Kennedy characterized the measure as a safeguard for both agriculture and national defense. In remarks delivered at the Department of Health and Human Services, he said the country “cannot allow critical inputs to be held hostage by hostile actors,” asserting that an uninterrupted flow of key agrochemicals underpins food security and, by extension, overall security.
Conflict With the MAHA Movement
Kennedy’s endorsement, however, places him at odds with Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), a health-oriented grassroots movement that championed Trump three years ago. MAHA activists view glyphosate as a carcinogen, citing thousands of personal-injury lawsuits and several high-profile jury verdicts against Bayer-Monsanto. Although U.S. regulators, including the Environmental Protection Agency, have concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used according to label directions, litigation has continued. On Tuesday, Bayer offered $7.25 billion to resolve outstanding claims, underscoring the chemical’s legal and public-relations baggage.
Reaction from MAHA was swift. Prominent activist Kelly Ryerson, known online as “Glyphosate Girl,” wrote that the order felt like a direct affront to voters who placed their trust in Trump on health issues. Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook issued a statement contending that elevating glyphosate to a matter of national security contradicted campaign promises and cast doubt on Kennedy’s long-standing criticisms of the herbicide.
Political Stakes Ahead of Midterms
The dispute lands less than a year before the 2026 congressional midterms, when control of both chambers will be contested. Analysts credit MAHA with helping mobilize suburban parents and health-conscious conservatives during the 2024 race, margins that proved decisive in several battleground states. Republican strategists now worry that the executive order could depress turnout among those supporters, or even push them toward third-party and independent candidates who campaign on stricter pesticide regulation.
Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — a Trump ally on most issues — publicly criticized the order, saying it shields a “cancer-causing” chemical. The split illustrates the delicate balance Republicans must strike between appealing to farm-state interests that depend on glyphosate and accommodating health-focused voters wary of agrochemicals.
Kennedy’s Legal History With Glyphosate
Kennedy, a former environmental attorney, once served as co-counsel in a landmark California case that awarded nearly $290 million to a school groundskeeper who alleged Roundup exposure led to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although the amount was later reduced on appeal, the verdict helped spark a wave of similar lawsuits. Kennedy’s past courtroom battles intensified the surprise among MAHA members who now see him defending federal support for the chemical.
At Thursday’s briefing, Kennedy acknowledged his previous litigation but argued that the context has shifted. He maintained that the administration’s priority is to prevent dependency on foreign suppliers, particularly for inputs that directly affect food production and military readiness. He did not address the pending settlement proposal from Bayer, citing ongoing legal processes.
Support From Agricultural Interests
Agriculture groups applauded the order. The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee released a statement thanking the president for recognizing glyphosate’s importance and calling the directive “a vital step” toward securing domestic supply chains. Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson of Pennsylvania is simultaneously steering a multi-year farm bill through Congress. The draft legislation includes language that would bar states and municipalities from imposing pesticide restrictions that exceed federal standards, a provision MAHA has vigorously opposed.
Industry representatives argue that glyphosate enables conservation tillage practices that reduce soil erosion and fuel consumption. They warn that replacing the herbicide would require farmers to revert to older chemicals or more mechanical tillage, increasing costs and environmental impacts. Environmental advocates counter that overreliance on glyphosate has contributed to herbicide-resistant weeds and broader ecological concerns.
National Security Framing
By framing the order around national security, the White House linked agricultural resilience to geopolitical stability. The administration noted that disruptions in global fertilizer and pesticide markets after recent conflicts had revealed vulnerabilities in the U.S. supply chain. Officials also highlighted elemental phosphorus’s role in specialized munitions and electronic components, suggesting that assured access supports defense manufacturing as well as farming.
Critics argue the national security justification is overstated. They point to alternative herbicides and cropping systems that do not depend on glyphosate, asserting that a diversified approach would offer greater long-term security. The administration responded that transitioning the entire row-crop sector away from glyphosate cannot occur overnight without jeopardizing yields and food prices.
Next Steps Under the Defense Production Act
The executive order directs the Departments of Agriculture, Defense and Interior to issue a joint implementation plan within 60 days. Possible measures include low-interest loans for phosphorus mining projects, expedited environmental reviews for synthetic-glyphosate facilities and coordination with state economic-development agencies to identify suitable sites. The DPA also allows the federal government to place priority ratings on commercial contracts, effectively moving them to the front of the line for raw materials and equipment.
Congressional Democrats have asked for briefings on the legal rationale for invoking the DPA, while several Senate Republicans from farm states have expressed preliminary support. Any significant federal spending associated with the order would require appropriations, setting up potential budget fights later in the year.
Outlook
For now, Kennedy’s alignment with the president underscores the administration’s emphasis on supply-chain security, even at the risk of alienating a vocal health-conscious bloc. Whether MAHA voters ultimately break with Trump may depend on how aggressively the government pursues domestic glyphosate projects, the outcome of Bayer’s proposed settlement and the provisions that survive in the final farm bill. With campaign season approaching, both the White House and its critics appear ready to use the chemical’s future as a litmus test for broader questions about public health, industry influence and national security.
Crédito da imagem: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
