Trump Signs Executive Order to Protect Glyphosate and Phosphorus Production: What Does This Mean for Bayer and the Global Agrochemical Industry?

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act, designating elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides as critical defense materials. The order empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to establish nationwide priorities and allocate resources, grants legal exemptions to domestic producers complying with the order under Section 707 of the Defense Production Act, and explicitly stipulates that any implementing regulations must not jeopardize the corporate viability of domestic producers.

This Cold War‑era law was last invoked intensively during the pandemic—to ensure domestic production of masks and ventilators. This time, it has been applied to herbicides.

The order addresses both phosphorus and glyphosate. Elemental phosphorus serves as a raw material for military smoke and illumination flares, as well as a component in semiconductor manufacturing, and it is also a precursor chemical to glyphosate. Earlier, in November 2025, the Department of the Interior had already designated phosphate as a critical mineral under the 2020 Energy Act. Taken together, these two measures have explicitly elevated phosphorus’s strategic status by one tier within the U.S. policy framework.

Why Bayer?

Understanding this executive order cannot ignore one key fact: through its subsidiary Monsanto, Bayer is the sole domestic producer of glyphosate in the United States—not the largest, but the only one. Phosphate mining takes place in Soda Springs, Idaho; the active ingredient is synthesized in Muscatine, Iowa; and formulations are manufactured in Luling, Louisiana—Bayer controls the entire domestic supply chain, and if it were to be disrupted, there would be no replacement. According to The Wall Street Journal, Bayer’s U.S. facilities account for roughly 40% of global glyphosate production. Of course, the U.S. market does not rely exclusively on Bayer; substantial quantities of generic glyphosate are imported from China to fill the capacity gap.

However, over the past few years, Bayer’s glyphosate business in the United States has been walking a tightrope.

Litigation is the biggest source of pressure. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, glyphosate‑related cancer lawsuits have snowballed, with more than 60,000 cases still pending. CEO Bill Anderson has rightly described this as an “existential threat” to the company. In August 2025, Bayer laid its cards on the table, publicly stating that, unless the regulatory environment changes, it may be forced to halt glyphosate production in the United States.

Meanwhile, phosphate‑ore supplies are also tightening. Bayer’s Blackfoot Bridge mine near Soda Springs is nearing depletion, and its planned successor, the new Caldwell Canyon mine—expected to operate for 40 years—was halted in 2023 by a federal judge over environmental‑impact‑assessment concerns. This has directly constrained upstream raw‑material availability. At the policy level, another contradiction persists: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the former U.S. Secretary of Health under the Trump administration, has long been known for his anti‑glyphosate stance, while supporters of the MAHA movement have consistently called for restrictions on glyphosate use. Such uncertainties leave the industry uncertain about the direction of regulatory policy.

A flurry of moves within half a year

And then there’s what’s happened over the past six months—let’s look at the timeline:

October 2025 — BLM re‑approves Bayer’s Caldwell Canyon phosphate mining project, which had previously been halted by a court.

November 2025 — The Ministry of the Interior designates phosphate as a critical mineral.

February 17, 2026 — Monsanto announces a $7.25 billion class-action settlement covering non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims spanning 21 years.

February 18, 2026 — Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to safeguard glyphosate and phosphorus production.

In April 2026 (expected), the Supreme Court will hear the Durnell case, and the Trump administration has already stated its support for Bayer’s federal priority position.

Phosphate‑mine approvals, the designation of critical minerals, a $7.25 billion settlement, executive orders, and Supreme Court cases—these developments unfolded in rapid succession over the past six months, creating a multi‑layered protective barrier that spans from upstream raw materials to litigation risks. Whether deliberate or coincidental, the overall effect is clear: the likelihood of Bayer withdrawing from the U.S. glyphosate market has been significantly reduced.

Bayer’s response and a silence

Monsanto’s statement was measured: the executive order “underscores the urgent need for U.S. farmers to access critical crop‑protection tools produced domestically,” and the company “will comply.” Bayer also emphasized through Reuters that the order will not lead to a global shortage of glyphosate—seeking to reassure international markets.

But one silence is particularly telling. When asked about Bayer’s level of involvement in the drafting of the executive order, the company declined to respond. George Kimbrell, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, offered a straightforward interpretation: he views the executive order as “a transparent attempt to influence the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

Bayer’s Plan B: icafolin-methyl

The executive order provides short-term protection, but Bayer is not putting all its eggs in the glyphosate basket. The company has filed registration applications in the United States, the European Union, Brazil, and Canada for icafolin‑methyl, a new herbicide developed on the CropKey R&D platform. This strategic move itself underscores one key point: even with policy‑driven barriers to entry, Bayer is proactively working to reduce its reliance on glyphosate.

Support and Opposition

The industry has responded swiftly, with positions sharply divided.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (Republican) called it an “important step” toward securing domestic supplies of critical agricultural inputs. Daren Coppock, president of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), put it more pragmatically: the executive order “helps bolster certainty at the farm level,” but its implementation must “reflect real‑world supply‑chain dynamics”—a subtle reminder not to let it become mere rhetoric. CropLife America, speaking from a science‑based regulatory perspective, emphasized that its products have undergone thorough EPA review.

The opposition is equally vocal. The Center for Food Safety argues that the executive order “lacks legal force and cannot arbitrarily grant Monsanto immunity.” Farm Action, which has long tracked Bayer’s strategy of seeking exemptions—lobbying Congress, advancing state-level exemption bills, and threatening to halt production—views the executive order as the latest move in this coordinated campaign. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), was the most outspoken, calling the executive order “the ultimate insult to every MAHA mom.”

Are phosphate fertilizer giants affected?

Here’s a concept that can easily be confused: “elemental phosphorus” in the executive order is related to phosphate fertilizer but is not the same thing. P4 Production, a subsidiary of Bayer, is the sole producer of elemental phosphorus in the United States; it processes phosphate rock into elemental phosphorus for use in glyphosate production. By contrast, the landscape of the phosphate‑fertilizer sector is entirely different: Mosaic and Nutrien together control more than 90% of U.S. phosphate‑fertilizer sales. While the executive order does not directly constrain these two companies, the upstream signal that phosphate has been designated a critical mineral carries implications for the entire phosphorus value chain.

What does it mean for China’s glyphosate exports?

The most immediate effect of the executive order is to consolidate Bayer’s production foothold in the United States. However, its impact on the global glyphosate market is more complex than it appears at first glance.

The policy intent is clear: reduce reliance on foreign supplies, with the original text defining “further outsourcing of the defense supply chain” as a national security threat. The approval of the Caldwell Canyon phosphate mine likewise points to medium- to long-term self-sufficiency in raw materials. Judging solely by policy direction, the room for China to replicate glyphosate and export it to the U.S. appears to be shrinking.

However, reality is more complex than policy direction. China is the world’s largest producer of glyphosate technical grade, supplying over 70% of global output. Bayer’s U.S. production capacity cannot meet domestic demand, and it will take several years for new phosphate mines to move from approval to full-scale operation. In the final four months of 2024, before the tariffs on China took effect, U.S. imports of glyphosate technical grade from China increased by nearly 40% compared with the same period last year—a figure that underscores the market’s substantial reliance on Chinese supply. Looking back at the experience of Trump’s first term, tariffs did not fundamentally alter the global agrochemical procurement landscape.

Thus, the administrative order’s impact on China’s glyphosate market is both indirect and contradictory: the policy aims to reduce reliance, yet in the short term, dependence remains unavoidable.

Four Things More Important Than the Executive Order Itself

The executive order is a signal of market stability, but the real variables that could reshape the global glyphosate competitive landscape lie elsewhere:

Variable 1: Commissioning date of the Caldwell Canyon phosphate mine

If fully commissioned by the end of this decade, it will fundamentally transform Bayer’s self-sufficiency in phosphorus supply and enhance the cost competitiveness of glyphosate produced in the United States.

Variable 2: Supreme Court Decision in the Durnell Case

If it is ruled that federal pesticide‑labeling regulations take precedence over state laws, the legal foundation for cancer‑related lawsuits would be significantly undermined. This would have implications for Bayer far beyond an administrative order.

Variable 3: The Trajectory of China–U.S. Tariff Arrangements

The current agreement suspends the higher reciprocal tariffs until November 2026. Whether the agreement is renewed, additional duties are imposed, or adjustments are made at that time will directly determine the cost structure of China’s glyphosate exports to the United States.

Variable 4: Icafolin-methyl registration progress

If this new herbicide, developed on the CropKey platform, receives successful regulatory approval and is commercialized in key markets, it could reshape the competitive dynamics of the herbicide market over the medium to long term.

Written at the end

On the surface, this executive order concerns the security of the national defense supply chain; in reality, it constitutes a comprehensive package spanning policy, judicial, and administrative measures. It sends two key signals: the security of glyphosate and phosphorus supplies has been elevated to the level of national defense strategy, and the U.S. government is serious about safeguarding domestic agrochemical production capacity.

However, the executive order cannot resolve all the structural issues facing the glyphosate industry. Litigation pressures persist, resistant weeds continue to spread, and consumer concerns about pesticide safety show no sign of abating. For players in the global agrochemical sector, the significance of this order lies not in what it addresses, but in what it reveals: the deep-seated contradictions within the U.S. glyphosate market, as well as the evolving dynamics of the competing interests surrounding them.

Author: AGROPAGES Industry Analysis Team

Feedback and corrections are welcome!

Disclaimer: This article is prepared based on publicly available information and is intended solely as a reference for industry analysis; it does not constitute investment advice or legal opinion. The views cited in this document represent the personal positions of the individuals or institutions concerned.

Source: AgroPages (World Agrochemical Network)