Outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, prominent figures from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition protested the Trump administration’s decision to side with a pesticide maker in a high-profile glyphosate case. The “People Versus Poison” rally coincided with oral arguments in a case over Roundup, the glyphosate-based herbicide made by Monsanto and now owned by Bayer.
Speakers at the protest, including wellness influencer Vani Hari — known as the “Food Babe” and a MAHA organizer — accused the administration of protecting chemicals they say harm public health. “You cannot claim to care about health while protecting poison,” Hari told the crowd.
The legal fight before the justices centers on whether Bayer can be shielded from state-court lawsuits alleging Monsanto failed to warn consumers that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. The administration’s decision to support Bayer, together with an executive order favoring expanded domestic glyphosate production, has deepened tensions within MAHA. Many protesters are longtime allies of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who brought his base into the MAGA fold after endorsing Trump and who previously sued Monsanto over glyphosate.
Glyphosate’s safety has been disputed for years. In 2015, an arm of the World Health Organization concluded glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” a determination the U.S. EPA has historically rejected. Last month, a group of environmental health scientists issued a consensus statement asserting glyphosate can cause cancer and calling for urgent action; Bayer disputes those conclusions.
MAHA’s frustration extends beyond glyphosate. In a recent letter to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, coalition members described a “profound contradiction” between the administration’s rhetoric about prioritizing health and its actions, which they say expand and normalize harmful chemical exposures. David Murphy, a former finance director for Kennedy’s presidential campaign and co-founder of United We Eat, said he and others had expected the administration to act differently given Kennedy’s prominence on environmental issues. “It’s really pretty appalling that they’ve gone down this road,” Murphy told NPR.
Kelly Ryerson, known online as Glyphosate Girl, said optimism about the administration has eroded as industry-affiliated personnel took EPA leadership roles. “Once things fell into place, all the special interests poured in,” she said. “I don’t think it’s game over yet, but it’s been a really frustrating moment.”
Since taking office, Zeldin has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda. The EPA has invited companies to seek exemptions from air pollution standards, moved to roll back drinking water limits for PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”), and relaxed protections against air pollutants including mercury, arsenic and ethylene oxide. The agency has reapproved some controversial pesticides and insecticides, proposed guidance suggesting a “safe” level of exposure for formaldehyde, and declined to regulate certain endocrine-disrupting phthalates in consumer products. It also canceled millions in grants for research on chemical health effects and has restructured or dismantled parts of the agency responsible for independent toxicology research, leading to the loss of hundreds of scientists.
Former EPA employees and environmental scientists say the cumulative effect touches “pretty much everything we eat, breathe, drink and use in our homes.” Betsy Southerland, an environmental scientist with the Environmental Protection Network, described the agency’s moves as far-reaching rollbacks of protections.
The EPA told NPR it is “committed to transparency and rigorous gold-standard science,” values open communication with the public and MAHA, and takes the coalition’s concerns seriously. MAHA figures, including Ryerson, recently met with President Trump and administration officials at the White House to press their concerns about pesticides and related policies.
Kennedy, who now serves in the administration, faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill this month about the EPA’s defense of the pesticide industry and the weakening of pollution protections. When pressed, he often deflected responsibility, at one point telling Rep. Steven Horsford, “It’s not my agency.”
Some MAHA advocates say they are being offered symbolic gestures rather than substantive policy changes. Toxicologist Alexandra Muñoz complained that the EPA’s actions don’t align with the regulatory approach MAHA seeks to reduce harmful chemical exposures. She described recent administration announcements as “PR stunts” that create the appearance of action without guaranteeing meaningful protections.
A prominent example cited by critics is the EPA’s recent joint announcement with Kennedy adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to the Contaminant Candidate List for drinking water — a step required every five years under the Safe Drinking Water Act that can precede research and regulation but does not itself impose standards. Chris Frey, an environmental engineering professor who previously worked at the EPA, likened the list to “a waiting room where contaminants go to be ignored,” noting many listed contaminants have never led to regulatory action.
Critics also note that the agency has disbanded key offices for independent chemical research and lost scientific staff, undermining its capacity to evaluate and regulate toxic substances. Environmental groups have taken legal action against the EPA over various rollbacks and policy choices, including PFAS standards.
Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund said the administration appears to be trying to placate a grassroots base with gestures while pursuing policies that favor industry. “What I see is an administration scrambling to try to give this grassroots base a bone, and I don’t think they’re buying it because they’re actually following these issues,” she said.
The dispute highlights a growing split between public-health-focused activists in MAHA — many aligned with Kennedy’s earlier environmental advocacy — and an administration whose regulatory priorities and personnel appointments have frustrated those same allies. With the Supreme Court case looming and multiple legal and policy battles underway, the rift over glyphosate and broader chemical regulation may deepen as activists decide whether to remain engaged with an administration they once hoped would champion their agenda.