President Donald Trump has signed an executive order declaring glyphosate‑based herbicides like Roundup, along with elemental phosphorus, essential to national defense, even as the weedkiller faces lawsuits and scientific scrutiny over potential links to cancer and other health harms. The order, issued this week under the Defense Production Act, directs federal officials to safeguard domestic production and distribution of the chemicals and warns that losing access to glyphosate would “critically jeopardize” U.S. agricultural productivity and strain the food supply.
The directive gives the Agriculture secretary broad authority to prioritize and, if needed, direct production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate‑based herbicides, including shielding compliant producers from rules or regulations that could threaten their financial viability. The administration frames the move as necessary to keep food affordable and support farmers who rely on glyphosate‑tolerant crops to control weeds and maintain high yields.
Trump’s order comes as companies like Bayer’s Monsanto, maker of Roundup, continue to face litigation over claims that glyphosate exposure contributed to non‑Hodgkin lymphoma and other illnesses, leading to large settlements in recent years. Critics say the new protections could make it harder to hold manufacturers accountable for alleged health harms, especially if the order is interpreted as providing a form of legal shield for producers that follow federal directives.
The decision has also exposed political and ideological rifts inside the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has spotlighted concerns about pesticides and processed foods. Some health advocates aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the move a “betrayal” of earlier promises to confront dangerous agricultural chemicals, while others close to Kennedy publicly backed the order as a trade‑off to protect food and defense supply chains. Environmental groups and pesticide‑safety advocates argue the directive could lead to more glyphosate in waterways and ecosystems at a time when courts and scientists are still debating the herbicide’s risks.
What glyphosate herbicides are
Glyphosate is a synthetic, broad‑spectrum herbicide used to kill grasses and broadleaf weeds in large‑scale agriculture, landscaping and home yards. It blocks an enzyme in the plant shikimate pathway that is necessary for producing certain amino acids, ultimately stopping growth and killing the plant.
Commercial glyphosate products, known as glyphosate‑based herbicides (GBHs), combine glyphosate salts with surfactants and other formulants that help the chemical stick to and penetrate leaves and improve stability. These products are applied heavily to genetically engineered “glyphosate‑tolerant” crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton, as well as around roads, rail lines and public spaces. Trump’s order describes glyphosate‑based herbicides as a “cornerstone” of U.S. agricultural productivity, emphasizing that there is no perfect one‑for‑one replacement for the chemical on today’s farms.
Cancer and other health risks: what studies say
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” citing limited evidence of non‑Hodgkin lymphoma in people, sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence for genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Several regulators, including the European Food Safety Authority, later concluded glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard at typical exposure levels, pointing to additional data and different methods for weighing animal and human studies.
A major update of the U.S. Agricultural Health Study, which has followed pesticide applicators for decades, reported no overall association between glyphosate use and total cancer or non‑Hodgkin lymphoma, though it did observe a possible increase in acute myeloid leukemia at the highest exposure category based on relatively few cases. A separate meta‑analysis pooling several epidemiologic studies found a statistically significant link between high glyphosate exposure and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma, supporting IARC’s concern while acknowledging limitations in exposure measurement and study heterogeneity.
A 2024 review of human health effects concluded that evidence for specific cancers remains mixed: some analyses suggest elevated risk for non‑Hodgkin lymphoma and certain leukemias at higher, mostly occupational doses, while large cohort studies often report null or weak associations. That review also noted consistent genotoxic effects in vitro and highlighted the need for better data on long‑term, low‑dose exposure experienced by the general population.
Beyond cancer: acute and chronic side effects
Most severe acute poisonings occur after ingestion of concentrated glyphosate formulations, often in self‑harm attempts, and can cause gastrointestinal burns, respiratory distress, cardiovascular collapse and, in some cases, death. Case series and toxicology reports indicate that surfactants in some GBHs may contribute significantly to acute toxicity, not just glyphosate itself.
A 2022 review of toxic effects on the nervous system found that glyphosate and GBHs can cross or disrupt the blood‑brain barrier, trigger oxidative stress and neuroinflammation and alter neurotransmitter systems in animal and cell models. Human studies cited in that review linked occupational exposure to visual memory impairment in some farmer populations and raised concerns that prenatal or early‑life exposure could be associated with more severe neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder, though the authors stressed these associations are preliminary and require more robust research.
Experimental work and limited human data also suggest potential endocrine‑disrupting activity, liver and kidney changes and effects on gut microbiota at certain doses, but findings are inconsistent and difficult to translate to real‑world exposure. Regulatory agencies continue to maintain acceptable daily intake values, arguing that, based on current evidence, glyphosate residues permitted in food and water are not clearly linked to specific health effects in the general population, a conclusion that remains contested by some independent scientists and advocacy groups.
