The Price of Approval? JBS, Pilgrim's Pride, and the Intersection of Politics, Poultry, and Regulation Under the Trump Administration
I. Introduction: The Nexus of Power, Poultry, and Profit
A. Setting the Stage
In the high-stakes world of global agribusiness, few entities cast as long a shadow as JBS S.A. Headquartered in Brazil, JBS stands as the world's largest meatpacker, its operations spanning continents and its products reaching tables worldwide.1 Its influence within the United States is particularly profound, largely exercised through its majority ownership of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the second-largest poultry processor in the U.S..4 Together, these interconnected companies represent a formidable force in a critical sector, navigating complex supply chains, volatile commodity markets, and an ever-present web of government regulation. Access to the vast pools of capital available through U.S. financial markets, particularly the prestigious New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), represents a significant strategic objective for such global players, promising lower borrowing costs, enhanced valuation, and fuel for further expansion.1
B. The Central Investigation
This report delves into a complex series of events intertwining JBS S.A. and Pilgrim's Pride with the administration of President Donald Trump. It examines a period marked by significant political contributions, major regulatory shifts benefiting the poultry industry, a documented history of corporate malfeasance culminating in substantial penalties, and the eventual approval of JBS's long-pursued U.S. stock market listing. Specifically, it scrutinizes the $5 million donation made by Pilgrim's Pride to President Trump's 2025 inaugural committee – the largest single corporate contribution received.2 This donation occurred amidst a backdrop of JBS's renewed push for an NYSE listing and coincided temporally with key decisions by the Trump administration's regulatory agencies: the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) move to facilitate faster poultry processing line speeds and its withdrawal of a proposed rule to strengthen Salmonella testing standards for raw poultry.2 Furthermore, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which had previously fined JBS heavily for bribery linked to its U.S. market entry, ultimately greenlighted the company's NYSE registration statement in April 2025.1 The core question driving this investigation is: To what extent does the evidence surrounding these interactions suggest a pattern of undue political influence, regulatory favoritism potentially linked to financial contributions, or a broader dynamic of regulatory capture operating within the Trump administration?
C. Roadmap
To explore these connections, this report will proceed systematically. It will first examine the history of JBS and Pilgrim's Pride, focusing on the acquisition that brought them together and the significant controversies, including corruption and antitrust violations, that have marked their operations. It will then detail the circumstances surrounding the $5 million inaugural donation. Subsequently, the report will analyze the specific regulatory changes concerning poultry processing line speeds and Salmonella testing implemented or withdrawn under the Trump administration. The controversial approval of JBS's NYSE listing by the SEC will be scrutinized, considering the timing and the opposition it faced. Finally, the report will synthesize these threads, analyzing the potential links between the donation, regulatory actions, and the IPO approval, and discussing the broader implications for corporate governance, market integrity, public health, and the functioning of regulatory oversight in the face of political and corporate pressure.
II. A History of Ambition and Controversy: JBS, Pilgrim's Pride, and the Path to the NYSE
A. Building a Global Giant
JBS S.A.'s ascent from a regional Brazilian slaughterhouse to the world's dominant meatpacker has been characterized by aggressive expansion. A pivotal moment in its U.S. strategy occurred in 2009 when JBS acquired a majority stake (currently over 80%) in Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, a major American poultry producer based in Greeley, Colorado.3 This acquisition instantly transformed JBS into a leading player in the U.S. poultry market, complementing its existing beef and pork operations. The U.S. market became central to JBS's financial performance, with its North American beef business, U.S. pork unit, and the Pilgrim's Pride stake contributing the majority of its nearly $80 billion in revenue in a recent year.7
B. The Shadow of Corruption
JBS's rapid growth, however, has been persistently shadowed by serious allegations and findings of corporate misconduct, both in its home country of Brazil and related to its international operations, including its entry into the U.S. market.
- Brazilian Roots: The company and its controlling shareholders, brothers Joesley and Wesley Batista, became central figures in Brazil's massive "Operation Car Wash" (Lava Jato) and related anti-corruption probes.11 In 2017, the Batista brothers' holding company, J&F Investimentos, reached a leniency agreement admitting to the systematic bribery of nearly 1,900 politicians across multiple parties to secure favorable government financing and policies.2 The initial fine agreed upon was a staggering $3.2 billion, one of the largest corporate penalties in history, although it was later reduced by Brazil's Supreme Court.2 The brothers themselves faced arrest and jail time in Brazil related to corruption and insider trading allegations.1
- U.S. Expansion and FCPA Violations: The corruption admitted in Brazil had direct implications for JBS's U.S. operations. In October 2020, during the final months of the first Trump administration, the U.S. SEC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded their own investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The SEC found that the Batistas had engaged in an extensive bribery scheme between 2006 and 2015, paying approximately $150 million in bribes to high-level Brazilian government officials.11 Crucially, the SEC order explicitly stated that this bribery scheme was undertaken, in part, to facilitate JBS's 2009 acquisition of Pilgrim's Pride.2The SEC detailed how, even after acquiring Pilgrim's Pride and while serving as board members of the U.S. company, the Batistas continued directing bribes using funds obtained, in part, through intercompany transfers and dividend payments involving Pilgrim's Pride.11 The SEC found that the Batistas exerted significant control over Pilgrim's, which shared office space, overlapping executives, accounting systems, and certain internal controls with JBS USA.11 This control, the SEC determined, caused Pilgrim's Pride to fail in maintaining an adequate system of internal accounting controls and accurate books and records, violating FCPA provisions.11Charles Cain, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's FCPA Unit, condemned the actions, stating: "Engaging in bribery to finance their expansion into the U.S. markets and then continuing to engage in bribery while occupying senior board positions at Pilgrim's reflects a profound failure to exercise good corporate governance... This brazen misconduct flies in the face of what investors should expect".2 JBS S.A. agreed to pay nearly $27 million in disgorgement to the SEC, while the Batistas each paid a $550,000 civil penalty.11 Concurrently, parent company J&F Investimentos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of over $256 million to the DOJ.11 The total combined penalty exceeded $280 million.1 As part of the settlement, the parties also agreed to a three-year undertaking to self-report on remedial measures.11 This settlement established a direct, legally documented link between JBS's corrupt practices and its acquisition and subsequent control of a major U.S. company, Pilgrim's Pride.
- Antitrust and Price-Fixing: Beyond bribery, JBS and Pilgrim's Pride have faced extensive antitrust scrutiny and litigation alleging collusion to manipulate market prices, harming both consumers and suppliers. In 2021, Pilgrim's Pride pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges of conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chickens sold to restaurants and grocery chains between 2012 and at least 2017, agreeing to pay a $107.9 million fine.5 The DOJ asserted this conspiracy inflated costs throughout the supply chain.5This criminal plea was followed by substantial civil settlements. In 2021, Pilgrim's paid $75 million to settle claims from poultry buyers (like restaurants and supermarkets) alleging collusion with rivals such as Tyson Foods.5 In 2023, it paid another $100 million to resolve claims brought by poultry farmers who alleged the company conspired with competitors to suppress their pay through unfair "tournament" systems.5 Furthermore, in January 2025, Pilgrim's Pride finalized a $41.5 million settlement in a shareholder class-action lawsuit related to charges that it artificially inflated its stock price, potentially linked to the price-fixing conduct.2 The company remains a defendant in the ongoing, large-scale In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, which accuses multiple industry giants of coordinated price manipulation.5 JBS itself has not been immune to such allegations, facing lawsuits including one from fast-food giant McDonald's over alleged cattle price-fixing conspiracy with other meat companies.1
- Environmental and Social Concerns: JBS's operations globally have drawn intense criticism from environmental and human rights organizations. The company has been repeatedly accused of sourcing cattle from illegally deforested areas in the Amazon rainforest, contributing significantly to the destruction of a vital ecosystem.1 Allegations also include illegal land-grabbing from Indigenous territories, human rights abuses, use of child labor in its supply chains, and practices described as "modern-day slavery" on supplying farms.1 JBS has also faced accusations of "greenwashing" – misleading investors and the public about its environmental commitments and the sustainability of its operations.1 This includes scrutiny over $3.2 billion in "Sustainability-Linked Bonds" issued in 2021, tied to emissions reduction goals that critics deem unrealistic or misrepresented.1 In February 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against JBS USA, accusing the company of misleading the public about its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its "Net Zero by 2040" pledge.2 Animal welfare groups have also targeted JBS and Pilgrim's Pride, citing undercover investigations allegedly revealing inhumane treatment of animals at supplier facilities and challenging the companies' public claims about animal welfare standards.16
This extensive and varied record of legal and ethical transgressions forms a critical backdrop to JBS's pursuit of a U.S. stock market listing. The pattern is not one of isolated incidents but appears as a recurring feature across different facets of the business – from market entry tactics (bribery) and competitive practices (price-fixing) to environmental stewardship and social responsibility. The fact that the company's very presence in the U.S. market via Pilgrim's Pride was facilitated, according to U.S. authorities, by corrupt payments underscores the deep roots of these controversies.
C. The Long Road to Wall Street
Against this turbulent background, JBS has harbored ambitions for a U.S. stock market listing for well over a decade, with initial filings dating back to at least 2007 and 2009.2 The strategic rationale is clear: listing on the NYSE, the world's largest stock market, would provide access to a significantly broader and deeper pool of investors, potentially lowering the company's cost of capital, increasing its stock valuation (one bank estimated the listing could double JBS's stock price 1), enhancing its global corporate profile, and accelerating its strategic shift towards higher-margin branded and value-added food products.1
However, previous attempts, including a planned IPO for its international unit in 2017, failed to materialize, often hindered by the ongoing corruption scandals engulfing the company and its controlling shareholders, as well as broader governance concerns.2 The company's "governance legacy" remained a noted risk factor even as the latest attempt progressed.1
In 2023, JBS revived its efforts, filing a registration statement (Form F-4) with the SEC for a proposed dual listing structure.1 Under this plan, the parent company, restructured under Dutch law as JBS N.V., would list Class A common shares on the NYSE, while Brazilian Depository Receipts (BDRs) representing these shares would trade on Brazil's B3 exchange in São Paulo.7 JBS argued this structure would enhance transparency and governance, attracting a wider investor base.8 However, critics pointed out that the proposed share structure could potentially consolidate voting power, estimated at nearly 85%, in the hands of the scandal-hit Batista family, raising further governance questions.1 This persistent pursuit of an IPO, despite the litany of controversies, suggests not only a strong financial motivation but perhaps also a desire to achieve a level of market legitimacy and potentially insulate the company from the full weight of its past.
D. Table: JBS/Pilgrim's Pride Fines and Settlements (Select Major Cases)
The following table summarizes some of the most significant fines and settlements involving JBS S.A. and its subsidiary Pilgrim's Pride Corp., illustrating the financial scale of the misconduct documented in recent years.
Note: This table represents a selection of major cases highlighted in the source material and may not be exhaustive. Amounts are approximate based on reported figures.
III. The $5 Million Question: Pilgrim's Pride's Inaugural Donation
A. The Record Donation
In the context of JBS's renewed push for its NYSE listing and its history of navigating regulatory and legal challenges, a significant financial transaction emerged in early 2025. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings revealed that Pilgrim's Pride Corp., the U.S. poultry subsidiary majority-owned by JBS, had contributed $5 million to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee.1 This contribution, made for the January 2025 inauguration festivities, was not merely substantial; it was identified as the single largest donation received by the committee from any corporate entity.2
The total amount raised by the Trump inaugural committee reached a record $239 million, more than double the sum raised for his first inauguration in 2017 and significantly exceeding funds raised for previous presidents.9 The $5 million from Pilgrim's Pride stood out even among contributions from other corporate giants; for instance, technology companies like Meta and Amazon reportedly contributed $1 million each, making the Pilgrim's Pride donation five times larger.4 This scale underscores the financial commitment made by the JBS subsidiary to the incoming administration's inaugural events.
B. Context of Inaugural Giving
Donations to presidential inaugural committees occupy a unique space in campaign finance. While distinct from campaign contributions directed towards electing a candidate, they are often viewed by corporations and wealthy individuals as strategic opportunities.10 Such contributions can serve to build goodwill, gain visibility, and secure access to high-level officials within a new administration.5 Historically, large inaugural donors have sometimes been appointed to ambassadorships or other government positions, and companies with significant business before federal agencies or those seeking favorable regulatory decisions have been prominent contributors.10 The $5 million Pilgrim's Pride donation reportedly secured access to exclusive inaugural events, including an "intimate dinner" with President Trump, illustrating the potential for such contributions to purchase proximity to power.5
C. Stated Justification vs. Critical Interpretation
When asked about the substantial donation, a Pilgrim's Pride spokesperson offered a conventional justification, stating the company was "pleased to support the 2025 inauguration ceremony" and emphasizing its "long bipartisan history of participating in the civic process".9 The statement added that the company looked forward to "working with the administration to create opportunities for American farmers and provide safe, affordable food for American families".9
However, this portrayal of routine civic engagement was sharply contested by critics and watchdog groups, particularly given JBS's concurrent pursuit of the NYSE listing and its history. Glenn Hurowitz, CEO of the environmental group Mighty Earth, characterized the $5 million donation as a "blatant attempt to buy political favor and seek approval for critical regulatory decisions, including JBS's ongoing push to list on the New York Stock Exchange".1 He argued that the donation's magnitude, dwarfing those from tech giants, highlighted JBS's "aggressive strategy to gain influence over the Trump administration and avoid accountability".3 This interpretation frames the donation not as civic participation, but as a calculated investment aimed at securing specific, high-value outcomes from the administration – namely, favorable regulatory treatment and the crucial green light for the IPO. The timing of the donation, made while JBS faced potential headwinds from Biden-era regulations targeting poultry grower contracts 5 and the looming possibility of stricter Salmonella standards, adds weight to the interpretation that it was strategically deployed to influence the new administration's policy direction.
D. Table: Timeline of Key Events (JBS/Pilgrim's Pride & Trump Administration)
The following timeline provides a chronological overview of key events relevant to this investigation, highlighting the sequence involving JBS/Pilgrim's Pride's legal issues, political contributions, and interactions with the Trump administration's regulatory bodies.
Note: Dates are based on information provided in the source material and reflect publication or announcement dates where specific event dates are unavailable.
IV. Regulatory Rollbacks and Relaxations: The Trump Administration and the Poultry Industry
The period following the 2025 inauguration saw significant regulatory activity within the USDA affecting the poultry and meatpacking industries, actions that aligned closely with long-standing industry objectives and occurred in the wake of Pilgrim's Pride's substantial contribution.
A. Faster Lines, Higher Stakes: The Push to Increase Processing Speeds
For years, the meat and poultry processing industry has sought authorization to operate slaughter lines at faster speeds than permitted under established regulations.2 Standard limits, such as 140 birds per minute (bpm) for young chickens and 1,106 head per hour for swine, have been seen by large processors as constraints on efficiency and profitability.24 The argument is that faster speeds are necessary to remain competitive, reduce operational costs, and meet market demand.14
The Trump administration showed sympathy to these arguments during its first term. It granted waivers allowing some plants to exceed standard speeds and initiated a rulemaking process in 2019 (for swine) and later for poultry to potentially eliminate or raise the caps permanently.24 While a court order reinstated the swine speed limit in 2021 24 and the Biden administration withdrew the proposed rule for permanent higher chicken speeds 31, the issue remained a priority for the industry.
On March 17, 2025, less than two months after the inauguration, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced decisive action.14 Citing a directive to reduce burdens and eliminate "outdated administrative requirements," the USDA extended existing waivers that allowed certain pork and poultry facilities (including roughly 35% of poultry producers operating under waivers in 2023 33) to maintain higher line speeds.14 Simultaneously, Secretary Rollins instructed the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to immediately begin the rulemaking process to formalize these faster speeds, potentially making them the new standard across the industry.14 A clarification later noted that new waivers would not be issued, but the path towards permanently higher speeds for all was initiated.38
Significantly, the March 17 announcement also declared that FSIS would no longer require plants operating under these waivers to submit worker safety data.14 The rationale provided was that "extensive research has confirmed no direct link between processing speeds and workplace injuries".14 This claim directly contradicts the long-held concerns of labor unions and worker safety advocates, who argue that faster line speeds increase the risk of repetitive motion injuries, lacerations, and other accidents for workers, and may also compromise the ability of both company employees and federal inspectors to effectively identify potential food safety hazards like contamination or disease.24 The industry, via groups like the National Chicken Council (NCC) and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), applauded the move towards permanently higher speeds.24 This regulatory action, directly benefiting major processors like JBS subsidiary Pilgrim's Pride, occurred shortly after the company's $5 million inaugural donation, aligning precisely with a key industry lobbying objective.2
B. The Salmonella Standard Setback: Withdrawing Enhanced Testing
Parallel to the push for faster line speeds, another significant regulatory development unfolded concerning food safety standards for Salmonella in poultry. Salmonella contamination is a major public health concern, estimated to cause over 1.35 million infections, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and hundreds of deaths in the U.S. annually, with poultry being a primary source.13
Recognizing that existing regulations, while reducing the presence of Salmonella on poultry, had not led to a corresponding decrease in human illness rates 26, the Biden administration's USDA undertook a multi-year effort to develop a more robust framework.12 This culminated in the proposed "Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products," formally published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2024.12
The proposed rule represented a significant potential shift in poultry regulation. For the first time, it would have declared raw chicken and turkey products "adulterated" – and therefore illegal to sell – if they contained Salmonella above a specific quantitative threshold (10 colony-forming units per gram, or 10 CFU/g) or if they tested positive for any detectable amount of specific, highly virulent Salmonella serotypes known to cause the most severe human illnesses.12 The rule also proposed requiring poultry slaughter establishments to implement enhanced microbial monitoring programs.13 The USDA estimated this framework could prevent over 167,000 illnesses annually.13 Food safety advocates hailed the proposal as potentially the most significant advance in food safety since the 1990s crackdown on E. coli in ground beef.12
However, on April 25, 2025, the Trump administration's USDA abruptly withdrew the proposed rule.12 The official notice cited the need for "further assessment" based on public comments received (over 7,000 submitted).12 The agency stated that comments raised issues regarding its legal authority, the scientific basis for the proposed standards, and potential economic impacts.12 A USDA statement elaborated that the "Biden-era proposal would have imposed significant financial and operational burdens on American businesses and consumers".12
This justification closely mirrored the arguments made by the poultry industry during the comment period. The National Chicken Council (NCC), the industry's primary trade association (of which Pilgrim's Pride is a member 45), vigorously opposed the rule. The NCC argued the framework was "legally unsound," based on "misinterpretations of the science," would increase costs for producers and consumers, lead to significant food waste, and ultimately have "no meaningful impact on public health".12 The NCC praised the withdrawal, stating it looked forward to working with the agency on an approach based on "sound science" that would not impose undue burdens.13
Public health and consumer advocacy groups reacted with condemnation. Organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), STOP Foodborne Illness, and Consumer Reports slammed the decision.12 They argued the withdrawal prioritized industry profits over consumer safety and would inevitably lead to more preventable illnesses and deaths.13 Critics pointed out that the administration discarded a rule developed over three years with extensive input, effectively allowing processors to continue selling poultry known to be contaminated with high levels of dangerous Salmonella strains.12 Some estimated the cost of implementation would have been minuscule – fractions of a penny per pound – making the administration's cost-burden argument questionable in the face of significant public health benefits.41 The withdrawal of this rule, a clear victory for the poultry industry and major players like Pilgrim's Pride, occurred just two days after the SEC approved the JBS IPO and within months of the $5 million inaugural donation, adding another layer to the pattern of favorable government actions following the contribution.
C. Contradictory Signals? Bailouts Amidst Penalties
Adding complexity to the relationship between JBS/Pilgrim's Pride and the Trump administration is the fact that alongside regulatory enforcement actions, the companies also received substantial government financial assistance during the first term. Reports indicate that JBS USA received approximately $62 million to $78 million in taxpayer funds under a $12 billion USDA program established to bail out American farmers impacted by President Trump's trade war with China.3
This financial support flowed to JBS even as other branches of the same administration (DOJ and SEC) were actively investigating and ultimately imposing hefty fines on the company and its owners for the massive bribery scheme linked to its U.S. market expansion.3 The apparent contradiction of providing significant bailout funds, intended to support U.S. agriculture, to a foreign-owned company whose owners had admitted to widespread corruption, including bribing Brazilian agricultural officials, was noted by critics at the time.11 Similar bailout funds also reportedly went to other foreign-owned entities like the Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods.11 This dual approach – penalizing for past corruption while simultaneously providing financial aid – suggests a potentially compartmentalized or inconsistent strategy within the administration when dealing with large, economically significant agricultural corporations with complex legal histories. It might reflect differing priorities between agencies (enforcement vs. agricultural support) or a broader political calculation to bolster the agricultural sector affected by trade policy, regardless of the specific recipients' corporate conduct records.
V. The IPO Greenlight: Timing, Scrutiny, and Lingering Questions
A. SEC Approval
After more than a decade of intermittent efforts and setbacks, JBS S.A.'s ambition to list on the New York Stock Exchange reached a critical milestone in the spring of 2025. On April 23, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Trump administration gave the green light, approving JBS's F-4 registration statement.1 This approval cleared the path for the world's largest meatpacker to proceed with its planned dual listing on the NYSE and Brazil's B3 exchange. Following the SEC's decision, JBS announced it would hold an Extraordinary General Meeting for shareholders on May 23, 2025, to vote on the proposed listing and associated corporate restructuring, potentially allowing trading on the NYSE to commence as early as June 2025.1
B. Controversial Timing
The timing of the SEC's approval immediately drew intense scrutiny and sharp criticism. The decision was announced just two days after FEC filings publicly revealed that JBS subsidiary Pilgrim's Pride had made the $5 million donation to President Trump's inaugural committee.2 This extremely close temporal proximity fueled allegations that the donation was intended to, and potentially did, influence the SEC's decision on the long-sought and financially significant IPO.1 Furthermore, the IPO approval occurred within the same week that the USDA formally withdrew the proposed Salmonella regulation favored by public health groups but opposed by the poultry industry 12, and just over a month after the USDA signaled its intent to permanently increase processing line speeds.14 This cluster of events – a major donation followed by multiple favorable government actions culminating in the IPO approval – created a strong appearance of interconnectedness.
C. Opposition and Concerns
The SEC's decision came despite a sustained and vocal campaign, lasting approximately eighteen months, by a broad coalition of environmental organizations (such as Mighty Earth, Greenpeace, Global Witness), animal welfare groups (including the Humane Society of the United States), investors, consumer advocates, and even some lawmakers, urging the SEC to block the JBS listing.1 Senator Marco Rubio, for instance, had previously called for an investigation into JBS by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS).1
The opposition was grounded in JBS's extensive and well-documented history of controversies. Opponents repeatedly highlighted:
- Corruption and Bribery: The massive bribery scandal in Brazil and the subsequent 2020 U.S. FCPA settlement explicitly linking bribery to the Pilgrim's Pride acquisition.1
- Antitrust Violations: Pilgrim's Pride's criminal plea and numerous large settlements for price-fixing, along with ongoing litigation.1
- Environmental Destruction: Persistent allegations of driving illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, a critical global ecosystem.1 JBS's carbon footprint has been compared to that of entire countries like Italy.20
- Misleading Environmental Claims: Accusations of "greenwashing," including challenges to its "Net Zero by 2040" pledge and the integrity of its "Sustainability-Linked Bonds".1 Mighty Earth and the Humane Society filed specific complaints with the SEC alleging misleading statements to investors on environmental and animal welfare issues.1 The New York Attorney General's lawsuit added legal weight to these claims.2
- Human Rights and Labor Issues: Concerns about land-grabbing, child labor, poor working conditions, and alleged "slave labor" in its supply chain.1
- Corporate Governance: Worries about the company's governance legacy, particularly the potential for the Batista brothers, despite their history, to consolidate near-total voting control (almost 85%) through the proposed dual-listing structure.1
- Undisclosed Risks: Allegations that JBS's SEC filings failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with its massive climate emissions (especially methane) and ongoing litigation, including the McDonald's price-fixing lawsuit.1
Critics argued that approving the IPO under these circumstances represented a failure by the SEC. Laura Fox, a scholar at Yale Law School's Law, Environment, & Animals Program, stated the SEC had neglected its duty to protect investors by not thoroughly investigating the allegations of misleading claims regarding climate change and biodiversity loss before granting approval.3 Glenn Hurowitz of Mighty Earth went further, suggesting the approval signaled a departure from the SEC's historical role in upholding market integrity, stating, "The approval of JBS' IPO shows this is no longer the independent SEC that has upheld honest practices on American markets for nearly a century".1 The approval occurred despite the SEC itself having previously levied significant penalties against JBS for "brazen misconduct" related to bribery.2
D. JBS's Defense
Throughout the process, JBS maintained that the proposed dual listing would, contrary to critics' claims, actually enhance corporate governance and transparency.2 The company argued that subjecting itself to the regulations of both the NYSE and the SEC, in addition to Brazilian oversight, would invite greater shareholder scrutiny and represent a positive step towards improved governance practices.2
E. SEC Position
The SEC, following its standard practice, did not publicly comment on its specific deliberations regarding the JBS filing.3 Its approval of the registration statement allows JBS to proceed with the listing process, contingent on the shareholder vote and meeting other exchange requirements. The decision stands in contrast to the agency's own prior enforcement action against JBS in 2020 and occurred despite the extensive public record of concerns raised by numerous stakeholders. This raises fundamental questions about the criteria and weighting applied during the SEC's review process under the prevailing political and regulatory climate of early 2025. Did the agency conclude that JBS had sufficiently addressed past issues, or did other factors, potentially including the administration's broader pro-business or deregulatory stance, influence the outcome? The approval, particularly given the documented history and active opposition, suggests a potentially lower threshold for entry into U.S. capital markets for companies with significant past transgressions than might have existed previously or under different circumstances.
VI. Connecting the Dots: Influence, Access, or Coincidence?
A. Synthesizing the Timeline
The sequence of events in early 2025 presents a striking pattern. JBS S.A., burdened by a history of corruption directly linked to its U.S. market entry via Pilgrim's Pride and facing significant opposition to its long-held ambition of listing on the NYSE, saw its subsidiary make a record $5 million donation to the incoming Trump administration's inaugural committee. In the immediate months following, key regulatory agencies within that administration took actions highly favorable to the donor's industry: the USDA moved decisively to facilitate permanently faster processing line speeds and abruptly withdrew a proposed rule that would have imposed stricter Salmonella testing requirements. Capping this sequence, the SEC, just days after the donation became public knowledge, approved JBS's registration for the NYSE listing – an outcome the company had sought for over a decade and which previous scandals had obstructed. (Refer back to Timeline Table in Section III).
B. Analyzing Potential Quid Pro Quo
Does this sequence constitute evidence of a direct quid pro quo – an explicit or implicit agreement where the $5 million donation was exchanged for favorable regulatory decisions and the IPO approval? The available evidence does not include a "smoking gun" – no leaked memo or whistleblower testimony confirming such a deal. Pilgrim's Pride offered the standard explanation of supporting the civic process.9
However, the circumstantial evidence is compelling. First, the sheer magnitude of the donation ($5 million, the largest single corporate contribution) suggests strategic intent beyond routine civic duty, especially compared to other major corporate donors.2 Second, the subsequent government actions directly addressed key industry desires: relaxed regulations on line speeds and Salmonella testing, both of which carried significant financial implications for processors like Pilgrim's Pride.2 Third, the timing is remarkably tight – the donation revealed, the regulatory actions announced, and the IPO approved within a concentrated period of roughly three months (late January to late April 2025), with the IPO approval following the donation news by mere days.2 Fourth, the justifications offered by the USDA for withdrawing the Salmonella rule (cost burdens, scientific questions) closely mirrored the arguments advanced by the industry's lobbying arm, the National Chicken Council.12 While falling short of definitive proof, this confluence of factors creates a strong appearance of influence, lending significant weight to critics' allegations that the donation was intended to secure these specific outcomes.1
C. Regulatory Capture Argument
Beyond the possibility of a specific quid pro quo, the events surrounding JBS/Pilgrim's Pride and the Trump administration may illustrate dynamics consistent with "regulatory capture." This concept describes a situation where regulatory agencies, created to act in the public interest, come to be dominated by, or excessively responsive to, the interests of the industries they are charged with regulating.
Several elements in this case align with indicators of regulatory capture. The USDA's withdrawal of the Salmonella framework, despite years of development and support from public health experts, in favor of industry arguments about cost and feasibility, suggests a prioritization of industry concerns.12 Similarly, the push for faster line speeds, overriding long-standing worker safety concerns based on industry assurances and contested research claims, points towards agency alignment with industry efficiency goals.14 The SEC's approval of the JBS IPO, despite the company's documented history of serious financial misconduct, environmental concerns, and active opposition from numerous stakeholder groups, raises questions about whether the agency adequately balanced investor protection and market integrity against the applicant's desire for market access.1 These actions occurred within an administration that reportedly halted or weakened numerous corporate enforcement actions across various agencies 51, potentially fostering an environment more conducive to capture dynamics. The pattern suggests that industry lobbying, amplified by significant political contributions, may have created a systemic responsiveness within these agencies to the poultry industry's agenda during this period.
D. The Role of Access
The $5 million donation likely served a crucial function beyond any potential implicit exchange: securing high-level access.5 This access, potentially including the "intimate dinner" with the President 5, provides invaluable opportunities for corporate executives and lobbyists to directly communicate their priorities, concerns, and preferred policy outcomes to key decision-makers within the administration and regulatory agencies. While lobbying is a standard feature of the political process, substantial donations can ensure that a company's voice is heard more frequently, more sympathetically, and at higher levels than might otherwise be possible. This access could have been instrumental in shaping the administration's perspective on the line speed regulations, the Salmonella rule, and the perceived risks associated with the JBS IPO.
E. Alternative Explanations
Could the confluence of events be merely coincidental? It is theoretically possible that the USDA independently concluded, based on public comments and internal review, that the Salmonella rule was flawed and that faster line speeds were justified. It is also possible that the SEC, after its own review, determined that JBS met the legal requirements for listing despite its history. Under this scenario, the $5 million donation would simply be an unrelated act of political support.
However, the plausibility of pure coincidence diminishes when considering the full context. The sheer scale of the donation, the direct alignment of multiple regulatory actions with the donor's specific interests, the extremely tight timing, JBS's documented history of using bribery to achieve corporate goals, and the administration's known pro-business stance collectively create a narrative where influence seems a more probable explanation than sheer chance. Dismissing the connections requires overlooking a significant body of circumstantial evidence pointing towards a potential link between the financial contribution and the subsequent favorable government actions.
VII. Conclusion: Implications and Outlook
A. Summary of Findings
The investigation reveals a deeply intertwined relationship between JBS S.A., its U.S. subsidiary Pilgrim's Pride, and the Trump administration, marked by substantial political spending, significant regulatory shifts, and controversial corporate milestones. Pilgrim's Pride's $5 million contribution to the 2025 Trump inaugural committee stands out as the largest single corporate donation. In the months immediately following, the USDA moved to permanently increase poultry processing line speeds and withdrew a proposed rule to strengthen Salmonella testing standards – both actions strongly favored by the poultry industry but opposed by worker safety and public health advocates. Concurrently, the SEC approved JBS's long-contested application for listing on the New York Stock Exchange, despite the company's extensive history of corruption (including FCPA violations related to its U.S. market entry via Pilgrim's Pride), antitrust settlements, and widespread criticism regarding its environmental and social practices. While definitive proof of an explicit quid pro quo remains elusive, the magnitude of the donation, the alignment of the regulatory outcomes with the donor's interests, and the remarkably close timing of these events constitute compelling circumstantial evidence suggesting that political influence played a significant role. The pattern of events raises serious questions about regulatory integrity and the potential for corporate spending to shape policy outcomes.
B. Implications
The events detailed in this report carry significant implications across several domains:
- Corporate Governance & Market Integrity: Allowing a company with JBS's documented record of bribery, price-fixing, environmental damage, and alleged misleading disclosures onto the world's premier stock exchange raises fundamental questions about market gatekeeping.1 Does the approval signal a weakening of standards intended to protect investors from companies with questionable governance and a history of flouting regulations? It risks normalizing corporate malfeasance if access to capital markets is perceived as attainable regardless of past conduct, potentially undermining investor confidence in the integrity of the listing process itself. The very foundation of JBS's U.S. presence, built partly on bribery, makes its entry into the heart of U.S. capital markets particularly problematic.
- Political Influence & Democracy: The case serves as a stark example of how immense corporate wealth can translate into political access and potentially influence policy.4 When multi-million-dollar donations coincide with favorable regulatory actions benefiting the donor, it fuels public cynicism and erodes trust in the democratic process, fostering the perception that policy decisions are available to the highest bidder rather than being based on public interest or sound evidence.
- Regulatory Oversight: The actions of the USDA and SEC in this context invite scrutiny regarding their independence and effectiveness. The withdrawal of the Salmonella rule after years of development, based on justifications echoing industry arguments, and the approval of the JBS IPO despite significant red flags, suggest a potential susceptibility to political pressure or industry capture. This raises concerns about the ability of regulatory agencies to fulfill their mandates – protecting public health, ensuring worker safety, maintaining market integrity – when faced with powerful corporate interests aligned with the governing administration.
- Public Health & Food Safety: The withdrawal of the Salmonella framework has direct, tangible consequences for public health.12 By halting the implementation of stricter standards, the decision allows potentially contaminated poultry, which could have been deemed adulterated under the proposed rule, to continue reaching consumers, likely contributing to the burden of foodborne illness that sickens over a million Americans annually. This decision represents a policy choice where potential industry costs were prioritized over preventative public health measures.
- Environmental Impact: Concerns persist that granting JBS easier access to U.S. capital markets via the NYSE listing could provide the financial resources for further expansion of its operations.2 Given the company's track record and the criticisms surrounding its links to deforestation in the Amazon and its overall climate footprint, enabling further growth without stringent, verifiable environmental safeguards could exacerbate significant ecological harm.
C. Outlook
Despite achieving its long-sought NYSE listing, JBS S.A. and Pilgrim's Pride are likely to remain under intense scrutiny. The legacy of corruption, the ongoing antitrust litigation, the environmental and animal welfare concerns, and the questions surrounding the circumstances of the IPO approval will continue to shadow the company. Legal challenges, such as the New York Attorney General's lawsuit regarding misleading climate claims 2, persist. Advocacy groups that opposed the listing are unlikely to cease their campaigns demanding greater accountability and transparency regarding the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. Investors, now potentially including a wider base through the NYSE, will face the ongoing challenge of assessing the true risks associated with a company whose history is so deeply marked by controversy. The JBS saga serves as a continuing case study in the complex and often fraught relationship between global corporations, national governments, and the public interest. The events of 2025 underscore the vulnerability of regulatory systems to political influence and the enduring power of corporate finance in shaping policy landscapes, leaving a legacy of questions about accountability, transparency, and the true cost of doing business.
Works cited
- Trump's SEC greenlights JBS IPO despite bribery fines and ..., accessed May 3, 2025, https://mightyearth.org/article/trumps-sec-greenlights-jbs-ipo-despite-bribery-fines-and-corruption-charges/
- The World's Biggest Meat Company Gets the Greenlight to Go Public ..., accessed May 3, 2025, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25042025/jbs-brazil-meet-company-gets-approval-for-new-york-stock-exchange/
- Embattled Meat Giant JBS Cleared for NYSE Listing, Was Trump's ..., accessed May 3, 2025, https://civileats.com/2025/04/23/embattled-meat-giant-jbs-cleared-for-nyse-listing-was-trumps-largest-inauguration-donor/
- Brazilian meat giant JBS was largest donor to Trump's inauguration - Mighty Earth, accessed May 3, 2025, https://mightyearth.org/article/brazilian-meat-giant-jbs-was-largest-donor-to-trumps-inauguration/
- Trump's Top Inaugural Donor Is Poultry Company Fined for Price ..., accessed May 3, 2025, https://readsludge.com/2025/04/21/trumps-top-inaugural-donor-is-poultry-company-fined-for-price-fixing-and-antitrust-violations/
- GOP lawmaker urges national security review of JBS NYSE listing bid - Meatingplace.com, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/118966
- The World's Biggest Meatpacker is Prepping a U.S. IPO - Investopedia, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/worlds-biggest-meatpacker-pursuing-us-ipo-7559794
- JBS to Pursue Dual Listing in Brazil and US to Deliver Value to Shareholders, accessed May 3, 2025, https://jbsfoodsgroup.com/articles/jbs-to-pursue-dual-listing-in-brazil-and-us-to-deliver-value-to-shareholders
- Pilgrim's Pride donated $5 million to Trump inauguration - MEAT+POULTRY, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/31799-pilgrims-pride-donated-5-million-to-trump-inauguration
- Brazilian meat company and a mysterious family trust among the top donors to Trump's $239m inauguration | The Independent, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-inuaguration-donations-b2739028.html
- Meat processor topped all donors for Trump inauguration - JBS buys ..., accessed May 3, 2025, https://news.mikecallicrate.com/meat-processor-topped-all-donors-for-trump-inauguration-jbs-and-the-trump-administration/
- Trump Administration Withdraws Salmonella Testing Plan for Poultry - Sentient Media, accessed May 3, 2025, https://sentientmedia.org/trump-administration-withdraws-salmonella-testing/
- USDA withdraws plan to limit salmonella in raw poultry | Food Dive, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.fooddive.com/news/usda-withdraws-salmonella-raw-chicken-turkey-poultry-food-safety/746613/
- Constituent Update - March 21, 2025 - USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-march-21-2025
- Secretary Rollins Takes Action to Streamline U.S. Pork and Poultry Processing - USDA, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing
- JBS: The Brazilian butchers who took over the world | TBIJ, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-07-02/jbs-brazilian-butchers-took-over-the-world
- The week in GRC: US House holds off from stripping FTC of antitrust mandate, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.governance-intelligence.com/regulatory-compliance/week-grc-us-house-holds-stripping-ftc-antitrust-mandate
- JBS - Assessing the world's 350 most influential food and agriculture companies, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/publication/food-agriculture/companies/jbs-2/
- Breaking: We're asking the SEC to investigate world's largest meat, accessed May 3, 2025, https://humaneaction.org/blog/2024/06/breaking-were-asking-sec-investigate-worlds-largest-meat-companys-animal-welfare
- Breaking: We're asking the SEC to investigate world's largest meat company's animal welfare promises | The Humane Society of the United States, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/jbs-pilgrims-pride-misleading-investors-animal-welfare
- SEC Complaint Alleges ESG Deception by JBS and Pilgrim's Pride - Vermont Law School, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.vermontlaw.edu/news-and-events/sec-complaint-alleges-esg-deception-by-jbs-and-pilgrims-pride
- JBS stock-listing plans 'out of our control,' CFO says | Agriculture Dive, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/jbs-stock-listing-plans-out-of-our-control-cfo-says/724355/
- PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, accessed May 3, 2025, https://ir.pilgrims.com/index.php/static-files/b6cb3390-cdc5-4db4-a45b-cc47205d1675
- Policy and practice brief on the 2019 New Swine Inspection System, line speeds, and workers [Policy brief], accessed May 3, 2025, https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/download/1338/1313
- TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WEAKENS FOOD AND DRUG SAFETY, DESPITE RISE IN FOOD-BOURNE ILLNESSES | East County Magazine, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/trump-administration-weakens-food-and-drug-safety-despite-rise-food-bourne-illnesses
- USDA withdraws proposal to reduce Salmonella in poultry - CIDRAP, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/foodborne-disease/usda-withdraws-proposal-reduce-salmonella-poultry
- USDA pulls back from declaring it illegal to sell Salmonella contaminated poultry, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2025/04/usda-pulls-back-from-declaring-it-illegal-to-sell-salmonella-contaminated-poultry/
- USDA halts salmonella rule for poultry companies amid industry pressure - News Center Maine, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/usda-withdraws-plan-to-limit-salmonella-levels-raw-poultry/507-2f251fd7-fa66-4d5a-94f5-6bc43c588f56
- USDA withdraws proposed Salmonella framework - MEAT+POULTRY, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/31802-usda-withdraws-proposed-emsalmonella-em-framework
- Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products - Federal Register, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/25/2025-07187/salmonella-framework-for-raw-poultry-products
- USDA Moves to Permanently Increase Line Speeds at Meatpacking Plants - Civil Eats, accessed May 3, 2025, https://civileats.com/2025/03/18/usda-moves-to-permanently-increase-line-speeds-at-meatpacking-plants/
- USDA Announces Plans for New Rulemaking for Chicken Processing Line Speeds, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/usda-announces-plans-for-new-rulemaking-for-chicken-processing-line-speeds/
- Trump admin looks to allow meat processers to permanently run faster line speeds, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.fooddive.com/news/usda-poultry-pork-meat-processing-faster/742950/
- USDA FSIS Withdraws Proposed Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products, accessed May 3, 2025, https://foodsafetytech.com/news_article/usda-fsis-withdraws-proposed-salmonella-framework-for-raw-poultry-products/
- USDA withdraws proposed Salmonella Framework for raw poultry products, accessed May 3, 2025, https://fsqnetwork.com/posts/usda-withdraws-proposed-salmonella-framework-for-raw-poultry-products
- Biden administration withdraws Trump-era plan for higher line speeds at chicken slaughterhouses - Humane Society, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.humaneworld.org/en/blog/biden-administration-withdraws-trump-era-plan-higher-line-speeds-chicken-slaughterhouses
- HSUS, other groups sue Trump administration for speeding up chicken slaughter, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.humaneworld.org/en/blog/hsus-other-groups-sue-trump-administration-speeding-chicken-slaughter
- Constituent Update - April 4, 2025 - USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-april-4-2025
- FSIS Withdraws Proposed Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products - AgWeb, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.agweb.com/news/livestock/poultry/fsis-withdraws-proposed-salmonella-framework-raw-poultry-products
- USDA withdraws a Biden-era effort to limit salmonella levels in raw poultry - CBS News, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/usda-withdraws-rule-salmonella-levels-raw-poultry/
- USDA Repeals New Poultry Salmonella Standards - Food & Power, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.foodandpower.net/latest/salmonella-framework-withdrawal-may-25
- Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products | Food Safety and Inspection Service, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/federal-register-rulemaking/federal-register-rules/salmonella-framework-raw-poultry-products
- USDA withdraws proposed rule meant to reduce Salmonella in poultry products, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/04/usda-withdraws-proposed-rule-meant-to-reduce-salmonella-in-poultry-products/
- USDA repeal of Salmonella framework certain to make Americans sicker, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.cspinet.org/statement/usda-repeal-salmonella-framework-certain-make-americans-sicker
- USDA Scraps Rules That Would Have Stopped Sale of Salmonella-Tainted Chicken, accessed May 3, 2025, https://civileats.com/2025/04/25/usda-scraps-rules-that-would-have-stopped-sale-of-salmonella-tainted-chicken/
- 90 FR 17344 - Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products - Content Details - 2025-07187 - GovInfo, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2025-04-25/2025-07187
- Public Inspection: Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products; Withdrawal, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2025-07187/salmonella-framework-for-raw-poultry-products-withdrawal
- NCC Statement on Withdrawal of Salmonella Framework - National Chicken Council, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/ncc-statement-on-withdrawal-of-salmonellaframework/
- Docket No. FSIS-2023-0028: Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products - National Chicken Council, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NCC-Comments-to-Docket-No.-FSIS-2023-0028.pdf
- News - National Chicken Council, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/news/page/2/
Tracker: Corporate Enforcement at Risk - Public Citizen, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.citizen.org/article/corporate-enforcement-trump-tracker/