But they are not an overnight replacement for the existing system.
Trump’s decision comes at a moment of unusual stress in the American beef market.
Beef prices have reached record levels, while the domestic cattle herd has contracted sharply.
That combination has created a political problem for the White House.
Consumers are frustrated by expensive groceries.
Ranchers are frustrated by what they see as an industry structure that gives large processors too much influence.
And the administration is attempting to respond to both groups at the same time.
A shrinking cattle herd
The most fundamental problem is supply.
There are simply fewer cattle available than the U.S. beef industry would normally like.
Reuters reported that the U.S. cattle herd has fallen to its lowest level in 75 years. Drought and wildfires have contributed to the contraction, while the cost of maintaining cattle has made rebuilding the herd difficult.
Rebuilding a cattle herd is not something that can happen quickly.
A rancher cannot simply decide to produce more cattle next month.
Breeding decisions made today can take years to translate into additional animals ready for market.
That means policymakers looking for immediate relief have limited choices.
One is to increase imports.
Another is to increase domestic processing efficiency.
Another is to encourage ranchers to expand production.
The Trump administration has been pursuing all three approaches, although not without controversy.
The import controversy
In late August, the administration expanded access to lower-tariff imports of lean beef trimmings by 300,000 metric tons over three months, arguing that additional supply was needed to help lower prices for consumers.
The policy immediately created tension with American cattle producers.
Ranchers have argued that additional imported beef could place downward pressure on domestic cattle prices precisely when producers need stronger incentives to rebuild the national herd.
The administration has defended the imports as a short-term response to high consumer prices.
In other words, Washington is attempting to solve two different problems on two different timelines.
Imports can potentially provide additional beef relatively quickly.
Expanding the domestic cattle herd takes much longer.
Trump’s new processing order is aimed at the structural side of the problem.
If more ranchers can access smaller processors, sell meat across state lines and develop direct relationships with consumers, supporters argue, producers could capture more value from the animals they raise.
That could potentially reduce dependence on the largest processors.
But whether it will significantly change the national market remains an open question.
Can small processors really compete with the Big Four?
This is where economists and industry representatives have expressed caution.
Reuters reported that Texas A&M agricultural economist David Anderson questioned whether on-farm slaughter and very small processing operations would be large enough to materially change the broader beef market. He argued that the numbers involved would likely be too small to transform overall industry competition.
That is an important counterargument.
The United States consumes enormous quantities of beef.
The largest meatpacking plants process huge volumes every day.
A few additional ranchers selling directly to local customers cannot immediately replace that infrastructure.
But supporters of decentralization are not necessarily arguing that every rancher needs to become a national meat distributor.
The goal could instead be to create a larger network of regional processors and direct-market businesses.
Imagine a cattle producer in Texas who previously had to transport animals hundreds of miles to a large processing facility.
If a smaller inspected processor closer to the ranch becomes available, transportation costs could fall.
If that processor can legally sell products across state lines, its potential customer base expands.
If several ranchers use the same facility, the processor can operate at a more sustainable scale.
Over time, that network could provide producers with additional choices.
The effect might not be revolutionary overnight.
But it could gradually reduce dependence on a handful of dominant companies.