President Donald Trump said Friday that he would allow up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported into the United States tariff-free for the next 90 days, with a commitment that the meat would be sold at 25% below current market prices.

The announcement immediately drew backlash from cattle industry groups and several Republican senators who warned that increasing imports could hurt American ranchers.

In a Truth Social post announcing the plan, Trump said it would “substantially lower” the price of ground beef for American families, arguing that prices had soared under the Biden administration as the domestic cattle supply had shrunk.

“As we work to rebuild this herd and help our ranchers, for the next 90 days, the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of product for ground beef to be imported with no out of quota tariff,” Trump wrote.

A HISTORIC SHORTAGE IS SQUEEZING AN AMERICAN DINNER STAPLE, AND RELIEF COULD BE YEARS AWAY

President Donald Trump announced a plan to allow up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported tariff-free for 90 days in an effort to lower prices for American consumers. (Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg/Getty Images / Getty Images)

“We have a commitment that this beef will be sold at 25 percent below current market prices,” he continued. “This deal will reduce prices for Americans while giving space for our Great American Beef Herd to grow again.”

After Trump’s announcement, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said it was “disappointed” by the plan, arguing that introducing below-market beef could negatively affect American cattle producers.

Speaking with FOX Business’ Nicole McManus, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall urged the federal government not to interfere with the cattle industry.

“The best thing is to stay out of our business. That’s what we want, first and foremost,” Woodall said. “Let us work the way we do as producers to take care of our cattle, to take of our natural resources and to be able to grow.”

TRUMP PAUSES 50% TARIFFS ON CANADA HOURS BEFORE DEADLINE AFTER ANNOUNCING POTENTIAL DEAL

The U.S. cattle herd has fallen to its lowest level in 75 years. (Jonne Roriz/Bloomberg/Getty Images / Getty Images)

Woodall sharply criticized Trump’s plan, arguing the president was overlooking strong consumer demand for U.S. beef.

“This is the third time in less than a year that the president has made a similar announcement about increasing imports in order to decrease the price of beef,” Woodall said.

“And, once again, he’s missing the point,” Woodall continued. “He’s missing the picture, and he’s definitely lost the plot line. This is about demand. The consumer demands our product. The customer loves what we’re producing. 

“We’re producing the highest quality beef we ever have, and they have shown their willingness to pay for it. The American consumer does not have to buy beef. They want to buy beef and, unfortunately, the president is just not factoring that into his consideration.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation also responded to Trump’s announcement, warning that “short-term measures could have long-term negative effects” for consumers and ranchers.

PIZZA HUT MAKES SURPRISING CHANGE TO ICONIC NAME AHEAD OF NFL SEASON

President Donald Trump said imported ground beef under his new plan would be sold at 25% below current market prices. (Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images / Getty Images)

U.S. Cattlemen’s Association President Justin Tupper also criticized the plan.

“You don’t put America first by putting U.S. cattle producers last,” Tupper said in a statement. “This move will weaken our markets and gamble with food safety in the process.”

Several Republicans on Capitol Hill also pushed back, including Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., who said he had advised Trump against the move and warned it could hurt ranching families.

“The President’s heart is in the right place on wanting lower prices for the American people, and beef prices have been impacted by the Mexican screwworm,” Sheehy posted on X.

FORD’S US MANUFACTURING EXPANSION TO BRING ‘THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF JOBS,’ LUTNICK SAYS

America’s ranchers are facing the smallest domestic cattle herd in 75 years as consumers contend with elevated beef prices. (Angela Piazza/The Dallas Morning News / Getty Images)

“But the reality is this action will make it more difficult for American ranchers to rebuild our herd and bring prices down for the American people. And most importantly, this will harm our ranching families who feed the nation.”

Trump responded to the criticism while speaking to reporters Friday.

“I love the ranchers; they’ve done a fantastic job,” Trump said. “But they admit that we need a little help, and, in order to get the prices down, so that’s what we’re doing.”

Trump did not specify which countries would supply the beef, telling reporters only that “there are a few” and that they would send the “highest quality beef.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The announcement comes as U.S. ranchers face the smallest domestic cattle herd in 75 years and Tyson Foods announced last week that it would close beef facilities in Illinois and Utah.

FOX Business has reached out to the White House for additional comment.

Operator

Good morning, and welcome to the Onfolio Holdings Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Joining us today are Dominic Wells, Chief Executive Officer; and Adam Trainor, Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that certain statements made during this call may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Act — Reform Act of 1995.

These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations as of today’s date, and the company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any such statements.

For a detailed description of risks and uncertainties, please refer to the Risk Factors section of the company’s most recent Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. Additionally, during this call, management may reference certain non-GAAP financial measures and supplemental operating metrics as indicators of performance.

These measures should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for GAAP results. A reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measures is available in the company’s SEC filings, which can be found on the company’s website at investors.onfolio.com/filings. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Dom. Please go ahead, sir.

Dominic Wells
Founder, Chairman, CEO, Chief Revenue Officer, Secretary & Treasurer

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining us today. For anyone newer to the Onfolio story, we are an owner-operator of cash-generating digital businesses, primarily in B2B marketing agencies and B2C online education. Since our IPO in 2022, we have grown

LONDON — As Prince Harry and Meghan Markle prepare to relocate from the United States back to the United Kingdom, one of the most consequential open questions surrounding their return has nothing to do with royal titles or family reconciliation, but rather who will pay for the couple’s security once they resettle in Britain.

According to ABC News, the issue of taxpayer-funded security for Harry and his family has again come into sharp focus following this week’s confirmation that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, along with their children, Archie and Lilibet, plan to relocate to England before the end of August. The outlet reported that the security question has remained a persistent source of tension between Harry, Buckingham Palace and British government authorities for several years, and it remains unclear whether that underlying dispute has actually been resolved ahead of the couple’s return.

On the broader question of direct financial support from the UK government, the answer is more straightforward: no. When Harry and Meghan stepped back from their roles as senior working royals in January 2020, Buckingham Palace explicitly confirmed that the couple would no longer receive public funding tied to royal duties. “As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties,” the palace said in its statement at the time. That same arrangement stripped the couple of their use of HRH titles, and King Charles has since made clear, according to reporting on this week’s announcement, that there will be no alteration to Harry and Meghan’s status as private individuals and non-working members of the royal family upon their return.

Before that 2020 departure, Harry and Meghan’s income had come from two primary sources, according to reporting from that period. A small portion, said to represent roughly 5% of their income, came from the Sovereign Grant, the public funding mechanism that covers the monarch’s official duties and the upkeep of royal palaces, which totaled £82 million for the 2018-2019 financial year. The remainder was allocated through the Duchy of Cornwall, the roughly 53,000-hectare estate and financial portfolio controlled by the heir to the throne, with reports at the time indicating Prince Charles paid out approximately £5 million annually combined to both his sons, Harry and William, from that estate. Following their 2020 departure, the couple’s public statement confirmed they would no longer receive funds tied to royal duties, and they separately agreed to repay the roughly £2.4 million, or $3.1 million, in Sovereign Grant funds that had been spent renovating Frogmore Cottage, their former UK residence.

The far more contentious and still-unresolved financial question centers specifically on security costs, which are handled through an entirely separate mechanism from royal household funding. Personal protection for senior royals in the UK is coordinated by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as RAVEC, which operates under the ultimate legal authority of the Home Office rather than Buckingham Palace itself. Following Harry and Meghan’s 2020 departure, RAVEC downgraded the couple’s access to publicly funded, police-level security protection when visiting the UK, a decision Harry has fought unsuccessfully through multiple legal challenges in the years since.

Harry pursued the matter through the UK court system, ultimately losing his final appeal. According to reporting on that ruling, Harry had argued during a two-day appellate hearing that he had been subjected to “unjustified and inferior treatment” when he and his family lost their publicly funded security detail. Delivering the court’s judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said that while Harry’s arguments were “powerful and moving,” the court could not conclude that the duke’s “sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to” RAVEC’s decision. The panel, which also included Lord Justice David Bean and Lord Justice Andrew Edis, unanimously dismissed Harry’s appeal, marking what was widely regarded as his final realistic avenue for winning back the taxpayer-funded protection through the courts. The Home Office’s legal team maintained throughout the proceedings that the original decision had been made in an exceptional context and that no valid grounds existed to overturn it.

Despite that legal defeat, reports have periodically suggested Harry continued pushing for taxpayer-funded protection ahead of any extended UK stay. Earlier reporting from IBTimes UK, citing unnamed sources, indicated Harry had sought government-funded bodyguards specifically in connection with a potential summer visit to Britain, a request the outlet said had raised questions inside government regarding both cost and potential public backlash. Such reporting reflects ongoing speculation rather than confirmed government policy, and neither Buckingham Palace, the Home Office nor representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have issued a detailed public statement specifically addressing whether any new security funding arrangement has been reached ahead of this month’s confirmed return.

Public sentiment on the broader question of taxpayer support for the couple has been mixed and, at times, sharply critical. Following the couple’s original 2020 departure, some campaigners publicly called for Harry and Meghan to repay the roughly £5 million, or $6.5 million, British taxpayers had spent on their 2018 wedding and on renovations to their private accommodations, arguing that stepping back from official duties so soon after receiving that public investment was unfair to taxpayers. One campaigner at the time argued the couple should not continue drawing on public resources once they had chosen to step away from royal responsibilities.

As of this report, the specific arrangement governing Harry and Meghan’s security while living in the UK following their return remains unclear, and ABC News’ reporting indicated that a resolution to the underlying stalemate over their safety had not been publicly confirmed as of this week. What does appear settled, based on King Charles’ stated position and the terms of the original 2020 agreement, is that the couple will not receive direct public funding tied to official royal duties, given their continued status as private individuals and non-working members of the royal family. Whether some alternative security funding arrangement, whether private, government-negotiated or otherwise, has been reached to address the couple’s protection needs while living full time in Britain remains one of the more significant unanswered questions surrounding their return, and is likely to draw continued scrutiny from both the British press and the public in the weeks ahead.

Little Bao Boy has been the best-selling Deliveroo menu in Leeds since 2020 beating high street chains

A popular Asian street food firm in Leeds has been snapped up by a major growth platform. Little Bao Boy was founded in 2016 by James Ooi in a home kitchen in Leeds and has quickly built a loyal following with its bold Asian flavours in a modern street-food approach.

The company also has a strong social media following, with almost 100,000 followers on Instagram alone. Now Sessions, the growth platform for restaurant brands which turns loved food businesses into national franchises, has announced the successful acquisition of Little Bao Boy, which has been the best-selling Deliveroo menu in Leeds since 2020, beating high street chains.

Sessions partnered with Little Bao Boy in 2021, first taking them to London through a number of pop-ups, and it has now taken the brand nationally, reaching consumers all the way from Plymouth to Durham and locations across Scotland. The partnership with Sessions has enabled Little Bao Boy to have immediate reach across the UK through offering the brand’s blueprint to Sessions’s delivery kitchen partners.

The delivery-first strategy and digitally-led presence has enabled Little Bao Boy to deliver more than 340,000 orders to date with a 431% year-on-year-growth. The expansion of delivery locations marks a significant moment for Little Bao Boy and Sessions. Following the successful acquisition, Sessions aims to continue to expand the brand further nationally, grow franchising and take Little Bao Boy internationally.

Dan Warne, founder of Sessions, said: “Having worked with Little Bao Boy for five years, we’re excited to enter this new chapter in our relationship with the team. It’s been a hugely successful partnership so far and we can’t wait to take this brand even further.

“We see acquisitions as a continued partnership where we want founders to continue to be involved in their brands – this is a core part of our model. As such, James Ooi, the founder of Little Bao Boy, will maintain a minority holding in the brand to support creative and culinary development and share in the future upside growth delivered through the Sessions platform.

“The acquisition with Little Bao Boy really showcases what we can do at Sessions for food brands that are looking for an exit strategy, and we’re actively looking to acquire additional food brands, whether that’s an existing brand partner, a small food business looking to scale, or a legacy, multi-site operator seeking an exit strategy.”

James Ooi, founder of Little Bao Boy, said: “Our relationship with Sessions so far has been brilliant. As founders, they listen to our stories, uphold our brand guidelines to the highest regard, and always make sure important decisions are signed off by us.

“The last five years have been hugely exciting for us, taking us from Leeds to a national franchise, and it’s incredible that they have now acquired the brand, offering us an exit from the business, whilst we can continue to have creative input and offer culinary development for Little Bao Boy.”

Little Bao Boy joins SoBe Burger and Mikos Gyros as brands that have been acquired by Sessions.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

The South Yorkshire Strategic Infrastructure Inquiry has concluded the government “should and must intervene” if a major public asset closure would have a damaging economic impact, recommending new compulsory purchase order powers for local authorities

New legislation is required to enable public authorities to acquire major privately-owned assets at risk of closure, an inquiry has found.

Following the closure of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) in 2022, the South Yorkshire Strategic Infrastructure Inquiry has determined that the Government “should and must intervene” if the closure of a major public asset would have a “damaging, harmful and detrimental” economic impact.

The inquiry report, authored by chair Martin McKervey, stated: “The closure of DSA has underscored the potential community and economic impacts of losing critical infrastructure.” It suggested there is “merit” in considering amendments to existing legislation to include provisions enabling local and national governments to step in, should the private sector seek to close a majority infrastructure asset.

The report outlined: “This amendment should grant local authorities, regional governments, or specific national bodies the right to temporarily halt the closure or sale of such assets to allow for a comprehensive impact assessment and the exploration of alternative management or ownership models.

“Extensively, this amendment should also consider creating a statutory right for the public authority to purchase the asset at market value through a simplified Compulsory Purchase Order process if the owner will not voluntarily sell.”

The City of Doncaster Council, backed financially by the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), initially pursued a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to take control of DSA following its 2022 closure. However, a CPO represents a last resort, triggered only when no other agreement can be reached. Peel’s willingness to enter into a lease arrangement with Doncaster Council reportedly ruled out a CPO for the site.

While the inquiry, convened by South Yorkshire mayor Oliver Coppard in 2023, examines broad examples of infrastructure – including water, energy and airports – it has been heavily shaped by the circumstances surrounding DSA’s closure.

DSA shut its doors in 2022 after owners and operators the Peel Group concluded the site was no longer “economically viable”. Doncaster Council is spearheading efforts to reopen the site using public funding.

The inquiry report also recommends the establishment of a “national regional aviation strategy”.

It states: “The experience with DSA highlights the vulnerability of regional airports to operational and financial pressures. A collaborative national Regional Aviation Strategy could provide a framework for local authorities to pool resources, share best practices, and advocate collectively for regional airports, ensuring these assets continue to serve their communities effectively.”