Pingree, Chellie RSS Articles

Pingree, Massie Introduce ‘People Over Poison Act’ to Protect Americans’ Right to Hold Big Chemical Companies Accountable

Mon, 29 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the People Over Poison Act, legislation to protect Americans’ right to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products. The bipartisan bill comes days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer—formerly Monsanto—in Monsanto v. Durnell, a case centered around Roundup, the company’s widely used glyphosate-based herbicide. In its decision, the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when those claims involve a warning not mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Pingree and Massie’s People Over Poison Act would reverse the Monsanto v. Durnell ruling by explicitly stating that FIFRA does not block or limit state tort claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging—preserving the right of people harmed by pesticides to seek accountability in court.

"The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn't buy in Congress," said Pingree. "Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. For all the Trump Administration’s talk about ‘Making America Healthy Again,’ it keeps siding with chemical companies in court, dragging its feet on long-overdue safety reviews, and even boosting glyphosate production. Enough with the empty slogans and broken promises. If this Administration won’t put people’s health over corporate profits, Congress must. The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.”

“The Supreme Court just ruled that Monsanto/Bayer can’t be sued for omitting a warning even if their herbicides do cause cancer,” said Massie. “Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound in this case, it’s a blatant travesty of justice. Congress and the President can fix this and we absolutely should.”

State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims.

The implications extend far beyond Roundup and glyphosate. The ruling could affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks.

Pingree, a longtime farmer and member of the House Agriculture Committee, successfully removed a liability shield for Big Chemical from the FY2026 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. After similar language appeared in the draft Farm Bill, Pingree led an amendment during Committee markup to strip the language. She and Rep. Massie introduced the same amendment when the Farm Bill came before the full House of Representatives. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) identical amendment passed with strong bipartisan support. Earlier this month, Luna and Pingree introduced the Paraquat Prevention Act, legislation that would ban the herbicide paraquat.

In February, President Trump signed an Executive Order to increase domestic production of glyphosate—a widely used weedkiller that has been linked to multiple health issues, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In response, Pingree and Massie introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which would undo Trump’s Executive Order.

###

Pingree: SCOTUS Victory for Big Chemical Exposes Trump’s MAHA Hypocrisy

Thu, 25 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a leading advocate in Congress in the fight to remove toxic chemicals from our food and environment and protect public health over corporate profits, released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of Monsanto:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell is a devastating setback for Americans who deserve the right to hold powerful companies accountable for serious health harms.

While we feared the Court’s decision might go this way—thanks in large part to the Trump Administration’s support—I held out hope that the growing, bipartisan opposition to this liability shield would make clear just how much is at stake. From the People vs. Poison rally outside the Supreme Court to our recent win keeping a pesticide manufacturer liability shield out of the Farm Bill, advocates, lawmakers, farmers, and families have been sending a clear message: No chemical company should be able to write the rules, dodge accountability, and leave people and communities to pay the price.

Let’s be clear: The Court did not decide whether Roundup causes cancer. Instead, it ruled that, because EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, federal pesticide law blocks this kind of state-law failure-to-warn claim. People who believe they were harmed by Roundup now face an even steeper path to justice, while Bayer gets exactly what it has been fighting for—a powerful new shield from accountability.

This decision exposes the Trump Administration’s so-called “Make America Healthy Again” agenda for what it is: nothing more than a hollow political slogan.

You cannot claim to care about Americans’ health while sending your Justice Department to the Supreme Court to side with Big Chemical. When forced to choose between public health and corporate power, Trump chose the latter.

Giant chemical companies have been trying to rig the system in their favor for years. Republicans in Congress attempted to slip language into a key spending bill that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from accountability. I successfully led the effort to strip it from the final bill that passed both the House and Senate. Republicans tried and failed again in the Farm Bill. Now, after President Trump put his finger on the scales, Bayer has won in court what it could not get through Congress.

If the Supreme Court is going to put even more weight on EPA’s pesticide review and labeling process, then Congress and the President have a responsibility to fix the dangerous gap this decision exposes. EPA must be transparent, science-based, independent, and accountable to the public—not the industries it is supposed to regulate.

The people of Maine, and all Americans, deserve a justice system and regulatory structure that puts human health before corporate profits. No chemical company should be powerful enough to write the rules, dodge accountability, and leave families to pay the price.

Pingree is a longtime farmer and member of the House Agriculture Committee. She and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) recently celebrated a win for the “Make America Healthy Again” movement after they successfully stripped dangerous, industry-written language from the Farm Bill that would pre-empt state rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling and provide a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers. Last week, Luna and Pingree introduced the Paraquat Prevention Act, legislation that would cancel all registered uses of the pesticide paraquat under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and permanently prohibit its reregistration.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an Executive Order to increase domestic production of glyphosate—a widely used weedkiller that has been linked to multiple health issues, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Pingree and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which would undo Trump’s Executive Order.

###

Pingree Blasts Republicans, Trump for Being “All Talk” on Supporting US Shipbuilding

Wed, 24 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today during the House Appropriations full committee markup of the FY2027 Defense funding bill, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) spoke out against Republicans’ outrageous $1 trillion bill that, despite it’s enormous price tag, fails to support American shipbuilding. In her opening remarks, Pingree contrasted the Trump Administrations’ claims to support American manufacturing and long-touted “America First” mantra, while at the same time seeding the prospect of buying ships overseas. She noted that as maritime competition is intensifying, especially in the Indo-Pacific, Republicans’ funding bill provides funding for only one DDG-51 destroyer, which are built at Bath Iron Works in Pingree’s district.

“These ships are the backbone of our Navy, and they are essential to preserving our military superiority. And only one of those ships is provided for in this bill,” Pingree said. “I often hear bipartisan agreement about how we need a larger, more capable fleet. And last year, the president himself said he wanted to ‘resurrect the American shipbuilding industry.’ But without investment or a strategy, that is just talk. And it's especially just talk in a bill that gets over $1 trillion. If we're serious about naval readiness, we cannot continue under investing in our ships and in our shipyards and the workforce that is needed to sustain that fleet.”

+++

I'm going to trust my colleagues because I know there have been a lot of opening remarks, and they'll continue to be to make sure that everybody understands the problems and challenges of this bill. But I do want to emphasize that it is $1 trillion. That's $1 trillion for the Pentagon.

At the same time, we're cutting and we've all been through a lot of subcommittee hearings here or markups. We're cutting over $13 billion for domestic programs that would actually support working families while we're spending this much on defense. And we all know what we've been cutting childhood cancer research farmers through the USDA, education, housing, childcare it's all on the chopping block. And every time we fight back, someone says, but there isn't enough money, but there's always enough money for this bill.

This bill also abandons our allies in Ukraine, continues the unchecked spending on unauthorized operations in the Middle East. It's got a lot of big challenges in it.

But I want to use my time just to focus on the impact on our Navy and on shipbuilding and that industry. You know, maritime competition is intensifying, especially in the Indo-Pacific. But this bill provides funding for only one DDG-51 destroyer.

These ships are the backbone of our Navy, and they are essential to preserving our military superiority. And only one of those ships is provided for in this bill. I often hear bipartisan agreement about how we need a larger, more capable fleet. And last year, the president himself said he wanted to “resurrect the American shipbuilding industry.” But without investment or a strategy, that is just talk.

And it's especially just talk in a bill that gets over $1 trillion. If we're serious about naval readiness, we cannot continue under investing in our ships and in our shipyards and the workforce that is needed to sustain that fleet.

I'm sure many of you remember, because I love to talk about it, that Bath Iron Works, one of our important defense shipyards is located in my district. We're very proud of the shipbuilders and the work that gets done there. And we love to say that “Bath built is the best built” because they do an amazing job building ships. And for all of you, when you take your vacation in Maine this summer to get a lobster roll and ride on a ferry, I hope you'll come by and get a tour of this shipyard, because it's an amazing thing. It's a miracle to watch these ships come together. They're complex. They require incredible skill and incredibly skilled workers. Stability in the prediction of how many ships are going to be built and having sufficient orders is what helps to recruit and retain a workforce. These workers can't just be reassigned if there's no ships to build until there's more money, or until there is sufficient procurement planning done.

Many of them are machine operators, highly skilled, highly specialized. They've been there for years, and not having ships impacts the production line. Multi-year contracts lower the cost, ultimately saving money. I know the chairman in his opening remarks, talked about advanced procurement and how critically important that is in these complex industries that happened in our country. It's especially difficult to hear about the lack of sufficient shipbuilding in this contract when you put it in a broader context, and that is Russ Vought in OMB now signaling that they're thinking about buying ships from foreign shipyards. I'm going to say that again. They're thinking about using their waiver authority to actually buy ships offshore. And we know how important our six shipyards here are here in this country. And it's antithetical to think that they would ever suggest that.

But a senior OMB official has said, if you look at the average cost of a destroyer construction in Japan or Korea, $1 billion of fairly nominal cost associated with destroyer construction. Just yesterday, I was driving in for votes and I turned on C-SPAN radio in my car, and I heard President Trump talking to a big Pennsylvania gathering, I think he was at a Mack truck facility saying how important American workers and American manufacturing was and how he's on top of that. And that's what we're going to do in this country. And in fact, when we got out of votes and I drove away, you'll not be surprised that the president was still talking to the Pennsylvania gathering, and he was still talking about American workers in American manufacturing.

Yet his official at OMB is now saying, we're thinking about building ships offshore in other countries. Really? Our defense industry? We're thinking of moving that manufacturing offshore? This bill's increase over FY 26 is more than the entire funding of Labor [Health and Human Services], and Education. And we're talking about buying destroyers from foreign nations rather than investing in our own shipyards.

I appreciate that this committee has put language in to curb the president's authority to do so. But the fact that it's even being considered is shameful. Adding this language while still selling our shipyards short doesn't make sense. We need to use this bill to make strategic investments in American readiness, which includes a skilled workforce, a skilled union workforce. And we cannot stand by where the administration drives decline of our industrial base.

I yield back. And I thank the chair.

###

Pingree Urges USDA to Look Beyond Cotton in Push to Rebuild American Textiles

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a longtime organic farmer and leader in Congress for sustainable agriculture and reducing pollution from fast fashion, is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to strengthen federal support for American-grown and American-made natural fibers. In a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, Pingree urged the Department to build on its recently announced “Great American Cotton Plan” by expanding its focus to include other plant- and animal-based fibers, including hemp, flax, wool, alpaca, and leather. Pingree also requested information on existing USDA programs, authorities, and data collection efforts that could support domestic natural fiber production and processing.

“As global trends have impacted the economics of producing textiles and apparel outside the U.S., there is a critical need to reshore production of American-made textiles and to ensure more sustainable textile production,” Pingree wrote. “The United States Department of Agriculture plays an important role in supporting these efforts and revitalizing the sustainable fibers industry in the U.S.”

According to the Textile Materials Market Report, synthetic fibers accounted for approximately 65 percent of global fiber production in 2022, with polyester ranking as the most widely used fiber. In contrast to synthetic fibers, which shed microfibers that pollute waterways, land, and air, natural fibers may have a lower environmental footprint and can also be grown and raised in ways that sequester carbon and provide additional co-benefits to producers, such as improved soil health and reduced inputs like pesticides.

“As global fiber production continues to increase, it is critical to support the production and processing of additional plant-based fiber crops, such as hemp and flax, and animal-based fibers such as wool, alpaca, and leather, as the USDA considers reshoring fiber production,” Pingree continued.

In the letter, Pingree noted that natural fiber production aligns with multiple USDA mission areas, including farm production and conservation, domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products, rural economic opportunity, and providing farmers and ranchers with opportunities to compete in the global marketplace.

Pingree requested USDA provide information on:

Existing programs and authorities that can support natural fiber production and processing;
USDA data collection on fiber production in the United States, specifically whether the USDA Census of Agriculture includes data on fiber crops such as flax and hemp;
Examples of USDA funding supporting natural fiber production and processing;
Barriers to addressing existing gaps in the natural fiber textile supply chain;
Whether USDA is evaluating approaches to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides in fiber production, and how such considerations are being incorporated into current or future programs;
How the goals, tools, or findings of the Great American Cotton Plan may inform USDA’s strategies for other fiber crops and materials.

The full text of Pingree’s letter is available here and copied below.

Pingree has been a national leader in pushing for a more sustainable textile economy. She is the founder and chair of the Congressional Slow Fashion Caucus, which aims to raise awareness about textile waste, pollution, labor concerns, and develop policies that support circular, sustainable, and domestically produced materials.

+++

Dear Secretary Rollins,

I am writing regarding the production and processing of natural fibers, specifically plant and animal-based fibers. As global trends have impacted the economics of producing textiles and apparel outside the U.S., there is a critical need to reshore production of American- made textiles and to ensure more sustainable textile production. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays an important role in supporting these efforts and revitalizing the sustainable fibers industry in the U.S.

I appreciate USDA’s recently announced Great American Cotton Plan, which aims to strengthen domestic cotton production and provide new opportunities for American growers. As USDA proceeds with the implementation of this plan, I urge USDA to expand the plan to include additional natural fiber crops and materials. I also request USDA examine existing programs that can support natural fiber production and processing.

As global fiber production continues to increase, it is critical to support the production and processing of additional plant-based fiber crops, such as hemp and flax, and animal-based fibers such as wool, alpaca, and leather, as the USDA considers reshoring fiber production. According to the Textile Materials Market Report, in 2022, synthetic fibers made up approximately 65 percent of global fiber production, with polyester being the most widely used fiber. In contrast to synthetic fibers, which shed microfibers that pollute waterways, land, and air, natural fibers may have a lower environmental footprint and can also be grown and raised in ways that sequester carbon and provide additional co-benefits to producers, such as improved soil health and reduced inputs like pesticides.

Natural fiber production and processing is relevant to multiple USDA mission areas, including farm production and conservation, facilitating domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products, supporting opportunity and economic security for people and communities in rural America, and providing our farmers and ranchers with opportunities to compete in the global marketplace.

In light of these priorities and USDA’s new initiatives, I request that the USDA provide the following information:

Existing programs and authorities that can be used to support natural fiber production and processing;
USDA data collection on fiber production in the United States, specifically whether the USDA Census of Agriculture includes data on fiber crops such as flax and hemp;
Examples of USDA funding supporting natural fiber production and processing;
Barriers to addressing existing gaps in the natural fiber textile supply chain;
Whether USDA is evaluating approaches to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides in fiber production, and how such considerations are being incorporated into current or future programs;
How the goals, tools, or findings of the Great American Cotton Plan may inform USDA’s strategies for other fiber crops and materials.

I appreciate learning more about existing support from the USDA to enhance natural fiber products and ask for your commitment to working with Congress to enhance the production and processing of natural fibers.

Sincerely,

###

Pingree, Luna Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Ban Toxic Pesticide Paraquat and Protect Americans from Parkinson’s Disease

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) today introduced the Paraquat Prevention Act, legislation that would cancel all registered uses of the pesticide paraquat under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and permanently prohibit its reregistration.

“Vermont just proved a paraquat ban is possible. Now Congress must make it national. This pesticide is already banned in more than 70 countries and linked to Parkinson’s disease, yet EPA has been reviewing its safety since 2022 without finishing the job,” said Congresswoman Pingree. “I’m proud to introduce this bill with Congresswoman Luna, because all Americans deserve the same protection from this poison. Our bill cancels paraquat’s registration outright. No more reviews, no more waiting, no more excuses.”

“Paraquat has been banned in over 70 countries, including every nation in the European Union, because the science is clear about the devastating neurological risks associated with exposure,” said Congresswoman Luna. “The United States has no business allowing a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease to keep being sprayed on American farmland, and this bill ends that.”

The bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel all existing paraquat registrations, revoke any tolerances permitting paraquat residue in food, and ban the sale and use of existing stocks upon enactment.

This action comes amid growing concern over the health impacts of paraquat exposure, with multiple studies consistently linking this chemical to increased risks of Parkinson’s disease. Studies from the National Institutes of Health have found that individuals exposed to paraquat face a significantly elevated risk of developing the disease, with laboratory research demonstrating that the chemical directly damages the dopaminergic neurons whose destruction causes Parkinson’s.

The European Union acted on this science in 2007, and more than 70 countries have since followed. Among them is China, which banned paraquat domestically in 2016 to protect public health while continuing to export the majority of its production, sending roughly 78 million pounds to American ports in a single year.

Both the Parkinson’s Foundation and the Michael J. Fox Foundation have called for a ban on these grounds, which has found support on both sides of the aisle, which is why the bill has received bipartisan support.

“Independent scientific evidence has found that exposure to paraquat has lead to increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, yet the EPA has continued to allow this pesticide to be used in our communities,” said Andi Fristedt, Executive Vice President, Chief Strategy and Policy Officer for the Parkinson’s Foundation. “By banning paraquat, the Paraquat Prevention Act would protect Americans and help create a world where fewer people develop Parkinson’s disease in the first place. The Parkinson’s Foundation is grateful to the bipartisan leadership of Representatives Luna and Pingree to help bring the U.S. one step closer to joining the more than 70 countries that have already banned paraquat.”

“Paraquat exposure is one of the clearest preventable risks linked to Parkinson’s disease,” said Dan Feehan, chief policy and government affairs officer at The Michael J. Fox Foundation. “On behalf of the 1.2 million Americans living with Parkinson’s and related diseases, we thank Representatives Luna and Pingree for their bipartisan leadership on the Paraquat Prevention Act and look forward to supporting the bill throughout the legislative process.”

The United States remains one of the few developed nations that still permits paraquat use, leaving American farmers, farmworkers, and rural families unprotected. This legislation would close that gap by removing paraquat from the market entirely and prohibiting any future pathway for reregistration.

“We applaud Representatives Luna and Pingree for highlighting the threat of paraquat to farmers and rural communities. The people who feed us should not face twice the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. States across the country have a clear path and example to end the use of one of the most toxic herbicides and should pass their own paraquat bans,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

“MOFGA has long stood against toxic pesticides that harm farmers, families, and the land we all depend on. The evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson's disease is overwhelming and undeniable,” said Bill Pluecker, Public Policy Organizer for Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. “More than 70 countries worldwide have banned Paraquat. Farmers and rural communities in Maine and across this country have suffered from paraquat exposure for far too long. The time for federal action is now."

View the full bill text here.

Pingree is a longtime farmer and member of the House Agriculture Committee. She and Luna recently celebrated a win for the “Make America Healthy Again” movement after they successfully stripped dangerous, industry-written language from the Farm Bill that would pre-empt state rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling and provide a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an Executive Order to increase domestic production of glyphosate—a widely used weedkiller that has been linked to multiple health issues, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Pingree and Massie introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which would undo Trump’s Executive Order.

###

Pingree Leads Roundtable on Threats to Maine Forests, Research from Trump Forest Service Shakeup

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, led a roundtable discussion with Maine forestry leaders about the Trump Administration’s reckless decision to reorganize the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and shutter research facilities. The planned USFS reorganization poses a serious risk to forest health and productivity in New England, realign key Forest Service staff away from the region, and potentially impact the research conducted at the Massabesic, Howland and Penobscot experimental forests.

“Maine is the most forested state in the nation. The Forest Service is an essential partner in protecting Maine’s forests, supporting our working forest economy, and advancing the research and innovation that will shape the future of wood products. But the Trump Administration is trying to push through a sweeping reorganization with little transparency, little justification, and little regard for the people and regions that rely on Forest Service expertise,” Pingree said. “Today’s roundtable made clear that Maine’s forestry leaders are concerned about what this plan could mean for forest health, regional staffing, and critical research at the Massabesic, Howland and Penobscot experimental forests. USDA and USFS owe Congress and the public real answers before taking another step. I’m grateful to everyone who joined today’s discussion, and I will keep fighting to ensure this reorganization does not weaken the Forest Service or leave Maine behind.”

Participants included University of Maine President Joan Ferrini-Mundy, and Maine Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry (DACF) Commissioner Amanda Beal, as well as representatives from the Appalachian Mountain Club, The Nature Conservancy, New England Forestry Foundation, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast, and more.

Pingree recently pressed USFS Chief Schultz about the reorganization plans in an Appropriations budget hearing. As Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the Forest Service, Pingree will continue pushing for clarity from the Administration about the reorganization and take what she heard today to Washington.

###

Pingree, Huffman Demand Answers from Forest Service on Glyphosate Spraying in National Forests

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) are demanding answers from the U.S. Forest Service about its current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands.

Their letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz follows a yearlong Mother Jones investigation that raised serious questions about the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on public and private forestlands, particularly in areas recovering from wildfire in California. The reporting detailed plans for large-scale spraying in national forests, including areas near trails, campgrounds, waterways, and communities, while also highlighting concerns about the scientific basis and oversight behind the agency’s continued use of the chemical.

“Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use,” Pingree and Huffman wrote.

In the letter, Pingree and Huffman request information on how frequently glyphosate is used on Forest Service land, what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs, which forests are treated, and how current acreage compares to five and ten years ago.

The lawmakers also ask whether the Forest Service has assessed glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and around treated areas; evaluated potential human health harms; established a publicly accessible database of herbicide use; and coordinated with state, tribal, local, and water officials before application.

The letter further presses the agency on worker safety and exposure risks, including protections for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, contractors, and others who may enter treated areas. Pingree and Huffman also ask whether there have been reported worker illnesses, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints tied to glyphosate applications.

Finally, the lawmakers request details on whether the Forest Service has explored or piloted nonchemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications, what those findings showed, and what barriers may be limiting broader adoption.

The full letter is available here and is copied below.

The Mother Jones investigation found that the Forest Service is moving forward with major glyphosate spraying projects in California, including in post-fire recovery areas. It also highlighted that the Forest Service continues to rely on a 2011 risk assessment that cited a now-retracted study on glyphosate safety, which the journal withdrew after determining the named authors were not solely responsible for the paper and that it relied entirely on Monsanto data.

During a House Agriculture Committee hearing on Thursday, Pingree raised this issue with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

The inquiry comes as the Trump Administration has moved to bolster domestic glyphosate production and as Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, continues to seek legal protections from lawsuits brought by people alleging glyphosate exposure caused serious illness. Pingree and Congressman Thomas Massie have introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, legislation to block federal funds from being used to implement President Trump’s executive order supporting glyphosate production and to affirm that glyphosate manufacturers are not immune from civil liability.

In April, Pingree successfully helped remove dangerous, industry-written language from the Farm Bill that would have pre-empted state rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling and provide a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.

+++

Dear Chief Schultz,

We are writing to request information regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands. Recent reporting has raised questions about the scale, frequency, and oversight of glyphosate application on Forest Service land, as well as the scientific basis for its continued use on forest land. Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use.

Please provide the following information:

1. Current Usage:

How frequently are glyphosate applications conducted on Forest Service land, and what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs?
- Is glyphosate used after seedlings are manually seeded or replanted or as a substitute for manual reforestation?
- In post-fire applications, is glyphosate usage limited to areas where natural regeneration is likely, such as in low or moderate burn severity regions?
- In post-fire applications of glyphosate, has the Forest Service analyzed the erosion impacts of glyphosate use and the corresponding reduction in soil stability?
In which forests is glyphosate used, and for what purpose?
What is the current acreage treated annually with glyphosate on Forest Service lands, and how does that compare to five and ten years ago?

2. Monitoring, Reporting, and Public Transparency

Has the Forest Service conducted or commissioned assessments of glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and surrounding treated areas?
Has the Forest Service evaluated potential human health harms associated with the use of glyphosate?
Does the Forest Service maintain a publicly accessible database of herbicide use, including quantities, locations, and application methods? If not, will the Forest Service establish such a database?
What coordination occurs with state health and environmental departments, tribal governments, local governments, and water districts before glyphosate application?

3. Public Health and Environmental Risk Evaluation and Worker Safety

What steps does the agency take to protect workers, campgrounds or other public facilities, nearby communities, and sensitive ecosystems during and after herbicide application?
What protections are in place for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, and others who may need to enter treated areas?
Have there been any reported worker illness incidents, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints associated with glyphosate applications?

4. Consideration of Alternatives

Has the Forest Service explored or piloted non-chemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications? If so, what were the findings, and what barriers—financial, operational, or regulatory—limit broader adoption of these alternatives?

Given the public’s deep interest in the stewardship of our federally forested land, clear information on these questions would help build trust and ensure that management decisions reflect the best available science.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. We look forward to better understanding how the Forest Service is evaluating glyphosate use and considering safer or more sustainable approaches to forest management.

Sincerely,

###

WATCH: Ranking Member Pingree Slams Republican Cuts to EPA, Arts, Parks, and More While Trump Prioritizes Gilded Vanity Projects in DC

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, spoke out against Republicans’ funding bill for the 2027 fiscal year during the Appropriations Committee's markup today. In her opening remarks, Pingree condemned proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Park Service (NPS), and the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). At the same time, the Trump Administration is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on the President’s vanity projects in D.C., Pingree said—including a 250-foot Arch, a $1 billion ballroom, resurfacing the reflecting pool, the so-called “Garden of Heroes”, and more.

“How is the President paying for all of these vanity projects? While he might claim private fundraising, the real answer has seemed to be raiding national park entrance fees that typically go toward maintenance and stealing funding from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities,” Pingree said.

Pingree also cited how Trump has destroyed the Kennedy Center over the past 18 months, and said the Committee must take steps to protect the institution.

“I’m very pleased with the court’s confirmation last Friday that it’s plainly illegal for him to rename the Center after himself and remake it in his own image,” she said. “But we need real and committed oversight from this Committee to protect this critical institution and the artists, workers, and audiences that make it special."

A summary of the bill is available here.

Pingree’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are copied below.

+++

Thank you for yielding.

I would like to thank Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, and the staff on both sides of the aisle.

Chairman Simpson, I appreciate our working relationship and that we were able to find common ground last year to enact a bipartisan full-year funding bill.

Unfortunately, the bill before us reverts back to the same partisan playbook, with grossly insufficient funding and a surplus of poison pill riders.

The bill cuts EPA by 20 percent. This agency has already lost one-fifth of its workforce since President Trump took office. The cuts in this bill would completely cripple EPA’s ability to fight climate change, respond to environmental disasters, and hold polluters accountable. Meanwhile, the administration continues to roll back regulations that protect public health and the environment, including a recent announcement that will increase exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

I’m disappointed that the bill further cuts funding to states for water infrastructure. This is the first year that states won’t have the additional funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and I believe that it is critical that we don’t lose the momentum we built with those investments.

I’m also very concerned by the cuts to the National Park Service facilities operation and maintenance. This is the funding the Park Service uses to maintain and repair its infrastructure. The bill cuts it by $163 million, or 17 percent.

Meanwhile, in the Commerce, Justice, Science funding bill, Republicans have provided up to $152 million to renovate Alcatraz into a functioning prison.

I find this completely outrageous. I won’t get into the many reasons why I think trying to reopen Alcatraz is a farce and a waste of money. But I have to say, when I look at that funding and then look at the bill before us today, it’s painfully obvious that the majority is prioritizing resurrecting a 19th century prison over today’s underfunded and understaffed parks.

At the same time, the President is diverting significant resources toward pet projects that most Americans oppose: his ridiculous $1 billion gilded ballroom (from which he dumped the toxic demolition debris on a National Park-owned golf course), approving a no-bid contract to resurface the reflecting pool, forging ahead on his so-called “Garden of Heroes” – all of which he handpicked – and his 20-story tall Triumphal Arch that veterans’ groups have literally sued to block … the list goes on and on.

How is the President paying for all of these vanity projects? While he might claim private fundraising, the real answer has seemed to be raiding national park entrance fees that typically go toward maintenance and stealing funding from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

And speaking of vanity projects, I would be remiss not to mention the absolute mess that the President has made of the Kennedy Center over the past 18 months. I’m very pleased with the court’s confirmation last Friday that it’s plainly illegal for him to rename the Center after himself and remake it in his own image. But we need real and committed oversight from this Committee to protect this critical institution and the artists, workers, and audiences that make it special.

So: the President and this administration have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to dictate exactly what it deems artistically and culturally worthy – and at the same time, it’s trying to rob our communities of funding for our own local museums, historical societies, and arts education programs by cutting the NEA and NEH. I am vehemently opposed to this bill slashing each endowment by 35%, $72 million.

The bill also cuts funding for cultural institutions, such as the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution. Last year, we came to an agreement and beat back these cuts. We must do so again this year.

While the administration is focused on building a gilded ballroom and a triumphal Arch to appease the president’s ego, Americans are facing soaring gas and energy prices. Yet this bill does nothing to reign in the administration’s assault on energy projects that states have been counting on.

As the administration spends nearly 2 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay off companies for abandoning offshore wind projects, this bill piles on – adding additional fees for offshore wind companies and drastically cutting funding for renewable energy programs.

Finally, I have to express my opposition to the dozens of poison pill riders included in the bill. These riders aim to cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, and override the Endangered Species Act.

As written, I cannot support the bill before us today.

I oppose the bill, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back.

###

Ranking Member Pingree Statement on Court Ordering Removal of Trump’s Name from Kennedy Center

Fri, 29 May 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the Kennedy Center, released the following statement after a federal judge ordered the removal of President Trump’s name from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and blocked the administration’s plan to close the venue for two years beginning in July:

Donald Trump tried to slap his name on the Kennedy Center like it was one of his tacky hotels, and today a federal judge made clear what we have been saying from the start: he had no legal authority to do it.

I am also relieved the court blocked Trump’s plan to shutter the Center. Closing the Kennedy Center was never about renovation. It was about covering up the catastrophic damage Trump has already inflicted: ticket sales in free fall, the Washington National Opera ending its 55-year residency, beloved performances canceled, and union workers fired in clear violation of their contracts. The court saw through the pretense.

I want to commend Congresswoman Beatty for her courage and persistence in filing this suit, along with the preservation and architectural organizations that fought alongside her. This victory belongs to every American who refused to accept a president using a national memorial as a vehicle for his own ego.

The Kennedy Center’s deferred maintenance needs are real, and they should be addressed. But that work must happen through a transparent, collaborative process, with full congressional oversight and proper historic preservation review. I stand ready to be a genuine partner in restoring the Kennedy Center’s integrity and greatness for generations to come. That is what the American people deserve, and that is the work that lies ahead.

Trump has two weeks to comply with this court order. The Kennedy Center belongs to the American people. Now and always.

Pingree, who co-chairs the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus, has been a leading voice in Congress to protect the Kennedy Center since Trump installed himself as board chair in 2025. As Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Pingree successfully stripped language from the 2026 Appropriations bill that would have renamed the Kennedy Center Opera House after Melania Trump.

###

Three Maine Students Accepted to U.S. Service Academies, Pingree Announces

Wed, 27 May 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) announced that three students she nominated have been accepted to U.S. Service Academies. Wallace “Wynn” Pooler of South China will attend the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, N.Y., while Isaiah Morgan of Cumberland Center and Cole Tomuschat of Scarborough will both attend the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

“Earning acceptance to a U.S. Service Academy is an extraordinary achievement and a testament to a student’s scholarship, leadership, character, and commitment to service,” said Pingree. “Wallace, Isaiah, and Cole have each demonstrated a deep sense of duty and a clear desire to serve their country. I’m incredibly proud to have nominated them and thrilled to see them accepted to the Merchant Marine Academy and Naval Academy. I know they will represent Maine well, and I wish them every success as they begin this next chapter.”

“I have long been interested in serving my country in some way and was raised in a service-oriented family, with family members having served for many generations. Both my great-grandfathers served during World War II. My grandfather served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, and my father served as a U.S. Merchant Marine Officer after graduating from Maine Maritime Academy,” Wallace wrote in his nomination request. “I now wish to continue this legacy by attending the Merchant Marine Academy.”

“Growing up with a father who has served for over 30 years, and an aunt and uncle who both attended West Point, I have learned how this community is unique. Part of my patriotic duty is to give back to my country, following in their footsteps,” Isaiah wrote in his nomination request. “I want to be part of a service academy because it offers a unique combination of leadership development, academic rigor, and a path to a lifelong commitment to serving my country.”

“Some of my earliest memories are listening to my dad and grandpa tell stories of their service. My dad is a 20-year merchant marine, and Grandpa is a retired Master Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. They would tell of travels around the world, hardships, and victories. Even as a small boy, I knew I wanted to be like the men in my life; I wanted to serve my country and become a leader,” Cole wrote in his nomination request. “The U.S. Service Academies are the best places in the world to sharpen my intellect, leadership skills, and sense of morality to reach my goals.”

To be considered for an appointment to a service academy, applicants must be nominated by an authorized nominating source, which includes Members of Congress.

###