US Corporate Lobbyists Mounted Coordinated Campaign to Weaken EU Deforestation Law, Report Reveals

The European Union Deforestation Regulation was designed to block the import of commodities linked to global forest loss, relying on strict farm-level traceability to enforce compliance. However, the final shape of those rules is being contested during the implementation phase, the critical window where technical compliance requirements and enforcement timelines are actually established.[1]

During this transition period, major US corporations and trade associations mounted a sustained campaign to delay and dilute the legislation, according to a new investigation by the environmental watchdog Mighty Earth. The report documents a highly organized transatlantic effort to influence the regulation before its mandates take effect.[1][2]

By cross-referencing EU transparency registers, lobbying registrations, and US disclosure filings, researchers identified an extraordinary scale of engagement. Between July 2024 and July 2026, US industry representatives discussed the regulation in more than 350 meetings with European officials.[1][2]

This lobbying blitz included at least 173 meetings with Members of the European Parliament and an additional 178 meetings with senior officials from the European Commission. The effort involved 24 major US companies and trade associations operating in deforestation-risk sectors, including timber, biomass, palm oil, cocoa, and soy.[1][2]

Industry Cites Implementation Challenges

Representatives from the named US companies and industry groups deny that they engaged in a concerted campaign to derail the environmental rules. Instead, they maintain that their discussions with European officials focused on legitimate, practical implementation challenges and the need for a smoother transition period.[1]

US corporate organizations argue that the regulation's requirements, particularly the mandate for geolocation data down to the individual plot of land, impose significant regulatory compliance costs. They assert that these technical hurdles threaten to disrupt supply chains without delivering proportional environmental benefits.[1][2]

The US forestry sector has been particularly vocal in its opposition to the traceability mandates. The National Alliance of Forest Owners, which represents 79 US timber, pulp, and paper companies, held 26 meetings with European lawmakers—the highest number of any US group identified in the report.[2][3]

American forest owners argue that the regulation imposes rules designed for high-risk regions onto US landowners. In August 2025, more than 1,000 members of the US forestry community wrote to the White House, asking the administration to press the EU to fully recognize the United States as a low-risk country.[3]

Other key corporate actors lobbying on the legislation included the Advanced Woody Biomass Alliance, the US Soybean Export Council, and the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU. Among individual companies, chocolate maker Mondelēz International participated in eight meetings, while soy traders Cargill and Bunge held two and one, respectively.[1][2][3]

Delays and Diluted Mandates

The legislation prohibits the import of cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and timber if they originate from land subject to deforestation after December 31, 2020. When initially proposed in 2021, it was heralded as the most ambitious legislative attempt to tackle global forest loss.[1][2]

However, following sustained pressure from industry groups and various governments, the official application of the regulation has been postponed twice. It is currently scheduled to enter into force on December 30, 2026, two years later than originally planned, giving companies more time to adapt.[1][2]

Beyond the delays, the original goal to rigorously trace the origin of commodities has been significantly revised. Environmental advocates argue that the policy has been effectively dismantled through these concessions, weakening its ability to protect forests, biodiversity, and the rights of Indigenous communities.[1]

The agribusiness company Bunge stated that it supports the objectives of the regulation and is investing heavily in monitoring and traceability, claiming to have achieved full traceability for soy sourcing in priority areas. Both Cargill and Mondelēz declined to provide comments for publication regarding the Mighty Earth findings.[1][3]

Political Pressure and Transparency

The lobbying effort extended beyond corporate representatives to include high-level political pressure. Earlier this year, a delegation of US administration officials traveled to EU capitals, arguing that the law would deter US exports to the European market by raising costs for American producers.[1]

"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," said Isabel Fernandez, senior adviser for Mighty Earth.[1]

"If you could give me a two-paragraph statement on that, I will give that to them, and they will do what they have to do," President Donald Trump told Representative Austin Scott at a White House roundtable in December, referring to the regulation.[3]

The US Ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, publicly criticized the regulation in an opinion piece, arguing that it burdens companies with costs while producing inconsequential environmental benefits when enforced against countries that pose no deforestation risk.[1]

The European Commission recently issued a joint statement with the US, promising to address the concerns of US producers and exporters to avoid undue impacts on transatlantic trade. The Commission also stated that the US poses a negligible risk to global deforestation, a claim environmental groups dispute.[1]

Mighty Earth contends that the scale of the US lobbying effort highlights a critical need for the European Union to adopt greater transparency regarding corporate influence. The organization argues that civil society must be given more access to ensure a balanced regulatory process.[1][2]

The investigation revealed that in nearly half of the 230 meetings with EU officials where the regulation was discussed between July 2024 and August 2026, the Commission did not list the legislation as a subject matter in its public meeting disclosures, obscuring the true extent of the lobbying.[2]

As the December 2026 implementation deadline approaches, the final operational framework of the legislation remains a point of contention. The extent to which the regulation will enforce strict traceability or accommodate industry demands for simplified compliance will determine its practical impact on global agricultural trade.[1][2]