They Just Declared Roundup A “National Security Asset”… And Almost Nobody Noticed

From Farm Bill Backrooms to Executive Order Power

On February 18, 2026, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order that quietly turned a long-standing corporate wish list into federal policy. Glyphosate—the controversial herbicide found in Roundup and linked in multiple lawsuits to cancer—is now officially treated as a “critical resource” for national defense.

Just like that, under the banner of protecting America’s security and food supply, Washington moved to shield one of the most debated chemicals on earth from deeper scrutiny, local resistance, and future accountability.

And here’s the thing: this didn’t happen overnight.
Instead, it’s the latest turn of a much bigger wheel—a glyphosate immunity machine—that stretches from the farm bill in Congress all the way to the Oval Office, with Bayer/Monsanto and Big Ag riding shotgun the entire way.

From “Health First” Promises to a Glyphosate Presidency

Not long ago, the political messaging sounded very different.

Back on the campaign trail, Trump stood alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and promised something millions of parents had been begging for: a serious investigation into toxins in our food, water, and environment. He spoke openly about pesticides, autoimmune disorders, autism, obesity, infertility, and the rising tide of chronic disease among children.

For many Americans—especially independents and frustrated Democrats—that message mattered. Plenty of voters who had never pulled a Republican lever before did so because they believed someone might finally confront the chemical burden weighing on modern life.

Meanwhile, grassroots groups like Moms Across America felt heard for the first time in years. The Maha movement—“Make America Healthy Again”—gained real traction. People hoped Washington might finally turn toward prevention instead of profit.

Yet just one year into the administration, the direction looks very different.

Rather than reducing exposure to agricultural chemicals, we now have an executive order titled:
“Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.”

In plain terms, the same government that promised to investigate toxins has now invoked the Defense Production Act to guarantee more of them.

How ‘National Defense’ Became a Chemical Shield

At first glance, the executive order reads like standard national-security paperwork.

To begin with, it focuses on elemental phosphorus—a substance used in smoke screens, illumination devices, semiconductors, radar systems, and other military technologies. The Department of the Interior even designated phosphate as a critical mineral in late 2025.

So far, nothing unusual.

Then comes the pivot.

Elemental phosphorus, the order explains, is also a key precursor in manufacturing glyphosate-based herbicides. And those herbicides, it argues, are a “cornerstone” of American agricultural productivity—essential for food supply security, which in turn is framed as crucial to national defense and public safety.

In other words, the logic runs like this:
Protect glyphosate → protect food supply → protect national security.

But here’s what’s missing from that narrative.

There is no serious discussion of farming systems that operate without glyphosate. No mention of regenerative agriculture, organic rotations, or traditional soil-building practices that fed populations long before chemical weed killers dominated the landscape. Instead, the order leans heavily on industry talking points, including the claim that there is “no direct one-for-one chemical alternative.”

At the same time, it cites a looming supply problem. Roughly 85.7 percent of global glyphosate production is controlled by Chinese companies. The United States imports millions of kilograms of elemental phosphorus. Domestic production is limited.

Rather than treating that dependence as a warning sign to rethink the system, Washington is using it as justification to double down.

The Farm Bill’s Pesticide Immunity Shield

While the executive order focuses on securing supply, the farm bill currently moving through Congress aims to secure something even more powerful: legal protection.

Buried deep in its language is what critics call a Pesticide Immunity Shield—provisions that could reshape how pesticides are regulated and challenged in the United States.

Among the key elements:

• Extended review timelines pushing meaningful federal pesticide reevaluation out to 2031.
• Preemption of state and local authority, blocking communities from enacting stricter pesticide rules around schools, parks, and neighborhoods.
• Elevation of EPA labels to near-absolute legal authority, allowing companies to argue that if a cancer warning isn’t on the label, they couldn’t legally provide one—and therefore can’t be held liable in failure-to-warn lawsuits.

In everyday language, this turns the EPA label into a liability firewall.

Communities that spent years passing local restrictions could see those rules wiped away overnight. Courts that have held chemical companies accountable may find their authority narrowed. And federal agencies—often accused of regulatory capture—would effectively become the final word on safety.

For many observers, that stands in sharp contrast to the small-government rhetoric often heard in Washington. Instead of decentralizing power, these measures would centralize it at the federal level, overriding states and municipalities that tried to chart a different course.

Glyphosate’s Track Record: Lawsuits, Soil Damage, and Controversy

Industry messaging portrays glyphosate as a safe and indispensable crop tool. Yet its real-world history is far more complicated.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. U.S. juries have awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, has already paid roughly $10 billion in settlements and continues negotiating additional claims.

Beyond cancer debates, critics point to research linking glyphosate exposure with reproductive issues, neurological effects, and ecosystem disruption. Farmers and soil scientists increasingly report that heavy herbicide use alters microbial life in soil, potentially reducing long-term fertility and resilience.

Meanwhile, glyphosate isn’t limited to genetically modified corn and soy. It’s often used as a pre-harvest drying agent on wheat, oats, legumes, and other staples—meaning residues can appear in a wide range of processed foods.

Testing by various advocacy groups has reported glyphosate traces in everything from cereal and pasta to snack foods and school meals. Those findings remain hotly contested, but they’ve helped fuel public concern and local efforts to restrict use.

Other Nations Step Back While Washington Steps Forward

If glyphosate were universally embraced, global policy might reflect that consensus. Instead, approaches vary widely.

Vietnam has banned glyphosate entirely. Several Gulf nations have implemented sweeping restrictions. Across Europe, countries including France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have debated or enacted limits on public-space spraying or household use.

Even within the United States, local governments and school districts have adopted partial bans or organic-only landscaping policies for parks and playgrounds. The federal farm bill provisions under discussion could override many of those decisions, replacing local experimentation with national uniformity.

Real National Defense Starts in the Soil

Supporters of the executive order frame glyphosate production as a matter of patriotism and preparedness. Critics see something else: a food system so centralized and chemically dependent that any disruption—whether geopolitical or environmental—becomes a national vulnerability.

After all, long-term security isn’t just about weapons or supply chains. It’s also about soil health, clean water, and a population resilient enough to thrive.

A different vision of national defense might look like this:

• Expanding regenerative and organic farming that builds soil rather than depleting it.
• Sourcing school and military food from domestic growers using lower-chemical methods.
• Preserving state and local authority to set community standards.

Whether Washington embraces that path remains uncertain.

For now, the glyphosate immunity machine is moving forward—powered by policy language, regulatory momentum, and decades of chemical dependence. And as with so many federal decisions, the ultimate impact will play out far from the Capitol dome, in farm fields, kitchens, and communities across the country.

The question is no longer whether the machine exists.
The real question is how—and whether—ordinary Americans choose to respond.

Source: https://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/they-just-declared-roundup-a-national-security-asset-and-almost-nobody-noticed/