1. United States
2. Wash.
3. Letter

Oppose the Executive Order that expands domestic glyphosate production. Despite its claims, the order has nothing to do with security. In addition to prioritizing the 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 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. 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. I urge you to stand up for constitutional boundaries, consumer protection, and access to the courts, 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.