Federal pesticide regulations are increasingly splitting the GOP ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, pitting industrial farmers against Make America Healthy Again activists.
Glyphosate, the chemical in the household weedkiller Roundup, is the most common pesticide used in agriculture, but a swath of the MAHA coalition that helped President Donald Trump win back the presidency in 2024 is disappointed in his administration’s failure to tighten regulations on the herbicide.
Recommended Stories
Reducing farmers’ dependence on glyphosate has been a key objective of environmentalists for decades, but attacks on glyphosate reached a fever pitch in the late 2010s after the World Health Organization declared in 2015 that the chemical is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
A hodgepodge of advocates has pressed the administration to invest more resources in regenerative agriculture instead of relying on toxic chemicals for food production. But on the opposite side, industrial agriculture and farming association advocates have pressed the administration to protect access to glyphosate as an essential tool in protecting the food supply.
Trump signed an executive order in February calling for an increase in domestic glyphosate production on national security grounds, effectively siding with farmers’ associations on the importance of the herbicide for maintaining a stable agriculture sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which has regulated glyphosate since the 1970s, is slated later this year to review the environmental and human health effects of it, which could have ripple effects for the GOP in the midterm elections.
The EPA’s role in regulating glyphosate
As the primary regulatory agency on pesticides, the EPA is facing growing pressure from MAHA advocates, lawmakers, and environmentalists to take stricter regulatory measures on glyphosate.
Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company that makes glyphosate, has been embroiled in lawsuits before civil court juries, often in agriculture-dependent states such as Missouri and Iowa, that have found the company to be liable for failing to warn its consumers of the cancer risk identified by the WHO.
Last month, Bayer argued before the Supreme Court that it should not be held liable in those cases because the EPA does not identify glyphosate as a carcinogen.
The Trump administration sided with Bayer, saying the EPA has the sole authority to determine which product warnings should be on the label nationwide. Bayer and the Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the EPA, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, has greater authority than individual states to evaluate the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides. A decision is expected in late June, roughly four months ahead of the elections.
But as the Supreme Court weighs its decision, MAHA advocates are increasing their pressure on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to restrict glyphosate and other pesticides. Last year, MAHA advocates gathered thousands of signatures for a petition to oust Zeldin, accusing him of supporting chemical corporations over public health.
Lawmakers pressed the administrator over his approach to glyphosate during several hearings last month when Zeldin testified before Congress about the president’s budget request.
At one of the hearings, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who appeared at the “People versus Poison” rally led by MAHA activists as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the glyphosate case, cited a letter sent to the administrator in which MAHA activists called on the agency to initiate an emergency review of pesticides banned in peer nations.
In the letter, the activists asked the EPA to tighten regulations on toxic pesticides, shut the revolving door between the EPA and the chemical industry, rebuild the Office of Research and Development, and much more.
“We enjoy our working relationship with MAHA, and that’s why we have partnered on a number of different efforts,” Zeldin told Pingree.
The administrator also said he wants the EPA’s career scientists to be able to undertake the review of the chemical “without any political interference.”
At a separate hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) chided Zeldin for meeting with Bayer executives in 2025 ahead of the case going before the Supreme Court, saying that the meeting was evidence of his partiality to the pesticide maker.
Zeldin denied discussing the case with executives.
What glyphosate does to the environment
Glyphosate, a nonselective herbicide, is the most commonly used weedkiller in the United States, with roughly 280 million pounds sprayed on farmland across the country annually, according to the EPA.
The chemical is used not only as a weedkiller but also for dessication, the process by which industrial farmers kill grains ahead of harvest to make the process easier. MAHA has raised concerns regarding glyphosate’s impact on soil health and agriculture. However, the evidence about its environmental effects is varied.
A 2025 study published in the journal Toxics by Lebanese and Hungarian researchers identified three major areas of concern about glyphosate: its impact on crop health, its effect on crop nutrition, and its persistence in the environment.
The researchers said recent studies suggest that its widespread use can contribute to a lack of mineral nutrients in crops, affecting how the plants absorb elements like manganese and phosphorus. The exact effects, however, depend on soil type and how much glyphosate is applied.
At times, glyphosate can also move deeper into the soil and leach into drainage water, according to the report, which adds that there are several reports that show the presence of the chemical in groundwater. For instance, glyphosate was found in 36% of 154 water samples collected from Midwestern states, where it is used on corn fields.
Other studies have found that the acidity and increased soil nitrate levels in soil after glyphosate exposure lead to disruptions in the bacterial and other microbial communities in the ground that have long-lasting effects even after harvesting plants.
MAHA advocates have increasingly pushed for regenerative agriculture practices, which emphasize holistic methods that focus on biodiversity and restoring the soil microbiome.
While the Trump EPA has not yet increased restrictions on glyphosate, the administration has invested more than $1 billion in regenerative agriculture projects from the Agriculture Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the EPA.
Angela Huffman, president of the MAHA-aligned group Farm Action, praised the administration when the USDA investment was announced in December 2025, saying that the holistic practice “creates a path to rebuilding farmer profitability and reducing dependency on costly chemicals and other inputs controlled by a few giant companies.”
“Done right, this investment will help farmers lower their input costs, break free from the export-driven commodity overproduction treadmill, and move toward healthier, more resilient, and more profitable farming systems,” Huffman said.
Glyphosate as a national security tool
While environmentalists argue the harms of glyphosate outweigh any benefits, agriculture advocates and Trump administration officials say the pesticide is an integral part of the food supply chain
The chemical in the formation of Roundup is an “effective” and “essential” tool for all sizes and types of farming operations, Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, told the Washington Examiner.
“If we were to experience the total loss of glyphosate, it would have a tremendous detrimental effect on farms and ranches of all sizes,” Hawkins said, warning that if it is taken off the market, opponents could target other agricultural chemicals next.
Hawkins said that farmers trust the science-based process by the EPA to study and approve products used in agriculture and other sectors.
Both the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Modern Agriculture Alliance praised Trump’s executive order to prioritize glyphosate production, declaring it essential to national security and the food supply.
Even HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s face of the MAHA movement, has said protecting glyphosate production is a national security imperative.
Kennedy, who was an environmental lawyer and involved in some of the first litigation against Roundup for cancer claims, has walked a political tightrope in recent weeks, seeking to avoid alienating the MAHA base without contradicting the president.
Last month, Kennedy testified before lawmakers to defend Trump’s 2027 budget proposal, where he said the president’s executive order was necessary to protect domestic manufacturing while farmers are still “addicted” to the herbicide. He added that Trump “has invested more in trying to transition off of glyphosate than any other president.”
Pesticide regulation and MAHA voters
Public opinion polling data ahead of the November elections indicates that the regulation of glyphosate and other pesticides is becoming an important consideration for voters.
Despite the Trump administration’s delicate balancing act between agriculture interests and MAHA pressure groups, voters see curbing pesticides as a key issue, even if they do not self-identify as part of the MAHA movement.
A recent poll conducted in May by the health policy group KFF found that about 2 in 3 voters, regardless of party affiliation, believe there is not enough regulation of pesticide use in agriculture. That figure remains the same when respondents are broken into “MAHA supporters” and “non-MAHA supporters.”
Meanwhile, only 36% of respondents said they had at least some confidence in the EPA to act independently without outside influence.
RETURNING PASSENGERS FROM CRUISE SHIP BEING MONITORED FOR HANTAVIRUS IN US
About 4 in 10 voters, regardless of party, said they had at least a fair amount of trust in agriculture companies to act in the best interests of public health, while only 2 in 10 said the same for pharmaceutical companies, such as Bayer.
Other polling from March, conducted by the Democratic strategy group 314 Action, found that 76% of voters support reducing pesticides in agriculture, including 47% who strongly support.
