Body
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now serving as a top U.S. health official, moved to back a Trump administration executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate production, an herbicide ingredient he had fought against for years as an environmental lawyer. The endorsement landed inside a broader political test for Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement as supporters who have long demanded tougher pesticide oversight reacted to the apparent shift.
In a statement posted Sunday evening, Kennedy wrote that “President Trump did not build our current system — he inherited it,” and said he supported Trump’s executive order “to bring agricultural chemical production back to the United States and end our near-total reliance on adversarial nations.” The statement also described pesticides as “toxic by design,” setting up a dual message that some supporters and longtime environmental advocates read as a break from earlier MAHA priorities.
The executive order Kennedy endorsed is aimed at strengthening domestic production tied to glyphosate. According to the Associated Press report, the order is intended to protect domestic production of elemental phosphorus, which the administration said is used in military devices as well as to make glyphosate-based herbicides. It also seeks to protect production of glyphosate-based herbicides themselves, which the administration describes as critical to agricultural supply chains.
Kennedy has repeatedly said he believes glyphosate causes cancer, including as recently as January, a stance rooted in his earlier work as a lawyer. The AP report notes that the Environmental Protection Agency has said glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. The report also said Bayer, the company behind Monsanto, said it “stands behind the safety of our glyphosate-based products which have been tested extensively, approved by regulators and used around the globe for more than 50 years.”
Kennedy said in the post that he is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA to expedite a future in which the food supply is not reliant on harmful chemicals. The report also points to a December launch of a $700 million regenerative pilot program intended to help farmers adopt practices that boost soil health, water quality and productivity, but some advocates said they have not yet seen evidence that the effort will lead to the kind of pesticide detoxification they sought.
Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt, a prominent MAHA activist, responded publicly, saying, “It’s been a year. Not a single thing has been done by the EPA to reduce our children’s and families exposure to pesticides.” Honeycutt added that supporters “love you Bobby but this administration needs to keep their word,” framing Kennedy’s endorsement as part of a broader failure to deliver on promises about regulatory changes.
Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook similarly questioned what he described as the pace and substance of change. Cook said, “If there is a big plan, a big MAHA-style plan to move in the direction of detoxifying agriculture from these chemicals, where is it?” He told the AP that the language in Kennedy’s statement matched arguments from pesticide makers and said that, in his view, Kennedy was trying to hold onto MAHA principles while “at every turn” betraying them.
The political consequences of the disagreement are expected to matter heading into November midterm elections, with Kennedy’s coalition viewed as important for Republicans trying to hold narrow majorities in Congress. Matt Motta, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, said Kennedy faces a “tough spot,” weighing the need to satisfy MAHA supporters who believe glyphosate can cause cancer while also aligning with the president’s priorities to keep his federal role.
MAHA Action, a Kennedy-aligned political advocacy organization, issued a memo on Monday aimed at addressing anger within the movement, the AP report said. The memo fact-checked what it described as inaccurate claims about the executive order and urged the administration to take steps including an independent EPA review of glyphosate’s effects on health, while warning that opponents and corporate media would try to split the coalition.
The executive order drew sharp reaction from some Democrats as well. Sen. Cory Booker called the executive order “a slap in the face to the thousands of Americans who have gotten cancer from glyphosate,” and he argued on social media that the administration’s message prioritized chemical company profits over health. Meanwhile, Democratic strategist Anjan Mukherjee said more left-leaning candidates could emphasize to MAHA supporters what he described as failures by the Trump administration, though some MAHA-aligned groups and strategists cautioned that congressional control may not automatically translate into faster changes on the ground.
Bayer said it supports the safety of its glyphosate-based products, while the EPA maintains that the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. Kennedy’s post and the coalition responses show that, for many MAHA supporters, the argument is no longer only about whether glyphosate should be produced, but about whether the federal government will pursue the stricter, faster pesticide-regulation agenda they have been pressing for.