What RFK Jr.’s Glyphosate Shift Says About MAHA
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent decades in courtrooms arguing that glyphosate causes cancer, earning millions by referring cases to trial — a frequent talking point during his 2024 presidential campaign. Last month, he did the unthinkable to his Make America Healthy Again followers by endorsing an executive order to ramp up glyphosate’s domestic production.
The reversal matters for more than political reasons. RFK Jr. revealed how thin the anti-glyphosate crusade has always been all along when forced into a collision with the trade-offs of governing based on the best-known scientific conclusions of the agencies he now helps lead. Instead of breaking with President Trump, Kennedy — the attorney who once helped secure a $289 million verdict against Monsanto over Roundup —aligned with the facts.
That has provoked genuine outrage from MAHA supporters who see the move as a betrayal.
The real betrayal is not Kennedy’s about-face. It is the fear he spent years cultivating among consumers using junk science, helping dubious claims gain credibility in courtrooms and in the public square, all while enriching himself and a narrow class of well-connected lawyers.
The science on glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, isn’t seriously contested among regulators. The Environmental Protection Agency consistently finds that the herbicide is not likely carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, which describes most man-made chemicals and commercial products.
Even the European Food Safety Authority reached the same conclusion, along with regulatory bodies in Canada and New Zealand. So why did American courts become the site of an $11 billion glyphosate settlement bonanza? Because junk science pays.
The lawsuit was turbocharged by a 2015 ruling by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which labeled glyphosate “probably carcinogenic” — the same category IARC assigns to red meat, being a hairdresser, and drinking very hot beverages.
It later emerged through congressional and journalistic investigations that the co-authors of that study had direct financial ties to legal firms and “litigation funders” who profit massively on lawsuits. Almost immediately, IARC’s branding began appearing in plaintiff-recruitment ads. And some of the same people involved in producing the classification later turned up in courtrooms as paid experts. That is not a scientific consensus playing out.
That is the litigation playbook in action, and Kennedy helped write it.
His 2018 Roundup verdict opened a floodgate of litigation built on the same contested science that regulators had already rejected. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were filed by people claiming injury, millions were spent on TV and billboard advertising to recruit plaintiffs for class actions, and the same discredited junk science carried the argument in courtroom after courtroom.
Rather than committing to lengthy trials, the company mostly chose to settle suits out of court, thereby curbing mounting legal costs. It’s the same tactic used in cases against Johnson & Johnson, 3M and other consumer goods giants, which still flood TV ads.
Earlier this month, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion settlement fund to put glyphosate claims to rest. At a certain point, it becomes difficult to ignore how neatly MAHA and the trial bar’s financial interests converge.
The encouraging news is that the legal tools to push back already exist. The 2023 amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 strengthened courts’ gatekeeping role over expert testimony. To uphold science in the courtroom, judges should apply it rigorously, demanding scientific consensus rather than litigation-funded studies.
And there are signs of movement. In December, the Justice Department backed Bayer before the Supreme Court in a case that could narrow future liability for Roundup. The momentum is real. Congress should also disclosure of third-party litigation funding, which allows hedge funds to bankroll mass-tort campaigns from the shadows. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has proposed reclassifying those earnings as taxed income to dissuade funds from overwhelming the U.S. legal system.
MAHA supporters may feel betrayed by RFK Jr.’s decision to stick with Trump on glyphosate, but if the movement is serious about skepticism, it should turn some of their scrutiny toward those who helped manufacture this panic in the first place. Making America healthy again starts with courts that demand rigorous science. The rest is just recruitment marketing for lawsuits.
Published in DC Journal (archive #1, #2)