President Donald Trump's $12 billion farm aid program, aimed at offsetting trade policy impacts, largely benefits major commodity operations, drawing criticism from the Make America Healthy Again movement. The initiative prioritizes big agriculture, which relies on pesticides the coalition seeks to curb. This has sparked internal tensions within conservative ranks over environmental and health priorities.
On a recent White House roundtable, President Donald Trump, joined by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, unveiled a $12 billion aid package to support farmers hit by his trade policies. Over 92 percent of the funds target large-scale producers of crops like corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, wheat, and soybeans, with payments starting in February. Only $1 billion is allocated for other farmers, with no timeline specified. This follows a year of near-record $40 billion in subsidies, where two-thirds went to commodity farms.
The policy bolsters industrial agriculture, a key emitter of greenhouse gases, and intensifies rifts on the political right. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to reduce pesticide use and corporate sway in government, resonating with health-conscious voters. Yet, post-inauguration shifts at the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Lee Zeldin have eased chemical regulations.
In March, Zeldin appointed Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist, to lead the chemicals office. The EPA has advanced approvals for five pesticides containing PFAS—persistent chemicals linked to health issues—for use on commodity crops. Using a narrow PFAS definition excluding single-fluorinated compounds, the agency skipped cumulative risk assessments, which evaluate interactions with other chemicals. Two, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, are already approved without such tests.
An EPA spokesperson insisted all approvals meet federal standards and pose no risks when used as directed, noting the Biden-era classification of single-fluorinated compounds. A former pesticide program staffer, speaking anonymously, raised concerns about prioritizing new approvals over reevaluating older, problematic pesticides like dicamba, tied to cancers and habitat damage.
Other EPA moves include altering PFAS reporting, relaxing endangered species protections for pesticides, and proposing to reinstate dicamba. The Make America Healthy Again coalition, or MAHA, views these as betrayals. A May MAHA report disappointed on pesticides, and a September strategy document omitted them entirely. In November, rapid PFAS approvals escalated frustrations, alongside efforts to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits, including a Supreme Court push on Roundup cases.
J.W. Glass, an EPA policy analyst at the Center for Biological Diversity, highlighted industry resistance: "When you even call into question pesticides that industrial agriculture is so reliant on, it provokes such a vicious response."
Three weeks ago, MAHA activists petitioned to oust Zeldin, gathering over 8,000 signatures for prioritizing corporations over families. Organizer Kelly Ryerson told Grist, "A key part of the MAHA agenda is removing corporate interests from our regulators." She praised Kennedy and Rollins' recent $700 million regenerative agriculture pilot but criticized EPA dominance by factory farming interests, calling for a subsidy overhaul.
Trump's aid strategy persists, sustaining the pesticide-dependent system MAHA opposes.
