hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Blocks federal funding for glyphosate EO, removes immunity for chemical makers.
Sen. Heinrich (D-NM) and four Democratic co-sponsors.
Introduced in Senate, sent to Banking Committee.
This bill aims to stop federal money from being used for an Executive Order promoting glyphosate-based herbicides. It also creates a new legal path for people to sue companies for injuries linked to these chemicals, removing previous legal protections for manufacturers. Senator Heinrich from New Mexico, along with several other Democratic senators, introduced the bill in April 2026. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where it awaits further action.
Introduced Apr 28, 2026
The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Heinrich and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on April 28, 2026. For the bill to become law, it must pass out of this committee, be approved by the full Senate, then pass the House of Representatives, and finally be signed by the President.
If this bill passes, individuals who believe they have been harmed by elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides would gain a new federal pathway to sue the manufacturers or distributors. This could lead to more legal actions against companies producing these chemicals, potentially increasing their liability costs. Additionally, federal agencies would be prohibited from spending money to support an Executive Order intended to boost the supply of these same chemicals, which could shift government priorities.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue it protects citizens harmed by dangerous chemicals by ensuring accountability for manufacturers.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it could create unnecessary litigation and disrupt supply chains for vital agricultural or defense products.
The bill’s proponents emphasize ensuring justice for individuals allegedly harmed by these substances, removing legal shields that manufacturers might otherwise use. While no specific critic statements are in the bill text, potential opposition could arise from those concerned about the impact on agricultural production or national defense supply chains, especially given the Executive Order's stated purpose of ensuring an 'adequate supply' for 'national defense'.