ANALYSIS Lobby or consultancy? What is Cotroceni pursuing with the Eversheds Sutherland contract in Washington

The Presidential Administration has signed a contract for "strategic consulting and assistance in relations with the U.S. Government and Congress" with the American firm Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, with a ceiling of up to 565,000 dollars per month, for an initial duration of six months. The document, officially presented as a tool to strengthen the Strategic Partnership with the United States, reignites the discussion about how influence actually works in Washington, why authorities avoid the term "lobby" and how Romania positions itself in a market dominated by states that are already investing hundreds of millions of dollars in such services.

What the contract with Eversheds Sutherland officially stipulates

The Presidential Administration has announced the conclusion of a contract for "strategic consulting and assistance in relations with the U.S. Government and Congress" with Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, explicitly mentioning that the overall objective is to defend and promote Romania's strategic interests and strengthen the Partnership with the United States. The initial duration of the contract is six months, with a maximum remuneration ceiling of 565,000 dollars per month, the actual amount depending on the services and deliverables provided.

In the official communication, several concrete objectives are listed: increasing defense and deterrence capacity, attracting significantly impactful investments, integration into international structures, facilitating the free movement of citizens, combating human trafficking and transnational crime. Cotroceni emphasizes that the contracted firm has "significant experience in the field of government relations and strategic consulting," without using the term "lobby," even though Eversheds Sutherland (US) appears in American records as a lobbying firm.

Who is Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Eversheds Sutherland is a global network of law firms, resulting from the merger between Eversheds (UK) and Sutherland Asbill & Brennan (US), with offices in major financial and political centers, including Washington, D.C. The Romanian branch is a full-service firm that provides assistance to multinational companies and local entrepreneurs, integrated into the global network.

The American segment, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, is listed in guides such as Chambers and Legal 500 with strong practices in litigation, regulation, financial services, fintech, and, relevant to the subject, government relations and public policy. According to OpenSecrets, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP also appears as a registered federal lobbying firm, with registered clients and reported fees for activities influencing legislation and policies in 2024.

In what public influence activities has it been involved

OpenSecrets data shows that Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP has been hired as a lobbying firm by at least one client in 2024, with reported payments of 165,000 dollars for federal lobbying activities. These typical activities include monitoring legislation, contacting members of Congress and federal agencies on regulatory, tax, or industry issues, on behalf of clients.

In the Romanian press, previous contracts of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP with private and non-governmental Romanian entities have already been documented, including companies in energy and a Romanian-American strategic development initiative, with cumulative payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, reported in FARA records. According to the same sources, the firm has been mandated to facilitate beneficiaries' access to American CEOs and decision-makers, confirming its role as an intermediary in the influence ecosystem in Washington.

In the absence of a media file of "famous cases" strictly related to governments, the public profile of the firm is more of a top law firm with a lobbying component than a "champion" of high-visibility political campaigns, like other names on K Street.

Why "strategic consulting" and not "lobby"

Conceptually, "lobby" in the American sense means direct contact with members of a legislative body or their staff to influence specific legislation or votes. The definitions of the IRS and other guides emphasize the idea of influencing a "specific legislative proposal," either through direct contact or by mobilizing the public.

"Strategic consulting" is a broader concept that can include context analysis, mapping of actors, message training, preparation of official visits, or recommendations regarding positioning, without explicitly referring to influencing a specific legislative text. From an American legal perspective, the demarcation line matters: if activities reach direct contact with legislators to promote or block specific projects, we are talking about lobbying, subject to reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) or Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which means increased transparency obligations.

For a foreign administration, labeling the contract as "strategic consulting" has political advantages: it avoids negative association with the term "lobby," both domestically and in front of partners, and leaves room for legal maneuvering if reporting under LDA is chosen, not FARA. In the case of Romania, the fact that, at the time of consulting the press, the contract with the Presidential Administration was not yet published in the FARA registry has already been noted by the press, suggesting that the reporting method and the exact nature of the activities will be sensitive points to monitor.

How lobbying works in the U.S.

In Washington, lobbying activity is a regulated but extremely vast industry: in 2024, total federal lobbying expenditures exceeded 4.4 billion dollars, and in 2025, lobbying firms reached revenues of over 5 billion dollars, according to OpenSecrets analyses. Companies, unions, NGOs, professional associations, and foreign governments hire specialized firms to promote legislative, budgetary, or regulatory interests.

The legal regime is based on two major frameworks: the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), which mainly targets "classic" lobbying on legislation, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which obliges agents representing "foreign actors" to register and declare activities, payments, distributed materials, and contacts with American officials. In recent years, the Department of Justice has intensified the enforcement of FARA, including through high-profile cases against political consultants and lobbyists who have not properly declared their activities for foreign governments.

Why would Romania seek such services

In a context where lobbying expenditures are constantly increasing, and states such as Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, or Qatar invest hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their interests in Washington, Romania's decision can be interpreted as a step towards aligning with the current practices of allies and competitors. For a country located on NATO's eastern flank, with direct interests in security, energy, and migration, the stakes of continuous visibility in Washington are strategic, not just symbolic.

By hiring a well-established American firm in the local legal and political environment, Bucharest seeks to reduce the "entry costs" into decision-making networks – from structuring the message to scheduling meetings and understanding internal agendas in Congress and the administration. Additionally, in a crisis-saturated environment (Ukraine, the Middle East, Indo-Pacific), a country that does not invest in maintaining its profile risks being downgraded in the order of priorities, even if it is a formal ally.

Possible benefits for Romania

In the short term, the most tangible benefits may arise in three areas: defense and security, investments, and mobility regime for citizens. In the security area, consulting can help position Romania as a predictable and relevant partner in discussions about the American defense budget, the implementation of NATO decisions, and potential military infrastructure projects on the eastern flank.

In economic terms, a firm with connections in the American corporate environment can facilitate meetings and projects with strategic investors, especially in energy, infrastructure, and technology, areas where FARA and LDA already show a high volume of activity for other foreign clients. Regarding mobility, Romania's coherent positioning in discussions about visas and security programs can be supported by structured lobbying, under conditions where such decisions are politically sensitive in Congress.

How to interpret the choice of Eversheds Sutherland

The choice of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, a firm primarily focused on law and with a lobbying component, shows Cotroceni's option for an actor perceived as "legally respectable," not for one exclusively of aggressive lobbying. For an internal audience, a global law firm is easier to legitimize than a name directly associated with the influence industry on K Street, which may also explain the insistence on the term "strategic consultant."

On the other hand, the fact that the same firm has previously worked for Romanian businessmen and for private initiatives focused on access to decision-makers in the U.S. raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and how "Romania's interest" is represented in relation to private interests. The transparency of reporting in FARA or LDA records – what is declared, what is omitted, and under what regime – will be an important indicator of the credibility of the contract in the eyes of partners and public opinion.

Lobby vs. consulting: legal difference and public perception

In American law, lobbying is a subcategory of advocacy activities: "lobbying always involves advocacy, but advocacy doesn’t necessarily involve lobbying," as summarized by a specialized guide. The key is whether there is an attempt to influence specific legislation or the vote of decision-makers in a legislative function, directly or by mobilizing the public.

Strategic consulting can remain, at least theoretically, in the area of analysis, scenarios, and recommendations, without direct contact with legislators or promoting specific amendments, in which case it does not automatically qualify as "lobbying" in the LDA/FARA sense. In practice, however, for foreign governments, the boundary is fluid: the same firms that provide "strategic advice" can, at the same time, arrange meetings, convey messages, propose amendment formulations – that is, exactly the activities that the FARA registry seeks to make visible.

Who lobbies for states in Washington

OpenSecrets data shows that almost any country with economic or security interests in the U.S. invests in lobbying or government relations firms. In the period 2016–2025, the main "foreign principals" in terms of amounts spent (including governments, agencies, and state-affiliated entities) were the government of Saudi Arabia, the government of the Bahamas, the government of Bermuda, China, and Japan, all with expenditures in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Recent analyses show that Japan, Saudi Arabia, China, and South Korea were among the largest spenders on influence in 2024, surpassing Israel and Qatar, traditionally considered very active. In total, OpenSecrets estimates that foreign entities spent over 6.7 billion dollars on lobbying, promotion, tourism, and trade promotion activities in the U.S. during the analyzed period.

Top 5 countries with intense lobbying in the U.S.

Based on aggregated data from OpenSecrets for the recent period (2016–2025) and analyses regarding spending levels on FARA/LDA, a de facto "top 5" of states that invest massively in influence in Washington emerges:

Saudi Arabia – the Saudi government and associated entities have spent over 300 million dollars on lobbying and influence contracts in the U.S.

China – Chinese entities (including the government and state economic organizations) have exceeded 450 million dollars in payments to registered agencies, with peaks of over 80 million per year.

Japan – combining the government and trade-related agencies, investments exceed 400 million dollars during the analyzed period.

Qatar – with over 250 million dollars, remains one of the most aggressive players in foreign lobbying, including in the media and think tank dimension.

Ireland/Bermuda/Bahamas – financial microstates and offshore centers have very high reported expenditures in FARA, especially to protect tax regimes and financial interests.

Romania, in comparison, appears as a relatively small player, with one-off contracts and amounts in the millions, not tens or hundreds of millions, which makes the decision to raise the budget to a ceiling of over half a million per month a significant change at the national level.

Risks, criticisms, and stakes for transparency

The main risk lies in perception: a contract worth several million dollars for six months, signed in the name of the Presidential Administration but communicated in generic terms, can fuel narratives of "public money for opaque lobbying," especially in an internal context marked by distrust in institutions. Another risk concerns potential overlaps between state interests and those of private Romanian or foreign clients who have worked or are working with the same lobbying firm.

In turn, the lack or delay in registering the contract in American records (FARA/LDA) can create the impression that there is an attempt to minimize transparency, even if, legally, there are loopholes and exceptions. For external credibility and internal legitimization, a pro-transparency approach (publishing the contract, clarifying the reporting regime, periodic updates on the activities carried out) would significantly reduce the space for speculation.

Analysis conducted with the support of Perplexity