MAHA is competing with Trump in the Supreme Court case of glyphosate, the farm bill

The Supreme Court case and a bill passed in Congress this week are expected to test the commitments of Republicans and the Make America Healthy Again movement, following the outbreak that almost broke out in February due to the herbicide glyphosate.

The court will hear a case Monday to decide whether the federal law preempts federal lawsuits over glyphosate, a chemical in BayerThe herbicide Roundup, causes cancer. And the US House is expected to take up the farm bill this week, a major agricultural policy measure that includes new chemical protections.

The MAHA organization, a coalition of activists pushing for healthy eating and eschew chemicals, helped restore President Donald Trump to the White House after the then-president-elect, now Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dropped out and endorsed the president. The group hates glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the US and essential to many farm operations.

The Supreme Court debates and the farm bill put MAHA at odds with Trump and the majority of Republicans in Congress. It comes just months after the previous blast when Trump signed an order to increase domestic production of glyphosate, a break that prompted Kennedy to step in and control the damage. And with the 2026 midterm elections seven months away and Trump’s approval rating down in the polls, keeping the coalition intact could be critical for Republicans racing to maintain their slim numbers in both chambers of Congress.

“It’s been a really bad couple of months because we’ve had attacks from the executive branch, the judiciary branch and Congress,” said Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA advocate who goes by the moniker “the Glyphosate Girl.”

“The combination of the executive order and Bayer going to the Supreme Court is inexcusable,” Ryerson said. “And I think it showed a deep disconnect between what management thinks MAHA cares about and what’s really true.”

For now, the White House appears to be firm in the glyphosate court case.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides and herbicides, does not list glyphosate as a carcinogen and does not require glyphosate labels to disclose cancer risk. But many people have sued, saying they got cancer from Roundup use, and they’re blaming Bayer and Monsanto, which makes glyphosate before Bayer acquired the company in 2018, failed to warn consumers of that risk. Kennedy in 2018 earned about $290 million a man in one such case.

The administration will argue on Bayer’s behalf before the Supreme Court, saying in a brief that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prepares for “failure to warn” claims against Bayer. Without that relief, the brief says, manufacturers would be obligated to adhere to a patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements in each state.

“[I]”f labeling tells consumers that a pesticide may cause cancer in Missouri, may cause cancer in Illinois, cause cancer in Tennessee, and it’s anyone’s guess in Iowa, consumers won’t know who to believe,” the US Solicitor General’s office wrote in an amicus brief in the case.

The farm bill, meanwhile, includes a provision that MAHA advocates say is a “liability shield” to protect pesticide producers. The bill would prohibit any states and courts from punishing or holding “liability to any entity for failure to comply with requirements that may require additional or different labeling or packaging from the labeling or packaging approved by the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator.”

House Agriculture Chairman GT Thompson, R-Pa., who is leading the farm bill, said MAHA advocates upset by the language are “emotionally driven, they need time to read this bill.” Thompson also pointed out that the bill retains the ability for states to change labels if they go through the EPA first.

“This bill is just about labeling, and making sure that labeling is done in a scientifically sound manner,” he said. “If the state wants to have additional labeling provisions, they have to go through the EPA to make that happen, it’s going to be on the label.”

Ryerson, who was asked to respond to Thompson, said it’s “abhorrent that someone would come out and call it sentimental, when all we’re trying to do is make people live,” and argued that Thompson’s bill includes a debt shield.

“I would also like to challenge, if he wants to talk to each individual and argue about what that bill says, I don’t care because he’s lying. This is the protection of the pesticide bill,” he said.

Republican acceptance of glyphosate gives Democrats an opportunity to try to defeat MAHA in their own way.

“The position of the White House is its position, and we’re going to have a Supreme Court fight, we’re going to have a farm bill, and I think it continues to cause some tension where you can’t really sugarcoat it,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, is a Democratic ally of MAHA’s other causes.

“There are a lot of people who are very excited about the idea of ​​MAHA who have never been involved in politics before, so they are not focused on voting Republican; there are a lot of people who will stick to these issues,” Pingree said.

Ryerson agreed, saying that MAHA is looking for a “champion and champions, which is what Kennedy was and is not,” regardless of party — warning that simmering frustrations could lead to MAHA sitting out this election.

“What should be in relation to both parties, is that it is possible that people are not too frustrated in the MAHA organization, they go to vote for a Democrat, they will not vote,” he said.

Pingree, along with Ryerson, will be attending a rally before the Supreme Court argument, arguing that the court should respect the right to sue. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is helping Pingree spearhead an amendment to remove the pesticide provision from the farm bill, will attend.

The White House seems to recognize the danger. They invited a team of MAHA lawyers to meet with senior officials earlier this month to highlight the work they are doing on lawyer issues.

Ryerson, who attended the meeting, said it was fruitful and allowed senior lawyers to vent their frustrations to administration officials. But he warned that it may not be enough to keep MAHA in the MAGA fold.

“My impression was that the administration took those concerns very seriously,” Ryerson said. “If the Supreme Court is in favor of Bayer, that is about management, because this case should not have even reached the Supreme Court.”