MAHA World Livid After SCOTUS Pesticides Ruling
Health
MAHA World Livid After SCOTUS Pesticides Ruling
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Ireland Owens
Reporter
June 25, 2026
2:10 PM ET
June 25, 2026 2:10 PM ET
Ireland Owens
Reporter
Font Size:
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup on Thursday, sparking outrage among supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto’s parent company Bayer, stating that U.S. states cannot require pesticide label warnings beyond those mandated by federal regulation. In handing down its decision, the Court halted thousands of lawsuits alleging that the Big Pharma company failed to warn consumers about the weedkiller’s potential cancer risks. (RELATED: Anna Paulina Luna Takes Swing At John Thune As GOP Factions Battle Over MAHA-Backed Pesticide Provision)
“This ruling is a giant gift to a foreign chemical company, and an insult to American farmers and workers whose cancers arose from the use of the herbicide Roundup,” U.S. Right to Know President Gary Ruskin said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “In essence, it puts the chemical industry above the law, and will have far-ranging effects that make Americans more likely to get sick from toxic exposures.”
Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said in a Thursday statement that the ruling was “profoundly” disappointing.
“We’re profoundly disappointed that the Supreme Court has restricted farmers’ and consumers’ ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for the harm their toxic products have caused,” Davidson said. “Now, Congress has a moral responsibility to put people’s health over pesticide industry profits by codifying a legal pathway for those hurt by toxic pesticide exposure.”
Moreover, Moms Across America Founding Executive Director Zen Honeycutt said in a statement that Thursday’s ruling “sets a dangerous precedent by elevating regulatory approval above judicial review and citizen access to justice.”
I am literally sick. This is a devastating blow to every family that trusted our justice system.
Monsanto just won at the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, putting billions of dollars in jury verdicts for Roundup victims at risk. Americans who developed cancer after exposure to…
— Vani Hari (@thefoodbabe) June 25, 2026
“The separation of powers exists to provide independent oversight and protect against regulatory capture,” Honeycutt added. “No agency should have the final word on corporate accountability when products designed to kill are released into the environment and used throughout our food system.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday comes after President Donald Trump unveiled an executive order in February aiming to boost the domestic production of glyphosate, drawing fierce criticism from some MAHA movement supporters. Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide that has been registered as a pesticide in the U.S. since 1974, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
When asked for comment, Bayer referred the DCNF to its Thursday press release.
“This decision, which reflects strong support across the ideological spectrum of the Court, helps to bring significant containment to the Roundup™ litigation,” the release reads in part. “Glyphosate remains the most studied crop protection tool in the world and this decision affirms that the EPA’s safety determination is the law of the land, ensuring that companies cannot be punished under a patchwork of state tort laws for complying with federal labeling requirements.”
Bottles of Roundup weed and grass killer are stacked at a Costco Wholesale store on May 15, 2026 in San Diego, California. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
Vani Hari, a MAHA movement leader also known as “The Food Babe,” stated in an X post that the decision is “a devastating blow to every family that trusted our justice system.”
Moreover, MAHA Action wrote in a statement posted to X that the Supreme Court’s decision “effectively shuts down the primary legal path many plaintiffs have used to hold Monsanto accountable.”
“SCOTUS rules Monsanto/Bayer can’t be sued for omitting a warning even if their herbicides do cause cancer,” Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie wrote on X in response to the decision. “Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound in this case, it’s a blatant travesty of justice.”
“Congress and the President can fix this and we absolutely should,” Massie continued.
‼️SCOTUS rules Monsanto/Bayer can’t be sued for omitting a warning even if their herbicides do cause cancer. Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound in this case, it’s a blatant travesty of justice. Congress and the President can fix this and we absolutely should. https://t.co/4eu4uGMieJ
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 25, 2026
Alex Clark, a MAHA podcaster who works for Turning Point USA, claimed in a statement posted to X that the Supreme Court has now “made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk.”
“The Trump administration URGED and PLEADED the Court to reach this result to protect a FOREIGN chemical company—and it did at the expense of Americans,” Clark wrote in the social media post. “What happened to America First? For an administration that promised to take on corporate capture and Make America Healthy Again, this is a STUNNING betrayal. Farmers, families, and cancer patients currently in litigation with Bayer will never forget this.”
Today the Supreme Court made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk.
The Trump administration URGED and PLEADED the Court to reach this result to protect a FOREIGN chemical company—and…
— Alex Clark (@yoalexrapz) June 25, 2026
“First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors,” Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project Director Kayla Hancock said in a Thursday statement. “Then Trump dispatched his DOJ lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims. Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning.”
Meanwhile, Bayer said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision is “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”
“It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,” according to Bayer’s statement. “The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims. Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement and other elements of its multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'

Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'