For years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was the person MAHA moms trusted most on one specific issue: glyphosate, the chemical in Roundup that his own legal work once linked to cancer. As an environmental attorney, Kennedy helped win a nearly $290 million case against Monsanto on behalf of a man who blamed his cancer on the herbicide. He said it publicly, repeatedly, including as recently as this year, when he told a podcast host plainly that he believes glyphosate causes cancer.
Then, in February 2026, everything changed. President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to compel domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides, calling it central to America’s defense readiness and food supply. And instead of pushing back, Kennedy defended it.
For a movement built substantially on trust in Kennedy’s word on exactly this issue, the reaction was immediate, and it wasn’t quiet.
What Trump’s Executive Order Actually Does
On February 18, 2026, Trump signed an order using Defense Production Act authority, a law typically reserved for national security and defense manufacturing, to compel domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. The order frames glyphosate as a cornerstone of American agricultural productivity and describes securing its domestic supply as central to national security.
The timing raised eyebrows immediately. The order came down just one day after Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve a wave of lawsuits alleging Roundup causes cancer. Bayer’s settlement offer does not include any admission of wrongdoing, and the company continues to maintain that regulators worldwide have found glyphosate safe when used as directed.
Kennedy’s Response Stunned His Own Base
Rather than distancing himself from the order, Kennedy issued a statement backing it directly, framing it around national security. He said protecting America’s food supply and defense readiness depended on reducing reliance on foreign sources for critical inputs, and that expanding domestic production closed that gap.
For a man who spent years building his public identity around fighting exactly this chemical, the shift didn’t go unnoticed. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, didn’t mince words, saying he couldn’t imagine a bigger insult to MAHA supporters, and that if Kennedy stayed at HHS after this, it would be hard to view his past warnings as anything more than rhetoric aimed at winning votes.
The MAHA Movement’s Reaction
The backlash from MAHA’s grassroots came fast and from multiple directions.
Vani Hari, the wellness influencer known as “Food Babe” and one of MAHA’s most visible public faces, told a crowd at a “People Versus Poison” rally that you cannot tell Americans to eat real food while protecting the same chemicals being sprayed on it.
Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, a nonprofit that has advocated for glyphosate bans for years, told CNN she felt physically sick when she saw the order, describing it as effectively a tribute to the chemical her organization has spent years fighting. Her organization has specifically raised concern that the order could help shield Monsanto, the only domestic glyphosate producer, from future lawsuits tied to products made in compliance with it.
Other longtime MAHA-aligned advocates echoed the same sense of betrayal. Kelly Ryerson, known online as “Glyphosate Girl,” told NPR that her optimism about the administration had faded over the past year, as people with chemical industry ties were placed into key positions at the EPA. Co-founder of United We Eat, an advocate for regenerative agriculture, told NPR the situation felt genuinely appalling given how central Kennedy’s Monsanto lawsuits were to earning the movement’s trust in the first place.
Kennedy’s Defense: A National Security Argument
Kennedy hasn’t reversed his underlying belief that glyphosate poses health risks. He has continued to state that he believes it causes cancer. His defense of the executive order rests instead on a separate argument: that an outright ban would put a large share of American farmers out of business, and that the country can’t currently function without domestic access to the chemical, regardless of the health concerns he still holds personally.
That distinction, between still believing something is harmful and defending the political decision to expand its production anyway, is exactly what’s fracturing his own coalition. Critics argue it’s difficult to hold both positions credibly at the same time, especially from the country’s top health official.
Why This Is Becoming a Bigger Political Problem
This fight isn’t happening in isolation. Just months before the executive order, the Trump administration’s solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to take up a case that could shield Bayer from thousands of state-level lawsuits alleging glyphosate causes cancer. At the time, some MAHA supporters gave Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, assuming he simply wasn’t involved in that decision. His full-throated defense of the glyphosate executive order removed that benefit of the doubt for many.
Democratic officials have started using the rift for political advantage as well. Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who had previously expressed enthusiasm about Kennedy’s appointment specifically because of his anti-pesticide record, said it was deeply disappointing to watch Kennedy and the administration turn their backs on the exact promise that earned him support in the first place.
What the Science Actually Says About Glyphosate
Cutting through the politics, it’s worth being precise about where the actual science stands: it’s genuinely unsettled, not a slam-dunk in either direction. Some researchers and regulatory bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Other regulators, including the EPA under multiple administrations, have concluded that approved uses do not pose an unreasonable risk to human health. The scientific community remains genuinely divided on how much danger typical exposure levels actually pose, which is part of why this fight has stayed unresolved in courtrooms and legislatures for years rather than being settled definitively either way.
What This Means If You’re Trying to Reduce Your Exposure
Regardless of where the political fight lands, many households are choosing to reduce glyphosate exposure directly, rather than waiting for regulatory clarity that may not come soon. A few practical steps worth knowing:
- Choose organic when possible for the “dirty dozen” produce — crops most frequently found with pesticide residue
- Wash produce thoroughly, which reduces but does not fully eliminate residue
- Read labels on grain-based products, since wheat and oats are commonly treated pre-harvest
- Support farms and brands with third-party organic or regenerative certification, which restrict glyphosate use
- Stay informed on your state’s regulations, since some states have moved faster than federal agencies on pesticide labeling and restrictions
There’s a documentary that dives deeper into this exact fight, tracing how glyphosate went from a chemical Kennedy fought in court to one his own administration is now defending. If you want the fuller picture beyond what any single article can cover, it’s worth watching.
Sign up to watch the film free here >> https://signup.mahamovie.com/XMAH6108?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=5&affid=235
Sign up to watch the film free here >> https://signup.mahamovie.com/XMAH6108?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=5&affid=235
For households looking to reduce overall chemical exposure through diet more broadly, Codeage offers clean-label supplements formulated without synthetic additives, for anyone trying to fill nutritional gaps while cutting back on processed and chemically treated food sources. Use code HEALTHYWILDFREE10 at checkout.
The Bottom Line
This is more than a policy disagreement. It’s a direct test of whether Kennedy’s presence at HHS actually means what MAHA supporters believed it meant when they backed Trump in the first place. Whether Kennedy’s national security argument holds up, or whether this becomes the moment his own movement stops taking him at his word, is likely to keep playing out through the 2026 midterms and beyond.
For now, the chemical Kennedy once took to court is headed for expanded domestic production, with his own public backing attached to it.
