MAHA vs. Trump over Supreme Court glyphosate case, farm bill

Following February’s near-rupture over the weedkiller glyphosate, a Supreme Court case and a bill to move through Congress this week are poised to test ties between Republicans and the Make America Healthy Again movement.

The court will hear a case on Monday to decide whether federal law preempts state-level lawsuits in the United States over the chemical glyphosate. Bayer‘s herbal medicine called Roundup causes cancer. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected this week to consider the farm bill, a major agricultural policy measure that includes new protections for chemicals.

The MAHA movement, a coalition of activists advocating healthy food and avoiding chemicals, helped return President Donald Trump to the White House after their preferred presidential candidate, current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dropped out and endorsed the president. The group hates glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States and an integral part of many farm operations.

The Supreme Court’s arguments and the farm bill put MAHA squarely at odds with Trump and the majority of Republicans in Congress. This comes just months after Trump’s previous outburst. executive order This initiative to increase domestic glyphosate production caused Kennedy to step in and do damage control. With the 2026 midterm elections less than seven months away and Trump’s approval rating low in the polls, keeping the coalition intact could be critical for Republicans as they race to preserve their slim majorities in both houses of Congress.

“It’s been a really, really difficult month because there’s attacks from the executive branch, the judicial branch, and Congress,” said MAHA advocate Kelly Ryerson, who goes by the moniker “Glyphosate Girl” on social media.

“The combination of the executive order and fighting on behalf of Bayer in the Supreme Court is truly inexcusable,” Ryerson said. “And I think it showed that there was a deep disconnect between what the administration thought MAHA cared about and what was actually true.”

For now, the White House remains on the side of glyphosate.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides and herbicides, does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen and does not require glyphosate labels to disclose cancer risk. However, many people claim that they got cancer from the use of Roundup and that Bayer and Monsanto, The company, which produced glyphosate before Bayer acquired the company in 2018, did not warn consumers about this risk. Kennedy in 2018 He won about $290 million from one man in one such case.

The administration will file suit before the Supreme Court on Bayer’s behalf, arguing in an amicus brief that the Federal Pesticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempts the “failure to warn” claims that plague Bayer. Without this premise, manufacturers would have to comply with a patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements in each state, the summary notes.

“[I]The f label tells users that a pesticide could probably cause cancer in Missouri, could cause cancer in Illinois, could definitely cause cancer in Tennessee, and because no one can guess in Iowa, users won’t know who to believe.” friendly summary in the case. “Lost in this noise: EPA’s assessments of what warnings are actually necessary to protect public health and the hope for uniformity.”

The farm bill, meanwhile, includes a provision that MAHA advocates claim is a “liability shield” to protect pesticide manufacturers. invoice It would prohibit any state or court from “holding liable or penalizing any entity for failure to comply with requirements requiring labeling or packaging additional to or different from labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

House Agriculture Chairman GT Thompson, R-Pa., who leads the farm bill, said MAHA advocates were bothered by the language “emotionally driven, they should take the time to read the bill.” Thompson also argued that the bill preserves the ability for states to change labels if they go through the EPA first.

“This bill is all about labeling and making sure the labeling is done with the highest level of science,” he said. “If a state wants additional provisions for labeling, it just has to go through the EPA for that to happen and it will be on the label.”

Asked to respond to Thompson, Ryerson said, “It’s absolutely disgusting that someone would come out and call us emotional when what we’re trying to do is keep people healthy,” and suggested Thompson’s bill includes a liability shield.

“I would also like to challenge, if he wants to go one on one and debate what the bill actually says, I’m all game because he’s lying. It’s a pesticide liability shield,” he said.

Republican embrace of glyphosate presents an opportunity for Democrats to try to win MAHA their own way.

“The White House’s stance is its stance, and we’re going to fight it in the Supreme Court, we’re going to get the farm bill passed, and I think it continues to cause some cracks there that you can’t really cover up,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, a Democratic ally of some of the MAHA cases.

“There are a lot of people who are really excited about the idea of ​​MAHA who haven’t been involved in politics before, so they’re not as keen on voting Republican; it’s more about who’s going to champion these issues,” Pingree said.

Ryerson agreed, saying MAHA was “looking for a champion and champions, Kennedy was and is” regardless of party, warning that simmering disappointment could lead MAHA not to participate in this election.

“What’s concerning to both parties is that people weren’t so disillusioned with the MAHA movement that they went and voted for a Democrat, but they didn’t vote,” he said.

Pingree will attend a rally with Ryerson ahead of the Supreme Court argument, advocating for the court to uphold the right to sue. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who helped Pingree lead an amendment to remove the pesticide provision from the farm bill. will also participate.

The White House seems aware of the danger. They invited a group of MAHA advocates to meet with senior officials earlier this month and publicize their work on advocates’ issues.

Ryerson, who attended the meeting, said the meeting was productive and allowed senior advocates to express their frustrations to administration officials. But he warned that keeping MAHA within MAGA may not be enough.

“My sense was that the administration took these concerns seriously,” Ryerson said. “If the Supreme Court comes out in favor of Bayer, it’s about management, because this case shouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court.”