Trump Administration Does the Right Thing for American Farm Security, But Congress Must Still Act

As the Protecting America Initiative has argued before, when individual states impose a patchwork of laws that force agricultural suppliers to meet requirements that contradict federal standards, they undermine farmers and agricultural manufacturers, leaving them vulnerable to competitors from adversarial nations like China. The disruption caused by these extreme state laws undermine a robust domestic food supply and ultimately our national security. 

This week, the Trump Administration took a welcome step in pushing back against the regulatory onslaught by individual states by weighing in on an important case involving whether state law can require companies to go above and beyond federal requirements. 

Trump Administration Supports Farmers by Supporting Regulatory Clarity 

On Monday, the Trump Administration urged the United States Supreme Court to grant cert in a key agriculture manufacturers appeal of a Missouri state court decision holding them liable for what the plaintiff had argued was a failure to adequately warn consumers about potential cancer risks from glyphosate found in its product Roundup. In his brief, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer rightly argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pre-empts states from imposing any labeling requirements that are in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA. As Sauer notes, “[f]or decades, EPA has classified glyphosate as a chemical that is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has approved hundreds of labels for Roundup and other glyphosate-based products without requiring a cancer warning.” 

In other words, Missouri is attempting to hold the American agriculture manufacture liable for violating state law even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long held that the active ingredient in Roundup is not likely to cause cancer. As more states pass laws that contradict federal requirements, agricultural manufacturers will be forced into an unwinnable position trying to keep abreast of a regulatory nightmare. In submitting this brief, Solicitor General Sauer is urging the Supreme Court to hold that “a manufacturer should not be left subject to ‘50 different labeling regimes pre-scribing’ different requirements.” 

Congress Has the Opportunity to Enact a Permanent Fix 

Although a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would be beneficial for American agricultural manufacturers, Congress can weigh in with a commonsense legislative fix without having to rely on the judiciary by passing the Fiscal Year 2026 Interior and Environment appropriations bill. Included in the bill is a provision from House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson that would establish certainty for American farmers, ranchers, and agricultural industry. 

Section 453 of the FY26 Interior and Environment appropriations bill would prohibit the EPA from approving warning labels on pesticides that are inconsistent with “a human health assessment performed pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.); or (b) a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.” What this ultimately means is that the EPA must act in accordance with its own scientific findings, a policy that is supported by hundreds of American agricultural groups. 

Congress Must Act to Safeguard American Agriculture  

The Protecting America Initiative applauds President Trump and Solicitor General Sauer for supporting the American agricultural industry and trying to ensure that the people who ensure our nation’s food security don’t have to deal with unworkable and inconsistent standards that threaten their livelihoods. Congress, however, must also exercise its authority by passing the FY26 Interior and Environment appropriations bill along with Section 453. If lawmakers instead rely on passing a continuing resolution to fund the government, they will have missed the opportunity to enact much-needed reform to protect American agricultural manufacturers from this regulatory threat, ultimately making them more vulnerable to competitors from adversarial nations who are ready to supplant them.