President Donald Trump has signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act, leaning on a Cold War-era law to boost domestic supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Signed on Wednesday, Feb. 18, the move is framed by the White House as a national security step meant to protect both military supply chains and U.S. agriculture. The order hands federal officials new power to prioritize, allocate and even compel production of those materials.
What the order does
The administration is dusting off an old tool to let Washington redirect industrial output when it says the need is urgent. As reported by Reuters, the executive order delegates Defense Production Act authority to the Agriculture Secretary, allowing that office to demand contract performance and set allocation rules. In practice, that means the federal government can dictate how elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides are produced and where they go across the country.
Why phosphorus and glyphosate?
According to the administration, elemental phosphorus is “pervasive in defense supply chains” and shows up in everything from smoke and illumination rounds to incendiary devices and key components for semiconductors and batteries. In the executive order and a companion fact sheet, the White House warned there is “only a single domestic producer of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides,” calling that a strategic vulnerability the order is meant to shore up. Officials argue that locking in that supply is about both military readiness and the resilience of the nation’s food-production system.
Regulatory and legal context
Glyphosate itself is already at the center of a long-running legal and scientific brawl. The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a major appeal from the maker of Roundup over thousands of state-court lawsuits. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency has said its evaluations find glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used as directed. That split between courtroom battles and federal safety findings helps explain why any White House push to lock in herbicide supplies lands in such a politically charged space.
Reactions from industry and advocates
Industry leaders and some farm groups have welcomed the order, arguing it could steady supply chains and give growers more predictable signals about future access to key herbicides. Environmental and public-health advocates see something very different. They warn the move could weaken local pesticide limits and help insulate manufacturers from liability. The Environmental Working Group has already flagged similar concerns about federal preemption of stricter state or local rules. The political fight is not confined to the executive branch: lawmakers recently stripped a pesticide-industry protection rider from an appropriations bill, a sign of how fraught herbicide policy has become, The Guardian reported.
Next steps and legal implications
The new order spells out broad powers for the Agriculture Secretary, who can now issue directives, set national production priorities and require companies to carry out contracts under the Defense Production Act. It also includes an immunity provision for producers, according to the executive order itself. How that plays out will depend on a series of intra-agency decisions over which plants, products and shipments get priority. Those calls could trigger legal challenges from states or companies that feel they are being boxed out. As Reuters noted, it is the latest example of the administration turning to wartime authorities to pull more control over critical materials back inside U.S. borders.
