia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Dominican Republic finishing 2025 at record high levels.  From an individual commodity/ag product perspective, ethanol, corn, dairy products, and tree nuts hit record export values during the past year.

Plus, the overall strength in U.S. ag exports is continuing so far in 2026. Through the first half of this year, U.S. ag exports are up 7% in value (and 10% in volume).  At this pace, U.S. ag exports for 2026 could end the year exceeding $180 billion – second highest on record.  Most of the gains so far in 2026 can be attributed to a rebounding Chinese market — up 43% in value and 115 % in quantity. Notable increases in export value during the first six months of 2026 include soybeans, up 33%, soybean meal up 20%, ethanol up 21%, tree nuts up 28%, fresh fruits and vegetables, both up 11%; and distilled spirits, up 26%.  But traditional southern crops like tobacco, rice, and cotton continue their downward trends, off 32%, 14%, and 6%, respectively, so far in 2026.

Recommended citation format: Snell, Will. “The Resiliency of U.S. Ag Exports.” Southern Ag Today 6(35.4). August 27, 2026. Permalink

Authors: Landyn Young and Luis A. Ribera

On July 7^th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) chose to leave in place anti-dumping policies for imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia (Andberg, 2026). The initial ruling took place in December 1998. Dumping occurs when a producer sells their products at a lower price internationally than they do in their home country or below their production costs. A week after the ruling for preserved mushrooms was continued, on July 14^th, it was announced that a preliminary determination had been reached regarding dumping of fresh mushrooms in the U.S. market from Canada (Federal Register, 2026). The USITC implemented an 8.26% preliminary antidumping tariff on most fresh mushrooms from Canada, following a separate 2.84% countervailing duty for alleged unfair subsidies. In 2025, the United States imported 91.2 thousand metric tons (TMT) of mushrooms, valued at $416.9 million. Based on imports from Canada in 2025, it is estimated that 81 percent of fresh mushroom imports could face antidumping tariffs, with Agaricus mushroom imports being 92 percent.

Since 2019, between 96 and 98 percent of U.S. grown mushrooms were the Agaricus variety, which is primarily grown in Pennsylvania and California. Around 69 percent of total production of Agaricus mushrooms occurred in these two states in 2025, or 205 thousand metric tons (TMT) of the 304 TMT grown nationwide. The remaining 31 percent is spread throughout the United States.

In 2025, 91.2 TMT of mushrooms were imported, with 79.2 TMT being Agaricus; the other 12 TMT were other varieties. By far the largest exporter of fresh mushrooms to the United States was Canada, which sent an estimated 74.2 TMT of mushrooms to the United States worth $345 million. It is estimated that imports accounted for as much as 23 percent of all fresh mushrooms available in the United States in 2025, up from 16.8 percent in 2019.  On the other hand, exports have dropped considerably since 2020, while consumption has remained relatively steady. With production on the decline and the reliance on imports rising, this could negatively impact prices for consumers of fresh mushrooms but may also be a windfall for mushroom growers in the United States trying to stay competitive.

Volume of U.S. Mushroom Imports, 2011 – June 2026

Volume of U.S. Mushroom Exports, 2011 – June 2026

Share of U.S. Mushroom Consumption from Imports, 2019 – 2025

---

Sources:

Andberg, Jennifer. United States International Trade Commission. “USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year Reviews Concerning Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.” Published July 2026.

Federal Register. “Fresh Mushrooms From Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination.” Published July 2026.

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online Database. Online public database accessed August 2026.

---

Recommended citation format: Young, Landyn, and Luis Ribera. “USITC Maintains Anti-Dumping Order on Fresh Mushrooms.” Southern Ag Today 6(33.4). August 13, 2026. Permalink