Pilgrim's Pride
Major U.S. poultry producer and chicken processor.
Reason: Close and unethical Trump Relationship
Pilgrim’s Pride is one of the largest poultry producers in the United States, processing billions of pounds of chicken each year for grocery chains, restaurant suppliers, and institutional buyers. The company is majority-owned by Brazilian meat giant JBS S.A., giving it deep financial backing and substantial political reach in U.S. agriculture and food policy.
Evidence & Context
Behind the brand name, Pilgrim’s Pride has built its growth on aggressive consolidation, price-fixing, and political maneuvering — including a record-setting donation to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee. Its history shows a corporation willing to collude on prices, discriminate against workers, and leverage political giving while presenting itself as just another chicken brand in the supermarket case.
Record-Setting Donation to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee
Federal Election Commission filings show that Pilgrim’s Pride contributed $5 million to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee — more than any other single donor, corporate or individual. Coverage by industry and agricultural outlets confirmed that this was the largest single contribution to the inauguration fund, giving a major poultry processor outsized influence in a political moment with direct consequences for its regulatory environment.
Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a series of inquiries to Pilgrim’s Pride and its parent company questioning whether the donation was designed to “curry favor” with the administration while the company faced ongoing antitrust and farmer-pay investigations. Her press release and subsequent coverage pointed out that Pilgrim’s Pride’s federal enforcement exposure created clear incentives to seek political goodwill through high-dollar contributions. See, for example, the scrutiny described in Sen. Warren’s statement and reporting from WATTAgNet.
In other words: Pilgrim’s Pride wasn’t just buying a table at a party. It was securing a front-row seat with a government that controls antitrust enforcement, farm policy, and meatpacking regulation.
Price-Fixing and Market Manipulation
Pilgrim’s Pride has a documented record of colluding to raise prices on everyday consumers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the company participated in a long-running conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chickens sold in the United States.
Court filings show that from at least 2012 to 2017, Pilgrim’s Pride coordinated pricing with competitors, affecting hundreds of millions of dollars in chicken sales. The company eventually agreed to plead guilty to a criminal conspiracy charge and was ordered to pay a fine of roughly $108 million.
Investors later filed a securities class action alleging that Pilgrim’s Pride misled shareholders about the true source of its profits by concealing the price-fixing scheme. In 2025, the company agreed to a $41.5 million settlement with shareholders who argued that the company’s stock price had been artificially inflated by false claims about competition and pricing.
Pilgrim’s Pride has also been accused of conspiring with other processors to underpay contract chicken farmers, culminating in a $100 million settlement over farmer compensation in a separate case. Taken together, these cases show a company that treats farmers and consumers as targets for exploitation, not partners in a fair market.
Discrimination and Abuse of Workers
Pilgrim’s Pride’s labor record mirrors its approach to pricing and competition: cut corners, then deal with the fallout later. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs filed a lawsuit alleging that the company systematically discriminated against job applicants at its Mount Pleasant, Texas facility. The complaint, summarized by the Department of Labor and covered in additional reporting, claimed that the plant favored certain groups while excluding Black, white, and female applicants from specific jobs.
Because Pilgrim’s Pride held tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts, it was required to comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination by federal contractors. The government sought back pay, job offers for affected candidates, and potential loss of contract eligibility if the company refused to change its practices.
Allegations from advocacy groups and lawsuits also describe harsh working conditions inside Pilgrim’s plants, including line speeds and production pressures that increase the risk of injuries and make it difficult for workers to take breaks or report problems without fear of retaliation.
Abuse of Power in the Supply Chain
Pilgrim’s Pride sits near the top of a highly consolidated poultry system where a handful of companies control the market. Contract growers must often borrow heavily to build facilities that meet company specifications, only to find themselves locked into one-sided agreements, vulnerable to retaliatory cuts in flock placements or pay if they speak out about conditions.
Federal investigations and lawsuits have described a “tournament” pay system that allows companies like Pilgrim’s Pride to pit growers against each other while controlling inputs and contracts, leaving farmers bearing most of the risk and debt. When combined with proven price-fixing at the wholesale level, the picture is clear: Pilgrim’s Pride exerts power upward and downward in the supply chain, squeezing both the people who raise the birds and the people who buy them.
Why Pilgrim’s Pride Belongs on the Big Beautiful Boycott List
Pilgrim’s Pride is not just another chicken brand. It is:
- The largest single corporate donor to the Trump–Vance inaugural fund, buying political proximity at a moment when its legal exposure was high.
- A company with a criminal price-fixing conviction and tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements tied to market manipulation.
- A federal contractor accused of systematic discrimination against job applicants, in violation of basic civil rights protections.
- A dominant buyer that has been sued for underpaying farmers and distorting the poultry market from the inside.
When consumers choose Pilgrim’s Pride products, they are not just buying chicken. They are reinforcing a corporate structure that rewards price-rigging, discrimination, and political influence-peddling. For anyone who wants a food system that is fair, transparent, and accountable, Pilgrim’s Pride is a company to leave off the shopping list.
Parent company: JBS
JBS S.A. is a Brazil-based meat conglomerate and one of the largest producers of beef, pork, and poultry in the world. Through its global network of slaughterhouses, feedlots, and processing plants – including U.S. subsidiaries like JBS USA – the company plays an outsized role in shaping food systems, labor conditions, and environmental outcomes on multiple continents.
JBS is not just a big meat company; it is a politically connected actor with a long record of corruption scandals, regulatory investigations, and environmental damage. Its recent multi-million-dollar donation to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee, combined with years of legal and ethical violations, makes it a textbook example of how concentrated corporate power can bend public policy and oversight in its favor.
Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Settlements
JBS is controlled by the Batista family through J&F Investimentos. Over the last decade, the company and its owners have been at the center of one of the biggest corporate corruption scandals in Brazilian history. Executives admitted to paying bribes to scores of politicians and officials in exchange for favorable loans, contracts, and regulatory decisions. Brazilian plea agreements and reporting describe a years-long scheme in which bribery was treated as a cost of doing business.
In the United States, J&F Investimentos – the JBS holding company – pleaded guilty to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) charges for paying millions in bribes to Brazilian officials to secure financing and other advantages. As part of the resolution, J&F agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to U.S. and Brazilian authorities.
These cases show a pattern: JBS built global scale not just through efficiency or innovation, but by repeatedly breaking the rules, falsifying its relationships with public officials, and treating fines as the price of political access.
Environmental Destruction and Deforestation
JBS is one of the companies most frequently linked to deforestation in the Amazon and other sensitive ecosystems. Investigations by NGOs and journalists have found that JBS has purchased cattle from ranches tied to illegal land clearing, land grabs, and violence against Indigenous communities, even after public “zero-deforestation” commitments.
Environmental groups tracking supply chains and finance have documented how JBS’s operations contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and water contamination. For example, campaigns summarized by organizations like BankTrack and others highlight JBS as a high-risk actor for forests and climate because of its reliance on cattle raised in recently deforested regions and its poor record on traceability.
When JBS sought to list its shares on the New York Stock Exchange, environmental advocates raised alarms that U.S. investors would be underwriting ongoing deforestation and climate damage. The company moved forward anyway, using its political and financial muscle to secure the listing despite this opposition.
Trump–Vance Inaugural Donation and Regulatory Leverage
In 2025, JBS, through its U.S. operations, made a $5 million donation to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee — the largest single contribution to the fund. At the same time, the company was seeking approval to dual-list its stock on the New York Stock Exchange while facing U.S. antitrust and pricing investigations.
Senator Elizabeth Warren sent letters to JBS and its U.S. leadership demanding details on the donation and asking whether it was linked to the timing of regulatory approvals and enforcement decisions. Her office warned that the combination of:
- the record-setting inaugural contribution,
- active civil investigations into meat-pricing and farmer-pay practices, and
- the SEC’s approval of JBS’s long-sought NYSE listing
created the appearance of a “pay-to-play” relationship between the company and the Trump administration.
Agricultural media and watchdog outlets echoed these concerns, noting that JBS has repeatedly used political donations and lobbying to shape trade policy, tariffs, and enforcement in ways that favor large packers at the expense of workers, ranchers, and consumers.
Exploiting Workers and Rigging Markets
JBS has been implicated in antitrust cases alleging price-fixing and farmer underpayment, along with other major meat processors. U.S. lawsuits and settlements describe a system in which large packers coordinated prices, squeezed independent producers, and used opaque contracts to keep more value at the top of the supply chain.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, JBS plants became epicenters of outbreaks. Reporting and court documents across the meat industry describe how companies lobbied to keep plants running at maximum capacity even as workers died, arguing that meatpacking was “critical infrastructure.” JBS benefited from these decisions, while the people on the line absorbed the risk.
Why JBS Belongs on the Big Beautiful Boycott List
JBS’s business model depends on three pillars:
- Political capture: using donations, access, and lobbying — including a record inaugural gift during the Trump–Vance transition — to shape regulation and enforcement.
- Environmental extraction: profiting from deforestation, land conflicts, and high-emissions livestock systems while marketing itself as a “sustainable” global protein supplier.
- Market and labor abuse: consolidating power over farmers and workers through price-fixing schemes, opaque contracts, and unsafe working conditions.
Every dollar that flows to JBS — through beef, pork, or poultry under its many brands — helps fuel a corporation that trades in corruption, environmental destruction, and political influence. For anyone who cares about democracy, climate stability, and fair treatment of workers and producers, JBS is a company that should be firmly on the boycott list.