Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, members of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition staged a protest after the Justice Department sided with a pesticide manufacturer in a high-profile glyphosate case. Inside the court, justices considered whether Bayer — which acquired Monsanto — should be shielded from state lawsuits claiming its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup can cause cancer and that consumers were not warned adequately.
At the “People Versus Poison” rally, wellness influencer Vani Hari, known as the “Food Babe,” criticized the administration for defending chemical interests while claiming to prioritize health. Many speakers were longtime allies of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who helped bring some environmental and wellness advocates into the MAGA-aligned coalition when he endorsed Donald Trump.
The protest highlights growing frustration within MAHA over the administration’s chemical and regulatory decisions. Advocates were particularly angered by the Justice Department’s support for Bayer and a recent executive action encouraging expanded domestic glyphosate production. That shift has felt especially stark to some because Kennedy had previously sued Monsanto; activists had expected different priorities from an administration including him.
A decade ago, the World Health Organization labeled glyphosate “probably carcinogenic,” a conclusion the Environmental Protection Agency has rejected. More recently, a group of environmental health scientists issued a consensus statement asserting glyphosate can cause cancer, a view Bayer disputes. Those conflicting assessments feed the broader debate about the herbicide’s safety.
MAHA organizers called the administration’s approach a “profound contradiction.” In a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, they argued that rhetoric about health is undermined by policies that approve, expand, and normalize chemical exposures. Signatories included David Murphy, a former finance director for Kennedy’s presidential campaign and co-founder of United We Eat, who told reporters he and others had expected the administration to resist actions favoring the chemical industry.
Some activists say their early optimism has faded as industry-connected officials assumed key roles at the EPA. Kelly Ryerson, who posts as “Glyphosate Girl,” said special interests moved in once those appointments were set, leaving advocates frustrated though not ready to give up.
Critics point to a sweeping deregulatory agenda under Administrator Zeldin. The EPA has invited companies to seek exemptions from air pollution standards, proposed rolling back drinking water limits for PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”), and weakened protections against air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic and ethylene oxide. The agency has reapproved pesticides with documented health risks, suggested regulatory framing that could imply a “safe” exposure level for formaldehyde, and declined to regulate certain endocrine-disrupting phthalates in consumer products. It has also canceled millions in research grants on health effects and dismantled an office responsible for independent toxic chemicals research, contributing to a loss of scientific staff.
Former EPA scientists and outside experts warn these moves affect what people eat, breathe, drink and use in their homes. Betsy Southerland of the Environmental Protection Network, a volunteer group of former EPA employees, said the changes are far-reaching. Chris Frey, an environmental engineering professor, described the agency’s diminished research capacity as having “cut [the agency] down at the knees.” Environmental groups have filed suits challenging many rollbacks, from PFAS standards to other chemical protections.
Some MAHA advocates say public-facing gestures from the EPA have not translated into meaningful protections. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist who works with MAHA pesticide groups, called several recent moves “PR stunts” that provide little concrete change. As an example, she and others pointed to the EPA’s announcement that it added microplastics and pharmaceuticals to the Contaminant Candidate List for drinking water — a required step before regulation but not a guarantee of future action. Chris Frey compared that list to “the waiting room where contaminants go to be ignored,” noting many listed substances never reach regulatory follow-through.
The tension has played out publicly: MAHA figures met with the president and officials at the White House to press their concerns, and Kennedy has faced sharp questioning on Capitol Hill about the administration’s defenses of the pesticide industry and rollbacks on mercury protections — issues he previously championed as an environmental lawyer. When pressed about the agency’s positions in one hearing, Kennedy responded, “It’s not my agency.”
Observers say the administration appears to be trying to placate a grassroots base without fully addressing their policy demands. Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund described the outreach as an attempt to give activists symbolic concessions while continuing policies they oppose. With legal battles ongoing and activists increasingly disillusioned, the rift between MAHA advocates and parts of an administration that once drew their support looks likely to widen as the debate over glyphosate and chemical policy continues.