S-4425-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit the use of any federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 14387, which directed federal support for the domestic supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Second, it would create a federal civil cause of action allowing individuals harmed by exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides to sue manufacturers, distributors, and sellers in federal court — and would explicitly strip those companies of any immunity or contractor defense they might otherwise claim under the Defense Production Act or any other federal law.
Who benefits
Individuals who have suffered or may suffer physical injury, illness, or death from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides or elemental phosphorus, including agricultural workers, farmworkers, landscapers, and residents near treated areas. Plaintiffs' attorneys who would gain a new federal litigation avenue with fee-shifting provisions. State attorneys general and tort claimants with pending or future lawsuits who would see federal contractor defenses removed. Environmental and public health advocacy organizations that have sought to limit glyphosate use.
Who is hurt
Manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of glyphosate-based herbicides — most notably Bayer AG (which acquired Monsanto) — who would lose liability protections and face expanded federal litigation exposure. Agricultural producers who rely on glyphosate-based herbicides (the most widely used herbicide class in the U.S.) and could face supply disruptions or price increases if manufacturers reduce output. Defense contractors and industrial suppliers of elemental phosphorus, which has national security applications. Domestic industries that depend on the supply chain supported by Executive Order 14387.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide in U.S. history, with over 280 million pounds applied annually, and that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015. They contend that using the Defense Production Act to shield manufacturers from civil liability is an unprecedented use of national security law to insulate corporations from accountability for health harms — and that no company should be able to invoke a federal contract as a defense against injured individuals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the EPA has repeatedly reviewed glyphosate and concluded it is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" at typical exposure levels, and that stripping liability protections from a product the federal government has deemed safe undermines the regulatory process. They contend that Executive Order 14387 was issued to protect a critical domestic supply chain with genuine national security implications, and that removing its legal framework — along with all contractor defenses — could deter manufacturers from participating in Defense Production Act programs, weakening the government's ability to secure essential industrial inputs.