Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) says he wants to block a recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump that expands domestic production of glyphosate and shields manufacturers from legal liability.
Massie introduced the bipartisan “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” alongside Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME).
The bill aims to undo the Feb. 18 executive order, which invokes wartime authorities to prioritize the production of glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, and provides liability protections to companies complying with the federal directive.
Bipartisan Push To Reverse Executive Order
Massie said the federal government should not promote or protect glyphosate production if improving public health is the goal.
“If the goal is to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ the federal government should not be using its authority to promote or protect the production of glyphosate,” Massie said.
“The February 18 Executive Order expands production of this chemical while granting liability protections to manufacturers. Congress should ensure that Americans retain their right to seek a remedy in court if they believe they have been injured by this product.”
Executive Order Sparks Backlash
Trump’s order frames glyphosate and elemental phosphorus production as essential to national security and food supply stability.
The White House said “the threat of reduced or ceased production” of those materials “gravely endangers national security and defense, which includes food-supply security.”
The order invokes authority under the Defense Production Act and instructs Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to issue any rules necessary to carry it out.
It also states that domestic producers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides “are required to comply with this order” and “confers all immunity provided for in section 707 of the Act,” according to reporting in The Guardian.
That section provides that “no person shall be held liable” for actions resulting from compliance with a federal order issued under the law.
Critics argue that because the order compels production, manufacturers could claim a federal defense in lawsuits alleging harm from glyphosate exposure.
Glyphosate-based herbicides have been linked in multiple independent studies, including assessments by cancer experts affiliated with the World Health Organization, to cancer and other health concerns.
The move comes as Bayer faces tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its glyphosate products cause cancer and that the company failed to warn users of potential risks.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has already paid billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts. The company recently proposed paying $7.25 billion in a class action settlement to try to limit future claims.
Bayer has warned that if it cannot find relief from ongoing litigation, it may stop making glyphosate herbicides for the U.S. agricultural market.
In response to Trump’s order, the company said: “President Trump’s Executive Order reinforces the critical need for US farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools such as glyphosate. We will comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus.”
Make America Healthy Again Coalition Reacts
The executive order has drawn sharp criticism from members of the Make America Healthy Again coalition, some of whom supported Trump during the campaign.
Vani Hari, a food activist and one of the grassroots leaders of the coalition, said: “This executive order reads like it was drafted in a chemical company boardroom. Calling it ‘national defense’ while expanding protections for toxic products is a dangerous misdirection. Real national security is protecting American families, farmers, and children.”
Kelly Ryerson, another advocate who has pushed for tighter pesticide restrictions, said: “The President is making a mockery of the very voters who put his administration into office. Expanding the production of glyphosate, a pesticide derided by the Maha movement, is a commitment to perpetuating the toxic, chemical food system that has created a sick and infertile American population.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as Secretary of Health and Human Services and heads a Maha commission established by the White House, defended the order.
In a statement, he said it “puts America first where it matters most – our defense readiness and our food supply.”
What The Bill Would Do
HR 7601 would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement or enforce the executive order.
It also states that glyphosate manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers are not immune from civil liability under the Defense Production Act or other federal authorities.
Pingree said the legislation is about maintaining corporate accountability.
“If there was ever any doubt about whose side this Administration is on, this Executive Order makes it crystal clear: Big Chemical comes first, and the health of Americans comes last,” she said.
“The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act draws a firm line: chemical companies do not get immunity or government-backed profit boosts because Washington cut them a deal, and Americans do not lose their right to seek justice when they’ve been harmed.”
Original co-sponsors include Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Nancy Mace (R-SC), and Ro Khanna (D-CA). The bill has been endorsed by the Farm Action Fund.
Whether the measure advances in Congress remains uncertain. But the proposal underscores growing tension within Trump’s political coalition over pesticide policy, corporate protections, and what it means to “Make America Healthy Again.”
IMAGE CREDIT: “Thomas Massie” by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Image adjusted for layout.