Trump Orders Boost for Weedkiller Targeted in Health Lawsuits

On February 19, 2026, former U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at increasing domestic production of glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in popular herbicides such as Roundup. The move comes at a tense time for Bayer AG, the main U.S. producer of glyphosate-based weedkillers, which faces tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging links between glyphosate exposure and cancer.
The order has sparked immediate debate, with supporters claiming it will protect farmers and the nation’s food supply, while critics warn it could undermine public health and weaken legal accountability. Here’s a closer look at what the order entails, why it is controversial, and its potential impact.
🌾 What the Executive Order Does
The order invokes the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law designed to secure essential materials for national security. Under Trump’s directive, both glyphosate and phosphorus — a chemical used in fertilizers and industrial applications — were designated as national security priorities.
According to the White House, glyphosate is critical to U.S. agriculture because it controls weeds that threaten crops like corn and soybeans. Phosphorus, meanwhile, is used in fertilizers and some defense applications. By elevating production of these chemicals, the government aims to stabilize supply chains, ensure farmers have access, and prevent potential shortages that could affect food production and prices.
Bayer, the company that owns the Roundup brand, welcomed the order, seeing it as a measure that could protect both farmers and their business operations. Government officials argue that this step is necessary to maintain food security in a global market affected by volatile supply chains and rising agricultural demand.
⚖️ Legal and Health Controversies
Glyphosate is no stranger to controversy. Over the past decade, Bayer has faced thousands of lawsuits claiming that exposure to glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. Some recent settlements have exceeded $7 billion, while tens of thousands of cases remain unresolved.
Plaintiffs argue that companies failed to warn users of glyphosate’s potential health risks. Bayer maintains that decades of regulatory oversight, including by the EPA and European authorities, show glyphosate is safe when used correctly. This legal tug-of-war highlights a key tension between corporate interests, regulatory assessments, and consumer safety concerns.
By declaring glyphosate production a matter of national priority, the administration could potentially strengthen Bayer’s legal defense. Legal experts suggest that federal preemption might protect companies from state-level claims if a chemical is officially deemed essential for national interests. Critics argue this could amount to policy-driven immunity, weakening public oversight of chemical safety.
🧪 Scientific Debate Over Safety
Glyphosate’s safety remains a topic of heated scientific debate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, based on studies linking long-term exposure to certain cancers. Yet regulatory bodies such as the EPA and the European Union have concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer when used according to guidelines.
This disconnect has fueled confusion, legal battles, and public concern. Environmental and health advocates criticize the executive order, warning that it could exacerbate risks for farm workers, nearby communities, and ecosystems. Studies suggest that widespread glyphosate use can affect soil health, water quality, and biodiversity.
Groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) condemned the decision as a setback for public health and consumer safety. In their view, the policy prioritizes corporate profit and agricultural output over protecting individuals from potential harm.
🌍 Farmers, Food Security, and Politics
Supporters of the order emphasize its benefits for farmers and national food security. Glyphosate is widely used because it helps protect crop yields and ensures that American agriculture remains competitive. Advocates argue that without government intervention, glyphosate supply shortages could disrupt planting cycles, inflate costs, and threaten the country’s food supply.
Politically, the order underscores the divide between pro-industry and public-health priorities. While some administrations have promoted stricter chemical regulation and environmental protection, this order favors industrial and agricultural interests, signaling that the government may prioritize economic stability over some health concerns.
At the same time, the executive order has sparked controversy due to its timing and alignment with legal battles. It highlights the delicate balance between corporate protection, regulatory oversight, and public accountability. The move has raised questions about the role of the federal government in potentially influencing litigation and public perception regarding chemical safety.
🧠 Broader Implications
The Trump executive order has implications that extend beyond U.S. borders. Glyphosate is used worldwide, and regulatory approaches vary from country to country. The EU maintains tighter oversight on pesticide safety, while other nations rely on scientific studies and corporate compliance. U.S. policy may influence global markets, international trade agreements, and public confidence in agricultural chemicals.
Additionally, the order could set a precedent for how critical materials are managed under national security frameworks. By invoking the Defense Production Act, the administration signals that certain agricultural chemicals may be considered strategic resources — similar to metals, rare minerals, or defense equipment.
This raises complex questions about the intersection of agriculture, national security, and public health, which will likely play out in courts, regulatory agencies, and congressional oversight committees.
🔮 Looking Ahead
The practical effects of the order will emerge over the coming months. Farmers may benefit from more reliable access to glyphosate, while Bayer and other companies may see strengthened legal defenses. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ lawsuits and public advocacy may continue to challenge the decision, potentially reaching higher courts.
Public scrutiny is also likely to intensify. Consumers, environmental organizations, and health experts will watch closely to assess whether the policy affects exposure risks, litigation outcomes, and transparency in chemical safety practices.
🧾 Conclusion
President Trump’s executive order to boost glyphosate production is a bold move at the intersection of agriculture, law, and public health. By classifying the chemical as a matter of national security, the administration aims to secure crop yields, stabilize supply chains, and support U.S. farmers. Yet the decision raises concerns about legal accountability, public safety, and the balance between industrial interests and health oversight.
As lawsuits continue, regulatory bodies evaluate chemical safety, and advocacy groups raise alarms, this executive order is likely to remain a key topic in discussions about U.S. agricultural policy, chemical regulation, and consumer protection for years to come.