Despite the backlash since Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling shielding Monsanto from liability, the Environmental Protection Agency is pushing ahead on glyphosate, telling the Daily Signal how it plans to navigate the Make America Healthy Again movement’s growing outrage. In a 7-2 decision on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, will be shielded from liability over Roundup, its widely used brand of weed and grass killer. In response, MAHA activists are firing back at the Trump administration and Zeldin’s leadership at the EPA. The EPA told the Daily Signal it is conducting a scientific review of the pesticide. “The EPA is committed to advancing science-based innovation and stewardship in pesticide use. Working closely with federal partners, the agency is promoting more sustainable practices, including steps to minimize reliance on preharvest desiccation applications of glyphosate,” a spokesperson at the EPA told the Daily Signal.   “This year, EPA is undertaking a comprehensive, transparent, and rigorous scientific review of glyphosate to evaluate its use and ensure decisions are fully aligned with the best available evidence and public health and environmental protections.” The case at the center of the Supreme Court’s ruling was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell, who used Roundup and later developed cancer. Durnell initially won a large jury award in Missouri after arguing that Monsanto failed to put a cancer warning on the product label. Monsanto fought the verdict, arguing that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) already required EPA approval of the label, so states could not force additional warnings. “Because Durnell’s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement ‘in addition to or different from’ the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s claim,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.  The EPA’s stance, in which it states that the pesticide is safe for human health when used as directed on the label, is counter to MAHA’s outlook, and also to the views of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to the EPA’s website, the agency has found “no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.” It also states that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Outside the agency, many members of the farming and agriculture industry have likewise strongly defended the pesticide. Some growers say glyphosate products not only control weeds effectively but also contribute to healthier soil by enabling spraying instead of tilling. “Glyphosate remains one of the most replied upon and widely used tools for American farmers, sustaining the productivity, affordability, and resilience of U.S. agriculture,” the EPA spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “Growers rely on crop protection options to remain competitive and ensure a stable domestic food supply, safeguarding it against the insects, diseases, and weeds that would otherwise reduce yields, raise costs, and threaten the availability of affordable food.”  Despite that support, MAHA has criticized the EPA’s reliance on studies for pesticides like glyphosate, focusing on alleged industry influence and potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that many of the toxicity and safety studies the agency uses are paid for and submitted by the chemical companies themselves. When asked what the agency’s upcoming glyphosate review would look like, the EPA outlined several steps. The agency will increase transparency by expanding public access to underlying data and scientific rationale used in glyphosate assessments; evaluate independent, peer-reviewed research in assessing potential cancer and developmental risks; and look for opportunities to reduce unnecessary exposure, especially in residential settings and around schools. Further, the EPA plans to work with states, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services to promote integrated pest management and alternative weed control strategies that lower chemical reliance where feasible. It also will work with both departments to develop a research-and-evaluation framework for cumulative exposure across chemical classes in the food supply, as well as strengthen monitoring of residues in food and water, in coordination with federal partners. “EPA’s goal is clear: protect children, support farmers, and ensure that decisions are driven by science, not politics or special interests,” the agency noted.  The EPA’s deadline for the completion of glyphosate’s registration review is set for Oct. 1, 2026.

Scott Wynn grows sweet potatoes and corn and raises cattle on land his family has farmed for decades. When the pandemic crushed beef prices in 2020, the federal government offered farmers in his position relief from their loans. Unfortunately, Mr. Wynn did not qualify—not because his need was small, but because he is white. In June 2021, a federal court stepped in with a dose of common sense. The decision in Wynn v. Vilsack halted the program nationwide, and Congress soon replaced it with relief that turns on need rather than skin. But ending one program is not the same as ending the unjust habit of mind behind it. Last year, President Donald Trump returned to office determined to end race-based sorting across the federal government once and for all. He directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out this vision, and we have moved swiftly to end discrimination and elevate equality at every turn. In the past 18 months alone, USDA has eliminated more than $200 million in discriminatory grants, directed every agency to operate on merit, built a commission to enforce it, and rescinded the rule that let officials brand a policy as biased based on a mere spreadsheet, with no intent or act of discrimination behind the numbers. We have returned this department to the words Congress wrote into the Civil Rights Act, a flat ban on discrimination against anyone on the basis of race. But that idea is far older than both the Civil Rights Act and USDA. Abraham Lincoln, who founded USDA in 1862, fought to end slavery until his final breath. He understood that by recognizing human equality as a self-evident truth, the Declaration of Independence made an implicit “promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.” Nearly a century after the Founding, the 14th Amendment wrote this principle into the Constitution as the equal protection of the laws. Less than nine decades later, Brown v. Board of Education condemned a government that sorted children by race. And now, as our country celebrates 250 years, we also mark three years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases, which outlawed race discrimination in college admissions. The events behind these two anniversaries share an idea that is simple yet profound: every person is created equal. We’ve heard the objection: Without a thumb on the scale, won’t old patterns return? Our response is that the cure for discrimination is not its mirror image. Discrimination against one farmer cannot be undone by inflicting it on another farmer. The solution is enforcing one rule, fiercely, for everyone. At its best, the civil rights tradition never asked for a heavier thumb. It asked for the scale of justice to be honest. This spring at the University of Texas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned against treating the Declaration as a keepsake, merely to be admired from a comfortable distance. Its principles, he said, are a living obligation, to be honored by every generation that receives them, no matter the cost. President Trump takes that obligation seriously, and so do we. The truth written into our founding, that all men are created equal, is the promise of our Republic, and it belongs to every American of every background, in every corner of this country. As our nation marks its 250th birthday, we are ensuring, across the Trump administration, that equal still means equal. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Last week, Democratic Socialists of America candidates endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani won big in New York, sending shockwaves over the future of the Democratic Party. Is the party in trouble? Is it time for a split? Following those wins, Democratic strategist James Carville insisted it’s time for a “great schism.” “Lady, I ain’t the same party as you,” Carville said, referencing Assemblywoman Darializa Avila Chevalier, who beat incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat for the 13th Congressional District. Carville took issue with her attack on the American flag and interracial relationships. “I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the ‘S’ word, schism. I really do,” Carville said. He emphasized that “the party is now under control of a democratic socialist of New York City,” calling it “insane.” Carville warned that “these people do not like Democrats. Not only are they not Democrats, [but they also] wish Democrats poorly.” NEW: James Carville: “I actually do think it's time for Democrats to talk the S word: ‘Schism’ … there's just some sh*t that I can't be in the same tent with … I'm done … I don't want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist.” pic.twitter.com/O5ATLyvXwV— Jason Cohen (@JasonJournoDC) June 25, 2026 Such behavior from a Democrat is “truly bizarre” to host Tony Kinnett, as he pointed out last Thursday on “The Tony Kinnett Cast.” “Now you have Democrats that are going through the exact same thing the Republican party went through a little bit ago,” Kinnett said. Kinnett wasn’t giving Carville too much credit, though. “He spent so much time making excuses for the young, the restless, and the violent … [and now] the young, the restless, and the violent are acting restless and violent,” he added. Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., of New York’s 3rd Congressional District, is promoting the “Promise to America” initiative, calling for “commonsense solutions that stay true to our American values.” Other moderate Democratic Party representatives and candidates have signed on. Suozzi was also cited in an Axios article, in which he said wins by far-Left candidates left the party “reeling.” “People who do not support the DSA wring their hands at cocktail parties while the DSA is organizing,” Suozzi told the outlet. The article also noted that “Suozzi said it is time for the [moderate wing of the Democratic Party] to ‘wake up’ to the threat posed to them by the democratic socialists.” Kinnett wasn’t too sympathetic, however. “Hey, congratulations, you’re a whopping decade late to the party!” Kinnett said during Friday’s show, adding that there “could be a serious fracture to the party.” Part of that fracture has involved House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., especially given that he endorsed losing candidates last week. Jeffries has taken heat over Mamdani and DSA candidates. “If people can’t understand that the game has fundamentally changed and they can’t adapt, then they need to let others lead,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., told Stephen Smith last week on the “Straight Shooter” podcast. On “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown,” Jeffries said the “moment that we’re in” involves his party doing “everything to take back control of the House of Representatives,” and he added that he has “no idea what Elissa Slotkin is talking about.” Slotkin’s remarks also triggered a Friday night news dump response on X from the Congressional Black Caucus, which was hit with community notes for misrepresenting Slotkin’s record. Statement in response to recent comments regarding House Democratic leadership by Sen. Elissa Slotkin: pic.twitter.com/q7YaHcFYsj— Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) (@TheBlackCaucus) June 27, 2026

The Daughters of the American Revolution failed to adopt a resolution defining “woman” in the organization’s bylaws in a vote Friday, but campaigners claim that the vote did not meet the requirements in the organization’s bylaws, which require a separate meeting. “While I believe the vote count was accurate on Friday, leadership tilted the procedural process in a way that favored the position that ‘transwomen are women,’ creating an uneven playing field,” Laura McDonald, founder and president of Daughters Advocating Restoration and a member of the DAR since 2018, told the Daily Signal Monday. Members reportedly voted 1,481 to 984 against a resolution stating that the bylaws “should be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted.” The resolution states: “Resolved, That in Article III, Section 1 of the Bylaws, the term ‘woman’ shall be understood to clearly mean a woman who was born female, and therefore, individuals who were born male shall not be eligible for membership; transgender women shall not be eligible for membership; and men who have their birth certificates changed from male to female shall not be eligible for membership.” DAR organizers changed the organization’s bylaws in 2023, barring discrimination. The group’s president general said the new policy would require chapters to admit men who claimed to identify as women, so long as they changed their birth certificates. Many members reportedly resigned following the new policy. A New Jersey chapter had reportedly accepted a transgender member in 2022, spurring backlash. McDonald noted that, while the vote did not endorse the pro-biology resolution, it did not enshrine transgender identity into the bylaws, either. “The DAR did not vote to amend the national bylaws to allow biological males to be eligible for membership,” she said. McDonald gave four reasons for another vote on the resolution. 1. A Special Meeting The DAR bylaws require the organization’s president general to call a special meeting at the request of at least 30 chapters in 10 states. Yet, rather than hold a special meeting, DAR leadership opted to add the resolution on biological sex to the agenda of the group’s annual Constitutional Convention. “The vote that took place last week was supposed to happen on October 11, 2026, at a special meeting of the society, separate and apart from any regularly scheduled meeting … to focus solely on this issue,” McDonald said. 2. 100% of Membership Must Be Notified McDonald insisted that the bylaws require DAR leadership to notify the entire membership before any such session. “Instead of calling the special meeting for the requested date, the National Board of Management added this as an agenda item for the Continental Congress, bypassing the requirement that 100% of the membership must be notified about this resolution,” she argued. “As a result, only about 3% of the membership were notified.” 3. Only One Legal Opinion When DAR members arrived at the Constitutional Convention, they received a three-page legal opinion effectively arguing against the resolution. McDonald told the Daily Signal that leadership “prohibited” members from “reading, quoting, referencing, or relying upon any other legal opinion.” Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote the memo. He served as general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, as the department advocated for experimental transgender medical interventions. His University of Michigan biography notes that he drafted and issued “major rules” on “the treatment of LGBTQ+ kids in the foster care system.” Bagenstos’ memo, previously published by The Daily Wire, claims that “implementing the proposed resolution would expose the National Society to significant risk of being found in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Law.” The memo suggests that defining women as biological females would involve discrimination against men who claim to identify as women. Bagenstos did not immediately respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment. Yet McDonald noted that Harmeet Dhillon—who currently serves as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department under President Donald Trump—previously wrote a memo on the issue, coming to the exact opposite legal conclusion. The DAR “likely has a First Amendment right to exclude trans-identifying men from eligibility regardless of any contrary public accommodation laws,” Dhillon’s memo, published before she joined the Justice Department in 2025, states. The memo finds that the DAR’s right to expressive association would protect such a policy. “This opinion was not offered to members alongside Bagenstos’ opinion,” McDonald told the Daily Signal. Harmeet Dhillon DAR MemoDownload 4. Voting Irregularities McDonald also claimed that, during the vote on Friday, the presiding officer said the voting process faced “integrity issues,” and the convention held a second vote, with an hours-long process. “The voting process was marked by procedural concerns, including restrictions on differing viewpoints, the distractions of Congress activities, a lengthy voting process, confusion surrounding a second vote, and reports from members that they were discouraged from leaving, even briefly, during voting,” she told the Daily Signal. For all these reasons, McDonald said she and her fellows “await the president general’s call for a special meeting on October 11, 2026.” “After what took place last week, members of the DAR are more resolute than ever,” she told the Daily Signal. “The restoration movement is stronger than ever.” The National DAR did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time.

THE CENTER SQUARE—Georgia is prepared to incur additional administrative fees for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and its high error rate gives the state more time to begin paying part of the benefit costs, according to the Department of Human Services. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on July 4 last year, requires states to shoulder 75% of the program’s burden, an increase of 25%. Gov. Brian Kemp included $5.9 million in the fiscal year 2027 to account for the increase. The legislation also requires states with an error rate of more than 6% to pay part of the benefits, which begin Oct. 1, and could be as high as 15%. Georgia has the fifth-highest error rate in the country at 15.21%, but the bill gives states with rates higher than 13.34% extra time to reduce their rates. As of May 31, the state had 651,073 active SNAP cases tied to 1,319,188 individuals, according to the Department of Human Services. The state distributed $244.8 million in SNAP benefits during May, according to the Department of Human Services. If the state were forced to pay the required 10% of benefit costs as a penalty for its high error rate, it would put taxpayers on the hook for $24.5 million just for one month. The department’s efforts to reduce the error rate include improving the Georgia Gateway eligibility system, the program beneficiaries use to manage their benefits. Case reviews are more rigorous, and staff members are undergoing expanded training, according to the department. “The department has also launched a formal market survey to identify proven technology solutions and has submitted waiver requests to federal regulators seeking authority to automate more of the eligibility process, which would further reduce the staff-level and client-submission mistakes that drive most payment errors,” a department spokeswoman wrote in an email to The Center Square. “Georgia is committed to getting this right for the individuals and families who depend on SNAP, and we will continue pursuing every available tool to improve accuracy and program integrity.” New SNAP error rates released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday show more than $10 billion in improper payments nationwide. Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, said in a social media post that he is introducing two bills that would address fraud. One would restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to U.S. citizens only. The second bill increases fines for what he called retail trafficking of SNAP benefits to up to $500,000.