Impact of Trump's Glyphosate Order on Iowa Legislation

Glyphosate Iowa Pesticides Trump Legislation

April 30, 20265 min readNorth America

Impact of Trump's Glyphosate Order on Iowa Legislation

Examining the implications of Trump's executive order on glyphosate.

{"results": [{"url": "https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/agriculture/2026/02/19/trump-glyphosate-executive-order-phosphorus-herbicides-iowa-roundup/88756722007/", "title": "How might Trump's glyphosate executive order affect Iowa legislation?", "author": "Donnelle Eller \n,\u00a0\n Stephen Gruber-Miller", "summary": "Summary:\n\n- The article discusses President Trump\u2019s executive order using the Defense Production Act to prioritize U.S. glyphosate (Roundup) production, framing it as essential to national security, food production, and military needs.\n- The order could shield domestic glyphosate and phosphorus makers from certain legal actions by declaring them essential and providing limited immunity, amid ongoing Iowa debate over bills that would shield pesticide/herbicide manufacturers from certain lawsuits related to cancer claims.\n- In Iowa, activists rally against such shielding measures, arguing that labeling and safety warnings are insufficient and that manufacturers remain protected from accountability. Proponents, including Iowa House and Senate leaders, argue that a federal standard should govern labeling and that companies should not be penalized for labeling choices controlled by federal regulation.\n- The broader context: Bayer/Monsanto faces numerous cancer-related lawsuits over glyphosate, fueling state legislative efforts to limit claims against pesticide makers. The executive order adds federal pressure to secure glyphosate supply and potentially reduce state-level legal risk for producers.\n\nIf you\u2019re looking for how this affects a specific Iowa bill or the likelihood of state-level shield legislation passing, I can extract the most relevant points from the article and compare them to current Iowa legislative status."}, {"url": "https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/META-Q/pressreleases/30862761/bayer-backs-broadened-effort-to-shield-popular-weedkiller-from-claims-it-failed-to-warn-of-cancer/", "title": "Bayer backs broadened effort to shield popular weedkiller from claims it failed to warn of cancer", "author": "Unknown", "summary": "Summary:\n- Bayer is backing a broader legislative push in multiple states, including Iowa, to shield pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits claiming they failed to warn about cancer risks from Roundup, provided product labeling complies with EPA rules.\n- The move aims to protect glyphosate-based Roundup from cancer-failure-to-warn claims, intensifying despite ongoing public opposition and protests at the Iowa Capitol.\n- Past attempts in 2024 to pass similar protections in Iowa, Missouri, and Idaho stalled; this year Bayer and agricultural groups are increasing advocacy and funding, leveraging media campaigns and allied support.\n- Opponents argue the bills reduce accountability for harms, citing personal cancer diagnoses in families and urging lawmakers to prioritize public safety over corporate interests.\n- Bayer contends Roundup labeling already conforms with EPA regulations and disputes cancer causation claims.\n\nRelevance to user query:\n- Aligns with Reuters coverage of 2026 state-legislation efforts to shield pesticide makers from failure-to-warn claims related to Roundup.\n- Notes continuing 2025\u20132026 push, similarities to prior failed attempts, and ongoing public and political responses."}, {"url": "https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/27/politics/roundup-pesticides-maha-supreme-court", "title": "A Supreme Court case over pesticides is bringing out the \u2018MAHA moms\u2019 \u2014 and threats of consequences for the midterms | CNN Politics", "author": "Sarah Owermohle", "summary": "- The CNN piece covers a Supreme Court case on the pesticide glyphosate (Roundup) and its safety, framed around the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and its influence in Washington ahead of midterms. It highlights MAHA moms\u2019 activism, a White House meeting with RFK Jr., and ongoing calls to restrict or better regulate pesticides.\n- The core legal question: Can Americans sue Bayer/Monsanto over illnesses allegedly caused by Roundup, with the case potentially shaping legal liability and access to compensation for users?\n- Background: DeWayne Johnson, a San Francisco school groundskeeper, sued Monsanto after developing terminal cancer; he won a significant initial judgment later reduced on appeal. Monsanto/Bayer maintains Roundup is safe, citing EPA reviews and labeling that does not mention cancer.\n- The article notes anticipated protests at the Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments and positions the case within broader public health and regulatory debates about pesticide safety and corporate liability.\n- Relevance to the user\u2019s query: The Reuters-focused request appears to seek news about Bayer Roundup state legislation shielding pesticide makers from failure-to-warn claims (as of March 2025 and 2026). This CNN article provides context about the ongoing legal framework, liability disputes, and MAHA influence, which could inform how state-level protections or industry-friendly bills might interact with high-profile federal cases. However, it is not a Reuters source and does not detail state shield legislation; it emphasizes national litigation and activism surrounding Roundup."}, {"url": "https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/10/14/mo-supreme-court-wont-review-600m-judgment-in-roundup-cancer-lawsuit/86687044007/", "title": "MO Supreme Court won't review $600M judgment in Roundup cancer lawsuit", "summary": "Summary:\n- The Missouri Supreme Court declined to review a $600 million judgment against Bayer in a Roundup cancer case, effectively finalizing the $611 million award after reductions from an initial $1.56 billion.\n- Bayer maintains the judgment was erroneous and is weighing further appeals, including possible U.S. Supreme Court options, though such routes are rarely successful in state cases.\n- The case is among a wave of litigation against Bayer over glyphosate and Roundup, with Bayer pushing for legislative protections at state and federal levels to shield it from such lawsuits.\n- The article also notes Bayer\u2019s unsuccessful efforts in Missouri to pass liability-protection legislation, contrasts with some successes in North Dakota and Georgia, and mentions ongoing federal proposals that could affect pesticide-liability lawsuits.\n\nHow this relates to your query:\n- If you\u2019re looking for updates on Bayer Roundup state-level protections and how they interact with recent Missouri rulings, this confirms finalization of the Missouri judgment and ongoing, although uncertain, avenues for further review.\n- It also places the Missouri case in the broader context of legislative efforts to shield pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims at both state and federal levels."}, {"url": "https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2026/02/18/bayer-proposes-7-25b-settlement-in-roundup-cancer-lawsuits/88737586007/", "title": "Bayer proposes $7.25B settlement in Roundup cancer lawsuits", "summary": "Summary:\n\n- Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion nationwide settlement to resolve thousands of U.S. Roundup cancer lawsuits. The plan would fund claims over up to 21 years, with payout amounts varying by exposure history, age at diagnosis, and cancer severity (non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Example averages: about $165,000 for long-term agricultural/industrial/turf workers with aggressive illness diagnosed before 60; about $20,000 for residential users aged 60\u201377 with less aggressive illness; about $10,000 for those 78+.\n- The settlement aims to reduce litigation risk ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court decision Bayer is pursuing, which argues that EPA approval without a cancer warning should limit state-law claims. The Supreme Court case, set for oral arguments around late April 2026, would not be affected by the settlement and could influence future liability.\n- If too many claimants opt out, Bayer reserves the right to cancel the deal. Funding would come via an $8 billion secured loan facility to support the resolution.\n- The move seeks to provide a clear path out of litigation uncertainty while Bayer continues to emphasize the importance of Supreme Court guidance on regulatory standards in American agriculture.\n\nIf you\u2019re specifically looking for Reuters coverage from April 2026 on state-law shielding attempts or March 2025 context, this article notes Bayer\u2019s push to limit liability through the Supreme Court while offering the proposed settlement as a mitigating step."}]}

Originally published by The Hill.

Sources (15)

A Supreme Court case over pesticides is bringing out the ‘MAHA moms’ — and threats of consequences for the midterms | CNN Politics

cnn.com

How RFK Jr.’s MAHA agenda keeps hitting roadblocks | CNN Politics

cnn.com

How RFK Jr.’s MAHA agenda keeps hitting roadblocks | CNN Politics

edition.cnn.com

Inside the sudden downfall of Eric Swalwell | CNN Politics

cnn.com

From Epstein to Swalwell, women in Congress are flexing their power

usatoday.com

MO Supreme Court won't review $600M judgment in Roundup cancer lawsuit

eu.usatoday.com

Trump administration backs Bayer's bid to limit Roundup lawsuits

usatoday.com

Bayer backs broadened effort to shield popular weedkiller from claims it failed to warn of cancer

theglobeandmail.com

Supreme Court agrees to hear longstanding fight over Roundup cancer claims | CNN Politics

cnn.com

The Washington Post - Breaking news and latest headlines, U.S. news, world news, and video

washingtonpost.com

How government spying law FISA Section 702 is deeply dividing Congress

usatoday.com

‘Cesspool of inflated male egos’: Congress reckons with a culture of persistent sexual harassment | CNN Politics

edition.cnn.com

Embattled GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales announces he’s stepping down from Congress | CNN Politics

cnn.com

How might Trump's glyphosate executive order affect Iowa legislation?

usatoday.com

Bayer proposes $7.25B settlement in Roundup cancer lawsuits

usatoday.com

Keep reading

US Politics

SNAP Food Assistance Faces Stricter Rules and Legal Battles

In 2026, SNAP faces stricter rules and legal challenges, impacting 42 million Americans reliant on food assistance amid budget cuts.

Global Politics

Macron's Political Maneuvers Amidst France's Leadership Turmoil

Macron's recent appointments and political shifts reveal his strategy to maintain control.

US Politics

House GOP Faces Pressure Over FISA Section 702 Extension Debate

Congress grapples with FISA Section 702 extension amid GOP divisions and privacy debates.