Glyphosate Under Protection and Bayer’s Hope for Resolution
23 February 2026 A Presidential Executive Order (EO) was issued on February 18, under the Defense Preparedness Act on elemental phosphorus and glyphosate. It is unprecedented for a President to issue an order protecting U.S. production of an agrochemical.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Bayer CropScience’s (BCS) appeal of all of the pending injury trials for glyphosate a month ago with a ruling expected in June or July. It is clear that unlike the previous administration, the Solicitor General will support the appeal and emphasize sound science and the supremacy of EPA labels.
If the Supreme Court agrees, this is not only good for glyphosate but should also spill over to paraquat and any other product that is subject to the jurisdiction of EPA and is currently in the crosshairs of the non-government organizations (NGOs).
Further, it will hopefully enshrine the idea that legal decisions need to be based on sound science. I doubt that BCS would be able to obtain refunds for past settlements, but at least it should stop the bleeding going forward.
NGOs are hopeful that they can kill glyphosate so that they can kill the GMO seed industry. This will end that dream.
Bayer CropScience announced on February 17 the establishment of a $7.25 B fund to resolve current and future claims against Roundup. It is hard to know if the establishment of this fund influenced the President’s decision to issue the EO on the following day. It is also hard to understand if the establishment of this fund will be influenced by the future Supreme Court decision on this entire issue.
One thing that can be assumed is that if this fund is approved by the Court in Missouri, home to most of the lawsuits, it could free Bayer AG to transition the ownership of Bayer CropScience. It is unlikely that any company would be a willing acquirer unless they had complete confidence that they would not be straddled with Roundup liabilities.
Further, work is being done behind the scenes at the Department of Agriculture, with the support of National Security Council (NSC) to develop and then potentially implement policies for food security, with a focus on agrochemicals. They clearly understand that glyphosate is a cornerstone of any effort to protect U.S. agriculture.
They also understand that it is important for there to continue to be an internationally competitive domestic source for this product. If this work comes to fruition, it may be that the final policy will be modelled on the work that is being done on critical minerals. This means it could entail either a government investment in the supply chain, or possibly the establishment of a price floor on selected agrochemicals made in the U.S. It also could entail strategic stockpiling of items not manufactured here. They are a long way from finalizing these ideas.
Get The Newsletter Today!
