Last week, in an Executive Order invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950, President Donald Trump declared that maintaining an adequate supply of glyphosate-based herbicides is a matter of national defense, directing the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to prioritize its production.

The Executive Order asserts that glyphosate-based herbicides play a “critical role in maintaining America’s agricultural advantage by enabling farmers to efficiently and cost-effectively produce food and livestock feed,” that “there is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides,” and that “lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity.” By this reasoning, glyphosate-based herbicides meet the criteria of Section 101(b) of the Defense Production Act, justifying the use of authorities to increase the domestic production of elemental phosphorus (used in the production of glyphosate) and glyphosate-based herbicides.

Glyphosate Safety Controversy

Glyphosate—commonly known as the active ingredient in the controversial herbicide RoundUp—has been the subject of mounting litigation and increasing scrutiny about its potential carcinogenicity in recent years. In January 2026, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a paper from the year 2000 asserting the safety of glyphosate, which was relied upon as a hallmark piece of evidence for regulatory approvals of the agricultural chemical since its publication.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to deliver a safety reevaluation decision for glyphosate in 2026 following a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its allies challenging the agency’s determination that glyphosate is safe for humans and the environment.

‘A Direct Assault on MAHA’

Many supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda promoted by the Trump Administration are criticizing the Executive Order. In the New York Times, Ken Cook, Co-Founder and President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said, “I can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this.”

Influential “MAHA mom” Vani Hari affirmed this sentiment, saying, “MAHA voters were promised health reform, not chemical entrenchment,” calling the executive order “a direct assault on MAHA” and “a gift to pesticide and chemical industry lobbies at the expense of human health.”

On the other hand, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), the face of the MAHA movement in the Trump Administration, backed President Trump’s Executive Order in a lengthy X post. "Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on [pesticides and herbicides]... If these inputs disappeared overnight, crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms," wrote Secretary Kennedy. "I support President Trump’s Executive Order to bring agricultural chemical production back to the U.S. and end our near-total reliance on adversarial nations."

The frustrations of the MAHA base can be read in the replies to Secretary Kennedy's post, with many people taking issue with the immunity given to glyphosate under the Executive Order.