According to CASE, one of the clearest examples of the controversy involves AB InBev CEO Michel Doukeris.
The watchdog group points to advertising campaigns launched during recent trade tensions between the United States and Canada. While President Trump was pursuing tariff policies aimed at strengthening America’s negotiating position, AB InBev promoted a “Made in Canada” campaign highlighting Canadian employees and Canadian-grown barley.
At the same time, the company continued running advertisements in the United States portraying its brands as deeply connected to American communities and farmers.
CASE argues that both messages cannot be reconciled without raising questions about which national identity the company truly embraces.
“The company’s corporate headquarters are located in Leuven, Belgium, not in middle America like their advertising would have you believe,” the report states.
The issue has roots stretching back nearly two decades. In 2008, Belgium-based AB InBev acquired Anheuser-Busch in a massive $52 billion deal that transformed one of America’s most recognizable brewing companies into part of a global conglomerate.
The acquisition sparked concerns at the time about job losses and the future of the company’s historic American operations. Critics argued that local workers and long-standing business partners paid a steep price as the brewing giant consolidated operations following the merger.
The debate intensified in 2023 when Bud Light became the center of a consumer backlash following its controversial partnership with social media personality Dylan Mulvaney.
The backlash triggered one of the most dramatic sales declines in recent consumer-brand history. Bud Light, which had long held the title of America’s best-selling beer, quickly lost ground to competitors.
Within months, Modelo overtook Bud Light in national sales rankings. Company financial disclosures later revealed that AB InBev’s North American business suffered a significant revenue decline during the fallout.
Despite repeated efforts to rebuild consumer trust, Bud Light remains behind both Modelo and Michelob Ultra in market rankings, according to industry reports.
Now, CASE says the brewing giant is pursuing another strategy that could place it at the center of political debate.
The organization claims AB InBev has supported efforts to eliminate certain taxes on beer sales and may eventually seek similar treatment at the federal level.
That possibility comes as the Trump administration reexamines key trade agreements, including the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
This week, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer signaled that policymakers are willing to revisit major aspects of the current arrangement.
According to CASE, any federal tax benefit marketed as support for “American beer” could disproportionately benefit foreign-owned corporations that dominate large portions of the industry.
The report argues that this outcome would conflict with the broader goal of strengthening American-owned businesses and domestic manufacturing.
Lawmakers have wrestled with concerns about AB InBev’s size and market power before.
In 2015, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal raised concerns during congressional scrutiny of AB InBev’s proposed acquisition of SABMiller.
“What we’ve seen in the past years is a trend towards massive beer behemoths in our market, and the result has not been a happy one for many consumers,” Blumenthal said at the hearing.
Federal regulators also took action years earlier when the Justice Department required AB InBev to divest U.S. rights connected to Modelo as part of efforts to address antitrust concerns.
Beyond mergers and acquisitions, CASE argues that independent craft brewers continue facing challenges when competing against industry giants with extensive distributor networks.
The report claims that large brewers possess advantages that make it difficult for smaller competitors to gain shelf space and market access, particularly in states with restrictive distribution laws.
Even so, America’s craft brewing industry has continued to expand over the past decade, with thousands of independent breweries opening across the country.
For critics of AB InBev, that growth demonstrates the resilience of small businesses despite what they view as an uneven playing field.
As Americans prepare to celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary, the debate over economic nationalism, corporate ownership, and trade policy is likely to remain front and center.
Supporters of stronger America-first policies argue that Congress should carefully examine whether multinational corporations should receive benefits intended to support domestic industry.
CASE maintains that policymakers should take a hard look at companies that market themselves as American icons while operating under foreign ownership structures.
With trade negotiations, tax policy, and manufacturing incentives all expected to remain major issues heading into the next legislative battles, the question raised by the report is straightforward: should corporations headquartered overseas be allowed to benefit from programs designed to promote American businesses?
That debate is unlikely to fade anytime soon, particularly when some of the most recognizable brands in the country are at the center of the conversation.
