EO-14433
Eliminating Disease-Carrying Pests and Restoring Enjoyment of the Great Outdoors
- Signed
- Sep 29, 2026
- Published
- Oct 2, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-20320
Source: Federal Register.
Federal Plan to Reduce Ticks and Invasive Mosquitoes, Starting in Washington, DC
What it does
The order directs four federal agencies to launch a Washington, DC campaign to cut invasive mosquito populations by 90 percent and tick populations by 50 percent by 2028, mainly on federal land, using habitat changes, deer and rodent control, and technologies such as sterile insect release. It directs the EPA to submit a regulatory framework for releasing new pest-control technologies and to prioritize registering new products it finds safe and effective. It also directs HHS and USDA to launch prize competitions and research on diagnostics, treatments, and non-chemical controls, and to explore allergy-style labels for foods and drugs containing alpha-galactose (the sugar behind alpha-gal syndrome).
Who benefits
Residents, workers, and visitors in DC who spend time outdoors and could face fewer bites and less disease exposure. Pet owners and livestock owners, who face tick-related illness in animals. People with tick-borne illnesses or alpha-gal syndrome, who could gain from new diagnostics, treatments, and food and drug labels. Biotechnology and pest-control firms, universities, and research groups that could win contracts, cooperative agreements, or prize money. Parks and recreation users and businesses that depend on outdoor visitors. Residents of other regions, if the DC approach is later expanded nationally and proves effective.
Who is affected
Taxpayers, since the order is subject to available appropriations and funding would be drawn from agency budgets or new requests. DC residents and the DC government, who may see land-management changes and be asked to coordinate on pest control across non-federal land. Deer and rodent populations, which would be targeted for control, and people who object to such control on animal-welfare grounds. Residents and groups with concerns about releasing genetically modified or sterilized insects or bacteria into the environment, since ecological effects are uncertain. Makers of conventional pesticides, who could lose market share if non-chemical methods are prioritized. Food and drug manufacturers, which could face new labeling costs if alpha-galactose labeling is adopted. EPA and other agency staff, who face 60-day deadlines that compete with other work.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that ticks and mosquitoes spread serious and growing diseases, and that a focused, measurable campaign is a practical way to reduce them. They would say that starting on federal land in DC gives the government a manageable test case, with clear targets and a 2028 deadline, before any national rollout. They would point to the emphasis on non-chemical tools, sterile insect techniques, and prize competitions as a way to draw on private-sector innovation while protecting beneficial insects. They would add that faster EPA review of safe and effective new products, plus alpha-gal research and labeling, addresses a condition many patients and doctors say is under-recognized.
Opponents argue
Opponents would argue that the order sets ambitious numerical targets, a 90 percent and a 50 percent reduction, without identifying funding, and that it is subject to appropriations that Congress has not provided. They would say that directing the EPA to expedite and prioritize new products, including genetically modified organisms, could shorten safety and ecological review for technologies with uncertain long-term effects. They would note that controlling deer and rodent populations and releasing engineered insects raise concerns that need public input. They would add that a DC-focused pilot on mostly federal land may not translate to other regions, and that the 60-day deadlines may be too short for rigorous work.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order cites the President's general authority under Article II and the laws of the United States, including the Take Care Clause's direction to oversee executive agencies. It also relies on 15 U.S.C. 3719, which authorizes agency prize competitions, and on existing EPA authority over pesticide registration, which the order says it does not alter. A future president could revoke or modify it, and it supplements rather than replaces existing statutes; it is limited by available appropriations.