President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to expand domestic production of phosphorus and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The order frames both chemicals as essential to American agriculture, crop yields, and food security.
It also signals legal backing for manufacturers, including Bayer, which faces more than 100,000 lawsuits alleging its glyphosate-based weedkiller caused cancer.
The decision opens a new rift with parts of the “Make America Healthy Again” coalition, which has long criticized glyphosate and other pesticides strongly promoted and defended by big agriculture.
Framing it as food security
The executive order describes phosphorus and glyphosate as critical inputs for U.S. agriculture. Farmers rely on phosphorus-based fertilizers to maintain soil health and crop productivity. Glyphosate is used to control weeds in crops ranging from corn and soybeans to wheat.
Administration officials argue that boosting domestic production will reduce reliance on foreign supply chains and stabilize the food system. In their view, crop protection chemicals are not merely farm tools but strategic assets tied to economic and national security.
Supporters of the order say glyphosate remains a cost-effective and efficient herbicide. They argue that clear federal backing, including legal certainty for producers, will help farmers plan ahead and avoid supply disruptions.
Legal shield for manufacturers
The order reportedly grants legal immunity to compliant producers under certain conditions, a significant development for Bayer and other companies facing extensive litigation.
Since 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has paid billions of dollars to settle claims. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an appeal that could reshape nationwide litigation. The Trump administration urged the justices to take up the case, backing Bayer’s effort to limit liability.
The Department of Justice, through the Solicitor General’s office, has shifted the federal government’s position by urging the Supreme Court to hold that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits when the EPA has reviewed and approved a pesticide label. Under this argument, manufacturers complying with EPA labeling decisions would not be subject to additional state-law health warning claims, including those alleging a failure to warn about cancer risks.
The science debate
The 2015 IARC classification placed glyphosate in Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The agency based its decision on three main lines of evidence.
First, it found limited evidence in humans, primarily linking occupational exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Case-control studies in the United States, Canada, and Sweden reported elevated risks in agricultural workers. IARC noted that chance or bias could not be fully ruled out but concluded a causal interpretation was credible.
Second, it found sufficient evidence in experimental animals. Studies on pure glyphosate identified rare tumors in mice, including renal tubule carcinoma and haemangiosarcoma, along with benign pancreatic tumors in male rats. Not every study showed effects, but multiple independent findings met IARC’s threshold.
Third, it cited strong mechanistic evidence, including genotoxicity and oxidative stress, both of which are biological processes linked to cancer development.
Regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have reached different conclusions. Using broader datasets that include industry-submitted studies, they have generally determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at typical exposure levels. That difference reflects contrasting approaches. IARC evaluates hazard, meaning whether a substance can cause cancer under some conditions. Regulators assess risk, meaning the likelihood of harm at real-world exposure levels.
Friction with MAHA advocates
The executive order has drawn sharp criticism from parts of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. Activists and grassroots groups such as Moms Across America have called for tighter controls or outright bans on glyphosate and similar chemicals.
MAHA activists argue that expanding production sends the wrong message at a time when many voters are concerned about chronic disease and environmental contamination. Some also point to provisions in the Republican House Farm Bill that would prevent state and local governments from issuing pesticide warnings beyond federal EPA standards or from enforcing stricter rules.
Sections 10205 through 10207 prioritize federal uniformity over local authority. Critics argue that they undercut community protections and limit states’ ability to respond to emerging evidence.
The tension is personal as well as political. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a central figure in the MAHA agenda, has a long history of criticizing glyphosate and previously played a role on behalf of plaintiffs in Roundup litigation. For health-focused conservatives who see pesticide reform as part of a broader push against corporate influence, the order looks like a step in the opposite direction.
A broader divide
At its core, the debate comes down to competing priorities.
Supporters say glyphosate is a backbone of modern agriculture. They argue that removing or restricting it without a ready substitute would raise costs, lower yields and strain the food system. In their view, strengthening domestic production and limiting legal uncertainty is common sense.
Critics counter that “probably carcinogenic” should be enough to trigger caution. They contend that expanding production while limiting legal avenues for claims risks weakening accountability and prioritizing agribusiness interests over public health concerns.
