President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week that has caused a deep split not only between his political allies but also among his supporters.
In a surprising move on Wednesday, Trump issued an executive order prioritizing U.S. production of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller that officials and the scientific community say could cause cancer.
It’s a herbicide that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic,” and a chemical that many RFK Jr. and Trump supporters have fought to have banned in the U.S.
However, he changed his tune this week, backing the president’s order. In a statement to CNBC on Thursday, he said Trump’s order “puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply.”
Trump’s executive order
The order signed on Wednesday provides limited immunity to companies that make glyphosate and elemental phosphorus. It declares the chemicals are essential to the nation’s farmers and our military.
Trump said glyphosate allows farmers “to efficiently and cost-effectively produce food and livestock feed.” He added that the U.S. currently has only one domestic glyphosate producer, which does not meet the country’s annual needs.
The order requires U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins to ensure that no orders, rules or regulations put domestic producers at risk.
MAHA movement responds in anger
Wednesday’s order drew harsh criticism from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, a group that wants safer food and fewer forever chemicals in the U.S.
MAHA moms are linked to RFK Jr. and his policies. When he threw his support behind President Trump, so did the moms. Now, it seems, they’re not happy with either of the politicians.
Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America, a central organization to the MAHA movement, called Trump’s order “an egregious offense to what he promised” and “a betrayal.”
Meanwhile, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) said the order is a “big middle finger to every MAHA mom.”
“By granting immunity to the makers of the nation’s most widely used pesticide, President Trump just gave Bayer a license to poison people. Full stop,” said EWG founder Ken Cook. “It’s a shocking betrayal to protect all of us, but especially the people who live and work near farm fields where glyphosate is used.”
MAHA supporter Vani Hari, known online as the “Food Babe,” expressed her own distaste, saying, “Please God tell me this isn’t true: Did Trump just give manufacturers of glyphosate immunity under Defense Production Act?”
In one of Hari’s Instagram posts, many said Trump’s order has the MAHA moms “waking up.”
One commenter wrote, “You were scammed and lied to for your votes. Thank you for taking action finally. This is one of many things Trump has done to make us less healthy.”
‘No Immunity for Glyphosate Act’
The MAHA movement is not the only group upset by the order. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., announced the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to undo the order.
Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, is co-leading the effort with Massie. In a post on X, she said, “The Trump Admin. cannot keep paying lip service to #MAHA while propping up Big Chemical like this and choosing corporate profits over Americans’ health.”
Are the carcinogen concerns valid?
The majority of the concerns regarding glyphosate revolve around whether or not it causes cancer. Many call it a carcinogen, including the MAHA movement, but different organizations and studies have found inconclusive results.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The classification means there’s limited evidence of cancer in humans, but sufficient evidence in animals.
The IARC specifically evaluates whether a substance can cause cancer under some circumstances, not the level of risk at typical exposure levels.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2020 that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human exposure.
Both the European Food Safety Authority and European Chemicals Agency have reached similar conclusions.
