BREAKING: Thomas Massie announced he’ll fight Trump’s Glysophate executive order by introducing the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act.” Under this act, manufacturers will be stripped of the immunity from liability that Trump just gave them. Do you agree with Thomas Massie?

POLITICAL FIRESTORM ERUPTS OVER TRUMP’S GLYPHOSATE EXECUTIVE ORDER — MASSIE MOVES TO STRIKE LIABILITY SHIELD

Washington, D.C. — A major controversy has unfolded in U.S. politics this week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at boosting domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides, a widely used agricultural chemical and the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer.

The move, framed by the White House as a matter of national security and agricultural resilience, has drawn sharp criticism from a broad swath of activists, lawmakers, and voters — including a Republican member of Congress who says he will move to counter the order legislatively. �

Trump’s Order and the Immunity Provision

On February 18, 2026, President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, directing federal agencies to ensure an “adequate supply” of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides crucial for crop yields and, in the administration’s view, national defense and food security. Under the law, such directives can include immunity protections for manufacturers who comply with federal production priorities.

The order’s immunity language has alarmed critics because it could shield companies from liability for harms allegedly caused by glyphosate, which has been the subject of hundreds of thousands of lawsuits linking it to cancers and other health issues. Bayer — the company that acquired Monsanto, maker of Roundup — has been central to this litigation and recently proposed a multi-billion-dollar settlement while continuing to fight liability claims in court. �

Bipartisan Backlash and Public Outrage

The executive order triggered immediate backlash from public health advocates, environmental groups, and parents, particularly within the movement known as MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”) — originally aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Some MAHA supporters say the order betrays promises to address toxins in food and the environment, and could alienate these voters in the 2026 midterm elections. �

Critics argue that glyphosate has been linked to cancers and that granting immunity to manufacturers undermines the right of victims and families to seek justice in court. This concern is widely reflected in public petitions and activist statements calling for accountability and the protection of civil litigation rights. �

Republican Division: Thomas Massie Steps In

The response from Capitol Hill has been unusual in its partisan cross-currents. Republican Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — known for his libertarian-leaning views and emphasis on limited government — publicly rejected the executive order’s liability shield and announced he will introduce the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act.” According to Massie’s social media post, the bill is designed to remove the liability immunity that his critics say Trump’s order would grant to pesticide manufacturers. �

In a sharply worded message, Massie said the new act would “undo the recent Executive Order which promotes glyphosate (Round-Up) and insulates manufacturers from liability,” making clear he believes such liability protections are inappropriate and potentially harmful to public accountability. �

This stance places Massie at odds with many in his own party who typically support deregulation and industry protections, highlighting deepening tensions over regulatory authority, corporate liability, and the executive branch’s power under the Defense Production Act.

Democrats and Environmental Advocates Weigh In

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) also condemned the executive order, calling it a dangerous move that appears to protect large chemical companies instead of prioritizing public health. Booker highlighted the need for legislation that guarantees people harmed by toxic pesticides have the right to their day in court — a broad critique that aligns with Massie’s legislative intent, albeit from a very different political perspective. �

Environmental advocacy groups like the Center for Food Safety echoed these concerns, arguing that the executive order is legally questionable and could complicate future litigation without actually ensuring any meaningful public health benefit. �

What Comes Next

The unfolding dispute over glyphosate’s legal status and liability protections is now shaping up as a defining issue for multiple constituencies: farmers who rely on herbicides, families affected by alleged pesticide health impacts, legal advocates for consumer rights, and lawmakers debating executive authority and congressional oversight.

Massie’s No Immunity for Glyphosate Act is expected to be formally introduced in the coming days. Whether it gains traction among his Republican colleagues, gains support from Democrats, or influences the Republican leadership’s stance on executive power remains to be seen.

With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, this debate may influence broader political dynamics — especially in rural districts and among voters concerned about health, agriculture, and government accountability. �

Yahoo