US corporate lobbyists launched a two-year “blitz” to postpone and weaken the world’s most progressive legislation to protect forests, according to a new investigation by the environmental watchdog Mighty Earth.
Major US firms and trade associations, including Cargill, Bunge, Mondelēz and the US Soybean Export Council, as well as numerous other US firms and organizations, sought to influence the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) in more than 350 meetings, the advocacy group found.
US company representatives and industry groups deny there was a concerted campaign to derail the deforestation rules, saying their meetings with EU officials raised legitimate concerns around implementation.
The EUDR prohibits imports of commodities such as cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya and wood from deforested land. When the ban was put forward in 2003, the then European environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius, described it as “the most ambitious legislative attempt to tackle these issues worldwide ever” and some US lawmakers said it should be a model for similar rules in the United States.
In the years since, its official implementation has been delayed twice and the original goal to rigorously trace the origin of commodities has been revised so much that some of its initial supporters claimed the policy has been in effect “dismantled”. The law will come into effect in December.
Lobbyists from many countries, including Brazil and several EU nations, are known to have contributed to this dilution. Mighty Earth has provided the most detailed analysis yet of the role of organisations from the United States.
It found 24 major US companies, trade associations and industry organizations discussed the EUDR in at least 173 meetings with members of the European parliament and 178 meetings with senior European Commission officials between July 2024 and July 2026.
The US organisations with the highest number of meetings with the European Commission were the National Alliance of Forest Owners, Advanced Woody Biomass Alliance, the US Soybean Export Council, Bunge, the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union and Cargill.
Cargill had two meetings, Bunge one meeting and Mondlēz eight meetings.
Mighty Earth said lobbying was also conducted through the US Congress, the US Department of Agriculture, the Office of the US Trade Representative and the White House.
Two weeks after a July 2025 meeting at a Scottish golf course between Trump and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the two sides released a joint statement that promised the US special treatment with regard to the EUDR.
The commission stated the US “poses negligible risk to global deforestation” (even though many of its biggest financial and trading companies have been repeatedly implicated in destruction of the Amazon and similar biomes). The statement also talked about the EU working “to address the concerns of US producers and exporters regarding EUDR, with a view to avoiding undue impact on US-EU trade”.
Mighty Earth said its investigation highlighted the need for the EU to adopt greater transparency about lobbying activities and to give more access to civil society to ensure balance.
“Our analysis found a relentless and aggressive campaign by major US businesses, trade bodies and government officials, going all the way to President Trump, who offered to personally intervene, to further pressure EU policymakers,” Isabel Fernandez, senior adviser for Mighty Earth, said. “Some of the companies lobbying the EU, include the most egregious who are still linked to the illegal clearing of forests for commodities, such as soy that make their way into European markets.”
Earlier this year a delegation of Trump administration officials went to EU capitals arguing the law would put the US off exporting to the European market because it would raise costs for US producers. In an opinion piece published in Agence France, Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the EU, said the law was: “… sold as a bold strike against global forest loss. In reality it will impose significant regulatory compliance costs while producing inconsequential environmental benefit when enforced against countries that pose no deforestation risk.”
US corporate organisations said their engagement was designed to better understand and enhance the EUDR.
The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU said it had raised concerns about EUDR implementation challenges, such as IT system shortcomings and a lack of clarity around the obligations of companies. But a spokesperson said its role had been constructive: “AmCham EU has consistently supported the EUDR’s objective of tackling global deforestation and promoting sustainable supply chains … We have asked to allow sufficient time for companies and authorities to prepare and ensure the regulation can be effectively enforced without undermining its environmental objectives.”
The US Soybean Export Council said it was focused on ways to support industry compliance with the EU’s rules. “USSEC does not seek delay or exemption; rather we favour a transition period as the Regulation comes into force. This would allow companies, control authorities, the European Commission, and the entire value chain to gain experience and learnings on how compliance works in practice, allowing for greater understanding and adaptations to implementation if needed moving forwards,” a spokesperson said.
The agribusiness company Bunge said it was committed to deforestation-free supply chains and was investing in monitoring and traceability that had, it said, achieved 100% traceability to farm for both direct and indirect soy sourcing in priority areas of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. A spokesperson said: “Bunge supports the objectives of the European Union Deforestation Regulation while observing our own non-deforestation commitment and strengthening responsible sourcing. We are also in contact with relevant EU bodies and national competent authorities via sector organizations and directly to request clarification on certain specific complex scenarios regarding the practical implementation requirements of the EUDR.”
Cargill and Mondelēz did not send an on-the-record response to the Guardian’s request for a comment.
