Trump identifies glyphosate production as a national defense priority to ensure agricultural sustainability and national security.

On February 18, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at fortifying the domestic production of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. The order, invoking the Defense Production Act, underscores the significance of glyphosate and phosphorus chemicals to U.S. food security and military preparedness.

The Defense Production Act, originally enacted in 1950, allows the government to intervene in production processes deemed essential for national defense. Trump’s directive provides limited immunity for companies producing glyphosate and phosphorus, highlighting their roles in agricultural practices and military technologies. The administration contends that phosphorus is crucial for manufacturing radar and sensor technologies, along with serving as a key ingredient in glyphosate herbicides.

The president’s initiative arrives at a contentious time for the agrochemical industry, particularly Bayer AG, the company behind the glyphosate-based brand Roundup. Bayer has faced numerous lawsuits connecting glyphosate to cancer diagnoses, with a recent settlement agreement expected to cost the company up to .25 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits. This legal pressure has put significant strain on Bayer, prompting concerns about the sustainability of U.S. herbicide production in the face of growing litigation.

Trump’s order specifies that U.S. farmers depend on glyphosate for cost-effective food production. However, it notes that the country currently relies heavily on imports for phosphorus, as only one domestic producer is capable of meeting the annual demand of approximately six million kilograms. To address this, the order tasks U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with ensuring that domestic suppliers of these essential chemicals are not jeopardized by federal regulations.

Reactions to the executive order have varied significantly. Supporters argue it may bolster domestic agricultural practices and address rising costs, which have been exacerbated by fluctuating crop prices and supply chain challenges. Critics, however, believe the order further entrenches Bayer’s market position while neglecting health concerns associated with glyphosate.

Environmental advocacy groups, including the Environmental Working Group, have decried the executive order as a danger to public health, arguing that it grants blanket protection to Bayer, potentially allowing harmful chemicals to remain pervasive in U.S. agriculture and resulting in adverse health impacts for farming communities.

The push for increased glyphosate production also sheds light on Trump’s broader agricultural and economic policies amid rising food prices. As farmers continue to express concerns about the substantial costs of fertilizers and other production essentials, the executive order reinforces a complex narrative surrounding agricultural practices, public health, and regulatory oversight.

This contentious issue, now amplified by varying state-level actions regarding glyphosate use and regulation, reflects the intricate balancing act the administration must maneuver as it emphasizes national security and agricultural resilience.