Will Trump’s Glyphosate Order Shield Roundup? The Lawyer’s Answer: It Depends
Last week, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize domestic glyphosate production for national security reasons.
Critics now question whether this order shields glyphosate makers from liability lawsuits.
The short answer to whether this order protects manufacturers from lawsuits is that it’s unclear. The longer answer, as lawyers often say, is that it depends.
Does the Defense Production Act Protect Glyphosate Manufacturers From Lawsuits?
The Defense Production Act was created in 1950 during the Korean War. It allows the government to prioritize contracts and allocate resources to avoid shortages of essential goods for national defense and emergencies.
The law has been renewed over 50 times and used frequently, including during the COVID-19 pandemic by both Presidents Trump and Biden to support medical supplies, vaccines and supply chains.
This time, the asserted emergency is agricultural. The administration has deemed the nation’s reliance on foreign glyphosate production a national security concern.
Supporters of the order, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argue that because glyphosate is deeply integrated into modern farming, supply disruptions could affect food availability, prices and farming operations. From that perspective, increasing domestic production is framed as a measure of stability.
Even many critics acknowledge that glyphosate cannot realistically be removed from the agricultural system overnight without consequences. The controversy instead centers on the scope of the immunity provision in the Act and how broadly it could be interpreted.
What Section 707 Actually Says
Section 707 of the Defense Production Act provides that:
“No person shall be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with a rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to this chapter.”
The Act’s implementing regulations contain similar language, shielding individuals or companies from liability for actions taken in compliance with official directives.
Some argue that this protection has historically applied only to contract disputes arising from prioritized government orders. Courts have clearly applied Section 707 in contract contexts.
However, the statute itself does not expressly limit immunity to contract claims. At the same time, it does not explicitly state that it extends to tort claims involving personal injury.
Importantly, no court has squarely addressed whether Section 707 confers immunity in a product liability context, such as the Roundup litigation. Because the issue has not been directly resolved, it remains open to interpretation.
Why Lawmakers Are Paying Attention
The uncertainty prompted Representatives Thomas Massie and Chellie Pingree to introduce the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act.” The proposed bill would clarify that glyphosate manufacturers do not receive tort immunity for physical injuries or deaths.
Legislators do not typically introduce clarifying language unless there is genuine concern about how an existing statute might be interpreted. The proposal itself underscores that the scope of immunity is not settled.
What This Means for Roundup Litigation
The ambiguity is particularly significant given the ongoing litigation against Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup. Tens of thousands of plaintiffs allege that exposure to glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and many of those cases center on alleged failures to warn.
At the same time, Bayer is awaiting a Supreme Court decision that could affect certain state failure-to-warn claims. The company has also supported legislative efforts to limit similar lawsuits.
The executive order does not automatically dismiss pending cases, overturn verdicts or rewrite existing product liability law. But it introduces another potential defense argument into an already complex legal landscape.
It remains unclear whether Bayer will attempt to invoke Defense Production Act immunity. If it does, courts will be tasked with applying a statute originally designed for wartime production priorities to modern mass tort litigation involving alleged carcinogens.
The Reality: It Depends
This is where the familiar legal answer becomes unavoidable.
Judges interpret statutes, and they do not always agree. Outcomes often turn on how arguments are framed, which precedents are emphasized and how persuasive counsel is in a particular courtroom. Strong arguments can fail. Unlikely ones can gain traction under the right circumstances.
The Defense Production Act was not written as a broad product liability shield. But the language of Section 707 is not expressly limited either. Until a court applies it in this context, its reach remains uncertain.
Whether this executive order ultimately protects Roundup from lawsuits is still an open question. In complex litigation, outcomes are rarely as straightforward as headlines suggest.
So did Roundup just gain immunity?
The only honest answer, for now, is the one lawyers give most often: It depends.
