US House Democrats and the Administration Deliver Opposing Messages on the EU Deforestation Regulation; Clarity Around the Corner?

On April 24, 32 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urging the Commission to stay the course on the EU Deforestation Regulation. In contrast, the US Administration continues to have concerns. This post discusses the letter, the Administration position, other recent EUDR developments and the Commission’s imminently expected report on the further simplification of the EUDR.

The April 24 letter was signed by Democratic Members of Congress from 17 states and the District of Columbia. It was authored by Representatives Lloyd Doggett (Texas) and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan).

In addition to encouraging the European Commission to maintain the current text and implementation timeline of the EUDR, the letter encourages the rejection of a “no risk” country designation. The letter asserts the EUDR needs to move forward “as is” to, among other reasons, (1) discourage forest loss and degradation, (2) not disadvantage those US and other companies that have prepared for compliance and (3) avoid uncertainty, inefficiencies and inconsistencies across covered industries.

Mighty Earth’s link to the letter is here. The text of the letter (without footnotes) follows:

We write to encourage you to maintain the current text and implementation timeline of the European Union (EU) Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). We staunchly oppose the Trump administration’s attempts to weaken the EUDR with a proposed “no risk” designation for countries and further delay in implementation. These changes will not only encourage forest loss and degradation but also disadvantage companies in the United States and elsewhere that have prepared to comply with the EUDR, and create uncertainty, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies across covered industries. We should encourage others to achieve this readiness to achieve deforestation-free supply chains. 

A “no risk” designation exempting certain countries’ operators from traceability requirements and enforcement checks would prevent accountability and impede enforcement. It would create significant loopholes for forest degradation and create disadvantages for countries from the Global South. With over 10 million hectares – the size of Portugal – being deforested each year and accounting for up to 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the EUDR is necessary to combat the existential climate crisis. We must use every tool in our toolbox to protect our planet, and in doing so, we must acknowledge that many countries pose at least some risk of deforestation. 

Additionally, the Trump administration’s recent efforts to reopen the EUDR and create a “no  risk” designation come as federal agencies implement an executive order to rescind our domestic forest protections and “fully exploit our domestic timber supply.” The administration cannot be seen as a credible negotiator on the EUDR as it seeks to undermine both EU and US forest protections while seeking a special “no risk” title. Should the EU create this designation and consider the US for classification, American companies will operate in a regulatory desert absent transparency and oversight. This creates the potential for unchecked deforestation and forest degradation while unfairly penalizing American companies that invested in sustainable practices and supply chains to comply with domestic and foreign regulations.  

The EUDR should be implemented as scheduled at the end of this year – a third delay risks continued harm to our planet and creates further market uncertainty. Some companies have appreciated the extended timeline to prepare for compliance. Originally scheduled to take effect at the end of 2024, and now extended to the end of 2026, companies have had ample time to adapt to new traceability requirements. Now, it is time to move forward. Any additional delays will pose challenges on business leaders navigating global trade rules and regulations, particularly those who have already invested in compliance. American companies have had time to invest in traceability technology and make sustainable procurement and sourcing decisions. Now, they have the opportunity to display their best practices and leadership under the EUDR and gain a competitive advantage globally. Further delaying implementation a year risks over 16 million tons of CO2 emissions this year alone. 

American companies are primed for success as the EUDR helps level the playing field globally by creating accountability for unscrupulous actors and ensuring a transparent and fair market.  

The EU must hold the line and implement the EUDR as currently written. Any additional changes and delays jeopardize the health of our planet’s lungs and ability to combat the climate crisis. We look forward to continued conversation with you about how best to ensure full implementation of the EUDR and how to support our industries in compliance and leadership. 

In contrast, the US Administration has been steadfast in its opposition to the current EUDR. Timber and timber products have been a particular concern and the US has advocated for a negligible risk category for US producers. Paragraph 10 of last August’s US-EU Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade states: “Recognizing that production of the relevant commodities within the territory of the United States poses negligible risk to global deforestation, the European Union commits to work to address the concerns of US producers and exporters regarding the EU Deforestation Regulation, with a view to avoiding undue impact on US-EU trade.” See this Ropes & Gray post.

More recently, according to the press release on Mighty Earth’s website:

In early March 2026, senior USDA officials conducted a five-city tour of EU capitals – Madrid, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Brussels – explicitly timed to influence the April review of the EUDR. Their central demands were: a new “negligible risk” (no risk) classification for the US that would dramatically reduce compliance requirements; and revision of the 70,000-hectare annual deforestation threshold that could affect the US’s low-risk status, which they want replaced with a relative rather than absolute measure, citing wildfires as a distorting factor. Washington estimates the rules affect around €7.8 billion in annual US exports. Officials signalled that if their concerns were not addressed, the US would “look at all options” – a thinly veiled reference to retaliatory trade measures within the broader US-EU trade negotiation framework.

            * * *

Trade threats: during their recent tour of the EU, USDA representatives stated that EU risks losing US soy imports under the new EUDR rules.

Yesterday, Andrew Puzder, the US Ambassador to the EU, met with Commissioner Jessika Roswall, the Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, to discuss the EUDR. Afterwards, Ambassador Puzder posted on X:

A deal is a deal. In August 2025, the EU Commission recognized that the U.S. poses negligible risk to global deforestation. Today I met with Commissioner @JessikaRoswall to urge the EU to act on that reality. The Commission's simplification review of the EU’s Deforestation Regulation, which ends April 30, should deliver real results, reducing regulatory compliance costs and costs for European consumers — not increasing bureaucracy. U.S. producers don't contribute to deforestation and shouldn't face costly geolocation requirements that increase the costs of their products with no environmental benefits. We are hopeful that the EU will address the very serious and legitimate concerns of U.S. producers and exporters.

Criticism of the EUDR has not come only from the United States. There have been calls within the EU to further scale back and even scrap the EUDR. Some South American and Asian countries and producers also have been vocal in their opposition. 

The EUDR has already been delayed twice. It currently is scheduled to take effect starting at the end of this year. Some aspects of EUDR compliance also have been simplified through amendments to the EUDR, FAQs and guidance. 

As part of last December’s agreement to delay and further simplify the EUDR, as noted above, the European Commission was tasked with carrying out a simplification review of the EUDR by April 30. The Commission has been asked to in its report evaluate the administrative burden and impact of the EUDR, in particular for micro or small operators, and indicate possible ways to address identified issues, including through technical guidelines, improvements to the Information System and delegated or implementing acts. Where appropriate, the Commission was requested to accompany the report with a legislative proposal.

In January, Commissioner Roswall indicated that the Commission did not favor another reopening of the EUDR. Instead, it intended to propose simplification through further guidance and FAQs, a delegated act amending Annex I (relevant commodities and products) and further changes to the Information System. This approach is consistent with reporting by euro news quoting a Monday statement by a Commission spokesperson on the forthcoming report. 

The release of the Commission’s report will not be the final step in the process, but it should provide much-needed clarity for legal and compliance professionals on where the EUDR is likely to land.

About our Practice

Ropes & Gray has a leading ESG, CSR and business and human rights compliance practice. We offer clients a comprehensive approach in these subject areas through a global team with members in the United States, Europe and Asia. Senior members of the practice have advised on these matters for more than 30 years, enabling us to provide a long-term perspective and depth and breadth of experience that few firms can match. 

Subscribe to Ropes & Gray ESG, CSR and Business and Human Rights compliance thought leadership here.