NPR84%
The MAHA movement is mad about glyphosate and Trump's EPA 98%
By Will Stone0%
4/28/2026, 3:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.5% saturation with 609 hits. Analysis detected 2,809 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,182 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 96.7% and a BS Rank of 98% (556 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.50% of the article peer group.
In a sign of the simmering discontent within the Make America Healthy Again coalition, some of its most visible figures rallied outside the U.S.
Supreme Court on Monday, lobbing criticism at the Trump administration for siding with a pesticide-maker.
Inside, the justices were hearing arguments in a highly-anticipated case involving the glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.
"You cannot claim to care about health while protecting poison.
You cannot tell Americans to eat real food while protecting the cancer-causing chemicals sprayed on it," wellness influencer and "MAHA mom" Vani Hari, who goes by the "Food Babe," told the assembled crowd at the "People Versus Poison" rally.
Many of those who spoke were longtime allies of Health Secretary Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. who brought his supporters into the MAGA fold when he endorsed Trump.
The case in front of the court centers on whether Bayer, the German company that now owns Monsanto, can be shielded from lawsuits that have been filed in state courts over claims that the company failed to warn consumers about the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate.
The Trump administration's decision to back the pesticide maker in the case, coming on the heels of an executive order supporting the expansion of domestic production of glyphosate, has angered the MAHA movement.
A decade ago, the World Health Organization concluded that glyphosate — the most widely-used weedkiller in the world — is "probably carcinogenic," though the Environmental Protection Agency did not agree with that finding.
Just last month, leading scientists in the field of environmental health issued a consensus statement, saying that glyphosate can cause cancer and called for urgent action.
Bayer disputes this.
Glyphosate is one of the animating concerns for the coalition, but the rift underscores a broader tension — what MAHA advocates described as a "profound contradiction" in a recent letter to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin.
While the Trump administration "claims to prioritize health," it "continues to approve, expand, and normalize chemical exposures that directly undermine that goal," the letter states.
David Murphy, a former finance director for Kennedy's presidential campaign, was among those who signed the dispatch to Zeldin.
In an interview with NPR, he said they had believed "this type of stuff wouldn't happen," given Trump's very public support for Kennedy who, as an environmental lawyer, brought lawsuits against Monsanto over glyphosate.
"It's really pretty appalling that they've gone down this road," says Murphy, co-founder of United We Eat, which advocates for regenerative agricultural practices.
Kelly Ryerson, another well-known figure in the MAHA world who goes by the name Glyphosate Girl on social media, says her optimism about the Trump administration has soured over the past year, as those who worked for the chemical industry were placed in key positions at the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Once things fell into place, all the special interests poured in," she says.
"I don't think it's game over yet, but it's been a really frustrating moment."
Rolling back protections
From the outset, Zeldin has pursued a deregulatory agenda at the EPA with zeal, even inviting companies to email his agency so they can be exempted from air pollution standards.
Under his watch, the agency has moved to roll back drinking water standards for PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals" and weakened protections against air pollutants, such as mercury, arsenic, ethylene oxide and more.
It greenlighted pesticides and insecticides, with known health risks; proposed that a safe level of exposure of the human carcinogen, formaldehyde, exists; and elected not to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals, known as phthalates, in consumer products.
And it cancelled millions of dollars in research grants on the health effects of chemicals and pollutants.
The broad efforts to undo protections has touched "pretty much everything we eat, breathe, drink and use in our homes," says Betsy Southerland, an environmental scientist with the Environmental Protection Network, a volunteer organization of former EPA employees.
In a statement to NPR earlier this month, the EPA said it's "committed to transparency and rigorous gold-standard science" and "values open communication with the public and MAHA community" and takes the concerns outlined in the letter "seriously."
In fact, MAHA figures including Ryerson recently met with President Trump and cabinet officials at the White House to discuss their concerns over the administration's stances on pesticides and other issues.
During his appearances on Capitol Hill this month, Secretary Kennendy was grilled about the administration's defense of the pesticide industry and weakening of protections against mercury pollution, another issue that Kennedy had worked on as an advocate.
Kennedy largely sidestepped the questions.
At one point during a particularly heated exchange with Rep.
Steven Horsford, D-Nev., he responded: "It's not my agency."
"PR stunts" instead of action
For some in the MAHA coalition, it's starting to feel like they're getting lip service instead of real change.
Alexandra Muñoz, who has a PhD in toxicology and advocates with many in the MAHA coalition against pesticides, says EPA actions do not "align with MAHA and a regulatory approach that's needed to stop harmful chemical exposures now."
Instead, what Muñoz increasingly sees are "PR stunts" from the Trump administration aimed at appeasing advocates like her, even while officials do little to deliver concrete new protections.
"There is this constant effort to lie to everybody and say that what they're doing is MAHA and say that they care about people's health," she says.
"It's laughable."
For example, Muñoz points to the splash made early this month in what Zeldin called "a landmark set of actions by EPA to safeguard the nation's drinking water."
In a joint announcement with Kennedy, the EPA revealed it was adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to what's known as the Contaminant Candidate List, which the agency is required to update every five years under the Safe Water Drinking Act.
The designation can set the stage for more research and regulatory action — but doesn't actually guarantee that will happen.
Chris Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, says in reality there are hundreds of contaminants on that list which have never seen any regulatory action.
"While to the public that probably sounds like, 'oh, EPA is doing something that will protect public health, that's kind of like the waiting room where contaminants go to be ignored," says Frey, who worked at the EPA during the Biden administration.
What's more, the EPA has dismantled the key office responsible for independent research on toxic chemicals and lost hundreds of scientists.
"The agency has basically cut itself down at the knees," he says.
Environmental advocacy groups are now locked in legal battles with the Trump administration over many of these actions on toxic chemicals.
The administration doesn't appear inclined to change course, even though this is a political issue with broad appeal, says Sarah Vogel with the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the groups suing EPA over PFAS drinking water standards and more.
"What I see is an administration scrambling to try to give this grassroots base a bone, and I don't think they're buying it because they're actually following these issues," she says.
Speakers
9speakers49%attributed speech608writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageVani Hari
39 attributed words6.8% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.