MAHA World Livid After SCOTUS Pesticides Ruling
The MAHA movement just found out how hard it is to fight Big Ag, Big Chem, Big Pharma, and the courts at the same time.
This article originally appeared on the Daily Caller News Foundation and was republished with permission.
Guest post by Ireland Owens
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup on Thursday, sparking outrage among supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto’s parent company Bayer, stating that U.S. states cannot require pesticide label warnings beyond those mandated by federal regulation. In handing down its decision, the Court halted thousands of lawsuits alleging that the Big Pharma company failed to warn consumers about the weedkiller’s potential cancer risks.
“This ruling is a giant gift to a foreign chemical company, and an insult to American farmers and workers whose cancers arose from the use of the herbicide Roundup,” U.S. Right to Know President Gary Ruskin said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “In essence, it puts the chemical industry above the law, and will have far-ranging effects that make Americans more likely to get sick from toxic exposures.”
Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said in a Thursday statement that the ruling was “profoundly” disappointing.
“We’re profoundly disappointed that the Supreme Court has restricted farmers’ and consumers’ ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for the harm their toxic products have caused,” Davidson said. “Now, Congress has a moral responsibility to put people’s health over pesticide industry profits by codifying a legal pathway for those hurt by toxic pesticide exposure.”
Moreover, Moms Across America Founding Executive Director Zen Honeycutt said in a statement that Thursday’s ruling “sets a dangerous precedent by elevating regulatory approval above judicial review and citizen access to justice.”
“The separation of powers exists to provide independent oversight and protect against regulatory capture,” Honeycutt added. “No agency should have the final word on corporate accountability when products designed to kill are released into the environment and used throughout our food system.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday comes after President Donald Trump unveiled an executive order in February aiming to boost the domestic production of glyphosate, drawing fierce criticism from some MAHA movement supporters. Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide that has been registered as a pesticide in the U.S. since 1974, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
When asked for comment, Bayer referred the DCNF to its Thursday press release.
“This decision, which reflects strong support across the ideological spectrum of the Court, helps to bring significant containment to the Roundup™ litigation,” the release reads in part. “Glyphosate remains the most studied crop protection tool in the world and this decision affirms that the EPA’s safety determination is the law of the land, ensuring that companies cannot be punished under a patchwork of state tort laws for complying with federal labeling requirements.”
Vani Hari, a MAHA movement leader also known as “The Food Babe,” stated in an X post that the decision is “a devastating blow to every family that trusted our justice system.”
Moreover, MAHA Action wrote in a statement posted to X that the Supreme Court’s decision “effectively shuts down the primary legal path many plaintiffs have used to hold Monsanto accountable.”
“SCOTUS rules Monsanto/Bayer can’t be sued for omitting a warning even if their herbicides do cause cancer,” Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie wrote on X in response to the decision. “Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound in this case, it’s a blatant travesty of justice.”
“Congress and the President can fix this and we absolutely should,” Massie continued.
Alex Clark, a MAHA podcaster who works for Turning Point USA, claimed in a statement posted to X that the Supreme Court has now “made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk.”
“The Trump administration URGED and PLEADED the Court to reach this result to protect a FOREIGN chemical company—and it did at the expense of Americans,” Clark wrote in the social media post. “What happened to America First? For an administration that promised to take on corporate capture and Make America Healthy Again, this is a STUNNING betrayal. Farmers, families, and cancer patients currently in litigation with Bayer will never forget this.”
“First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors,” Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project Director Kayla Hancock said in a Thursday statement. “Then Trump dispatched his DOJ lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims. Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning.”
Meanwhile, Bayer said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision is “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”
“It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,” according to Bayer’s statement. “The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims. Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement and other elements of its multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation.”
Copyright 2026 Daily Caller News Foundation
The problem is that industrial farming is what has made it possible to feed and grow the world population to 8 or 9 billion. That without these pesticides and chemical fertilizers, we might only have half the population or less. We have whole continents that would starve if not for industrial farming and vast food imports. This was the promise of the "Green Revolution" of the 60's when famine in places like China, India, and Africa was a real threat to global stability. So you can't just ban Roundup without starving a lot of people. It's just that simple.
Roundup contains glyphosate. Glyphosate prevents internal melanin production. Less melanin=less energy from electron transport chain interference. Less energy = the body reverts to old way of creating energy. That is cancer. It's your body trying to protect itself.