The use of the agricultural input glyphosate may be one of the most hotly contested issues within public health right now. For some, glyphosate is proof that modern agriculture is poison. For others, it is an example of anti-science panic. Both reactions avoid the hard truth: glyphosate is a critical agricultural input with contested cancer literature, collapsing public trust, and a set of policy tradeoffs that are too often ignored.The large scale skepticism of glyphosate safety started in 2015 when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence in humans alongside animal and mechanistic evidence. However, this legitimate concern is based more on potential theoretical hazards rather than an assessment of real-world exposure levels. Regulating agencies ask a different question: whether a substance poses an unacceptable risk when used as labeled. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency has maintained that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” However, it has since withdrawn its 2020 interim decision following U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit litigation and is now revisiting parts of its analysis. Across the pond, the European Food Safety Authority said in 2023 that it found no “critical areas of concern,” and the European Commission renewed glyphosate’s approval through 2033. Similarly, the European Chemicals Agency concluded that the available evidence did not justify classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic. As for the studies used to justify such decisions, one of the strongest prospective cohorts in the debate, the Agricultural Health Study. The study followed more than 54,000 licensed pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa. An analysis from 2018 found no overall association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma but did report some evidence of increased acute myeloid leukemia risk in the highest exposure groups. Later, a pooled AGRICOH analysis from 2019 covering more than 316,000 farmers and agricultural workers in France, Norway, and the U.S. similarly found no association, though it reported a borderline elevation for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma among long-term users of glyphosate. When looking at meta-analyses, which are literature reviews of several studies to ascertain patterns, the data is still contested. In 2019, a meta-analysis of the Agricultural Health Study’s highest exposure cohort found a 41% increased relative risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. However, in 2020 another meta-analysis and its follow up in 2021 came to more restrained conclusions, cautioning readers about the literature’s publication bias but confirming that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cannot be ruled out. An honest summary of the literature neither exonerates nor condemns glyphosate. High exposure individuals, like farmers with specific lymphoma subtypes, are worth monitoring. This scientific uncertainty should give policymakers pause. Glyphosate has become the most used pesticide (specifically as an herbicide) in the US, sprayed on over 100 crops. U.S. glyphosate usage has risen from less than 5,000 to over 80,000 metric tons per year between 1987 and 2007. This more than 15-fold increase was accompanied by the deployment of glyphosate-tolerant crops and reduced tillage practices. Most prevalent among these was Roundup by Monsanto, which was purchased by Bayer in 2018. Whatever one thinks of glyphosate and Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, banning such a prevalent pesticide may create regrettable substitutions. In fact, Bayer actually stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup for the U.S. residential market in 2023, citing ongoing litigation issues rather than safety concerns. As of February, 2026 the company has paid $11 billion for civil suits. Some Roundup formulations were replaced with diquat dibromide, which is banned in the EU due to its higher toxicity. According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, glyphosate’s chronic intake threshold is 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day while the European Food Safety Administration sets their threshold at 0.5 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day. Comparatively, diquat dibromide’s threshold is between .002 and .005 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 100-500 times lower than glyphosate. However, it is worth noting that actual formulations containing diquat may be substantially lower than glyphosate, mitigating some risk. Evidence aside, the decision to restrict glyphosate usage also depends on safe, efficient, and effective alternatives. One important insight to consider is how glyphosate itself replaced more dangerous pesticides used prior to its introduction. Agent Orange, the infamous defoliant used during the Vietnam War, contained one of glyphosate’s predecessors, 2,4,5-T. This compound was unfortunately contaminated with dioxin, a potent neurotoxin, due to inconsistent chemical treating. Dioxin’s threshold is .0000000007 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day, which is around a billion times more toxic than glyphosate. This formulation has thankfully been banned since the mid-1980s, accompanying glyphosate’s rise in popularity. Glyphosate was detected in about 81% of Americans, with an average concentration of 0.000411 mg/liter of urine, which is thousands of times lower than the chronic intake threshold. This is not to dismiss concerns over glyphosate toxicity, as many have raised questions about glyphosate’s effect on the gut microbiome. Others also have germane concerns about glyphosate mixed with other “enhancing” chemicals that increase toxicity. Neither extreme should dominate the debate. Advocating for banning or restricting a well-used pesticide may lead to alternative pesticide regimes with more chemical alternatives, more over-applications, more tillage and soil erosion, or higher costs shifted onto families. Glyphosate’s path forward demands nuanced, evidence-based policy including rigorous ongoing monitoring (especially for high-exposure populations), innovation in alternatives, transparent risk communication, and balanced regulation that takes these genuine concerns seriously and analyzes the realities of tradeoffs soberly. The post The Truth about Glyphosate: Genuine Concerns and Sobering Realities appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Most discussion of the SAVE America ACT has focused on how it would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo ID to cast ballots in federal elections. Lying Democrats claim that citizenship-confirming birth certificates are beyond the reach of mere mortals. Never mind that private and government websites help Americans order them online for home delivery.  Also, racist Democrats argue that black and brown voters are too dense to acquire photo ID, even though tens of millions of them have drivers licenses and present photo ID daily—to rent cars, cash checks, and enter Democrat-run government buildings and campaign events. Yet another SAVE benefit has received far less attention: It would Make Absentee Ballots Great Again. SAVE finally would end a major “temporary” pandemic-era measure: In 2020, Democrats used the COVID-19 virus as a Trojan horse to slip in virtually every long-sought Left-wing scheme to slacken voting. These unprecedented procedures eased Democrat election theft.  Democrats argued that social-distancing merited thin crowds at precincts. So, they harnessed new laws, court orders, and unconstitutional edicts to blastmail-in ballots across counties and states. California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont spewed ballots as if from fire hoses. Unrequested ballots went to everyone on often-outdated rolls. This included double-registered, relocated, and dead voters. The federal pandemic Public-Health Emergency officially ended on May 11, 2023. To whatever extent these massive voting changes made microscopic sense while COVID marched through America’s institutions, those dark days brightened nearly three years ago. Likewise, the rationale for mass-mail-in ballots has vanished like airline mask mandates. The SAVE America Act will prohibit states from air-dropping ballots on “voters,” as California did so promiscuously in fall 2022. The Public Interest Legal Foundation reported that Golden State authorities mailed 21,184,707 ballots. Of these, 10,891,525 (51.4%) were unaccounted for. As PILF explained: “Election officials do not know what happened to them.” That’s right: 10.9 million ballots vanished—nearly enough for everyone in North Carolina.  At best, this is weapons-grade waste. At worst, with that many loose ballots sloshing around, who could trust that only legitimate ones were counted? Even the mere appearance of fraud deepens concerns about electoral dysfunction.   The SAVE America Act should prevent mail-in ballots from landing in places such as those in Nevada where PILF discovered registered “voters”: a firehouse, an Iron Workers Hall, a head shop, a gravel-filled vacant lot, and an abandoned mine. What could go wrong?  SAVE should spare Americans the sickening sight of sacred ballots being mailed to voters and then filling trash cans after former residents of a Las Vegas apartment complex failed to claim them. Mail-in ballots languish in the trash. Las Vegas, Nevada, October 2020. (Courtesy of Jim Murphy.) “We don’t want mail-in ballots,” President Donald J. Trump told WKRC-TV’s Tyler Madden in Cincinnati on March 11. “We want to have it accurate, and you can’t do that with mail-in ballots.” Trump added that SAVE would preserve absentee ballots for those who are—what a concept!—absent. These would include, Trump said, “our military, our people that are ill, people that are away. So, we’re generous in that way. But people don’t want mail-in ballots, because you have crooked elections. It guarantees a crooked election.”   Curbing mass mail-in ballots removes the rationale for terminally opaque ballot harvesting and unsupervised, easily stuffed drop boxes. With any luck, these once ubiquitous COVID-era relics will make like Dr. Fauci and fade away. SAVE resurrects the secret ballot. Completing mail-in ballots at home or work exposes voters to pressure and even threats from spouses, relatives, bosses, and ballot harvesters. Conversely, polling booths let voters choose with zero outside influence. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker’s Federal Election Reform Commission declared in September 2005: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Senate passage of SAVE will terminate mass-mail in ballots in federal elections and finally place the American people within striking distance of the free and fair elections that we deserve. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post SAVE America Act Will Make Absentee Ballots Great Again appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The SAVE America Act has split the Senate GOP on the filibuster. As the election integrity measure struggles through the Senate slog, one Republican senator is calling on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to nuke the filibuster. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., wrote an opinion in the Wall Street Journal calling on his Republican colleagues to nuke the filibuster before the Democrats do it for them. “By ending the filibuster now, Republicans could pass important legislation that the public overwhelmingly supports, but Democrats oppose,” Johnson wrote in the Wall Steet Journal.  “For some inexplicable reason many of my Republican colleagues believe that maintaining the 60-vote threshold required to end a filibuster is crucial to the future of our republic,” Johnson claimed. “I’ll admit that the 60-vote cloture threshold has prevented many bad bills from becoming law, and that without it bad bills would become law more easily. But it also prevents good bills from getting passed.” The current example being the SAVE America Act, a piece of legislation which would secure American elections, protect women’s sports, and enshrine a number of other conservative priorities into law. The Senate is currently in the process of an extended floor debate about the bill, but without some effort to circumvent the filibuster, either by using the talking filibuster or nuking the filibuster altogether, the bill stands little chance of passing. At the very least, Johnson said of a move to nuke the filibuster, Republicans will put Democrats on record promising to end the filibuster before the midterm elections. “At a minimum, if the SAVE America Act fails to pass, the Senate should immediately debate and vote on a rule change (requiring 67 votes) to end the filibuster,” Johnson argued. “It would be interesting to see whether Democrats would vote yes when Republicans are in power. Forcing them to defend the rule now could politically shame them into preserving it later: It’s the only chance I see of dissuading them from voting yes once they regain power.” Put Democrats on the record:Will they vote to end the filibuster when Republicans are in control?It’s our only chance to make them think twice before doing so when they regain power. pic.twitter.com/k92LKcYC2o— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) March 19, 2026 Thune joined Fox News on Friday morning to discuss Johnson’s argument to vote to end the filibuster and signaled his opposition to anything other than getting Democrats on the record against the SAVE America Act. Thune told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom that reaching 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate, isn’t even a possibility.   “There aren’t anywhere close to the votes to nuke the legislative filibuster in the United States Senate today,” Thune said. “That’s the reality that I have to deal with.”   However, Thune suspects that there are Democrats who want to nuke the filibuster as well.   “Democrats have already made their intentions clear,” he said. The last time the rule change was voted on was in 2022 when the Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate. All but two Democrats voted to nuke it.” “[The filibuster has] protected Republicans through the years, conservative principles, principles and priorities, by requiring a supermajority to get things done in the United States Senate,” Thune argued. Senate Majority Leader Thune on Democrats nuking the filibuster:“If the Democrats ever get the House, the Senate, and the White House… they might try… I’ll tell you there are not the votes to nuke the filibuster in the Senate today."Who’s blocking?pic.twitter.com/uCJr3nRsVs— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 20, 2026 Many Republicans have been vying for Thune to initiate a talking filibuster, which is not nuking it. “Requiring senators to speak during a filibuster doesn’t nuke the filibuster,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on X. “It lets the filibuster be what a filibuster is—namely, speaking on the Senate floor.” The post Talking, Nuking, or Voting on the Filibuster: Where Does GOP Senate Infighting Go From Here? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Days before the Senate is set to delve into the Justice Department’s potentially politicized conduct during the Biden administration, two ousted FBI agents involved in the “Arctic Frost” operation sued the Trump administration. The two special agents, identified in the lawsuit as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, worked from November 2022 to June 2023 on an investigation of Donald Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election. The probe obtained phone records and other data on members of Congress, raising separation of powers questions.  The plaintiffs claim that FBI Director Kash Patel fired them after members of Congress released Arctic Frost records last year. Both termination letters cited “poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties,” a claim their complaint argued was “pretextual.” They filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The fired agents assert their First Amendment rights were violated because they were fired for a perceived political affiliation, and that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated because they were fired without due process.  Republican lawmakers challenged the “Arctic Frost” investigation as one of several areas of perceived weaponization of the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden.  On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights is holding a hearing titled “Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate.” The hearing will draw parallels between the two, since both Arctic Frost and the Watergate scandal involved government snooping against political opponents.  The committee last year released a set of documents that show the special counsel Jack Smith’s team collected cellphone data from nine Republican senators and one Republican House member in the investigation, dubbed “Arctic Frost.” The committee also released 197 subpoenas that Smith’s investigative team issued in 2023 as part of its case against Trump, which also seemed to encompass numerous people and organizations in Trump’s orbit, many only loosely connected to the 2020 election dispute. The lawsuit by the two FBI agents makes their case in part by diminishing their own roles in the investigation, saying, “John Doe 1’s contributions to Arctic Frost were largely administrative and ministerial.” Similarly, John Doe 2 claims to have “played a supporting role, handling tasks such as recording interviews when requested by lead agents or prosecutors, arranging for transcription services for recorded interviews, and keeping track of interview logs and records.” The lawsuit even claims that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro of the District of Columbia made a failed effort to save John Doe 2’s job.  “No internal investigation, notice, or hearing preceded their firings,” the complaint states. “Nor were Plaintiffs presented with any evidence purportedly supporting their firings or given an opportunity to appeal.”  The post Ousted FBI Agents Sue Before Senate Prepares to Uncover New Details of ‘Arctic Frost’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Republicans are activating the grassroots to pressure the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act. The Senate is currently engaged in an extended debate of the voter integrity legislation called for by President Donald Trump. The bill includes requiring proof of citizenship to vote and nationwide voter ID. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., is also heading up an effort to amend the bill to include other administration priorities such as protecting women’s sports from biological males who claim to be female. Trump, Republicans in the House, and grassroots conservatives have been pushing the Senate to use the talking filibuster, a process that would circumvent the 60 vote cloture rule, to pass the bill. The extended Senate debate, however, is not a talking filibuster, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has argued Republicans do not have the votes to make the talking filibuster successful. The slow progress has led House members to host events with grassroots leaders to discuss the need for this legislation and pressure the Senate. Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., hosted one of these events with activist Scott Presler on Wednesday. Fine’s virtual town hall attracted over 9,000 viewers. Some of the viewers included other conservative activists, such as Nick Sortor. Fine said Presler, “made a huge impact in our elections last year,” and “is somebody who understands perhaps better than anybody what the grassroots wants because he talked to so many folks last year about the election and got a real first-hand view on the importance of honesty and integrity in our elections.” Presler told the audience that the SAVE America Act “is what the American people voted for in the 2024 election, and now we demand and expect action,” pledging to “not rest until it is on President Trump’s desk.” “To anyone saying that it isn’t happening, no, it is happening,” Pressler said of voter fraud. “This dilutes the American voice, the minority voice, the veteran voice, the people’s voice. “Ultimately, I hope the Senate can get its act together,” Presler added. “If they are unable to pass legislation, we may lose our House majority.” Presler stressed the sense of urgency: “I am on the ground every single day, and this is the single most important thing that people care about,” Presler said. Other members in attendance, including Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, Rep. Brandon Gill, and Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Georgia, also stressed the need for the SAVE America Act. “I agree with everything that Scott said here,” Gill stated. “When voters give us power, they expect us to deliver. When we make promises on the campaign trail, they expect us to deliver.” “Voters do not care about our cane old Senate rules. They just want the SAVE America Act signed into law,” Gill continued. Owens echoed Gil’s remarks and called on Republican voters to make their voices heard with senate republicans. “This is a fight that needs to be picked by Thune,” Owens said. “We need to highlight those senators who will not vote for, especially Republicans,” Owens added. “Every Republican should be put on record time and time again until they are hearing from all people in their state and are pushed to do something very reasonable.” “Every excuse that they use is garbage,” Owens said of Democrat and Republican opposition to the SAVE America Act. “We know the Democrats are using this as a way to cheat their way to the top. Democrats rely on bad laws to keep this up, to fake that 90% of their state votes one way. “ After the live stream, Fine and McCormick hinted to The Daily Signal that Wednesday’s livestream was not the last effort from House Republicans and grassroots activists to pressure the Senate into passing the bill. “Passing the SAVE America Act is not optional—it’s essential,” Fine told The Daily Signal. “We will not have a country if this does not pass. We cannot allow foreigners to determine the fate of our country.” “We must get this commonsense legislation across the finish line to secure our elections and require photo ID nationwide as soon as possible,” Rep. McCormick told The Daily Signal. On a separate call with The Daily Signal, Fine reiterated that he and at least 12 other Republican members will “not vote for any Senate legislation until the SAVE America Act is passed.” The post House Activates GOP Grassroots to Put Pressure on Senate to Pass SAVE America Act appeared first on The Daily Signal.