No Immunity for Glyphosate Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to nullify an Executive Order and broadly expand liability for manufacturers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, potentially opening them to significant litigation for past and future harms.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to implement an Executive Order aimed at ensuring the supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Crucially, it also creates a new federal cause of action for individuals harmed by these substances and explicitly removes all legal immunities, including those under the Defense Production Act, for manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects public health by ensuring accountability for manufacturers of potentially harmful substances, reversing an Executive Order that could shield them from liability. They believe it restores the right of individuals to seek justice for injuries and prevents corporations from externalizing the costs of harm onto the public.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill undermines national defense by hindering the supply chain for critical materials (elemental phosphorus) and agricultural necessities (glyphosate), as intended by the Executive Order. They might also contend it creates an unfair and unpredictable legal environment for manufacturers, potentially leading to market instability, increased costs, and a reluctance to fulfill government contracts for critical goods.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are far-reaching and require significant consideration.
Section 2
Prohibition of Federal Funds for Executive Order on Phosphorus and Glyphosate
This section explicitly prohibits the use of any federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Executive Order issued on February 18, 2026, titled "Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides." This effectively defunds and thereby nullifies the Executive Order's operational effect, preventing any federal agency from acting on its directives.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that defunding the Executive Order prevents federal resources from being used to promote or protect industries involved in potentially harmful substances, aligning with public health and environmental concerns.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this provision undermines national security and agricultural stability by preventing the government from ensuring adequate supplies of critical materials and herbicides, as deemed necessary by the Executive Order.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances public health and environmental concerns against national defense and agricultural supply chain stability, forcing a choice between these priorities.
Section 3(a)
Creation of Civil Cause of Action for Harm from Phosphorus or Glyphosate
This provision establishes a new federal cause of action, allowing any person (or their estate/representatives) who has suffered physical injury, illness, disease, or death caused, in whole or in part, by exposure to elemental phosphorus or a glyphosate-based herbicide to bring a civil lawsuit in an appropriate U.S. district court against any entity involved in their manufacture, distribution, sale, or supply within the United States. This creates a direct legal pathway for victims to seek redress.
Section 3(e)
Waiver and Nullification of Legal Immunity for Manufacturers
This subsection explicitly waives and nullifies any immunity from civil liability that 'covered entities' (manufacturers, distributors, etc., of elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides) might otherwise have under Section 707 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) or any other provision of law. This ensures that DPA protections, which typically shield contractors fulfilling government orders, cannot be used to defend these entities from lawsuits related to injuries caused by their products.
Section 3(f)
Prohibition of Federal Contractor Defense
This subsection explicitly states that covered entities cannot assert compliance with a federal order, regulation, directive, contract, or other authorization (including those under the Defense Production Act) as a defense to liability in any action brought under this Act or any other federal or state law. This prevents manufacturers from claiming they were merely following government instructions when producing or supplying these substances, thereby removing a common defense strategy for federal contractors.
Section 3(g), 3(h), 3(i)
Retroactive Application and Preservation of State Law and Existing Claims
These subsections clarify that the Act applies to any claim arising before, on, or after its date of enactment, ensuring broad retroactive application. It also explicitly preserves any existing or pending civil actions under federal or state law, preventing the Act from displacing them. Furthermore, it states that nothing in the Act shall be construed to preempt, displace, or limit any right or remedy available under state law, ensuring that the new federal cause of action supplements, rather than replaces, other legal avenues and maintains state sovereignty in tort law.