Outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, leaders and supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition gathered to protest the Trump administration’s decision to side with a pesticide maker in a high-profile case over glyphosate. The ‘People Versus Poison’ rally coincided with oral arguments in litigation involving Roundup, the glyphosate-based herbicide developed by Monsanto and now owned by Bayer.
Organizers and speakers, including wellness advocate Vani Hari, known online as the Food Babe and a MAHA organizer, accused the administration of putting industry interests ahead of public health. They argued the government’s posture undercuts claims that it prioritizes citizens’ well-being.
At the center of the court dispute is whether Bayer can be shielded from state-court claims that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about cancer risks tied to glyphosate exposure. The administration’s decision to back Bayer in that legal fight, along with an executive order encouraging expanded domestic glyphosate production, has aggravated tensions within MAHA. Several protesters are longtime allies of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who brought a substantial environmental constituency into the MAGA orbit after endorsing President Trump and who previously sued Monsanto over glyphosate.
Safety questions about glyphosate have been debated for years. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic, a finding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long disputed. Earlier this year, a group of environmental health scientists issued a consensus statement asserting that glyphosate can cause cancer and urging urgent action; Bayer disputes those conclusions.
MAHA’s dissatisfaction extends beyond glyphosate. In a recent letter to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, coalition members pointed to what they called a ‘profound contradiction’ between the administration’s health rhetoric and policy choices that they say broaden harmful chemical exposures. David Murphy, a co-founder of United We Eat and a former finance director for Kennedy’s presidential campaign, said many in the coalition expected different behavior from an administration that includes prominent environmental voices. He described the current direction as shocking and disappointing.
Activists like Kelly Ryerson, known online as Glyphosate Girl, said initial hopes that the administration would act on chemical-safety concerns have faded as industry-affiliated appointees assumed leadership roles at the EPA. She said optimism has weakened as special interests moved into place, though she stopped short of declaring the effort finished.
Since taking office, Zeldin has pursued an assertive deregulatory agenda. Under his leadership, the EPA has invited companies to seek exemptions from air pollution rules, proposed rolling back drinking-water limits for PFAS (so-called forever chemicals), and relaxed protections against airborne toxins such as mercury, arsenic and ethylene oxide. The agency has reapproved some controversial pesticides, suggested a ‘safe’ exposure level for formaldehyde in new guidance, declined to regulate certain endocrine-disrupting phthalates in consumer goods, canceled millions in grants for research on chemical health effects, and reorganized or shuttered units responsible for independent toxicology work, a shift that coincided with the loss of hundreds of scientific staff.
Former EPA employees and environmental health scientists warn that these changes have broad implications, affecting the air people breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat and the products they use in their homes. Betsy Southerland of the Environmental Protection Network characterized the agency’s actions as sweeping rollbacks of longstanding protections.
The EPA responded to inquiries by saying it remains committed to transparency and rigorous, gold-standard science and that it values engagement with the public and groups like MAHA. MAHA figures, including Ryerson, recently met with President Trump and administration officials at the White House to press concerns about pesticides and related policies.
Kennedy, who now serves in the administration, faced intense questioning on Capitol Hill this month about the EPA’s defense of pesticide manufacturers and apparent weakening of pollution safeguards. When pressed about the agency’s decisions, he frequently downplayed his responsibility, at one point telling lawmakers that the EPA is not his agency.
Some MAHA advocates say the administration has offered symbolic measures rather than concrete regulatory changes. Toxicologist Alexandra Muñoz criticized recent announcements as public-relations gestures that create the impression of action without guaranteeing substantive protections.
A frequently cited example is the EPA’s joint announcement with Kennedy adding microplastics and certain pharmaceuticals to the Contaminant Candidate List for drinking water. That periodic listing is a step that can precede research and regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but it does not itself set enforceable standards. Chris Frey, an environmental engineering professor and former EPA official, said the candidate list often functions like a ‘waiting room’ for contaminants that receive little follow-up.
Critics also point to the disbanding of key offices and the departure of scientific staff as eroding the agency’s capacity to evaluate and regulate toxic substances. Several environmental groups have already taken legal action challenging various rollbacks and policy choices, including actions related to PFAS.
Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund said the administration appears to be attempting to placate a grassroots constituency with gestures while pursuing policies favorable to industry. The emerging dispute underscores a widening split between public-health-focused activists within MAHA — many of whom supported Kennedy’s earlier environmental work — and an administration whose regulatory choices and personnel decisions have alienated some of those same allies.
With the Supreme Court case pending and multiple legal and policy battles unfolding, the rift over glyphosate and broader chemical regulation may deepen as activists weigh whether to remain engaged with a government they once hoped would champion their priorities.