The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement finds itself at a crossroads. Despite campaigning for United States President Donald Trump and earning his vigorous seal of approval, MAHA’s purported mission to free health care from “corporate control” conflicts directly with the president’s mission to support corporate profits, as recently underscored by an Executive Order involving the notorious herbicide glyphosate amid ongoing litigation.
When corporate profits beat public health
Glyphosate is a ubiquitous herbicide commonly known as the primary ingredient in Roundup brand products manufactured by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer.
When Bayer acquired the agrochemical company Monsanto and its Roundup brand in 2018, evidence already pointed to human health risks associated with direct exposure to glyphosate on farms and during yard work. Those studies were followed by more convincing evidence in the years to come, with the cancer non-Hodgkin lymphoma being a particular area of concern among farmworkers and others exposed to the herbicide regularly.
Last year, the mounting evidence led to a landmark decision against Bayer by a jury in Georgia. The plaintiff — John Barnes, who used Roundup at his home and workplace for decades before developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma — alleged that Bayer was aware of the health risks but failed to warn consumers.
The jury ordered Bayer to pay him more than $2 billion in “the largest single-plaintiff verdict in Georgia history,” the business publication Exec Edge reports.
The history-making verdict against a powerful corporation was widely cheered by the MAHA movement, which had identified glyphosate as a chief target for action against the chemical industry.
The verdict was further validated in December when the decades-old research that initially determined glyphosate was safe to use was retracted by the journal that published it, after Monsanto’s influence on the results came to light during litigation. Last month, a newly published review of the literature further described “consistent, coherent and compelling evidence” that glyphosate and related chemicals are a cause of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Barnes’ case in Georgia is one of thousands as people seek relief from Bayer after falling ill. “Between 2023 and 2025, plaintiffs have won nearly $5 billion in verdicts, though some were later reduced by judges,” Exec Edge reported last week. “As of January 2026, approximately 65,000 Roundup lawsuits remain pending, with new cases still being filed. The company has reportedly set aside $16 billion to settle the remaining cases.”
Bayer continues to push to end the wave of litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the company’s case arguing that federal pesticide labeling laws shield it from pending lawsuits. In February, Bayer agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle tens of thousands of its outstanding suits in a move reportedly driven by the upcoming Supreme Court case.
In a call announcing the settlement, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson called the agreement complimentary to the case, adding that offering some compensation to plaintiffs alongside a win in the Supreme Court is “the tightest possible form of containment” for future litigation, The New York Times reports.
At the same time, Bayer is campaigning for policies across the U.S. that opponents say will shield pesticide companies from liability for failing to warn the public about the health risks associated with its products, including the most recent draft of the federal farm bill. Bills backed by the company passed in North Dakota and Georgia last year, and lawmakers are debating a third bill in Kansas. A similar pesticides rider was dropped from a spending bill in Maine in December after campaigning from local representatives and MAHA.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Bayer’s case later this month. If the company can’t contain the lawsuits, it may stop selling Roundup altogether, Anderson previously told reporters.
But all this news didn’t seem to reach supposed MAHA ally Donald Trump. In February, President Trump issued an executive order “protecting the health and safety of Americans,” but not by taking action to reduce glyphosate hazards. Instead, the order increases those risks by protecting corporations from liability and providing federal resources that support domestic herbicide producers and the domestic phosphorus mining industry. Last month, the Department of Justice followed up by filing a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Bayer’s argument in its upcoming case.
Making MAHA angry again
Adding insult to injury, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy swiftly moved to forestall criticism among the MAHA rank and file. In a lengthy February social media post, he touted the executive order as improving national security, blamed glyphosate on the agricultural system Trump inherited, and insisted it is a positive step toward reform … eventually. “President Trump has opened the door to this debate and backed meaningful change — not only in policy, but in the national conversation about health and agriculture,” Kennedy concluded.
That’s quite a turnaround for the former trial lawyer. Kennedy had long roots as a trusted name in the battle against glyphosate, having worked for the plaintiffs in a groundbreaking glyphosate case that resulted in a $298 million jury verdict against Monsanto in 2018.
While Kennedy’s messaging resonated among some MAHA activists, the rank-and-file were not buying it. In particular, the executive order drew the wrath of the prominent glyphosate-focused, MAHA-affiliated Moms Across America Movement. “WE DO NOT CONSENT TO BEING POISONED,” the organization told its Facebook followers in February.
“This is not ‘national security.’ True national security is healthy families, thriving children, and a future free from chronic disease,” the organization continued, providing a link to an online petition calling on the president to phase out glyphosate among other demands, including an end to vaccine mandates.
What went wrong?
The glyphosate betrayal may have shocked voters who were attracted to Trump by MAHA messaging during the 2024 election. But months before Election Day, signs were already emerging that the MAHA segment of the wellness movement was serving Republican political interests, not genuine public health goals.
The MAHA message is credited with rallying Independent and Democratic voters to re-elect President Trump in 2024, despite his catastrophic record on left-leaning issues during his first term. However, MAHA is not a politically neutral movement: MAHA PAC is the name of a right-wing political action committee formerly known as American Values super PAC. MAHA PAC describes itself as “the political arm of the Make America Healthy Again movement, dedicated to electing candidates who will fight for a healthier America.”
“We exist to elect Republicans to the House and Senate who will champion the MAHA agenda in 2026 and beyond,” it adds.
The nonprofit MAHA Action also launched in 2024 with an affiliation to then-candidate Kennedy, but it devoted funds in support of Trump’s MAHA programs after the election. Despite Trump’s support for glyphosate production and use, MAHA Action continues to describe its mission as “driving advocacy and activism for the Make America Healthy Again movement to revitalize a healthier America, liberated from corporate control.”
Both organizations are focusing their attention on winning the midterm elections. Their success depends on whether MAHA activists can convince bipartisan wellness voters that Republican candidates are serving their interests, and President Trump’s executive order on phosphorus and glyphosate herbicides is just the latest in a series of actions that raise hurdles for that argument.
Last summer, The New Yorker took note of proposed rollbacks in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for pesticides among other examples of corporate support over public benefit. In December, MAHA activists launched a petition to urge the president to fire EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, arguing he prioritizes chemical corporations over the well-being of families and children.
A new poll of self-identified MAHA supporters commissioned by the news organization Politico indicates that anger within the wellness movement could ripple into the midterm elections. Trump is not on the ballot, but Congress is. “Some congressional Republicans have moved to protect pesticide makers from legal liability in the farm bill, further angering MAHA,” Politico reports. Half of the MAHA supporters polled said limiting pesticide use is a core value of the movement.
During a campaign rally in 2016, Trump famously said that he “wouldn’t lose any voters” if he stood in the middle of a bustling city street — 5th Avenue in New York — and shot someone. That statement has met the test of time until now. Coupled with the unspooling scandal of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the catastrophic decision to launch a war against Iran, could the glyphosate order prove to be the final straw?
Featured image credit: Jammer Gene/Adobe Stock
