Talk:Defense Production Act of 1950

message: Hi all. It would be useful to have a table with all the various reauthorizations that have occurred including year and pl numbers. I probably won't get to this for a few weeks. A CRS report will probably have it. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reauthoizations 

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of the Act being used to force chemical companies to supply them with Agent Orange?
http://www.dow.com/sustainability/debates/agentorange/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.82 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Agent Orange

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Defense Production Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817165018/http://guidebook.dcma.mil/38/dpas%20guidebook.htm to http://guidebook.dcma.mil/38/DPAS%20Guidebook.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Washington Post is slanted biased reference and the entry is not factual. The president did not state that his invocation had anything to do with Covid-19 2605:E000:151F:C745:48BF:8E4C:F90E:CFD4 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanted 

message: I don't see an article about it, but I feel like there ought to be mention of Canada's Defence Production Act (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/d-1/) (notice the spelling difference). 108.168.18.205 (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. It's a different law in a different jurisdiction, not covered in this article. If there were an article on it, it would be worth a "see also" and/or a disambiguation hat, but there's no reason an article on US legislation should cover the legislation of another country that covers similar ground. TJRC (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, it obviously is similar enough to warrant a disambiguation note at the top.174.130.70.61 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Though let’s be friendly and avoid language like nonsense. I’ll put something appropriate in place. And if no one else does, I’ll put a small article in place for the Canadian act later today. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Act 

message: Very big story with lots of detail from the New York Times just now. I may not get to this for a while, so I’ll put it here. "The Defense Production Act has been invoked hundreds of thousands of times in the Trump years."
* Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots more info 

message: One of the references specifically states that "Trump didn't order meat-processing plants to reopen," but the article strongly implies he did, stating, "The order gave the USDA extraordinary powers to have firms maintain production." Which is it? Did Trump force plants to reopen using the Defense Production Act or didn't he? Can someone who is well-versed on this subject please clarify the issue in the text of the article? Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat-Processing Plants 

message: It's by far the largest section. I think it should be trimmed down. Ergzay (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim down the section on COVID-19?