Glyphosate fight tests ties between Republicans and the MAHA movement

A Supreme Court case and a bill moving through Congress this week are set to test the relationship between Republicans and the Make America Healthy Again movement after a near-rupture in February over the weedkiller glyphosate.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Monday on whether federal law preempts state-level lawsuits alleging glyphosate, the chemical in Bayer's herbicide Roundup, causes cancer. The U.S. House is also expected to take up the farm bill this week, a broad agricultural policy measure that includes new protections for the chemical.

The MAHA movement, a coalition of activists who advocate healthy food and reject chemicals, helped return President Donald Trump to the White House after their preferred presidential candidate, now-Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dropped out of the race and endorsed him. The group strongly opposes glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. and a core part of many farm operations.

The Supreme Court case and the farm bill place MAHA at odds with Trump and most Republicans in Congress. The dispute follows a clash in February, when Trump signed an executive order aimed at boosting domestic glyphosate production, prompting Kennedy to step in and try to ease tensions. With the 2026 midterm election less than seven months away and Trump's approval rating lower in polls, preserving that coalition could be important for Republicans seeking to keep narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress.

"It has been a really, really rough few months because we have an attack coming from the executive branch, the judicial branch and over in Congress," said Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA advocate who goes by the moniker "the Glyphosate Girl."

"The combination of the executive order and going to bat for Bayer at the Supreme Court are really inexcusable," Ryerson said. "And I think it showed a deep disconnect between what the administration thinks that MAHA cares about and what is actually true."

For now, the White House appears firmly aligned with glyphosate's defenders.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides and herbicides, does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen and does not require labels to disclose cancer risk. But many individuals have sued, alleging they developed cancer from using Roundup and arguing that Bayer and Monsanto, which made glyphosate before Bayer acquired the company in 2018, failed to warn consumers of that risk. Kennedy in 2018 won nearly $290 million for a man in one such case.

The administration plans to argue on Bayer's behalf before the Supreme Court, stating in an amicus brief that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempts the "failure to warn" claims facing the company. Without that preemption, the brief argues, manufacturers would have to comply with a patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements across states.

"[I]f labeling tells users that a pesticide likely causes cancer in Missouri, might cause cancer in Illinois, definitely causes cancer in Tennessee, and is anyone's guess in Iowa, users will not know whom to believe," the U.S. Solicitor General's office wrote in an amicus brief. "Lost in that noise: EPA's considered judgments about what warnings are actually necessary to protect public health, and any hope of uniformity."

The farm bill includes a provision that MAHA advocates describe as a "liability shield" for pesticide manufacturers. The measure would bar states and courts from penalizing or holding "liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements that would require labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency."

House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., who is leading the bill, said MAHA advocates upset by the language are "emotional-driven, need to take time to read the bill." Thompson also argued that the bill preserves states' ability to alter labels if they first go through the EPA.

"This bill is just about labeling, and making sure that the labeling is done in a way with the highest level of science," he said. "If a state wants to have additional provisions for labeling, they only have to go through the EPA to make that happen, it will be on the label."

Ryerson rejected Thompson's argument and said the bill does provide a liability shield.

"I would also like to challenge, if he wants to go one-on-one and debate what that bill actually says, I am totally game because he is lying. This is a pesticide liability shield," she said.

The Republican embrace of glyphosate has created an opening for Democrats to try to appeal to MAHA supporters.

"The White House's stand is its stand, and we're gonna have the Supreme Court fight, we're going to have the farm bill, and I think it continues to cause some rifts over there that you can't really sugarcoat," said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, a Democratic ally of some MAHA causes.

"There are a lot of people who got really excited about the MAHA idea who hadn't been involved in politics before, so they're not as embedded in voting for Republicans; it's more who is going to stick up for these issues," Pingree said.

Ryerson agreed, saying MAHA is looking "for a champion and champions, which is what Kennedy was and is," regardless of party, while warning that mounting frustration could lead MAHA supporters to sit out the election.

"What should be concerning to both parties, is that the likelihood isn't that people are so frustrated in the MAHA movement, they go and vote for a Democrat, they just won't vote," she said.

Pingree and Ryerson plan to attend a rally before the Supreme Court argument to urge the court to uphold the right to sue. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is helping Pingree lead an amendment to remove the pesticide provision from the farm bill, is also expected to attend.

The White House appears to recognize the political risk. Earlier this month, administration officials invited a group of MAHA advocates to discuss the work they say they are doing on the movement's priorities.

Ryerson, who attended the meeting, said it was productive and gave leading advocates a chance to voice frustrations directly to administration officials. But she cautioned that the outreach may not be enough to keep MAHA aligned with MAGA.

"My feeling was that the administration is taking those concerns to heart," Ryerson said. "If the Supreme Court comes out in favor of Bayer, that is on this administration, because this case never even should have made it to the Supreme Court."