The War Over a Weedkiller Might Be Headed to the Supreme Court

 

 

“Bayer has asked the justices to decide whether federal law shields the company from lawsuits over its Roundup herbicide and cancer. Democrats and MAHA activists aren’t happy.

 

The Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to take up a case involving weedkillers and cancer that could effectively curtail one of the largest waves of tort litigation in American history.

 

The case involves Bayer, the German conglomerate that acquired the pesticide manufacturer Monsanto in 2018. Bayer is petitioning the court for a definitive ruling on whether federal law shields the company from thousands of lawsuits claiming that its widely-used weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.

 

The Trump administration has thrown its support behind Bayer, reversing a position taken by President Biden. But the issue has raised the ire of an extraordinary coalition of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, environmental groups, and Republican-aligned Make America Healthy Again activists who say that Bayer is seeking corporate immunity at the expense of public health.

 

“This transcends politics,” said Chellie Pingree, a Democratic congresswoman from Maine who helped to defeat a separate measure, a provision in a House spending bill, that could have shielded Bayer from lawsuits. “It’s all about people worrying about their own health, their children’s health,” she said, “and there’s a deep suspicion that corporations care more about profits.”

 

Now, the broad coalition is asking why the Trump administration is siding with a pesticides maker over American plaintiffs. The justices are scheduled to consider the matter in their closed-door conference on Friday. They could announce their decision as early as Monday, though they could also weigh the issue several times before a public announcement.

 

“It would be the most unpopular decision made by any Supreme Court if they ruled in favor of Bayer,” said Vani Hari, an activist and author known to her millions of social media followers as the Food Babe. Ms. Hari is also a key figure in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement. “Nobody wants to be poisoned,” she said.

 

In a statement, Bayer’s chief executive, Bill Anderson, expressed thanks for the support of the U.S. government, calling it “an important step.” He added, “The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy.”

 

Bayer’s Supreme Court petition is the latest chapter in a yearslong controversy over Roundup, developed by Monsanto in the 1970s as a revolutionary weedkiller.

 

Formulated to be paired with genetically modified seeds, the pesticide allows GMO crops to grow unimpeded while killing most weeds. It has become the best-selling weedkiller in the world and a cornerstone of American food production.

 

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a filing with the Supreme Court that glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, was used on roughly 300 million acres of farmland growing cotton, soybeans, sugar beets and more. It warned that without glyphosate, food yields would “drop precipitously.”

 

But a growing body of evidence in lab animals, and more limited evidence in humans, has indicated a link to cancer, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as harm to biodiversity. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the herbicide was “probably carcinogenic.”

 

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen and has repeatedly approved Roundup’s product labeling, which doesn’t carry a cancer warning. A handful of states, however, set stricter rules on how and where Roundup is used, and California has challenged federal labeling standards.

 

Against that backdrop, thousands of lawsuits, farm workers, landscapers, home gardeners and others have argued that, under state laws, Bayer should have notified consumers of potential cancer risks by affixing warning labels to Roundup bottles and drums. Bayer has paid out more than $10 billion to settle approximately 100,000 Roundup claims, and faces thousands more.

 

Bayer has countered that because the E.P.A. does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, and has repeatedly approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, it would not be feasible for the company to add one. Federal pesticide policies pre-empt any state-imposed obligations to warn consumers of cancer risks, Bayer has argued.

 

For years, courts ruled against Monsanto, asserting that the E.P.A.’s approval is just a “minimum standard” and does not stop states from requiring additional protections.

 

But in 2024, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled differently, saying that for Bayer to satisfy the state law, it would have to do something that federal law literally does not allow it to do. The company now argues that there is a split among courts that only the nation’s highest court can resolve.

 

The case that Bayer has petitioned the Supreme Court take on to resolve the situation is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, brought by John Durnell, a resident of St. Louis and an avid gardener who used Roundup for decades. Mr. Durnell eventually received a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and sued Monsanto in 2019, alleging that his illness was a direct result of chronic exposure to Roundup and that Monsanto had failed to warn of the cancer risks.

 

Monsanto had said that it should not be sued for failing to warn because federal law does not allow it to.

 

Lawrence S. Ebner, a prominent lawyer with the Atlantic Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm backed by conservative funders and a leading advocate for Bayer, has called the current wave of Roundup lawsuits a “product liability bonanza” driven by trial lawyers. In the foundation’s amicus brief to the court, it argues that “lay jurors” should not decide scientific safety over E.P.A. experts.

 

“The most important fact is that the E.P.A. does not require a cancer warning,” he said. “Only the E.P.A. can regulate the content of pesticide labeling, and states cannot impose their own different or additional requirements for labeling,” Mr. Ebner said. “This not only affects thousands of pending Roundup cases, but other cases involving pesticides.”

 

The case could pit some major players in the Trump orbit against each other.

 

As a young lawyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas spent nearly three years working for Monsanto, his only experience in the private sector. Later, as a Senate aide, Mr. Thomas lobbied his boss on behalf of corporate interests, including those of Monsanto, the legal scholar Scott W. Stern wrote in a 2022 paper.

 

At the same time, Associate Justice Thomas has expressed skepticism of the pre-emption defenses that Monsanto had asserted.

 

Then there is Mr. Kennedy, who for decades assailed glyphosate as a threat to the soil and water, and who worked closely with the lead law firm handling lawsuits on behalf of people who became ill after glyphosate exposure.

 

Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning lawmaker from Kentucky, asked Thursday, on social media: Why has the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, “sided” with the German company Bayer?

 

The timing of the case is particularly significant. Last month, a scientific journal retracted a widely cited paper that had reviewed available evidence and declared glyphosate safe. The journal pointed to email messages, made public in connection with litigation, that appeared to show that Monsanto scientists had guided the research.

 

George Kimbrell, an executive director at the Center for Food Safety, a health advocacy group, said the retraction had added to concerns that the E.P.A.’s conclusions were based on manipulated science and should not be used as a legal shield. The Environmental Protection Agency still considers the herbicide to be safe. But the federal government faces a deadline in 2026 to re-examine the safety of glyphosate.

 

“It’s important that there be other ways to regulate these products, other than all of us risking irreparable harm to our health and to the environment on E.P.A. determinations,” Mr. Kimbrell said.

 

R. Brent Wisner, a plaintiff lawyer who played a key role in bringing the emails to light, said litigation was also important because it helped expose vital internal evidence and corporate influence on science that might otherwise remain hidden.

 

But if the Supreme Court were to take up the current case, and rule in favor of Bayer, it could lead to the dismissal of many of the tens of thousands of active Roundup cases.

 

It would make pesticide manufacturers “a special class of corporations in our society that receive special treatment,” Mr. Weisner said.

 

Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have vowed to bring back a measure to shield Bayer in the 2026 Farm Bill, and industry groups have successfully lobbied for immunity laws in states such as North Dakota and Georgia.

 

Leslie A. Brueckner, an appellate attorney and expert on federal pre-emption, said the Supreme Court’s decision loomed large for the tort system overall; whether it could continue to play an overarching role in protecting the public from hazardous products, because regulatory approval could sometimes be based on limited science.

 

“It’s just incredibly important,” Ms. Brueckner said. “The stakes are very high.”” [1]

 

Why our Roundup dependent farming does behave like one trick pony? We didn’t sleep hungry before Roundup has been invented. Roundup led to farmers largely abandoning other methods, such as crop rotation or mechanical tilling. Isn’t Roundup story just about greed and neglect of public health?

 

1. The War Over a Weedkiller Might Be Headed to the Supreme Court. Tabuchi, Hiroko.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Jan 9, 2026.

Gabbard mėnesius nedalyvavo Venesuelos planavime

 

„Baltųjų rūmų pareigūnai nuo praėjusios vasaros neįtraukė aukščiausios JAV žvalgybos pareigūnės Tulsi Gabbard į Venesuelos planavimą, teigė su šiuo klausimu susipažinę asmenys.

 

Praėjusią savaitę, kai prezidento Trumpo nacionalinio saugumo komanda susirinko galutinai pasirengti operacijai, kuria buvo siekiama pagrobti Venesuelos prezidentą Nicolas Maduro, Gabbard socialiniuose tinkluose skelbė savo nuotraukas, kuriose ji matoma Havajų paplūdimyje, kur užaugo.

 

Trumpas nėra itin artimas Gabbard, teigė vienas aukštas administracijos pareigūnas, ir norėjo apriboti žmonių, žinančių apie Venesuelos misiją, skaičių. Jai nereikėjo apie tai žinoti, sakė pareigūnas.

 

Gabbard biuras pateikė „žvalgybos analizę, kuri padėjo visai misijai iš analitinės pusės“, sakė antras administracijos pareigūnas.

 

Valstybės sekretorius Marco Rubio buvo vienas iš aukščiausių pareigūnų, kurie pageidavo, kad Gabbard liktų nuošalyje nuo diskusijų, teigė du su situacija susipažinę asmenys.

 

Gabbard, Rubio ir visa prezidento Trumpo komanda dirbo kartu, kad vykdyti savo darbotvarkę“, – sakė Tommy Pigott, Valstybės departamento atstovas. „Tai pasenęs ir melagingas naratyvas, kuriuo bandoma skleisti netikrą istoriją apie „susiskaldymą“, kai jo nėra.“

 

Šis žingsnis pabrėžia didėjančią Gabbard, nacionalinės žvalgybos direktorės, izoliaciją ir neramią kadenciją, jai sunkiai įsiskverbiant į prezidento vidinį ratą ir darant įtaką politikai. Trumpas vis labiau priklauso nuo Centrinės žvalgybos agentūros direktoriaus Johno Ratcliffe'o, kad gautų svarbias žvalgybos konsultacijas.

 

„Tai visiškai netiesa“, – ketvirtadienį vykusiame Baltuosiuose rūmuose vykusiame pranešime paklaustas apie Gabbard neįtraukimą į Venesuelos planavimą, sakė viceprezidentas J. D. Vance'as. „Mes labai griežtai informavome vyresniuosius kabineto pareigūnus ir susijusius mūsų vyriausybės pareigūnus.“

 

Daugelį metų Gabbardas atvirai kritikavo užsienio intervencijas ir kaltino Trumpą per pirmąją jo administraciją, kad jis nusilenkia neokonservatoriams, kurie pritarė veiksmams prieš Venesuelą ir troško šalies naftos atsargų.

 

Antrosios administracijos pareigūnas teigė, kad „nesąžininga“ sutelkti dėmesį į ankstesnes Gabbard pažiūras, „atsižvelgiant į tai, kad kiti Trumpo administracijos pareigūnai taip pat anksčiau išreiškė nesutarimą dėl politikos ar net tiesiogiai kritikavo prezidentą.“

 

Pareigūnas teigė, kad Gabbard vadovauja įprastiems prezidento žvalgybos instruktažams ir dažnai lankosi Baltuosiuose rūmuose.

 

Gabbard pašalinimas iš Venesuelos planavimo prasidėjo praėjusiais metais, kai Trumpas prarado kantrybę Maduro atžvilgiu, o Baltųjų rūmų pareigūnai pradėjo rengti karinius jo pašalinimo variantus. Šiuos variantus pagrindė žvalgybos vertinimai apie Venesuelos karinę ir politinę realybę, ryšių perėmimas ir žmonių žvalgybos duomenų rinkimas bei rugpjūčio mėnesį įvykęs CŽV darbuotojų dislokavimas aplink Karakasą.

 

„Prezidentas Trumpas visiškai pasitiki visa savo išskirtine nacionalinio saugumo komanda“, – sakė Baltųjų rūmų komunikacijos direktorius Stevenas Cheungas.

 

Gabbard supykdė Trumpą birželį, kai JAV planavo smogti Irano branduolinių ginklų programai. Anksčiau šiais metais ji per parodymus Kongrese sakė, kad JAV žvalgybos bendruomenė įvertino, jog Iranas „nesukuria branduolinio ginklo“.

 

„Man nerūpi, ką ji pasakė“, – žurnalistams „Air Force One“ sakė Trumpas.

 

Atrodė, kad Gabbardas atsigavo po to, kai išslaptino dokumentus, susijusius su žvalgybos bendruomenės tyrimu dėl tariamų Rusijos ir Trumpo ryšių. 2016 m. kampaniją. Ji ir kiti Trumpo pareigūnai teigė, kad šie dokumentai įrodo anti-Trumpo sąmokslą žvalgybos bendruomenėje, o prezidentas gyrė jos pastangas kabineto posėdžiuose.

 

Rugpjūtį ji nustebino CŽV, įtraukdama slaptą vyresnįjį agentūros pareigūną į viešą 37 esamų ir buvusių pareigūnų, kuriems buvo atimti leidimai dirbti slapta, sąrašą. Sąraše buvo žmonių, kurie dirbo su klausimais, susijusiais su Rusijos kišimusi į 2016 m. JAV prezidento rinkimus, arba pasirašė 2019 m. laišką, kuriame raginama atstatydinti prezidentą Trumpą.

 

Paprastai atvirai palaikydama Trumpo politiką, Gabbard iš pradžių tylėjo apie operaciją Venesueloje, o po trijų dienų paskelbė savo nuomonę.

 

„Prezidentas Trumpas pažadėjo Amerikos žmonėms, kad jis užtikrins mūsų sienų saugumą, kovos su narkoterorizmu, pavojingais narkotikų karteliais ir narkotikų prekeiviais“, – antradienį X paskelbė Gabbard. „Pagarba mūsų kariams ir žvalgybos operatoriams už nepriekaištingą prezidento Trumpo įsakymo įvykdyti savo pažadą per operaciją „Absoliutus ryžtas“.“ [1]

 

1. World News: Gabbard Sidelined From Venezuela Planning for Months. Forrest, Brett; Dawsey, Josh; Ward, Alexander.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Jan 2026: A10.  

Gabbard Sidelined From Venezuela Planning for Months

“White House officials excluded the top U.S. intelligence officer, Tulsi Gabbard, from Venezuela planning since last summer, people with knowledge of the matter said.

 

As President Trump's national-security team huddled last week to make final preparations for the operation to snatch Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Gabbard was posting social-media photos of herself on a beach in Hawaii, where she grew up.

 

Trump isn't particularly close with Gabbard, a senior administration official said, and wanted to limit the number of people who knew about the Venezuela mission. She didn't need to know about it, the official said.

 

Gabbard's office provided "intelligence analysis that assisted in the overall mission from the analytical side," a second administration official said.

 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was among the top officials who preferred Gabbard remain sidelined from the discussions, two of the people with knowledge of the situation said.

 

Gabbard, Rubio "and President Trump's entire team have worked together in lockstep to deliver on his agenda," said Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman. "This is a tired and false narrative attempting to promote a fake story of 'division' when there is none."

 

The move highlights the increasing isolation and the turbulent tenure of Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, amid her struggle to penetrate the president's inner circle and influence policies. Trump has grown increasingly reliant on Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe for key intelligence consultations.

 

"That's completely false," Vice President JD Vance said when asked about Gabbard's exclusion from the Venezuela planning during a Thursday White House briefing. "We kept it very tight to the senior cabinet-level officials and related officials in our government."

 

For years, Gabbard had been an outspoken critic of foreign interventions and had accused Trump during his first administration of bowing to neoconservatives who favored acting against Venezuela and coveted the country's oil reserves.

 

The second administration official said it was "unfair" to focus on Gabbard's previous views, "given other Trump administration officials have also previously voiced disagreement on policy or even slammed the President directly."

 

The official said Gabbard leads routine intelligence briefings for the president and is often at the White House.

 

Gabbard's exclusion from Venezuela planning began last year, when Trump grew impatient with Maduro, and White House officials began drawing up military options to remove him. Underpinning these were intelligence assessments of Venezuela's military and political realities, communications intercepts and human intelligence collection and the August insertion of CIA personnel around Caracas.

 

"President Trump has full confidence in his entire exceptional national-security team," White House communications director Steven Cheung said.

 

Gabbard had angered Trump in June as the U.S. was planning to strike Iran's nuclear-weapons program. Earlier in the year, she had said during congressional testimony that the U.S. intelligence community had assessed that Iran was "not building a nuclear weapon."

 

"I don't care what she said," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

 

Gabbard appeared to recover after declassifying documents related to the intelligence community's probe into alleged links between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. She and other Trump officials said these documents offered proof of an anti-Trump conspiracy in the intelligence community, and the president praised her efforts in cabinet meetings.

 

In August, she surprised the CIA by including an undercover senior agency officer on a public list of 37 current and former officials stripped of their security clearances. The roster included people who had worked on issues related to Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or had signed a 2019 letter calling for President Trump's impeachment.

 

Normally a voluble supporter of Trump's policies, Gabbard was initially silent on the Venezuela operation, before posting three days after it.

 

"President Trump promised the American people he would secure our borders, confront narcoterrorism, dangerous drug cartels, and drug traffickers," Gabbard posted Tuesday on X. "Kudos to our servicemen and women and intelligence operators for their flawless execution of President Trump's order to deliver on his promise thru Operation Absolute Resolve."” [1]

 

1. World News: Gabbard Sidelined From Venezuela Planning for Months. Forrest, Brett; Dawsey, Josh; Ward, Alexander.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Jan 2026: A10.  

U.S. Warns Rivals to Keep Off Its Turf

“WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration's seizure of tankers under a growing oil embargo is meant to warn adversaries attempting to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere and boost Washington's influence in Latin America, according to U.S. officials.

 

The seizure Wednesday of two oil tankers linked to Venezuela, bringing the total to four in recent weeks, gives the U.S. leverage over Venezuela's interim government, said administration officials. It is also meant to signal to Russia, China and Iran that they shouldn't ally themselves with Caracas or flout U.S. sanctions, escalating the Trump administration's "Donroe Doctrine," aimed at making America the region's dominant power.

 

By stopping certain ships from delivering Venezuelan oil, President Trump aims to starve its customers of needed resources and revenue, weakening them as they rethink their relations with Caracas. The U.S. has delivered the message to Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, that her government must side with Washington and wind down relations with Russia, China and Iran, officials said.

 

Some U.S. officials and analysts are skeptical that seizing a handful of ships will cause Moscow, Beijing or Tehran to alter their Latin American policies or significantly dent their coffers. One State Department official said the damage to those capitals was a side effect of targeting the tankers, as the real goal remains coercing Caracas to do Washington's bidding, namely allowing U.S. companies to rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure and profit from its vast oil reserves.

 

For Iran, Russia and China, "losing a partner in the Western Hemisphere is a blow, but not a grievous one," said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group, an advisory firm. "The bigger threat is if the U.S. expands its tactic of an oil blockade -- or more tanker seizures targeting sanctioned tankers -- beyond just Venezuela."

 

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former supreme allied commander Europe, said targeting the shadow fleet -- off-the-books ships that transfer sanctioned oil -- was a sensible geopolitical move that addresses three different problems. "They will certainly weaken the economies of Russia and Iran, but they will also provide real leverage to consolidate control over Venezuela," he said, and could potentially force Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table with Kyiv.

 

If Caracas's interim authorities don't listen to Washington, the Trump administration said it plans to maintain its pressure on Venezuela. "They understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States," Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said.

 

Rubio's remarks came after a closed-door briefing with senators about the administration's Venezuela strategy, which Republicans appear to be backing.

 

Democrats expressed outrage over what they called an ill-conceived blueprint to rule Venezuela from afar, while forcibly taking its oil. "The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

Some military experts aren't convinced that seizing the shadow-fleet ships, particularly by using elite special forces, could be sustained long term.

 

"Is it effective? Sure, it works. Is that the most efficient way to do it? I don't think so," said retired Vice Adm. John Miller, the former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.

 

He warned there could be ramifications to continuing to poke Russia, which deployed at least one warship to escort the tanker that the U.S. seized in the northern Atlantic on Wednesday. "I'm not sure that that's necessarily something that we want to continue to do in the future," he said, because it essentially dares Putin "to think bigger."

 

The U.S. doesn't have plans to expand its operations against shadow fleets beyond the current Venezuela campaign, U.S. officials said.

 

A U.S. special-operations force boarded a ship called the Marinera, a tanker formerly known as the Bella 1, on Wednesday. The Coast Guard pursed the vessel for two weeks, U.S. officials said. During that time, the ship -- which wasn't carrying oil -- changed its name and claimed Russian protection.

 

Russia demanded that the U.S. "ensure humane and dignified treatment of Russian citizens aboard the Marinera," Russia's state news agency TASS reported.

 

U.S. forces on Wednesday also seized the Chinese-registered Sophia near the Caribbean, according to U.S. authorities. In a social-media post, U.S. Southern Command said the vessel was operating in international waters and conducting illicit activities, and that the U.S. Coast Guard was escorting the ship to the U.S.” [1]

 

Keeping Venezuela starved of oil money could bring it to shooting war with U.S.A. This would benefit China significantly, distracting and weakening America in a crucial moment of competition.

 

 

1. World News: U.S. Warns Rivals to Keep Off Its Turf. Ward, Alexander; Seligman, Lara.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Jan 2026: A9.