U.S. Urges Nations to Reject Plastic Caps in UN Treaty Talks, Undermining Ambitious Pact

As negotiations for a landmark global plastics treaty began in Geneva this week, the Trump administration has come under fire for urging countries to oppose key provisions aimed at limiting plastic production and restricting hazardous chemical additives.

According to documents reviewed by Reuters, the United States has circulated a memo to several nations stating it will not support any treaty that includes upstream measures such as caps on virgin plastic production or bans on plastic additives, placing it in direct opposition to over 100 countries calling for ambitious reforms.

The U.S. position, delivered ahead of the final round of negotiations, has dampened hopes for a comprehensive agreement to tackle plastic pollution across its entire life cycle, from production to waste management. Instead, the U.S. has proposed a treaty focused on downstream solutions like recycling and improved waste collection, citing concerns that production caps would “increase the costs of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives.”

“We will not support impractical global approaches,” the memo stated, signaling alignment with oil and petrochemical-producing nations that have consistently opposed production limits. The move has sparked concern among environmental advocates and smaller nations, who see the treaty as a crucial opportunity to address the plastic crisis and uphold multilateral cooperation.

John Hocevar of Greenpeace USA criticized the approach, calling it a “return to old-school bullying” by the U.S. government to shape the treaty in ways that benefit domestic industry at the expense of global progress. Panama’s lead negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, warned that excluding plastic production from the treaty is “economic self-sabotage,” arguing that such actions will block innovation and deny nations the chance to lead in the emerging circular economy.

The U.S., the world’s top producer of plastics, has also sought to revise the treaty’s objective, eliminating references to a “full life cycle” approach. This proposed rollback undermines language agreed upon in 2022, signaling a potential renegotiation of the treaty’s mandate altogether.

A State Department spokesperson defended the U.S. stance, saying countries should determine their own plastic management strategies based on national circumstances. “Some countries may choose to undertake bans, while others may want to focus on improved collection and recycling,” the spokesperson noted.

Environmental groups, the European Union, and small island nations continue to push for stronger upstream measures, warning that without curbing production, recycling efforts alone will be insufficient to stop the plastic deluge. According to the OECD, global plastic production is on track to triple by 2060, further choking oceans, accelerating climate change, and posing severe risks to human health.

As negotiations proceed, the world faces a pivotal choice: whether to settle for minimal consensus or forge a bold, binding treaty that tackles the plastic problem at its source.

US opposition to production caps at treaty level pushes the compliance weight onto national frameworks and downstream EPR, which for consumer-goods and packaging brands means the operational pressure keeps building even without a global deal. Our circular-economy and sustainability-due-diligence teams help clients read what these treaty dynamics mean for their circular strategy and disclosure planning.