No Immunity for Glyphosate Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent federal support for certain chemical production and opens manufacturers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides to civil liability for related health harms, overriding existing immunity protections and applying these changes retroactively.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the use of any 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 chemicals and explicitly removes existing legal immunities for their manufacturers, including those under the Defense Production Act, applying these changes retroactively.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects public health by ensuring accountability for manufacturers of potentially harmful chemicals, particularly glyphosate, and prevents federal resources from being used to promote substances linked to adverse health effects. They contend that current immunity provisions shield companies from rightful legal challenges, and this bill ensures justice for victims.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill undermines national defense by hindering the Executive Order's goal of securing critical supplies, potentially disrupting agricultural production and other industries reliant on these chemicals. They might also claim that removing legal immunities, especially retroactively, could lead to an explosion of costly lawsuits, stifle innovation, and increase costs for essential products, making companies unwilling to comply with future national defense directives.
The bill text is very short, making it quick to read, but its implications are far-reaching and require significant consideration beyond a superficial review.
Section 2
Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds for Executive Order 14387
This section explicitly forbids the use of any federal money to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 14387. This Executive Order was titled "Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides," suggesting it aimed to bolster the supply of these chemicals for national defense purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that preventing federal funds from being used for this Executive Order ensures that the government does not inadvertently support the production or use of substances that may pose health risks, aligning federal policy with public health concerns.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this prohibition could jeopardize national security by undermining efforts to ensure a stable and adequate supply of critical materials, potentially impacting defense readiness or agricultural stability.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances public health concerns related to chemical exposure against national defense and economic stability arguments for ensuring adequate supply chains for these chemicals.
Section 3(a)
Creation of Civil Cause of Action for Injuries from Elemental Phosphorus or Glyphosate
This section establishes a new federal cause of action, allowing individuals (or their estates/representatives) who have suffered physical injury, illness, disease, or death due to exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides to sue the manufacturers, distributors, sellers, or suppliers of these substances in U.S. district courts.
Section 3(e)
Waiver and Nullification of Immunity for Chemical Manufacturers
This section explicitly waives and nullifies any immunity from civil liability that covered entities (manufacturers, distributors, etc.) might otherwise have under Section 707 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) or any other provision of law. This means that even if a company was acting under a DPA order, they would not be shielded from lawsuits related to injuries from elemental phosphorus or glyphosate.
Section 3(f)
Prohibition of Federal Contractor Defense
This section further clarifies that covered entities cannot use a "Federal contractor defense" or any other claim of compliance with federal orders (including those under the DPA) as a defense against liability in lawsuits related to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate. This means that even if a company produced these chemicals exactly as directed by the federal government, they could still be held liable for injuries.
Section 3(g), 3(h), 3(i)
Retroactive Application and Preservation of State & Federal Claims
These subsections ensure that the Act does not limit any existing or future civil actions under federal or state law, nor does it require dismissal of pending lawsuits. Furthermore, the provisions apply retroactively to claims arising before, on, or after the enactment date, and explicitly state that the Act does not preempt or limit any rights or remedies available under state law.
This section states that the new cause of action and waiver of immunities apply to any claim arising "before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act."
Section 3(h)
Why it matters:While common in some legislative contexts, applying new liability rules retroactively is highly consequential and often controversial, making its placement here potentially evasive of immediate scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue that retroactive application is necessary to ensure justice for individuals who may have suffered harm from these chemicals over many years, before the full extent of risks was understood or before legal avenues were clear.
Case against: Opponents contend that retroactive liability is fundamentally unfair, as it changes the legal landscape for actions taken in the past, making it impossible for businesses to have planned or insured against such risks.
Estimated impact: Potentially opens manufacturers to a vast number of historical claims, significantly increasing their financial exposure.
Explicitly waives and nullifies Section 707 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4557) and any other provision of law that would grant immunity from civil liability to covered entities for injuries related to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate.
Section 3(e)
Why it matters:This is a direct override of a significant federal statute, which has broad implications for how the government can compel industry action during emergencies. Its specific mention is critical but could be overlooked in the broader context of liability waivers.
Case for: Proponents argue that DPA immunity should not shield companies from accountability for products that cause harm, especially if the government's directive did not explicitly mandate unsafe practices.
Case against: Opponents argue that overriding DPA immunity could severely hamper the government's ability to mobilize industries for national defense or other emergencies, as companies would be unwilling to participate if they face unlimited liability.
Estimated impact: Could fundamentally alter the risk calculus for companies considering contracts under the DPA, potentially making them less willing to comply with future orders.