President Donald Trump’s directive expanding domestic glyphosate and phosphorus production has drawn praise from administration officials and criticism from Make America Healthy Again advocates.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump on Feb. 18 signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to increase domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, prompting sharply divided reactions from supporters and critics within the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.
The order directs federal agencies to prioritize production of elemental phosphorus—designated by the Department of the Interior as a scarce material—and glyphosate, described in the directive as “the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture” and “a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.”
Trump stated in the order that shortages of phosphorus and glyphosate could pose risks to national security and food security.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who in 2018 helped secure a $290 million lawsuit verdict against Monsanto over allegations that Roundup caused cancer, defended the president’s move, The Epoch Times reported.
“Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most—our defense readiness and our food supply,” Kennedy said in a Feb. 19 statement to The Epoch Times.
“We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families,” he added.
Through its subsidiary Monsanto, Bayer is the only U.S. producer of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is described by the Global Glyphosate Study as the most widely used herbicide in history, with usage data detailed at glyphosatestudy.org. According to the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, approximately 280 million pounds of glyphosate are applied annually across 285 million acres of U.S. farmland, as noted at centerforfoodsafety.org.
The executive order follows ongoing litigation over Roundup. Bayer announced that Monsanto submitted a proposal for a $7.25 billion class-action settlement covering current and future claims from individuals who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Roundup. The company has said the proposed settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Bayer previously agreed to a separate $10 billion settlement in 2020 related to similar claims. The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear a Roundup case in April involving a $1.25 million award to a Missouri plaintiff who alleged the product caused his blood cancer.
Monsanto has consistently maintained that Roundup is safe and not carcinogenic. In a statement to The Epoch Times, Monsanto spokesman Brian Leake said, “President Trump’s executive order reinforces the critical need for U.S. farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools such as glyphosate. We will comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus.”
MAHA advocates, however, expressed concern that the order signals support for chemical-intensive agriculture. Kelly Ryerson, founder of the Glyphosate Facts website at glyphosatefacts.com and co-executive director of American Regeneration, said the decision “signals to Bayer and Big Ag that the White House supports them and won’t concede to the concerns of MAHA.”
“It doubles down on a system that is making us a sick population and killing our soil, and we already have a limited number of harvests left. It is a very short-term fix for the real problem in national security, which is disease and infertility in both the body and our farming systems,” she said.
Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, said she was “disgusted” with the executive order but believes consumer demand is shifting. John Klar, a regenerative farmer and author of “Small Farm Republic,” said the order may encourage more Americans to seek organic products.
“All we want in MAHA is a free market to compete, not mandates and prohibitions against others. If other people want to eat glyphosate-laced foods, that remains their prerogative. The executive order changes nothing,” Klar said.
The order also grants Section 707 compliance immunity under the Defense Production Act, shielding companies from liability for actions taken while complying with federal directives. Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator for the McCullough Foundation, said the provision could complicate future litigation.
“This creates a significant legal shield that may complicate future litigation against glyphosate manufacturers,” Hulscher told The Epoch Times on Feb. 19. “It doesn’t automatically eliminate cancer lawsuits, but it could allow producers to argue that certain production or allocation decisions were federally mandated under national defense authority, and that’s a concern.”
The directive appears to contrast with a Dec. 10 announcement by Kennedy of a $700 million pilot program designed to help farmers transition away from heavy reliance on chemical inputs. That initiative aligns with the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s focus, detailed at hhs.gov, on strengthening nutrient density and reducing chemical exposure in the food supply.
Kari Bundy, a regenerative farming advocate who identifies as a “MAHA mom,” called the executive order “a real contradiction, and honestly, it’s frustrating to see.”
“The $700 million was a positive first step in HHS and the USDA supporting farmers who want to move away from heavy reliance on synthetic herbicides and toward systems that actually heal the land and support family health,” Bundy said. “Now, this executive order basically treats glyphosate as a strategic necessity we need to safeguard, even as MAHA has been pushing to reduce exactly these kinds of chemicals because of their links to chronic disease.”
The administration has framed the order as a measure to protect agricultural supply chains and national defense readiness. Critics within the MAHA movement say it underscores an ongoing debate over how to balance food security, farmer support, public health concerns and legal liability surrounding one of the most widely used herbicides in U.S. agriculture.
Original article
Comments