A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," seeks to stop the use of Federal funds for implementing Executive Order 14387 regarding the supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. It establishes that individuals who suffer physical injury, illness, disease, or death from exposure to these substances can bring civil actions against manufacturing or supplying entities. The bill specifically removes legal immunity for these "covered entities" under both Federal and State law. It also prohibits companies from using compliance with Executive orders or the Defense Production Act as a defense against liability. Furthermore, the act ensures that existing and pending legal claims are not affected.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +7
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill increases consumer protection by allowing individuals to sue manufacturers for damages resulting from exposure to certain substances.
- Scored +6
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill explicitly states that it does not preempt, displace, or limit any rights or remedies available under State law.
- Scored +5
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill provides individuals with a clear legal cause of action to seek compensation for injuries or death.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill prohibits the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds to implement or enforce Executive Order 14387.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
The bill stops the use of Federal funds for the implementation of an Executive Order related to national defense supplies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Right to Legal Action: Individuals, their estates, or survivors may bring civil actions in district courts if they suffer physical injury, illness, disease, or death due to exposure to elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides (Section 3(a)).
-
Access to Financial Relief: Courts are empowered to award various forms of compensation, including medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, wrongful death damages, and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees (Section 3(d)).
-
Removal of Legal Barriers: The bill removes the ability for companies to use the Defense Production Act or other Federal laws as a defense to avoid liability for injuries caused by these substances (Section 3(f)).
-
Protection of State Rights: The act ensures that the rights and remedies available under State law are not preempted, displaced, or limited (Section 3(i)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Funding Restrictions: The bill prohibits the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 14387 (Section 2).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly states that it does not preempt, displace, or limit any rights or remedies available under State law. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill provides individuals with a clear legal cause of action to seek compensation for injuries or death.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill provides a mechanism for individuals to recover medical expenses and lost income due to chemical exposure. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill allows for the recovery of medical expenses and damages which can benefit individuals with health-related impairments.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill increases consumer protection by allowing individuals to sue manufacturers for damages resulting from exposure to certain substances. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill prohibits the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds to implement or enforce Executive Order 14387.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill subjects manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides to civil liability for injuries caused by exposure.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill allows for the recovery of lost income and medical expenses for those injured by exposure to certain chemicals.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The bill stops the use of Federal funds for the implementation of an Executive Order related to national defense supplies.
- 8/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/28/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont