This bill prevents the use of Federal funds to implement an Executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” and establishes a new private cause of action for physical injury, illness, disease, or death linked to exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides. It defines the class of defendants broadly to include manufacturers, distributors, formulators, suppliers, and sellers and authorizes federal district courts to hear these cases.
The measure strips statutory and common-law immunities that covered entities might otherwise assert — including defenses tied to the Defense Production Act and any federal contractor or preemption claims — and makes claims arising before, on, or after enactment actionable. For legal and compliance teams, the bill would simultaneously block federal support for an administration effort to secure chemical supplies and expose a wide range of private actors to expanded litigation risk nationwide.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars Federal funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the named Executive order and creates a federal private right of action allowing injured persons to sue ‘‘covered entities’’ involved with elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides. It waives specified immunities and prohibits defendants from invoking federal contractor or DPA-based defenses.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, formulators, distributors, suppliers, and sellers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides; insurers and corporate risk managers; federal agencies previously involved in implementing the Executive order; and plaintiffs (individuals, estates, survivors) alleging physical injuries or death from exposure.
Why It Matters
The bill converts an executive supply-policy action into a live litigation and funding issue: it removes legal shields that normally limit tort exposure when firms act under national-defense authorities, and it permits broad, nationwide litigation that could affect supply chains, insurance markets, and agency efforts to coordinate production.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core operation of the bill is twofold. First, it stops federal money from being spent on implementing, administering, or enforcing the February 18, 2026 Executive order that seeks to secure supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.
That provision limits the federal government’s financial support for carrying out the Executive order’s directives, which could throttle agency activities tied to procurement, contracting, or regulatory coordination under that order.
Second, the bill creates a standalone federal cause of action for any person (or their estate or legal representative) who suffers physical injury, illness, disease, or death that is caused, even in part, by exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides manufactured, distributed, sold, or supplied in the United States. The qualifying defendants — labeled “covered entities” — are broadly defined to reach any person, corporation, partnership, contractor, subcontractor, or other entity involved in making or getting these chemicals to market.Litigation brought under the statute goes to federal district court, with jurisdiction expressly granted without regard to the amount in controversy or the parties’ citizenship, removing traditional threshold barriers to federal fora.
The bill authorizes a wide menu of remedies: compensatory damages (medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, wrongful death), punitive damages, equitable relief including injunctions and declarations, and attorneys’ fees and costs — a package designed to make federal litigation financially meaningful for plaintiffs and counsel.Critically, the bill strips away specified immunities and defenses that covered entities might otherwise invoke. It states that no covered entity is immune under section 707 of the Defense Production Act or any other law for harms caused by the listed chemicals, and it forbids asserting a “Federal contractor” defense or arguing that compliance with an Executive order, Defense Production Act authority, contract, regulation, or other Federal authorization insulates the actor from liability.
Finally, the statute preserves existing and pending claims, applies to claims arising before, on, or after enactment, and expressly declines to preempt or displace State law remedies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 forbids use of Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Executive order issued February 18, 2026, on elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.
Section 3(a) creates a federal private right of action for physical injury, illness, disease, or death caused in whole or in part by exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides manufactured, distributed, sold, or supplied within the United States.
Section 3(b) defines “covered entity” expansively to include any person, corporation, partnership, association, contractor, subcontractor, or other entity that manufactures, distributes, formulates, supplies, or sells the listed chemicals.
Section 3(c) vests jurisdiction in U.S. district courts “without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties,” and Section 3(d) authorizes compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Sections 3(e)–(f) expressly waive immunity under section 707 of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 4557) and bar federal contractor or DPA-based defenses; Sections 3(g)–(i) preserve pending claims, apply retroactively to prior claims, and do not preempt State law remedies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s short name, the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act.” This is purely caption language but signals congressional intent to focus on immunities tied to glyphosate and related chemical production.
Prohibits federal funding for the named Executive order
States that no Federal funds may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Executive order issued February 18, 2026. Practically, agencies that would have relied on appropriations to carry out procurement preferences, coordination, or directives under that order are blocked from doing so with federal money; they could still act using other authorities or private funds, but federal financial support for execution is removed.
Creates a private federal cause of action and defines covered entities
Section 3(a) authorizes any injured person (or estate/survivor/legal representative) to sue for physical injury, illness, disease, or death caused, in whole or part, by exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides made, distributed, sold, or supplied in the U.S. Section 3(b) reaches an expansive list of actors — from manufacturers and formulators to distributors, suppliers, sellers, contractors, and subcontractors — bringing most commercial participants in the supply chain within the statute’s scope. Compliance officers and corporate counsel must map product flows to understand potential exposure to the statute.
Federal jurisdiction and available remedies
The bill grants federal district courts jurisdiction regardless of amount in controversy or parties’ citizenship, lowering procedural barriers for plaintiffs to seek a federal forum. The remedies list is broad: compensatory damages (including medical expenses and wrongful death), punitive damages, equitable relief such as injunctions and declaratory judgments, plus attorneys’ fees and costs — a combination that makes high-stakes litigation both feasible and potentially costly for defendants.
Waiver of immunity, prohibition on federal-contractor defense, and preservation
The statute explicitly states that no covered entity is immune under section 707 of the Defense Production Act or “any other provision of law” for harms caused by the listed chemicals, and it forbids asserting that compliance with an Executive order, DPA authority, contract, regulation, or other Federal authorization is a defense. It preserves existing and pending actions, applies to claims before or after enactment, and clarifies it does not preempt State law remedies — language meant to ensure both retroactive reach and concurrent state-federal claims.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals and families harmed by exposure: The statute creates a clear federal path to compensation for physical injury, illness, disease, or death tied to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides and authorizes full damages and attorneys’ fees.
- Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Federal jurisdiction without amount-in-controversy or diversity thresholds, combined with fee-shifting and punitive damages, increases case viability and potential recoveries, encouraging contingency-fee litigation.
- State law claimants and States pursuing remedies: The bill preserves state causes of action and pending suits and does not preempt state remedies, giving state courts and attorneys general room to pursue complementary enforcement or parens patriae actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers, formulators, distributors, suppliers, and sellers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides: They face widened exposure, loss of defense strategies premised on DPA immunity or federal contractor protections, and potential multi-jurisdictional litigation with significant damages and defense costs.
- Insurers and risk-transfer markets: Insurers could see increased claims and unclear coverage triggers (especially for DPA-related work), raising premiums or restricting availability for chemical manufacturers and contractors.
- Federal agencies and taxpayers: The ban on Federal funds for implementing the Executive order constrains agencies’ ability to coordinate defense-related supply-chain actions and could shift costs to non-federal actors or require legislative appropriations to restore activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether and how to reconcile national-defense supply coordination with individual tort accountability: the bill prioritizes open legal remedies and the removal of DPA- and contractor-based immunities, but in doing so it curtails federal financial support for an Executive order intended to bolster critical supplies — a trade-off that pits collective preparedness against private liability exposure and potential supply-chain disruption.
The bill raises several implementation questions and trade-offs. First, the waiver of immunity language is sweeping (“or any other provision of law”), but courts will still wrestle with doctrines like preemption and implied immunity; the statute’s non-preemption clause for state law helps plaintiffs but does not eliminate complex conflicts between federal regulatory regimes (for example, EPA pesticide registration and labeling decisions) and state tort claims.
Second, the retroactive application and preservation of pending claims creates potential due process and notice issues — defendants will argue about evidence degradation, causation proof for historical exposures, and fairness of liability for past conduct taken under prior regulatory expectations.
Operationally, the combination of broad federal jurisdiction, fee-shifting, punitive damages, and a large class of covered entities risks concentrating litigation in federal courts and prompting mass actions or coordinated multidistrict litigation. That outcome could produce significant settlement pressure on firms and compress insurance capacity.
Finally, by stopping federal funding for the Executive order, the bill forces a policy trade-off between two legitimate aims: protecting individuals’ access to remedies and preserving federal flexibility to secure materials deemed critical to national defense. Neither aim is dismissed by the text, but the statute privileges liability and state remedies at the potential expense of centralized federal action to manage supply chains.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.