The Trump administration has delivered numerous wins on the “Make America Health Again” front. For example, it took steps to remove damaging fluoride drug products for children from the market; canceled mRNA vaccine development contracts; and took meaningful steps toward eliminating harmful synthetic dyes and other additives from the food supply.

Some of those in the MAHA movement accustomed to winning were shocked to learn this week that President Donald Trump is pushing for an increase in the production of controversial glyphosate-based herbicides.

Trump suggested in an executive order on Wednesday that “glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy” and that diminished access to such weed-killers would “result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

‘The Chemical Lobby is controlling Washington.’

Characterizing production of glyphosate-based herbicides as “central to American economic and national security,” Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and tasked Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins with “ensuring a continued and adequate supply.”

The president’s order also provides legal immunity to those American manufacturers ordered to produce glyphosate-related herbicides.

Glyphosate, first registered for use in America in 1974, is one of the most widely used pesticides in the country. Like various other official bodies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label” and that it “is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.”

RELATED: The Supreme Court can protect families or protect corporate cover-ups

Photo by: Bill Barksdale/Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Many remain skeptical of the ubiquitous herbicide and its impact on human health, not least because of its classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The report released in May by Trump’s MAHA Commission noted that “a selection of research studies on a herbicide (glyphosate) have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as [sic] cancers, live inflammation and metabolic disturbances.”

A 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which was referenced in the MAHA report, suggested that childhood exposure to glyphosate and its degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid, “may increase risk of liver and cardiometabolic disorders in early adulthood, which could lead to more serious diseases later in life.”

A 2019 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal BMJ found an association between the risk of autism spectrum disorder and prenatal exposure to glyphosate. The researchers noted that their findings “suggest that an offspring’s risk of autism spectrum disorder increases following prenatal exposure to ambient pesticides within 2000 m of their mother’s residence during pregnancy, compared with offspring of women from the same agricultural region without such exposure.”

A long-term study published last year in the journal Environmental Health found that low doses of the herbicide caused various kinds of cancers in rats. The researchers noted that their findings not only “support the IARC conclusion that there is ‘sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity [of glyphosate] in experimental animals,” but are “consistent also with the epidemiological evidence showing increases in incidence of multiple malignancies in humans exposed to glyphosate and GBHs.”

Zen Honeycutt, a MAHA activist who serves as executive director of Moms Across America, told the Defender, “The implications of this executive order are irreversible.”

“Not only has Trump gone back on his word to go after pesticides, destroying the delicate trust that was being built by the MAHA movement with the government, but he paved the path for glyphosate to continue destroying farmland, fertility, and our families’ health for generations to come,” added Honeycutt.

Toxicologist Alexandra Munoz tweeted, “The executive branch has just endorsed a carcinogen and enshrined it. This is outrageous and unacceptable.”

Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded Food Babe, wrote, “EVERY PRESIDENT since glyphosate was invented has increased the amount of glyphosate being sprayed on our farm land. The Chemical Lobby is controlling Washington, no matter who is in charge & this is why I hate politics.”

Trump’s executive order was issued the day after Bayer, the company that acquired the glyphosate-carrying product Roundup from Monsanto, announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of American lawsuits alleging that the agrochemical giant neglected to warn people that Roundup could cause cancer.

Bayer noted that “the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability or wrongdoing.”

Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, added in a statement: “The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none.”

Bayer gave $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inauguration committee fund.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended Trump’s glyphosate initiative, telling CNBC in a statement on Thursday, “Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply.”

“We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it,” continued Kennedy. “When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

Kennedy previously called glyphosate a “poison.” He also helped Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper, in his legal battle against Monsanto. A jury found that Roundup caused Johnson’s cancer and that Monsanto neglected to properly warn the public about the risks in its marketing.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Glyphosate, Herbicide, Pesticide, Chemical, Cancer, Carcinogen, Maha, Make american healthy again, Health, Regulatory, Big agriculture, Politics 

Zohran Mamdani has wasted no time turning religious language into shocking political branding. This month, he invoked Muhammad while defending Democrats’ mass-migration posture. He also became the first New York City mayor to skip the installation of a Catholic archbishop.

Public officials can practice any faith. They can speak openly about it. The line gets crossed when government starts treating one religion as a protected political category — especially through the criminal code.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization.

That line is about to be obliterated in Virginia.

A Bangladesh-born Democrat state senator, Saddam Azlan Salim, introduced SB624, a bill aimed at writing a formal definition of “Islamophobia” into Virginia’s assault and battery laws. The bill would single out Islam for special treatment. No other religion would receive the same statutory carve-out.

The bill defines Islamophobia as “malicious prejudice or hatred directed toward Islam or Muslims.” The definition applies “regardless of whether the victim is actually a practitioner of Islam, provided that the perpetrator targeted such victim based on a perceived adherence to such faith.”

Is it Islamophobic to walk a dog or eat bacon or spread the gospel in the presence of a devout Muslim? If not, why not? And do we really want to test it?

People use Islamophobia as a cudgel to silence legitimate criticism of doctrine, immigration policy, and jihadism at home and abroad. A vague, politically loaded term does not belong in criminal law. It invites selective enforcement. It chills speech. It hands politicians a ready-made pretext to jail dissenters.

Call it what it is: one more step toward a blasphemy-style speech regime, enforced by the state.

In a world in which leftists — and even some conservatives — believe “hate speech isn’t free speech,” Salim’s bill should set off alarm bells for any civil liberties group that claims to defend the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

And yet the American Civil Liberties Union has remained resolutely silent.

The ACLU’s “Religious Liberty” page claims it exists “to safeguard the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by ensuring that laws and governmental practices neither promote religion nor interfere with its free exercise.”

Given that Islam commands the erasure any kind of secular and sectarian division, you’d think the ACLU’s rabid dogs would be on guard against its encroachment.

Instead, the ACLU maintains a page dedicated to opposing “anti-Muslim discrimination,” while boasting of its opposition to a Jewish charter school in Oklahoma.

RELATED: Free speech in Britain is worse than you think

Photo by Lab Ky Mo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The “red-green alliance” between domestic communists and Muslim invaders is the greatest threat currently facing Western countries today.

In a talk at Oxford University’s Student Union, Peter Thiel laid out the stark choice between the West continuing to flounder under the illusion that clean energy policies would drive global prosperity and the Islamic worldview, which prioritizes domination.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization. They have a common enemy — conservatives defending the countries their ancestors built for them — but without that enemy, these groups should actually despise each other.

The same day Mamdani invoked the name of the warlord Muhammad in the cause of open borders, the ACLU’s Instagram page shared a post about how hard it is to be “a queer teen in Idaho!” (Strangely enough, no mention about how hard it is to be a queer teen in any of the more than 50 countries that have been enslaved by Islam.)

This year we will mark the 10th anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting, when Omar Mateen — a Muslim Democrat — murdered 49 gay people and wounded 50 more. But in the ACLU’s response, the organization refused to mention Mateen’s name and indeed warned that his massacre of sexual minorities fit a “more politically convenient narrative fed by anti-Muslim fear and hate.”

What a reassuring thing to say to all the affected families in Orlando!

The ACLU is not an organization that subscribes to any kind of moral code. At best, it is a drive-by lawsuit factory. At worst, it is a legal arm of terrorists that openly welcomes foreign donations, which undermines American sovereignty. All the ACLU cares about is power — which, come to think of it, is something the group truly has in common with jihadists.

​Opinion & analysis, First amendment, Free speech, Virginia, Aclu, Religious freedom, Freedom of religion, Free exercise, American civil liberties union, Muhammad, Blasphemy, Hate crimes, Saddam azlan salim, Islamophobia, Law and order, Sharia law, Religious liberty 

I remember, as a boy, seeing strange, old-fashioned advertisements in the backs of comic books. These were the same ones that were printed on the little comic strips you found inside Bazooka bubble gum.

The advertisement was a three-panel cartoon: 1) A muscle-bound bully kicks sand on a skinny guy and his girl at the beach. 2) The humiliated skinny guy goes home and kicks a chair. 3) The skinny guy buys an exercise device, gets muscles, and then beats up the bully.

Like Charles Atlas before him, 20-year-old Clavicular has become a worldwide brand by embodying a new approach to male physical attractiveness.

That’s a popular story. So popular it never goes away. You see it in movies to this day. Man starts out weak. Gets humiliated. Isolates himself and works to improve. And ultimately returns and prevails over his enemies.

It’s a male fantasy. It’s the daydream of every 12-year-old boy. It’s the ultimate form of street justice.

And it almost never happens in real life. Even as a child, I understood that. But it was still a satisfying story. So much so that you could sell stuff with it. Especially to gullible boys.

In this way, Charles Atlas, the inventor of these cartoons and the seller of various body-building regimens, became a rich man.

But even with my child mind, I could tell it was a trick. Because 1) you’re pretty much stuck with the muscles you have. And 2) normal people don’t really care that much about muscles.

Gimme Shelter

By the time I was a teenager, the Charles Atlas era was over. By the late 1970s, male role models were people like Mick Jagger. Or movie stars like Jack Nicholson. These guys weren’t weighed down with muscles.

Even tough guys like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino were much stronger mentally than they were physically. These guys weren’t going to manhandle you with sheer strength. They were going to outsmart you.

The only interesting celebrity of my generation who was somewhat muscular might be Henry Rollins. Though he never had the steroid-infused definition of a true bodybuilder. Besides which, Rollins’ persona was never about being a strongman. It was more of a Nietzschean mental toughness. He was a “Whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” kind of guy.

And of course Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind. But in his case, he was a funny and talented actor. His muscles got him into the film business, where he really shone. Before that, most people regarded him as a freak. I know I did.

RELATED: ‘Looksmaxxing’ and the war on male self-improvement

Chris Delmas/Getty Images

The muscle-man always rings twice

Now, however, the ghost of Charles Atlas has returned. Young men are thinking about their muscles again. And it’s been going on for a while now.

It started with the “you just gotta lift” movement among young men. HR harassing you at work? Women won’t give you the time of day? Media portrays you as weak and ineffectual. You just gotta lift.

This began back in the 20-teens. Maybe the rise of Trump encouraged it. Guys feeling like they could be guys again. Or maybe in the face of decreasing prospects, guys were trying to hold on to their self-esteem.

Steroids and other medications might have added to the trend. Steroids continue to be popular with young males — both for sports and general appearance.

And then there’s the “going to the gym” trend. Both sexes participate in this. Some go to work out, others to socialize and mingle. It has become a place to make friends and find romance. And naturally, big muscles are big clout at the gym.

Enter the looksmaxxers

Now, after a decade of growing physique consciousness, a new generation has burst onto the scene. They call themselves looksmaxxers. And their point man is an internet streamer named Clavicular.

Like Charles Atlas before him, 20-year-old Clavicular has become a worldwide brand by embodying a new approach to male physical attractiveness.

He uses every means at his disposal: cosmetic, chemical, surgical, whatever it takes. There’s an entire science (or maybe pseudo-science) dedicated to this goal. Some aspects of which — “bonesmashing,” for instance—are quite alarming to contemplate.

Clavicular wasn’t the first to think of this. There is a whole community of looksmaxxers that he studied and learned from.

But like Charles Atlas before him, he has the charisma and business savvy to bring his movement to a larger public. At present, he is literally one of the most popular influencers in the world.

When he visits nightclubs or college campuses, Clavicular is mobbed by admirers and detractors. He believes that being (or appearing to be) tall, handsome, and muscular will literally change your life. Watching people mob him in public, it’s hard to disagree.

The beautiful and the damned

Young male conservatives have embraced Clavicular as their own. He has avoided any direct political alliances, but you can hear in his casual conversation echoes of the manosphere and contemporary conservative youth culture.

There are a lot of theories about the rise of looksmaxxing. Some believe it is the inevitable reaction to women reaching new heights in politics, business, media, and entertainment, while at the same time, men have lost ground.

Clavicular has said as much: In a world where the dating market has become increasingly exclusionary to all but the highest-status men, your average guy has to max out any advantage he has and enhance those advantages by any means necessary.

The great inversion

Like it or not, this is where we are. We’ve inverted traditional gender roles. Women, with their increasing access to status and power, are becoming more like men. And men, seeing their own possibilities diminished, are forced to exaggerate their physical attractiveness, like women.

It’s an interesting social experiment. But will the long-term effects be good for society? I kind of doubt it.

For the moment, Clavicular is affecting culture in ways that go beyond being good-looking or having big muscles. He has become a leader and spokesman for a whole generation of young men. Where he ultimately takes them remains to be seen.

​Charles atlas, Looksmaxxing, Clavicular, Lifestyle, Men and women, Dating, Physical fitness, Blake’s progress 

Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) released a new Senate campaign ad — and it’s about as vulgar as they come.

The ad features several Prairie State residents saying “F**k Trump; vote Juliana,” before Stratton says, “They said it, not me. I’m Juliana Stratton, and I’m proud to have lived my whole life on the South Side of Chicago. I’m not scared of a wannabe dictator. I’m running for Senate to stand up to Donald Trump. I’ll abolish ICE and hold Trump accountable for the crimes he’s committed.”

Stratton then concludes the ad by saying, “Just like they said, f**k Trump,” which is followed by a chorus of residents continuing to say “f*** Trump”

“This Juliana Stratton, the lieutenant governor for J.B. Pritzker, the lieutenant governor for the state of Illinois — she’s running for the Senate, and her campaign seems to be based on bashing Donald Trump in the most profane way possible,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock says on “Jason Whitlock Harmony.”

“It just seems bizarre. This woman is 60 years old. She’s got four kids,” he adds.

“I got secondhand embarrassment from looking at this, simply because this is a black woman, you know?” BlazeTV contributor Shemeka Michelle chimes in.

“I don’t think women have elevated the conversation at all, and I don’t think black women have elevated the political conversation. This was silly. What they brought is more delusion into the conversation,” she says.

“How can you be from the South Side of Chicago and make your focus Donald Trump?” she asks, noting that most of the shootings in Chicago take place on the South Side.

“It’s crazy because I see so many people from Chicago excited that ICE is there. Like I saw them complaining that the illegal immigrants had taken over community centers, that their children weren’t allowed to play in community centers any more,” she explains.

“So either she’s not listening to the people going out to vote, or she just doesn’t care. This is about her just trying to elevate her political platform, because your people don’t want illegal immigrants there,” she adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Free, Sharing, Camera phone, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Jason whitlock harmony, Fearless with jason whitlock, Fearless, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze media, Blaze podcast network, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Jb pritzker, Chicago illinois, Shemeka michelle, Jason whitlock, Juliana stratton, Democrats, Democratic party