Abstract To halt the decline of the natural environment, attention is increasingly directed towards nature restoration. A recent example of this is the EU’s Nature Restoration Law (NRL). This article presents an assessment of the NRL, arguing that the NRL is ambitious but that this ambition comes with a risk of it becoming a performative body of law. To test the NRL’s application in Member States, this article identifies four key ‘interpretive puzzles’: the relative priorities between the different obligations in the NRL; the correct approach to timescales and the concept of natural range; the ‘climate change causation defence’ and the interaction between the definition of restoration measures and pre-emptive measures. The article then articulates the central theme in relation to these four puzzles—the tension in the relationship between the mandated ‘plan-led’ approach, and a potential lack of Member State discretion in the contents of that plan.