Followers of Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who contributed mightily to Donald Trump’s reelection in 2024, are fuming that the administration is blowing off their concerns as a closely-watched case heads to the Supreme Court on Monday.
According to CNBC reporting, the conservative-leaning court will hear arguments Monday to decide whether federal law preempts state-level lawsuits alleging glyphosate, the chemical in Bayer's herbicide Roundup, causes cancer. Simultaneously, the Republican-majority U.S. House is expected to take up a massive agricultural policy measure that includes new protections for the chemical.
Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) activists feel completely blindsided, according to CNBC, which is reporting the health movement that propelled RFK Jr. to influence within the administration expected Trump to challenge corporate agriculture and chemical industry protection — not become Bayer's champion.
Just months ago, Trump signed an executive order to boost the domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides, forcing Kennedy himself to intervene and attempt damage control with his base.
Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA advocate known as "the Glyphosate Girl," expressed the depth of her extreme dismay, telling CNBC, "It has been a really, really rough few months because we have an attack coming from the executive branch, the judicial branch and over in Congress."
"The combination of the executive order and going to bat for Bayer at the Supreme Court are really inexcusable," Ryerson continued. "And I think it showed a deep disconnect between what the administration thinks that MAHA cares about and what is actually true."
House Republicans are dismissing MAHA as emotional rather than principled. House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-PA), leading the farm bill, attacked the movement as "emotional-driven" and claimed the bill merely ensures "labeling is done in a way with the highest level of science."
Thompson asserted that states retain the ability to alter labels through the EPA process, explaining, "If a state wants to have additional provisions for labeling, they only have to go through the EPA to make that happen, it will be on the label."
That infuriated Ryerson even more.
"It's extremely disgusting that someone would come out and call us emotional, when what we're just trying to do is make people healthy," she said, directly challenging the congressman's characterization.
She also rejected the claim about what the bill actually contains. "I would also like to challenge, if he wants to go one-on-one and debate what that bill actually says, I am totally game because he is lying. This is a pesticide liability shield."