Iowa lawmakers mulling Trump’s executive order to protect pesticide makers from lawsuits

DES MOINES — With clean water and cancer prevention advocates rallying in the Iowa Capitol rotunda below, state lawmakers Thursday discussed whether a recent executive order from President Donald Trump changes the need for state legislation to shield pesticide manufacturers from certain lawsuits.

Trump the day before signed an executive order aimed at boosting domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus, invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize their manufacture as a national security matter. The order frames glyphosate — the key ingredient in Roundup — as essential to supply chains.

The directive empowers the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prioritize contracts and allocate resources to ensure a steady supply of glyphosate and its chemical inputs. It also includes a provision granting certain immunities under federal law to companies complying with the order — a clause that has raised new questions among legal experts and advocates already concerned about corporate liability.

It remains unclear whether that immunity would extend to shield Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, from ongoing or future cancer-related lawsuits.

What is glyphosate?

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world and has been a cornerstone of industrial agriculture since its introduction by Monsanto in 1974. Today, it is the most heavily used pesticide in the state, with Iowa and Illinois consistently ranking among the highest in annual usage.

For farmers, glyphosate long has been considered an essential tool — one that simplifies weed control and supports high crop yields. Many agricultural groups continue to point to federal regulatory findings, including those from the Environmental Protection Agency, as evidence that the herbicide is safe when used properly.

But that reliance has been increasingly scrutinized. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto — the original developer of Roundup — in 2018, has faced years of litigation alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company disputes those claims and maintains that its products are safe when used as directed.

Just one day before Trump’s order, Bayer announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging it failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks, according to the Associated Press. The agreement, which requires court approval, is part of a broader effort by the company to contain mounting legal costs that executives say threaten the viability of the product in U.S. markets.

“That is one of the reasons why I argued, why my caucus argued on the (Iowa Senate) floor last year and the prior year that we shouldn’t be taking away any Iowan’s right to sue if they believe they have been harmed,” Iowa Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner, a Democrat from Iowa City, told reporters Thursday.

That legal pressure has played out prominently in Iowa, where Bayer produces Roundup in Muscatine and operates multiple crop science facilities across the state. The company has significantly increased its lobbying presence at the Iowa Capitol in recent years, spending more than $200,000 across 2024 and 2025 as lawmakers considered a bill that would limit the ability of individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers over health claims, according to Iowa Capital Dispatch.

Opponents of that legislation — and of Trump’s executive order — argue that such policies risk prioritizing agricultural output and corporate stability over public health. Supporters, including many agricultural groups, counter that restricting access to glyphosate could disrupt food production and strain an already volatile farm economy.

What Iowa lawmakers say

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, a Republican from Spillville whose chamber has passed the labeling lawsuit shield legislation in recent years, said he does not yet know whether Trump’s executive order changes his view of the need for the state legislation to pass the law, but that he hopes that the Republican-led House passes the bill and sends it to Gov. Kim Reynolds for her consideration.

The Iowa bill “did not prohibit anybody from suing those companies over cause. It just said you can’t sue for labeling that they’re not allowed to put on by the federal government,” Klimesh told reporters Thursday. “I’m not aware of what President Trump did (Wednesday), I apologize. But I would still encourage the House to pick that bill up and provide those protections in Iowa Code.”

Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley, a Republican from New Hartford whose chamber has in years past has not advanced the bill, also said Thursday that he has not yet determined the impact of Trump’s executive order.

“I’m aware of the executive order from the president. I have not had any further conversation on what that may or may not mean for Iowa,” Grassley said. “My understanding is the president obviously wants to see these products made in America, something that we’ve been talking about. … As a (House Republican) caucus, I don’t know if we’ve had time to digest what the impacts may or may not be, especially being a main producer here in Iowa and Muscatine.”

Advocates hope legislation falters again

  Buy Photo

The advocacy group Food and Water Watch held a rally Thursday in the Iowa Capitol rotunda, calling for legislation to help keep Iowa’s water clean and help prevent Iowans from getting cancer. Speakers asserted that agricultural pollution is impairing Iowa waters and contributing to the state’s high cancer rates. Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the country and the only that is increasing.

“We’re here to build power so that we can win more, so that we can restore water quality across the state, so that we can reorganize our economy to meet the needs of the people, instead of just benefiting massive corporations that are making huge profits while polluting our state,” Food and Water Watch Senior Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel said during the rally. “And we’re here working for a political system that works for everyone.”

Study retraction clouds debate

The scientific debate over glyphosate has been further complicated by the recent retraction of a long-cited study that helped shape federal assessments of the chemical’s safety.

For years, regulators and scientists have been divided over the chemical’s potential health risks. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” citing evidence linking exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and cancer in laboratory animals. But the EPA concluded in a 2020 interim review that glyphosate is “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk if used as directed.

That divide stems in part from the underlying research each body relied upon — and some of that research is now under scrutiny.

A 2000 study that played a significant role in federal regulatory reviews has been formally retracted after journal editors identified “serious concerns” about its validity, ambiguity and alleged misrepresentation. Editors also cited ethical violations tied to Monsanto’s involvement in the study, including concerns about ghostwriting and self-serving regulatory recommendations.

Despite that, the research remained part of the scientific and regulatory foundation surrounding glyphosate for more than two decades.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com