In 2004, there was a court case filed in New York district courts on behalf of Vietnamese Agent Orange victims (Palmer 2007). The case was filed against multiple chemical corporations but was dismissed in March with the court siting a lack of evidence that Agent Orange was the common factor of injury (Palmer 2007). Eventually, during this suit the government revealed that it was aware of the dangers from the chemicals in the early 1960s (Palmer 2007). The case was appealed eventually to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case leaving Vietnamese victims without another way to file a civil suit (Cusato 2018).  This ironically happened thirteen years after the Agent Orange Act passed through Congress making it possible for U.S. veterans to receive compensation for health effects of the chemicals.

In 1966, Hungary challenged the United States use of the chemicals under international law (Cusato 2018). This would be the first time that the U.S. had to defend its actions in front of an international sphere (Cusato 2018). The Geneva Protocall which outlines war crimes and regulations specifically outlines chemical agents that have a direct negative impact on people as prohibited “bacteriological methods of warfare” (Cusato 2018). This same section of the Geneva Protocall also makes clear that the international law applies generally and can hold a state accountable regardless of that state’s participation in the accords (Cusato 2018). This particular section of the accords is important to the U.S. case as the United States did not sign onto the accords until 1975, when the spraying was already done (Palmer 2007). The U.S. refuted all the claims from the international community by claiming that the law did not ban herbicides nor was the herbicide used with the direct intent of causing harm (Cusato 2018). This led to further investigations and international pressure for the U.S. to end the war and admit to wrongdoings against Vietnam (Cusato 2018).  

Even though the U.S. continues to not accept fault or fully accept the damages of the chemicals, the Bush administration stating projects to assist Vietnam in 2006 (Cusato 2018). The United States has assisted in cleanup of chemically concentrated “hotspots” as well as donated to general disability funding (Cusato 2018). None of this however is considered reparations, and instead is referred to as “Voluntary Remedition” taking any burden of perceived guilt or wrongdoing from the United States (Cusato 2018). While the united states were not held accountable for this chemical and ecological warfare under the law, international scrutiny and discussions of the international law could lead to improved clarity for future conflict. At this point the science is clear enough in the harms that chemicals like Dioxin in Agent Orange can cause. Considering the backlash against these actions and the impacts that continue to afflict millions of people decades later, it seems likely that future instances of chemical warfare against people will not be easily written off an accident.  

It is evident that while the discussion around Agent Orange has changed, there are still implications from the disaster to this day. As of 2008, the Veterans Association had nineteen diseases and disabilities in U.S. veterans and their children as reason for government compensation (Veterans Affairs). In 2020, a bill is set to take into effect that will include U.S. veterans suffering from high blood pressure as eligible for benefits and relief (Shane 2020).