Trump uses wartime law to protect USA’s most controversial weedkiller

Trump orders more domestic weedkiller production

President Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 18 directing federal agencies to ramp up domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus.

He called glyphosate a cornerstone of American farming and invoked the Defense Production Act, a wartime law typically reserved for military and national security needs.

The order also gives Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins the power to direct materials and resources toward production. It states there is no direct chemical alternative to glyphosate.

The White House calls it national security

The administration framed the order as a matter of national security.

Glyphosate keeps crops growing, and elemental phosphorus shows up in semiconductors, military devices, and lithium-ion batteries for weapons systems.

Only one company produces both chemicals domestically, and the White House warned that the country is vulnerable without federal action.

Officials also pointed to the risk of relying on foreign sources, including China, for critical farming and defense inputs.

Bayer is the only U.S. producer

That one company is Bayer, which makes glyphosate through its subsidiary Monsanto.

Bayer mines phosphorus in Soda Springs, Idaho, formulates glyphosate in Muscatine, Iowa, and finishes production in Luling, La. In 2025, Bayer’s CEO warned the company might stop making glyphosate in the U.S. if litigation costs kept climbing.

One day before Trump signed the order, Bayer proposed a roughly $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of cancer-related Roundup lawsuits.

The timing raised eyebrows, though no direct connection has been shown.

Scientists and regulators disagree on cancer risk

The debate over glyphosate and cancer has been going on for years.

In 2015, a branch of the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

But the EPA has said it’s unlikely to cause cancer when used as directed, and regulators in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan reached similar conclusions.

A federal court ordered the EPA to take another look, with results due in 2026.

Since 2015, more than 125,000 people have filed cancer claims tied to Roundup, mostly alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has already paid more than $10 billion in earlier settlements and maintains that Roundup is safe.

MAHA activists and farmers clash over the order

The executive order split two of Trump’s key bases right down the middle.

Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America called it “outrageous,” while food activist Vani Hari called it a direct assault on the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Kelly Ryerson, known online as “The Glyphosate Girl,” said the timing felt like an insult to MAHA supporters heading into the midterms. Farm groups saw it differently.

Texas Farm Bureau President Russell Boening said it supports science-based crop protection, and House Agriculture Committee Republicans praised the move.

Kennedy defends the order he once fought

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. backed the order, saying it puts “America first” on defense readiness and food supply. That’s a sharp turn for Kennedy.

In 2018, he helped win a roughly $289 million verdict against Monsanto on behalf of a groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As recently as last month, Kennedy said on a podcast that he believes glyphosate causes cancer. But he also said this month that banning it outright would put 80% of U.S. farmers out of business.

He acknowledged the country depends on something that, in his words, makes people sick.

Two lawmakers move to block the order

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, introduced a bill called the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to stop the order from taking effect.

Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat, co-leads the effort.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who left Congress in January, also criticized Trump for signing what she called an order protecting a cancer-causing chemical.

The bipartisan pushback is unusual and shows how the glyphosate issue cuts across party lines. Massie has clashed with Trump before, but this bill marks a direct challenge.

The liability shield worries critics most

The Defense Production Act includes a provision that can protect companies from lawsuits tied to actions they take under government orders.

MAHA critics worry this could shield Bayer from future cancer claims connected to Roundup made under the order.

Legal experts say the shield is narrower than full immunity and only covers actions taken in direct compliance with federal directives.

Some groups have compared it to the liability protections vaccine makers receive, which MAHA has also opposed. Courts may ultimately decide how far the protection reaches.

Supreme Court case could reshape Roundup lawsuits

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments in late April in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.

Bayer argues that federal labeling law should override state-level lawsuits claiming the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks.

If the justices side with Bayer, most future Roundup cancer lawsuits could be blocked nationwide.

The Trump administration’s solicitor general filed a brief backing Bayer’s position, reversing the Biden administration’s stance.

Between the settlement, the executive order, and this case, 2026 is shaping up as a defining year for glyphosate policy.

Midterm fallout could hit Republicans hard

David Murphy, who ran finances for Kennedy’s presidential campaign, predicted the GOP’s embrace of pesticides could cost 10 to 20 House seats, though that reflects his view as a partisan figure.

A KFF/Washington Post poll found about four in 10 parents identify as MAHA supporters, including a third of independents.

More than 80% of Republican parents in the poll supported stronger regulation of food dyes, additives, and added sugars.

MAHA Action warned Republican leaders in a February memo that the party is “renting MAHA voters” and hasn’t earned their loyalty yet. Every House seat and a third of Senate seats are up in November.

Farm bill adds another layer of tension

House Agriculture Chair Rep. G.T. Thompson included a provision in the proposed 2026 farm bill that would stop states and cities from setting pesticide rules stricter than federal guidelines.

Farm groups say it would create one clear national standard.

MAHA groups and environmental organizations say it would protect chemical companies at the expense of public health.

North Dakota and Georgia have already passed state laws saying EPA-approved labels are good enough, shielding manufacturers from state lawsuits.

Sen. Cory Booker introduced competing legislation backed by MAHA-aligned activists like Honeycutt and Ryerson.

Several major decisions loom ahead

The EPA’s court-ordered review of glyphosate safety is expected to wrap up in 2026. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Monsanto v.

Durnell, likely by mid-2027, could reshape pesticide liability law across the country. Bayer’s roughly $7.25 billion settlement still needs court approval, and no fairness hearing has been scheduled yet.

MAHA activists say they plan to campaign hard in the midterms for candidates who put health reform first.

Farm groups and lawmakers from agricultural states maintain that glyphosate access keeps food affordable and American farming competitive.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Trump is ‘very proud’ of US economy – many Americans aren’t so happy
• Home builders warn Trump: immigration crackdown is pricing Americans out of homes
• Most Americans think ICE has gone rogue, polls find