He is very crazy. Its alliance with Trump is about to face its biggest test

After a near-fallout over the weedkiller glyphosate in February, a Supreme Court case and a bill coming through Congress this week are set to test the bond of Republicans and the Make America Healthy Again movement.

The court will hear a case on Monday to decide whether federal law preempts state-level lawsuits alleging that the chemical glyphosate in Bayer’s herbicide Roundup causes cancer. And the U.S. House is expected to consider the farm bill this week, a sweeping farm policy measure that includes new protections for the chemical.

The MAHA movement, a coalition of activists who emphasize healthy eating and avoiding chemicals, helped return President Donald Trump to the White House after their preferred presidential candidate, now-Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dropped out of the election and endorsed the president. The group hates glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the US and integral to many agricultural operations.

The Supreme Court arguments and the farm bill have put the MHA at odds with Trump and most Republicans in Congress. This comes just months after the former blast that Trump signed executive Order To promote domestic production of glyphosate, a break that caused Kennedy to step in and do damage control. And with less than seven months until the 2026 midterm elections and Trump’s approval ratings slipping in the polls, maintaining the coalition could be crucial for Republicans who are racing to maintain their slim majorities in both houses of Congress.

“It’s been a really, really tough few months as we’ve been under attack from the executive branch, the judicial branch and Congress,” said MHA attorney Kelly Ryerson, who is known by the nickname “Glyphosate Girl.”

“The combination of the executive order and going to bat for Bayer at the Supreme Court is really inexcusable,” Ryerson said. “And I think there appears to be a deep disconnect between what the administration thinks MHA cares about and what is actually true.”

For now, the White House appears to be standing firmly on the side of glyphosate.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides and herbicides, does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen and does not require glyphosate labels to disclose cancer risk. But several individuals have filed lawsuits alleging that they got cancer from the use of Roundup, and arguing that Bayer and Monsanto, The company that made glyphosate failed to warn consumers about that risk before Bayer acquired the company in 2018. Kennedy in 2018 In one such case, a person won about $290 million.

The administration will argue on Bayer’s behalf before the Supreme Court, saying in an amicus brief that the federal Pesticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prevents the “failure to warn” claims that plague Bayer. The brief says that without that exemption, manufacturers would be forced to comply with a patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements in each state.

The US Solicitor General’s office wrote in an article, “[I]f labeling tells users that a pesticide can cause cancer in Missouri, can cause cancer in Illinois, can certainly cause cancer in Tennessee, and is anyone’s guess in Iowa, users will not know which to believe.” amicus brief at issue. “Lost in that noise: EPA ponders decisions about what warnings are actually necessary to protect public health, and any hope for uniformity.”

Meanwhile, the farm bill includes a provision that MAHA advocates claim is a “liability shield” to protect pesticide manufacturers. Bill Would prohibit any state and courts from “penalizing or holding liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements requiring labeling or packaging in addition to or different from that approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

House Agriculture Chairman G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., who is leading the farm bill, said MHA advocates troubled by the language are “emotionally driven, they need to take the time to read the bill.” Thompson also argued that the bill preserves the ability for states to change labels if they go through EPA first.

“This bill is just about labeling, and making sure that labeling is done with the highest level of science,” he said. “If a state wants additional provisions for labeling, all they have to do is go through EPA to do that, it will be on the label.”

Asked to respond to Thompson, Ryerson said, “It’s disgusting that someone would come out and call us sentimental, when we’re just trying to make people healthier,” and argued that Thompson’s bill includes a liability shield.

She added, “I would also like to challenge that if he wanted to go one-on-one and debate what the bill actually says, I’m totally prepared because he’s lying. It’s a pesticide liability shield.”

The Republican embrace of glyphosate presents an opportunity for Democrats to win over MHA in their own way.

“The White House’s stance is its stance, and we’re going to fight in the Supreme Court, we’re going to bring up the farm bill, and I think it’s creating some rifts there that you can’t really stop,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, a Democratic aide on some of the MHA issues.

Pingree said, “There are a lot of people who are really excited about the MHA idea who haven’t been involved in politics before, so they’re not involved in voting for Republicans; it’s more about who will stick on these issues.”

Ryerson agreed, saying that the MHA “is looking for a champion and champion, which Kennedy was and is” regardless of party – warning that simmering frustrations might cause the MHA to sit out this election.

He said, “The concern for both parties should be that it’s not likely that people are so disenchanted with the MHA movement that they go and vote for the Democrats, they won’t vote.”

Pingree, along with Ryerson, will attend a rally before the Supreme Court debate and argue for the Court to retain the right to sue. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is helping Pingree lead an amendment to remove the pesticide provision from the farm bill, will also attend.

The White House appears to recognize the danger. He invited a group of MHA advocates earlier this month to meet top officials to explain the work they are doing on advocates’ issues.

Ryerson, who participated in the crowd, said it was useful and allowed top advocates to express their frustrations to administration officials. But he warned that this may not be enough to keep MAHA in MAGA.

“My feeling was that the administration was taking those concerns seriously,” Ryerson said. “If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, it’s on this administration, because this case should never have gone to the Supreme Court.”