beef

Two days before playing his former team for the first time since being traded this summer, Philadelphia 76ers star Jaylen Brown told reporters he had “nothing to talk about” with ex-teammate Jayson Tatum.

Apparently he meant it — and it might have had something to do with lamb chops. Figuratively speaking.

Before Tuesday’s game at Philadelphia’s Xfinity Mobile Arena, Tatum approached Brown and gave him a tap on the arm and a few on the chest. Brown wouldn’t even look in the direction of the player with whom he won an NBA championship, made two NBA Finals appearances and played in five Eastern Conference championship series during nine seasons as Celtics teammates.

After the game, a 123-101 Celtics win, Brown implied to reporters that he didn’t notice Tatum’s attempt to interact with him.

“I’m just focused on coming out and doing what’s best for my team,” Brown said when asked about the apparent snub. “Everything else was just — to be honest, I wasn’t paying attention. But credit to Jayson, he played well tonight. Credit to the Celtics, they executed, they shot the hell out of the ball, and they were the better team tonight.”

Tatum also dismissed the pregame non-encounter as no big deal.

“No headlines about anything like that,” Tatum told reporters. “I was just getting ready for the game, ready for jump ball, go out there and compete, have some fun and try to get a win.”

Still, things have been a bit frosty between the two players in the aftermath of a July 6 trade that sent Brown to Philadelphia — after spending his first 10 NBA seasons in Boston — in exchange for Paul George, two first-round draft picks and two second-round picks.

Celtics teammates Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown share a laugh during a 2025 game against the New York Knicks in Boston.

(Maddie Meyer / Getty Images)

In October, Bleacher Report posted a clip on Instagram of Tatum saying he was “caught off guard” by the trade. Brown responded in the comment section of that post with a blue hat emoji, which is often used to represent the word “cap” when being used as slang for “lie.”

Asked about the situation during an Oct. 23 news conference, Tatum insisted “there’s no beef” between the two players.

A day later, Brown agreed — kind of.

“I think he’s right. There’s no beef,” Brown told reporters. “Jason comes from a wonderful family. We’ve accomplished some great things. He’s a hell of a basketball player. He’s got a great PR team. There’s no beef but, you know, it might be a little lamb chops and some gravy, you know what I mean? He should stay ready at all times.”

Asked why he would say that, Brown responded: “Just, you know, that’s what it is. No beef. It should never ever be that. It’s just basketball. We’re both blessed, but it might be a little lamb chop. We’ll be all right.”

Brown was then asked if he had been suggesting that Tatum was being untruthful about the trade situation.

“Hey, look, like I said, it’s no beef,” Brown said. “The PR and all that type stuff is it is what it is, but I think we’re just both focused on what’s in front of us.”

George was the leading scorer in Tuesday’s game, with 36 points, while Tatum added 21 points, six rebounds and two blocked shots. Brown netted 13 points, his lowest output in 11 games with the 76ers.

“I was looking forward to this,” Brown said after the game. “I was looking forward to playing well, but you know, s— happens. You just get ready for the next one, I guess.”

In late August, United States President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on certain beef tariffs, making beef cheaper to import, particularly from Brazil.

That decision was framed as a way to bring down prices for consumers, but it landed as a betrayal for many US ranchers, who were getting ready to take their cattle to market.

It is too soon to tell how the decision will ultimately affect grocery prices, but the impact on ranchers was immediate: prices at cattle auctions plummeted, temporarily lowering ranchers’ profits. The United States Cattlemen’s Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Farm Bureau, all member organisations that represent ranchers, opposed the decision.

Rural Republican members of Congress also distanced themselves, but it is not yet clear how ranchers will vote in the midterms — or whether those votes will decide races.

Chad Basinger, a rancher in Pretty Prairie, Kansas, is sceptical that the imports will have a significant impact.

“I know there’s people that have said, ‘Well I’m just gonna vote for the other party’ or ‘I’m not gonna vote’ or ‘This administration’s really let me down’. So yes, there will be people that swing the other way in the midterms. But overall I don’t think it’ll be that much,” Basinger said.

Ranchers will also be weighing the administration’s other actions, Basinger said, such as the $8bn in farm relief announced in Kansas on October 19.

Basinger’s House of Representatives district in Kansas is expected to remain safely Republican in the midterms. But Kansas faces an unexpectedly tight Senate race and ranchers in House districts elsewhere may find themselves closer to the political fray: potential swing districts in Montana, Iowa, Texas and Colorado are all in cattle country.

Still, it is unlikely that ranchers alone will decide elections: ranchers — along with farmers more broadly — represent a shrinking percentage of rural voters and a smaller voting bloc in practice than in the public imagination.

America’s cattle herd is near its smallest size since 1951 and the number of ranchers has declined alongside the number of livestock. Observers worry that ongoing uncertainty fuelled by tariffs, fuel prices and drought may cause the ranching population to shrink further.

David Anderson, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University who advises ranchers, said that high prices this year should have given ranchers the confidence to invest in the future and expand their herds. Making imports cheaper, however, may have helped nudge ranchers in the opposite direction.

“It really works against the market signal to expand and produce more domestically,” Anderson said. “That got a lot of people pretty angry.”

Tariff changes add volatility

This is not the first time that Trump’s tariffs have impacted cattle supplies. Last year, the president added a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, a key trade partner for beef, raising the cost of importing Brazilian lean beef, which is often mixed with fatty US beef to make hamburger patties, a staple in most homes.

In February, Trump allowed more tariff-free beef imports from Argentina. In August, he did the same for Brazil and Paraguay.

Both tariff changes led to swift price swings in cattle futures markets, which are often volatile in response to the news cycle.

Cattle prices also moved this year in response to more fundamental drivers of supply and demand: plant closures by meatpackers, labour shortages late last month related to ICE actions at Kansas packing plants, the second-largest in the country, and the reopening of the southern border after a closure due to New World screwworm disease.

Big picture, the shrinking US cattle herd has less to do with short-term price changes and more to do with drought cycles, which are growing more intense as warming temperatures increase evaporation.

Still, tariff changes add uncertainty. “This has been a hot topic for the last six weeks,” said Anderson. “It just adds a little more uncertainty or volatility — or worries or stress.”

This year, extra price volatility as many ranchers prepared to sell meant ranchers faced lower profits and more risk.

Basinger says that for many established ranchers, the tariff announcement was frustrating, but not existential.

“People are upset. They have a right to be upset. But they’re not going to change their strategy,” he said. For most ranchers, Basinger said, the imports would not be the biggest factor shaping decisions about their herds this year.

Where price volatility may matter more, Basinger said, is for the next generation. Most of today’s ranchers are eyeing retirement. Their heirs must decide whether to make a go of ranching or sell their family’s land. Other aspiring ranchers are also watching the industry.

“If you’re seeing your dad not make money, or somebody else not make money…it’s not easy work!” Basinger said. “It has to be very enticing for somebody to want to jump in and be like, ‘I’m gonna be a rancher and go break ice in the middle of winter when it’s cold and I could be inside’.”

Record revenue and record costs

This year, low US cattle supplies meant that ranchers commanded record-high cattle prices, despite added imports and other market shifts.

But high revenue doesn’t always mean huge profits: Many ranchers operate at a loss for years in a row. Then, they rely on a few good years to pay down debts or expand their herds.

This year, profits were lower than hoped, because ranchers also faced high costs.

Interest rates on loans are high and the war with Iran meant ranchers paid extra for fuel and fertiliser. A drought across much of America’s ranchland meant they paid more for feed.

In states such as Kansas and Nebraska, ranchers also faced destructive wildfires and aid groups like Farm Rescue coordinated hay donations.

Still, Basinger said, ranchers who raise cows and calves generally did well this year. In Kansas, he is seeing ranchers use profits to make repairs and upgrades. He said this year’s high cattle prices have been helping. “But it needs to help for a little longer to give them more of an edge,” he said.

More of an edge might mean, for example, enough money for bigger purchases, like buying land from a neighbouring ranch to make room for a growing herd.

Rangeland, however, is increasingly expensive. When it is up for sale, outside investors can often pay more than ranchers, which can mean less land for cattle. That’s just one more pressure shrinking the US herd decade after decade.

Ranchers had hoped that 2026 would be a turnaround year. So far, however, “we really don’t have much evidence of herd expansion,” Anderson said.