1. United States
2. Mass.
3. Letter

There are moments when Congress must quietly but firmly reassert its constitutional role. The February 18 Executive Order expanding domestic glyphosate production under the Defense Production Act is one of those moments. The order not only prioritizes production of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus—it also invokes Section 707 of the Defense Production Act, language that may be used to shield manufacturers from civil liability when acting pursuant to federal directive. At a time when tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging harm from glyphosate products are still working through the courts, that is not a minor administrative step. It is a profound policy choice. This is not a partisan issue. It is a separation-of-powers issue. The bipartisan introduction of HR 7601, the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act,” by Thomas Massie and Chellie Pingree—with original co-sponsors Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, and Ro Khanna—demonstrates that members on both sides of the aisle recognize the stakes. Their legislation would prohibit federal funds from implementing the Executive Order and affirm that glyphosate manufacturers are not immune from civil liability under federal or state law. That is what congressional oversight looks like. The Defense Production Act was designed for urgent national mobilization—not for altering the balance of liability law during active mass litigation. If Congress allows executive orders to create de facto immunity for industries deemed “strategic,” the precedent will extend far beyond glyphosate. At the same time, recent developments at the Department of Health and Human Services—such as the removal of longstanding FDA warnings about dangerous autism “treatments” like chlorine dioxide and chelation therapy—have further strained public trust in federal health oversight. Whether one supports or opposes the administration’s broader agenda, Americans across the political spectrum expect transparency, accountability, and protection from demonstrably harmful products. Many voters who supported the President did so in the belief that corporate capture would be challenged—not reinforced. When bipartisan lawmakers introduce legislation to preserve Americans’ right to seek remedy in court, that is not rebellion. It is responsible governance. Standing up for constitutional boundaries, consumer protection, and access to the courts should never require political courage. It should be routine. I urge you to support HR 7601, hold oversight hearings on the use of Defense Production Act immunity in this context, and reaffirm that Congress—not executive order—determines the limits of liability law in the United States.