How McDonald’s Latest Regenerative Beef Investment Falls Short

Earlier this month, McDonald’s made what it calls its “largest-ever investment in regenerative agriculture,” in partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), to support conservation practices on four million acres of cattle-producing land over the next seven years. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lauded the announcement as a “MAHA Win.”

MAHA and food justice advocates alike have criticized large fast-food corporations for selling burgers from cows raised in ways that contribute to climate change, deforestation, and animal suffering. So far, the Trump administration has largely relied on voluntary corporate pledges to advance its MAHA agenda, rather than issue new regulations.

McDonald’s investment comes as the Trump administration cuts government programs and staff that support agricultural conservation. While more resources for ranchers can’t hurt, this investment represents a short-term boost to conservation projects rather than a long-term commitment from McDonald’s to buy from regenerative producers.

“It’s like big food companies donating to food banks, then not paying their workers a living wage. Some good is being done, fine, what about their business practices?” says Patty Lovera from the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment. “McDonald’s is not super interested in changing the marketplace so that good practices result in a product with a higher price that pays for those practices. Ranchers are still going to sell into a commodity market that does not pay.”

Neither McDonald’s nor the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation responded to Food & Power’s questions by the time of publication.

Cattle dominate the American landscape. Whether they are completely grass-fed or fattened in a feedlot, all U.S. cattle spend the beginning of their life grazing on pasture. More than one-third of all U.S. land is pasture or rangeland.

Overgrazing and other ranching practices have major environmental impacts. By some estimates, there are more than 600,000 miles of livestock fencing across the western U.S., which breaks up habitat and restricts wildlife migration. Ranchers can help by taking down old fences or adopting virtual fences. Overgrazing and the loss of beavers have dried up floodplains and caused creeks to cut deep trenches into the land. Better grazing management practices and stream restoration interventions, like man-made logjams, can improve riverscapes and wetlands, leading to more water retention, more native vegetation, and more livestock forage.

McDonald’s and NFWF’s Grassland Resilience and Conservation Initiative will fund nonprofits to work with ranchers to implement these types of projects “to improve the health and resilience of four million acres of grasslands and ranch lands in as many as 38 states.” McDonald’s, NFWF, and some of McDonald’s suppliers, such as Cargill and Coca-Cola, will together contribute $200 million over the next seven years to the project. NFWF will also collaborate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide technical assistance and connect ranchers with relevant federal programs.

Enlisting and compensating ranchers for grassland conservation is worthwhile. Aspects of this initiative resemble popular federal farm conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). But some advocates are concerned that the Trump administration is praising corporate conservation commitments just as it guts larger, more transparent government programs.

Between the federal funding freeze, DOGE-driven resignations, and proposed budget cuts, USDA conservation programs are struggling. While the One Big Beautiful Bill Act increased permanent, baseline funding for programs like EQIP, there are substantially fewer USDA staff on the ground to connect farmers with these dollars. NRCS staffing levels are at historic lows and dropping; nearly one in four NRCS staff have resigned or been fired since January 2025. Staffing shortages at some local NRCS offices are creating prohibitively long wait times and barriers to access programs, and that could get worse.  

“Even with last year’s staffing levels, people experienced wait times. This year we probably needed an increase in NRCS staff rather than a 3,000-person reduction,” says Jesse Womack, policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

In its 2026 budget proposal, USDA wants to eliminate its $746 million Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) budget, which funds USDA staff and third parties, like NFWF, to help farmers implement conservation practices. The House Agriculture Committee proposed a smaller $70 million cut to CTA, while the Senate proposed no cuts. If Congress cuts CTA funds, technical assistance salaries may have to come out of EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).

“This would impact organizations that have been stalwart partners to producers at the county level for years, and it likely puts the administration in a position of having to spend money that should be going to producers on staff instead,” says Womack.

Just over $28 million a year for seven years from McDonald’s and its partners does not make up for these losses. Relying on corporations and private donors to sponsor conservation programs and partner with the USDA could give private actors undue influence over how to use increasingly scarce resources and diminished NRCS staff capacity.

Even if McDonald’s investments are purely additive, they are far from transformative. While a grant or technical assistance to help ranchers buy new equipment or restore a stream is nice, this initiative does not appear to compensate ranchers over the long term for the costs of using more responsible practices. “If McDonald’s was transforming their own supply chain and providing resources to ranchers that sell into it to make these kinds of regenerative changes and paying them a premium price for that, that would be more meaningful,” says Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

McDonald’s has made some commitments over the years to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and source deforestation-free beef and “verified sustainable beef.” However, the corporation still struggles to define its basic metrics of progress and has missed multiple commitment deadlines. McDonald’s still buys most of its 1 billion pounds (or more) of beef from large meat processors around the world, which source conventionally-raised cattle at low commodity prices. For instance, 65% of McDonald’s stores, including some in the U.S., source beef from Australia, a major competitor to U.S. grassfed cattle producers.

Some environmentalists doubt that any beef supply chain interventions can meaningfully reduce McDonald’s climate impact, unless the company commits to selling fewer Quarter Pounders. Cattle release climate-warming methane as part of their digestion, and globally, beef production is a leading driver of deforestation, making beef one of the most climate-polluting foods. Improving grazing practices can increase carbon sequestration on grasslands, but hopes for “net-zero” or carbon-neutral beef look increasingly lofty. Raising grass-fed beef requires more cattle and more land to produce the same amount of meat as a feed-lot.

Lilliston argues that large beef buyers and processors need to account for their environmental and economic impact in transparent, measurable, and enforceable ways. Positive press and praise from government officials for voluntary, private, project-based measures like the Grassland Resilience and Conservation Initiative relieves pressure to regulate corporations and livestock markets. “I think the harm, potentially, is that it is slowing down efforts to take more concrete steps to make changes,” says Lilliston.