TREE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
The TREE Act seeks to leverage U.S. market access to incentivize global deforestation-free supply chains, imposing significant compliance burdens on importers and potentially reshaping international trade in key commodities.
What it actually does
This bill, the "TREE Act," aims to combat global deforestation by prohibiting the import and interstate sale of goods linked to deforestation or forest degradation that occurred after December 31, 2020. It establishes a due diligence requirement for importers, mandates a country-risk categorization system by the USTR, and imposes civil penalties, including fines and import bans, for violations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical step for the U.S. to address its role in global deforestation and climate change by preventing the import of products linked to environmental destruction. They contend it will promote responsible sourcing, protect biodiversity, and support indigenous communities, aligning U.S. trade policy with environmental values and encouraging other nations to strengthen their anti-deforestation efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill places an undue burden on U.S. businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, due to complex due diligence requirements and potential supply chain disruptions. They may also raise concerns about the USTR's authority to categorize countries and regions, potentially leading to trade disputes or retaliatory measures from affected nations, and increasing consumer costs.
The bill is relatively short, but its technical definitions and multi-agency enforcement structure require careful reading to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2
Prohibition on Import and Sale in Interstate Commerce of Deforestation Goods
Starting January 1, 2029, this section makes it illegal to import "deforestation goods" into the U.S. or to sell, trade, or advertise them in interstate commerce. It also prohibits false labeling of such goods. "Deforestation goods" are defined as covered products, commodities, or sources produced from land subject to deforestation or forest degradation after December 31, 2020.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this direct prohibition is essential to prevent the U.S. market from contributing to global deforestation, ensuring that American consumers are not unknowingly supporting environmentally destructive practices.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the prohibition creates a significant barrier to trade, potentially increasing costs for consumers and disrupting established supply chains, especially for commodities where deforestation-free alternatives are not yet widely available or easily verifiable.
Tradeoffs
Balances environmental protection goals with potential economic impacts on trade and consumer prices.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Due Diligence Statement for Covered Commodities
The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection will require importers of "covered commodities" to provide a due diligence statement. This statement must include detailed descriptions of the commodity, supplier information, conclusive and verifiable evidence that the products are deforestation-free, and, for high-risk countries, country of origin and geolocation coordinates.
Section 3(c)
Civil Penalties for Violations
Violators of the Act face civil penalties up to 4% of their total U.S. revenue for the preceding fiscal year, confiscation of deforestation goods, and ineligibility for federal contracts, funding, grants, and concessions for up to 12 months. Serious or repeat violations can lead to a 12-month ban on all imports. The USTR considers environmental damage, ability to pay, economic benefit deprivation, and repeat offenses when determining fines.
Section 3(d)
Risk-Based Increased Inspection Rates
Starting December 31, 2029, Customs and Border Protection must implement increased inspection rates for goods based on the country's deforestation risk level. Level I risk countries will have at least 9% of their goods inspected, Level II countries 3%, and Level III countries 1%.
Section 4
Country Categorization for Deforestation Risk
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is mandated to categorize every country (and potentially regions within countries) into one of three risk levels (Level I: high, Level II: moderate, Level III: low) based on the risk of their imports being deforestation goods. This categorization, to be updated biennially starting December 1, 2029, will consider deforestation rates, expansion of agricultural land for covered products, production trends, and other factors like national laws, international agreements, and human rights records. Interim categorization for all countries is Level II until the first assessment.
Section 5
International Assistance for Deforestation Management
The Secretary of State is directed to prioritize financial assistance related to deforestation and forest degradation for countries categorized under Section 1(d)(2)(A) as a Level I risk. Additionally, half of all civil penalties collected under the Act will be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to provide assistance to underdeveloped countries for deforestation and forest degradation management.
A "deforestation good" is defined as any covered product, commodity, or source produced from land subject to deforestation or forest degradation on or after December 31, 2020.
Section 6(6)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms in a dedicated section, but the specific retroactive date is a key policy choice.
Case for: Supporters would argue that setting a clear, albeit retroactive, cut-off date is necessary to prevent a rush to clear land before the law takes effect and to address recent deforestation.
Case against: Critics might argue that a retroactive date creates significant compliance challenges for businesses that may have legally sourced goods before the bill's enactment but after the cut-off, making verification extremely difficult and potentially penalizing past legal activities.
Estimated impact: Potentially affects the legality of a vast quantity of goods sourced between December 31, 2020, and the bill's enactment, requiring extensive historical traceability.
"Forest degradation" includes not only human-driven structural changes impacting carbon storage, species, and tree age, but also specifically "the conversion of primary forests, naturally regenerating forests, or old growth forests into plantation forests or into other wooded land" and "into temporarily unstocked forests due to clearcutting or other harvesting."
Section 6(8)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice for technical definitions, but the specific inclusions are highly impactful policy choices.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including forest degradation, especially the conversion to plantations or clearcutting, is vital to prevent loopholes where forests are technically not "deforested" but their ecological value is severely diminished.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this broad definition could restrict sustainable forestry practices, including selective logging or replanting with commercial species, which are often considered legitimate economic activities and can be part of forest management.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the types of forestry and land-use practices that could render goods "deforestation goods," increasing the compliance burden and potentially impacting a wider range of timber and wood-derived products.