America’s falling birth rate has become a political priority for the Trump administration, which recently launched “Operation Stork Speed,” a package of incentives aimed at encouraging families to have more children. The plan promises tax credits, expanded parental benefits, and even a federal review of infant formula ingredients.

Behind these policy announcements, however, looms a less visible force: the infant formula industry. For decades, companies like Abbott and Nestlé have waged lobbying campaigns against federal paid maternity leave — policies public health experts say are central to improving breastfeeding rates, maternal health, and the feasibility of raising larger families.

“Big Formula — Abbott, Nestlé, and others — dropped nearly $200 million to block policies like extended maternity leave that boost breastfeeding,” said managing director of political strategy firm Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas. “This is corporate overreach undermining American health.”

“Big Formula” is a shorthand term used to describe the multinational infant formula industry dominated by a handful of major companies that wields significant market power. 

Mr. Thomas added that instead of mandates, he believes businesses should be encouraged to offer leave voluntarily through tax incentives. 

“Big Formula’s lobby isn’t just fighting leave; it’s fighting the freedom of American families to thrive.”

Fertility Decline Meets Corporate Power

The United States remains the only developed country without a guaranteed federal policy for new parents — a gap experts identify as one of the biggest deterrents to childbearing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported just 54.6 births per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2024, well below replacement level and part of a downward trend stretching more than a decade.

While some states have created their own paid leave programs, millions of mothers return to work just weeks after giving birth. Many rely on formula, not out of preference but necessity, and struggle to balance recovery with employment. 

Tennessee pediatrician Danielle Street Stephens sees this reality daily. 

“I have seen many moms deciding to formula feed because returning to work makes breastfeeding difficult. The pressure comes more from workplace policies than formula companies directly,” she tells the Sun. 

“Some jobs are supportive, others aren’t. Many moms have to return at three to four weeks, and without proper leave, breastfeeding isn’t realistic. That’s a systemic problem.”

Big Formula’s Lobbying Machine

That systemic problem is reinforced by one of Washington’s most influential lobbies. Abbott, Nestlé, Mead Johnson, and Perrigo together control 87 percent of the U.S. infant formula market. 

According to a 2018 MapLight analysis, three of the biggest companies — Abbott, Nestlé, and Reckitt Benckiser, which owns Mead Johnson, collectively spent about $60.7 million lobbying the U.S. government over a decade. Nestlé alone has spent roughly $24.3 million in the U.S. since 2010, averaging nearly $2 million per year between 2015 and 2020. Abbott disclosed $50.2 million in federal lobbying from 2010 to 2021.

A significant share of influence flows through trade groups. The Infant Nutrition Council of America (INCA), for example, spent $180,000 on lobbying in the first half of 2025 alone. 

Formula makers also rank among the top spenders on food and nutrition lobbying more broadly, especially to maintain their foothold in the federal Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Under WIC rules, a single company wins exclusive contracts per state, effectively locking in near-monopolies that normalize formula feeding and discourage breastfeeding.

Beyond lobbying, the industry spends an estimated $3 billion annually on marketing—sponsoring pediatric conferences, funding research, and advertising formulas as “close to breast milk.” Critics argue this marketing strategy, combined with lobbying clout, has helped entrench a system that pushes parents toward formula not out of choice, but because structural supports for breastfeeding are absent.

“Compared to broader food lobbies, their narrow focus gives them outsized clout, especially in blocking family-friendly policies like maternity leave that cut sales,” Mr. Thomas said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) spoke out on the matter decades ago, issuing rules against aggressive formula advertising. But when the WHO tried to strengthen those rules more recently, formula companies spent several million lobbying American officials to block them, keeping the guidelines voluntary and preserving global marketing freedom. 

Industry leaders argued that stricter regulations would unfairly limit access to formula for parents who need it and restrict companies’ ability to share product information with healthcare providers and consumers.

Between Necessity and Influence

The debate, however, is not about eliminating formula. Most experts agree it remains vital for families who cannot breastfeed, for adoptive parents, or for mothers who must return to work quickly.

What is lacking, they say, is the more infant-minded choice. 

“Breastfeeding has clear advantages. It provides antibodies, boosts immunity, strengthens mother-baby bonding, and is cost-effective,” said Dr. Street Stephens. “But formula companies market their products as ‘close to breast milk’ using industry-funded research. Formula is important, some moms can’t or don’t breastfeed, but breast milk still has unique benefits that can’t be replicated.”

The fragility of the market became starkly clear in 2022, when contamination forced Abbott to shut down one of the country’s largest formula plants. The resulting shortage left nearly half of all formula products out of stock nationwide. Even as families scrambled, critics accused companies of focusing more on protecting profits and lobbying clout than addressing supply vulnerabilities.

Trump’s Operation Stork Speed promises tougher FDA oversight of formula ingredients and production. Yet advocacy groups say the deeper challenge lies in the absence of federal paid leave and broader structural support.

“Entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have historically lobbied against maternity leave, saying it burdens businesses,” director of Paid Leave for All, Dawn Huckelbridge, tells the Sun. “This isn’t just about formula—it’s about politicians who would rather kill government and enrich the wealthiest than pass policies that actually support working families.”

Smaller players in the industry are also beginning to break ranks. Bobbie, a startup focusing on cleaner ingredients, is the only American formula company to have openly lobbied in favor of federal paid leave.

“Parents deserve a real choice, whether to breastfeed, formula feed, or do both. That optionality is made impossible without structural support like paid leave,” Bobbie’s Co-Founder and Chief People and Experience Officer, Sarah Hardy, tells the Sun. “Our industry has a responsibility not just to sell product but to advocate for policies that actually give families support.”

Trump’s Pronatalism and the Policy Gap

Mr. Trump has paired corporate scrutiny with symbolic pronatalist gestures: a proposed “baby bonus” for new parents, a National Medal of Motherhood for women with six or more children, and an executive order expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). His administration briefly floated the idea of mandating insurance coverage for IVF before backing away.

Supporters see these moves as genuine efforts to confront America’s demographic crisis. Skeptics suggest they are more rhetorical than structural. Paid leave, many argue, remains the missing piece.

Conservatives have long resisted federal mandates, warning that they would burden businesses. Yet research from states with paid leave shows companies often save money through reduced turnover and higher productivity, and many, such as Mr. Thomas, contend there are ways to do it that don’t burden small business. 

“We need pro-family policies that avoid federal overreach and respect businesses, aligning with America First and MAHA principles. First, offer tax credits to companies that voluntarily provide 12 weeks of maternity leave, encouraging breastfeeding, which saves $13 billion annually in healthcare costs and supports fertility by easing parental stress,” he said. 

“Second, expand breastfeeding counseling while keeping formula access for moms who need it, ensuring choice without Big Formula’s predatory marketing.” 

Meanwhile, surveys suggest Americans still want larger families. A Gallup poll this year found that 45 percent of Americans view three or more children as ideal—the highest share in more than 50 years. Researchers at the University of North Carolina’s Carolina Population Center report that most young adults still intend to become parents. The gap is not desire but feasibility.

“Formula’s a lifeline for some moms, and overregulation could kill jobs or innovation,” said Mr. Thomas. “The issue is lobbying that stifles family support, indirectly worsening our fertility crisis. We need transparency and policies that prioritize parental choice over corporate agendas.”

Health and Human Services, which is also working to update formula standards in line with cleaner ingredients, did not respond to a request for comment.