President Donald Trump signed an executive order February 19 invoking the Defense Production Act to boost domestic output of glyphosate and its key precursor, elemental phosphorus. Officials cited risks to national security, economic stability, and food supply chains. With only one U.S. producer for both materials and rising import costs from tariffs, the order directs the Agriculture Department to take steps ensuring steady supplies of glyphosate-based herbicides.
The timing is notable. Just two days earlier, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion class settlement to resolve current and future claims that its Roundup herbicide causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The long-term program would run up to 21 years and cover exposures before February 17, 2026. Bayer stressed the move contains litigation without any admission of liability. The company pointed to regulatory findings worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.
Farmers sit at the center of the tension. Glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture. It supports no-till practices that cut fuel and labor costs, reduce soil erosion, and protect yields on tight-margin operations where many farms clear less than 10 cents per dollar. Losing reliable access would drive input costs up sharply, lower output, and push food prices higher. Growers view it as essential to stay competitive and feed a growing population.
At the same time, applicators and their families express concern about health effects. Lawsuits and headlines have raised questions about long-term exposure, even as most farmers follow strict label directions and use protective gear. No one wants a tool that might harm users or bystanders if dangers prove real.
The science offers nuance rather than clear consensus. In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people, sufficient data from animal studies, and signs of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. That hazard-based view fueled many lawsuits.
Regulatory bodies focused on real-world risk reach a different conclusion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Union authorities, Health Canada, and others have reviewed thousands of studies and determined glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer at exposure levels from labeled use. They distinguish hazard from actual risk and note that dietary residues and occupational handling fall well below concern thresholds. The EPA’s next full registration review, due later in 2026, is expected to reaffirm safety. A 2000 industry-linked study recently retracted for ethical issues played no central role in those assessments, officials say.
Farmers, therefore, navigate a practical trade-off. Glyphosate delivers proven economic and environmental gains in the field. Regulators continue to back its safety profile. Yet persistent litigation and one agency’s differing hazard label keep the debate alive. Trump’s production push underscores the priority placed on keeping this input available and affordable. As the EPA review unfolds and settlement details move through court, the ag sector will weigh continued reliance on glyphosate against calls for alternatives. For now, most producers see it as a tool they cannot easily replace without hurting profitability and the broader food system.