The Trump administration has moved quickly on nominees to administer most government agencies. Like the first Trump administration, many of the nominees have clear financial conflicts of interest with the potential to have regulatory oversight over companies and investments they are tied to. Many government agencies oversee policies that affect our food and agriculture system in various ways, from farm programs that benefit the environment, to competition and fairness in agriculture markets, to responses to the climate crisis.
For key Trump administration nominees that oversee government agencies that intersect with farmers, rural communities and our food system, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) will be proposing three key questions for the Senate to consider as part of the confirmation process.
Here, we focus on the nominee for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair, Paul Atkins. The primary function of the SEC is to protect investors by promoting transparency and accountability around investment decision-making. The commission achieves this by regulating securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, and enforcing or adopting U.S. securities regulations, including financial reporting by public companies, to maintain the integrity and stability of U.S. financial markets. Most major food and agriculture companies are publicly traded and thus fall under the SEC’s jurisdiction.
Paul Atkins is a former SEC commissioner during the George W. Bush administration, and current CEO of Patomak Global Partners, a financial technology (fintech) and risk management consultancy founded by Atkins in 2009. Atkins is known as a strong backer of cryptocurrencies and has played an active role in advising crypto companies. Crypto companies contributed an unprecedented amount of money to influence U.S. federal elections in 2024, including to elect Donald Trump. The nomination of Atkins was celebrated by crypto companies that hope to avoid tough SEC regulations. Atkins’ crypto-friendly views stand in contrast to the Biden-appointed SEC chair Gary Gensler, who led efforts to bring accountability to crypto markets. In the lead-up to Atkins’ nomination hearing, the SEC under the leadership of acting chairman Mark Uyeda has rolled back several enforcement actions against crypto companies.
Atkins has vocally opposed the SEC’s recent efforts to improve the quality of climate-related information for investors and is affiliated with two right wing groups pushing anti-climate and anti-sustainable investment campaigns — the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF). Atkins has shaped President Trump’s deregulatory agenda as a member of his economic advisory team and a contributor to Project 2025. Atkins’ helped write the Project 2025 chapter on the ‘SEC and Related Agencies’ which outlines a strategy to deregulate securities markets while characterizing the current regulatory framework as irrational.
Environmental groups and advocates for sustainable investing have spoken out against the selection of Atkins to head, and perhaps overhaul, the SEC. The Trump administration has engaged in unprecedented climate denial, including pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrubbing websites of any mention of climate change, cutting scientific research related to climate change, and slashing climate-related programs. But climate denial does not slow climate change or reduce the risk of climate change to companies. Climate risk is of major concern to investors and companies around the world. Atkins’ nomination to chair the SEC is part of the latest attempt by the Trump administration to overhaul an independent agency and would have serious consequences for our ability to address growing climate risk.
IATP proposes the following three questions for nominee Atkins:
Question 1: How will the SEC improve the reporting of climate-related information for investors?
Under the leadership of former SEC chair Gary Gensler, the SEC adopted a climate-related disclosure rule, called the “SEC final rules,” which mandate that companies registered with the SEC disclose climate-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate-related targets or transition plans. The purpose of the rule is to improve the “consistency, comparability, and reliability of climate-related information for investors” so that they can make more informed investment decisions. This is especially important as investors are increasingly making decisions based on climate risk. Atkins has been a vocal critic of the SEC final rules.
The agricultural sector is particularly exposed to climate risks, which are exacerbated by the sector’s significant contribution to global emissions. In the absence of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules, food and agriculture companies have been able to publish misleading, incorrect, or incomplete emissions data, in effect circumventing investor scrutiny regarding climate risk. The SEC’s final rules offer an opportunity to hold food and agriculture companies accountable for their risky practices.
The SEC’s climate disclosure rule also aligns with global regulatory trends, as other jurisdictions have implemented climate-related disclosure rules. Many companies are already preparing to disclose climate-related information in more than one regulatory jurisdiction. For example, an estimated 3,000 U.S. companies will have to report under the EU’s climate related disclosure rule as it currently stands, which is more stringent than the SEC final rules.
After legal challenges from a coalition of states and business groups, the SEC voluntarily paused its climate-related disclosure rule in April 2024. In February, acting chairman Mark Uyeda abandoned the SEC’s defense of the rule, which is a major step toward reversing the rule. As the Senate Banking Committee has a bipartisan meeting on Atkins’ nomination this Friday, March 21, we ask the Committee to consider the importance of the SEC final rules for investors and prepare questions for Atkins related to whether he can lead the SEC to improve climate-related financial reporting.
Question 2: How will the SEC address the issue of corporate ‘greenwashing’?
Greenwashing is a tactic used by companies and investment firms to make it appear as if they are providing solutions to environmental problems even when their claims are exaggerated or false, in effect misleading the public and investors about the true risks, rewards, and pricing of investments. In 2023, the SEC adopted a rule aimed at reducing greenwashing by U.S. investment funds, called the “Names Rule.” The rule requires that 80% of a fund’s portfolio matches the assets advertised by its name, limiting deceptive or misleading marketing practices aimed at exploiting investor interest in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.
Greenwashing occurs in every sector, but a recent study revealed that the industry suffering the most from greenwashing was the food sector. Greenwashing in the food sector, sometimes called “agricultural greenwashing,” often involves misleading phrases like “climate neutral” or “climate friendly” applied to food products like meat and dairy without clear evidence of climate benefits. Major food and agriculture companies are sometimes included in ESG portfolios despite their high emissions and adverse climate impact.1 Rules aimed at fighting greenwashing and other misleading ESG claims, particularly in the food sector, are important for strengthening the resilience of U.S. capital markets in the context of climate change.
In March, the SEC extended the compliance dates for the Names Rule. It is unclear if this is the first step toward rescinding, modifying or pausing the rule, but advocates of the rule are concerned for its longevity under an Atkins-led Commission.
Question 3: Will the SEC reject major meat company JBS’ IPO?
The world’s biggest meat packer, Brazil-based JBS, has a long track record of environmental damage including mass deforestation, human rights violations, corruption and fraud. JBS is also responsible for an outsized impact on climate — the company’s methane emissions exceed the combined livestock methane emissions of France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand.2 The company announced in 2023 that it was planning an initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), but strong opposition from environmental groups, policymakers from the U.S., EU and UK, and investors have so far delayed the IPO.
A listing on the NYSE would give JBS broader access to U.S. capital, enhance the company’s ability to engage in anti-competitive behavior or buy out U.S. meat companies, and could adversely impact U.S. farmers and ranchers. The environmental nonprofit Mighty Earth has been leading the charge against the JBS listing, and a growing body of evidence detailing JBS’s misconduct has been submitted to the SEC arguing that the company is unfit to be listed on U.S. exchanges. The SEC chair has the authority to reject JBS’ application to list on the NYSE. Such a rejection would protect investors from significant material risks associated with JBS’ operations.
