hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Blocks funds for an Executive Order and allows lawsuits for chemical harm.
Rep. Massie (R-KY) and bipartisan co-sponsors.
Introduced in House, referred to committee.
This bill, known as the "No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," has two main parts. First, it would stop federal money from being used to carry out a specific Executive Order about phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Second, it would allow people to sue manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of these chemicals if they suffer physical injury, illness, or death from exposure, even if a federal defense might have protected these companies before. The bill was introduced by Representative Massie from Kentucky, a Republican, with bipartisan support from Representatives Pingree (D-ME), Boebert (R-CO), Mace (R-SC), and Khanna (D-CA). It is currently awaiting review in the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced Feb 20, 2026
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 20, 2026, and immediately sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary. For the bill to move forward, the committee must review it and vote to send it to the full House for consideration. If it passes the House, it would then go to the Senate for a vote, and finally to the President to become law.
If this bill becomes law, individuals who believe they have been harmed by elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides could file a civil lawsuit against the manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of these products in federal court. The bill would strip away current protections, such as those under the Defense Production Act, meaning companies could not claim federal contractor immunity as a defense. This means the federal government would not use taxpayer funds to implement the Executive Order entitled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides,” issued on February 18, 2026.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue this bill protects public health by ensuring accountability for companies whose chemicals cause harm, regardless of federal directives.
Critics Say
Critics might argue that blocking the Executive Order could hinder national defense priorities and remove necessary protections for manufacturers of essential substances.
Those in favor would emphasize that individuals suffering from exposure to these chemicals deserve justice and that companies should not be shielded by federal immunity when harm occurs. They would highlight the importance of preserving existing and future claims for victims. On the other hand, opponents might raise concerns about how this bill could affect the supply chain of these materials, especially if they are deemed critical for national defense as suggested by the Executive Order it targets. They might also argue that removing federal contractor defenses could create uncertainty for businesses.