The Glyphosate Paradox: Why a Health-Focused Administration Just Boosted a Pesticide Linked to Cancer

President Trump's recent executive order declaring glyphosate "central to American economic and national security" directly contradicts the health-first agenda championed by his administration's key figures, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long opposed the widely used herbicide. The order calls for increased domestic production of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, despite mounting research linking the chemical to serious health risks including cancer, liver damage, and developmental problems in children.

What Changed: From Health Advocacy to Chemical Production?

The contradiction is stark. Kennedy, a prominent figure in the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, has spent years fighting against glyphosate. In 2018, he helped win a lawsuit alleging that Monsanto—glyphosate's manufacturer—knew the product caused cancer. As recently as last month, Kennedy reiterated on a podcast that "I believe glyphosate causes cancer." Yet the executive order he now serves under prioritizes expanding domestic production of the very chemical he has opposed.

Kennedy's statement defending the order frames it as a national security issue: "Donald Trump's executive order puts America first where it matters most—our defense readiness and our food supply." He argues that relying on foreign sources for glyphosate weakens American security. However, environmental and health advocates say this reasoning puts corporate interests ahead of public health.

Why Are Health Advocates So Concerned About Glyphosate?

The scientific evidence linking glyphosate to health problems is substantial. In 2015, the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Two large meta-analyses—studies that combine data from multiple research projects—have found that people exposed to glyphosate face a higher risk of cancer. One study estimated that the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, increases by 41% for those in the highest exposure categories.

The concern extends beyond cancer. Research suggests glyphosate may affect children before they're born. A large study in Puerto Rico found an association between mothers exposed to glyphosate during the second trimester and preterm births. Other studies have suggested the pesticide can interfere with hormones during fetal development.

"I worry about any human exposure to carcinogens," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician at Boston College who has studied glyphosate's health effects. "But I worry especially when a high proportion of those exposed are children, because children eat more food per pound of body weight per day than adults".

Not all glyphosate formulations carry the same risk. Glyphosate mixed with surfactants—chemicals that help it stick to plants—is more toxic in lab-grown human cells than glyphosate alone. When people have ingested these formulations, they've experienced more severe symptoms.

How Widespread Is Glyphosate Exposure?

Most Americans have been exposed to glyphosate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That exposure includes children as young as 3 years old. The primary sources of exposure come from everyday foods:

• Whole Grain Products: Whole-wheat bread, whole-grain cereals, crackers, and oatmeal contain detectable glyphosate residues
• Legumes and Snacks: Beans, peas, popcorn, and other plant-based foods frequently test positive for the herbicide
• Drinking Water: Glyphosate has been identified in drinking water supplies across the country

This widespread exposure stems from how glyphosate is used in agriculture. In the mid-1990s, glyphosate and genetically modified crops formed a powerful partnership. Farmers could spray glyphosate to kill weeds while their genetically modified corn, soybeans, and cotton survived. These three crops account for the vast majority of glyphosate use in the United States. Over the next two decades, glyphosate use increased 10-fold.

Steps to Reduce Your Family's Glyphosate Exposure

• Buy Organic Foods: The "single most effective" way to reduce glyphosate exposure is to eat foods with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's organic seal, according to Dr. Landrigan. Organic crops are not genetically modified and are grown without synthetic pesticides
• Shop Locally: Purchasing produce from local farmers and farmers' markets may reduce exposure to heavily sprayed commodity crops
• Wash Produce Thoroughly: Rinsing fruits and vegetables under running water before eating or cooking can help remove surface residues, though it won't eliminate all pesticide exposure

The Resistance and the Bigger Picture

The executive order has sparked significant backlash. Moms Across America, a nonprofit supporting the MAHA agenda, called the order "outrageous" and described it as "basically a love letter to glyphosate." The group's founder, Zen Honeycutt, told CNN: "I was outraged. I was actually sick to my stomach".

The order also raises concerns about legal accountability. According to environmental advocates, the executive order grants legal immunity to chemical producers following federal directives, making it harder for communities harmed by contamination to hold companies accountable. Additionally, the 2026 Farm Bill draft includes provisions that would permanently remove dozens of hazardous pesticides from important health and environmental safety reviews, weaken protections for children and farmworkers, and delay safety reviews of hundreds of pesticides until 2031.

Kennedy has acknowledged the bind the nation faces. On a podcast this month, he noted that an outright glyphosate ban "would put out of business 80% of our farmers." He agreed that the nation is "dependent upon something that we know makes us sick" and said his agency is "doing a lot of work" to find alternatives to glyphosate.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has introduced a bill to undo the executive order, and Moms Across America called him a "true health hero" for the effort. The battle over glyphosate reflects a deeper tension: how to balance agricultural productivity with public health protection in a system that has become deeply dependent on a chemical many experts believe poses real risks.