The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s crusade against pesticides is creating divisions in the Republican Party, as some members back the industry while others stand with MAHA activists.
As the MAHA movement, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., gains power and influence within the GOP, efforts to limit liability for the pesticide industry are also growing on numerous fronts.
The issue is coming to a head in Congress, at the Supreme Court and on the state level, while other Republicans remain at the forefront of pushing pro-pesticide policies.
“I don’t know what these Republicans are thinking, because this is a really powerful conservative movement that doesn’t want this, and I think that they don’t have the memo yet that they need to be lining up with MAHA, because they really stand to lose their seat,” activist Kelly Ryerson said.
Republicans have traditionally been supportive of big business. But the MAHA movement is vocally skeptical of pharmaceutical, agriculture and chemical companies.
A key policy divide that has emerged is whether pesticide companies should have to disclose health impacts that are not officially recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — and whether they can be sued under state failure-to-warn laws for not doing so.
While bigger than any one pesticide, much of the debate is related to glyphosate, a key ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weed killer that has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging cancer links.
“We as a company, for the past few years … have been working on a multipronged strategy to address litigation challenges. And for us … it’s about glyphosate and Roundup,” said Jess Christiansen, Bayer’s head of crop science communications.
“Farmers really rely on this product, and it’s so critical to food production and keeping production safe, effective and affordable,” Christiansen told The Hill. “We need to fight as best we can against the litigation industry.”
MAHA activists recently won the fight against a House appropriations provision that sought to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the EPA.
Critics warned that the measure could shield chemical companies from liability. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is among them.
“This is completely wrong, and some of these pesticides are linked to cancer and infertility. Why on earth would we want to shield the companies? This is not benefiting the American people at all,” she wrote on the social platform X.
But other House Republicans, such as Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho), who chairs the Appropriations Interior-Environment subcommittee, were among the provision’s supporters.
“The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements,” he said last year.
Democrats have also opposed the measure.
While the provision did not make it into the minibus funding bill that’s expected to become law, the issue is expected to reappear.
Asked whether the issue will appear again in this year’s anticipated farm bill effort, a House Agriculture Committee aide said Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) “intends to address the issue of pesticide labeling uniformity in Farm Bill 2.0.”
The aide said this will include updated language to “make it crystal clear that bad actors can still be penalized and held liable, while still bringing regulatory certainty to the marketplace.”
The aide did not specify how the update would accomplish both, and it’s unclear what would constitute a bad actor.
But they noted the EPA has “not only the authority, but the obligation, to act if new evidence emerges on the safety of a pesticide.”
Ryerson said she believes there’s a “disconnect” between Republicans and their voters amid the push to protect pesticides.
“There is a huge disconnect right now between the constituents and particularly these Republicans that have been in office for some time, where they have been able to just skirt by and make their corporate decisions that have injured human health,” she said.
She said Republican lawmakers who have led the fight for pro-pesticide legislation should face primary challengers.
“There are plenty of voters in the MAHA movement that are independent voters that would be happy to go and vote for the Democrat if they’re willing to address these things,” she added.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to take a case that similarly seeks to preclude failure-to-warn claims under the argument that any state-level requirements are preempted by the federal label.
Bayer asked the court to take the case, urging it to overturn a lower court ruling that it had to pay damages for failing to disclose information about the health impacts of Roundup.
The Trump administration has backed Bayer’s bid.
“We were very shocked that the White House would recommend taking it up and siding with Bayer,” said Ryerson, who uses the moniker of “The Glyphosate Girl” online.
“It is so counter to everything that the president has said in terms of creating safety around pesticides,” she added. “It was really disappointing to see that at that moment, the White House didn’t have the back of the MAHA moms.”
Bayer’s Christiansen said the company labeled its products appropriately under law and therefore should not be subject to the litigation. Roundup-related suits have already cost the company billions of dollars.
In 2020, the first Trump administration reapproved the use of glyphosate, citing “insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases.”
The ingredient is also still approved in the European Union. The World Health Organization in 2015 described it as “probably carcinogenic” to humans.
The EPA is currently conducting an updated review of the chemical’s safety.
“EPA is conducting an updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate using rigorous scientific methods, with results expected this year,” an agency spokesperson said via email. “As new scientific information becomes available, EPA incorporates it into our assessments to determine whether additional safety considerations are warranted.”
Various chemical industry players have key roles at the EPA, but in recent weeks, the agency has made overtures toward MAHA amid discontent from activists.
Bayer has maintained glyphosate does not cause cancer, and Christiansen noted that under law, the company is legally obligated to report credible findings of harm caused by their product.
The company has pointed to research such as the federal government’s Agricultural Health Study. One 2018 publication under that project found no association between glyphosate and tumors overall, though it did find some evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia in people with high exposure levels.
However, a 2025 study found glyphosate caused various cancers in rats.
Philip Landrigan, one of the authors of that study and the director of Boston College’s Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good said he’s “comfortable saying” glyphosate causes cancer.
Landrigan, who is also a physician, added that in the study, “There were no cancers in the animals that did not receive the chemical. There was a little bit of cancer in the animals that received a low dose of the chemical, and there was a lot of cancer in the animals that received a high dose of the chemical. In my mind, that’s cause and effect.”
At the same time, the liability shield issue is also taking shape at the state level.
Republican governors in Georgia and North Dakota have already signed bills into law that shield pesticide makers from lawsuits.
Similar legislation has been proposed in states including Tennessee, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida and Missouri.
The legislation’s proponents say at the state level, these laws will help provide guidance to the courts.
“Even if a suit is brought forward into federal court, they are applying, in many cases, the state law, and so if something is not clarified in there about how a company satisfies their responsibility or their duty to warn, then it is up for the courts and the jury then to kind of define that via common law,” said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, which was founded by Bayer but represents various players in the agriculture industry.
However, opponents argue the provisions could hamper accountability for dangerous products.
“It’s absolutely important for kids’ health that there is … some type of mechanism of accountability on an industry that sells poisons,” said Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist working with the MAHA movement.