Trump Grants Glyphosate Makers Legal Immunity Under Defense Production Act

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order that grants legal immunity to manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides, the active ingredient in Roundup and the target of tens of thousands of cancer lawsuits against Bayer. The order invokes the Defense Production Act, a wartime statute designed to secure military supply chains, to designate glyphosate as "crucial to the national security and defense, including food-supply security." For families already worried about pesticide residues in their groceries, the federal government just made it harder to hold the companies producing those chemicals accountable.

Context

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the planet. Farmers spray it on corn, soybeans, wheat, and oats across hundreds of millions of acres in the United States each year. It shows up as a residue in bread, cereal, baby food, and dozens of other grocery store staples.

The chemical has been at the center of a massive legal battle for nearly a decade. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) in 2015. That classification triggered a wave of lawsuits from people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who blamed their exposure to Roundup. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto and its Roundup product line in 2018, now faces tens of thousands of these cancer claims and has proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve them (The New Lede, February 2026).

Approximately 30 countries have banned or restricted glyphosate use, citing health and environmental concerns (PubMed Central, 2024-2025). The United States has not joined them. Instead, the Trump administration is moving in the opposite direction.

The Findings

The executive order, signed on February 18, does two things that reshape the legal and regulatory environment for glyphosate producers.

First, it directs USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to ensure an "adequate supply" of both glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus, a key ingredient in their production. Bayer is currently the only company producing elemental phosphorus in the United States, making the order a direct boost to the company's operations (Chemical & Engineering News, February 2026).

Second, and more significantly, the order invokes Section 707 of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 4557) to grant legal immunity to manufacturers who comply with the order's production mandates. This provision was originally designed to protect defense contractors during national emergencies. Applying it to a commercial herbicide producer facing cancer litigation is, according to legal experts, unprecedented.

"Ensuring an adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides is thus crucial to the national security and defense, including food-supply security," Trump wrote in the order's text (E&E News, February 2026).

The timing is notable. This executive order came from an administration that rode to power partly on the support of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, a coalition of health-conscious voters who explicitly oppose widespread pesticide use in the food supply. MAHA supporters viewed Trump's alliance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as a signal that the administration would crack down on chemicals in food, not protect their manufacturers.

The backlash was immediate. Food activist Vani Hari called the order "a dangerous misdirection," saying, "Calling it 'national defense' while expanding protections for toxic products is a dangerous misdirection" (The New Lede, February 2026).

RFK Jr. himself, who spent years publicly linking glyphosate to a chronic disease epidemic in America, defended the executive order. His reversal stunned many in the MAHA coalition who considered him a champion of their cause (The New Lede, February 2026).

The executive order is not the only federal action targeting pesticide accountability. A draft 2026 Farm Bill includes Section 10205, which would require uniform pesticide labels nationally, based solely on EPA standards. This provision would block individual states from requiring additional health warnings on pesticide products. It would also shield manufacturers from liability for warnings that do not conform to the new federal standard (Chemical & Engineering News, February 2026).

Together, the executive order and Farm Bill provision represent what legal experts describe as the most aggressive federal protection of glyphosate producers in history. The executive order shields producers from lawsuits through the Defense Production Act. The Farm Bill would strip states of the ability to warn consumers through their own labeling requirements.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) responded within days by introducing the "No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," legislation designed to undo the executive order's liability protections. "This week I will introduce the 'No Immunity for Glyphosate Act' to undo the recent Executive Order which promotes glyphosate (Round-Up) and insulates manufacturers from liability," Massie announced (The Hill, February 2026).

What Experts Say

George Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety, argues the executive order cannot legally override congressional authority or state tort law. The Defense Production Act grants certain emergency production powers, but using its immunity provisions to shield a company from cancer lawsuits raises constitutional questions that will likely face court challenges (E&E News, February 2026).

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, was more direct: "Elevating glyphosate to a national security priority is the exact opposite of what MAHA voters were promised" (Chemical & Engineering News, February 2026).

The legal situation remains uncertain. Courts have not yet tested whether Section 707 immunity can be applied to commercial herbicide producers in this way. Previous applications of the Defense Production Act involved military equipment, pandemic medical supplies, and energy infrastructure, not a chemical that critics say causes cancer and that many other nations have restricted or banned entirely.

What This Means for You

The combined effect of the executive order and the proposed Farm Bill language would reduce the legal tools available to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable and limit the health warnings states can require on products containing glyphosate.

For consumers, this means that the federal government is actively working to expand glyphosate production while simultaneously reducing the legal consequences for its manufacturers. Whether you eat organic or conventional products, glyphosate residues are commonly detected across both categories. VeriFoods tests products for pesticide contamination, including glyphosate, precisely because independent lab testing provides the transparency that government policy does not guarantee.

If you want to know whether glyphosate is present in the food you buy for your family, relying on label warnings alone was already insufficient. With these policy changes, independent testing may be the only reliable way to find out what is actually in your food.

There are practical steps you can take. Check product test results before buying, especially for grain-based products like bread, cereal, crackers, and oat-based snacks, where glyphosate residues are most commonly found. Pay attention to state-level legislation, too. Several states have pushed for stricter pesticide labeling and safety rules, and the Farm Bill provision would override these efforts, but it has not passed yet.

Consumer advocacy groups and legal experts have signaled that the executive order's immunity provision will face court challenges. The outcome could determine whether this type of executive action sets a precedent for protecting other chemical manufacturers. In the meantime, the gap between what the government permits and what independent testing reveals continues to widen.

Sources

1. E&E News (POLITICO) - "Trump's pesticide order 'betrays' MAHA, activists say" - February 19, 2026. https://www.eenews.net/articles/trumps-pesticide-order-betrays-maha-activists-say/
2. The New Lede - "Trump enrages MAHA with order granting 'immunity' to glyphosate pesticide production" - February 19, 2026. https://www.thenewlede.org/2026/02/trump-enrages-maha/
3. The Hill - "Trump seeks to boost controversial herbicide glyphosate, drawing MAHA ire" - February 2026. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5745981-glyphosate-trump-order-maha-opposition/
4. Chemical & Engineering News (ACS) - "Feb. 20 Policy Watch: Trump orders more glyphosate and phosphorus production" - February 20, 2026. https://cen.acs.org/policy/glyphosate-phosphorous-bayer-climate-endangerment-lawsuits-pesticide-liability-fda-nuclear-xenergy-triso-smr-nsf/104/web/2026/02