MAHA has reshaped health policy. Now it’s working on environmental rules

On New Year’s Eve, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced new restrictions on five chemicals commonly used in building materials, plastic products, and adhesives, celebrating it as a “MAHA win” — a sign of an emerging and unexpected alliance between the traditionally business-friendly Republican administration and the Make America Healthy Again movement.

This unusual collaboration has grown from the health-focused coalition’s earlier success in influencing public health policy through its most prominent advocate, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has already made significant changes to vaccine recommendations and shifted government positions on issues like seed oils, fluoride, and Tylenol.

The movement now sees potential in the EPA’s promise to release a comprehensive “MAHA agenda” in the coming months, a development with significant political implications as November’s midterm elections approach. With President Donald Trump’s coalition including a politically diverse group of MAHA supporters who helped return him to the White House, disappointing this vocal voting bloc could threaten Republican control of Congress.

“This is becoming an issue that if the EPA does not start getting their stuff together, then they could lose the midterms over this,” warned Courtney Swan, a nutrition activist who has engaged with EPA officials in recent discussions.

Christopher Bosso, a Northeastern University professor specializing in environmental policy, noted Zeldin’s evolving approach: “He didn’t seem to take MAHA seriously at first, but now he has to, because they’ve been really calling for his scalp.”

The relationship between MAHA activists and the EPA took a significant turn during a Christmas party in Washington last December. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent activist whose “Glyphosate Girl” social media account advocates for nontoxic food systems, had previously been so frustrated with the EPA’s weakening of chemical protections that she spearheaded a petition calling for Zeldin’s removal.

The final catalyst was the EPA’s approval of two new pesticides for food use, which Ryerson claimed contained “forever chemicals” hazardous to human health — a characterization the EPA disputes. But after speaking with Zeldin at the Christmas party, she felt heard and was subsequently invited, along with other activists, to EPA headquarters for an hour-long meeting that led to ongoing conversations with senior officials.

“The level of engagement with people concerned with their health is absolutely revolutionary,” Ryerson said, describing their access as “unprecedented.” She acknowledged that the forthcoming plan “will say whether or not they take it seriously.”

Rashmi Joglekar from the University of California San Francisco’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment noted the unusual nature of an activist group meeting directly with the EPA administrator, calling MAHA’s rapid influence “powerful.”

The movement’s impact extends beyond the EPA. MAHA has successfully derailed federal and state attempts to shield pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits. After MAHA activists lobbied against liability protections in a congressional funding bill, those provisions were removed, and a similar measure stalled in Tennessee’s legislature.

In December, Zeldin joined a call with advocacy group MAHA Action, inviting activists to help develop the EPA’s agenda. EPA staffers have since regularly participated in weekly calls, promoting their open-door policy.

Despite these collaborative efforts, the Republican administration’s deregulatory emphasis creates potential conflicts with MAHA’s health-focused goals. Lori Ann Burd of The Center for Biological Diversity pointed to the administration’s strong industry ties, citing the EPA’s proposal to allow broad use of the weed killer Dicamba on soybeans and cotton just a month after hiring Kyle Kunkler, a soybean association lobbyist, for a senior position overseeing pesticides.

EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch denied Kunkler’s involvement in the decision, stating that pesticide decisions are “driven by statutory standards and scientific evidence.” However, environmentalists note a pattern of hiring former industry leaders, including Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva, both former executives at the American Chemistry Council who now hold leadership positions in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Alexandra Muñoz, a molecular toxicologist who attended the meeting with Zeldin, sensed industry influence despite the polite reception: “In terms of what was said, it felt like we were interacting with a lot of industry talking points.”

The forthcoming MAHA agenda will reportedly address lead pipes, forever chemicals, plastic pollution, food quality, and Superfund cleanups. Ryerson hopes it will tackle the removal of atrazine from drinking water, end pre-harvest pesticide application, and implement cancer warnings for glyphosate, though the EPA maintains this chemical is unlikely to be carcinogenic when used as directed.

While optimistic about potential actions, Ryerson remains skeptical about some of Zeldin’s claimed “MAHA wins,” including his New Year’s Eve announcement on regulating phthalates for environmental and workplace risks without addressing the thousands of consumer products containing these chemicals.

Swan summarized the situation simply: “The EPA is giving very mixed signals right now.” As the midterm elections approach, the administration’s commitment to health-focused environmental policies will likely be tested, with significant electoral consequences hanging in the balance.