In a year marked by sweeping changes to America’s food policy, the Trump administration has taken bold—and at times controversial—steps to reshape the nation’s approach to nutrition, agriculture, and environmental regulation. Over the past several months, a series of high-profile moves have ignited fierce debate among policymakers, industry leaders, and grassroots activists, revealing deep divisions within the president’s own political coalition.
On December 8, 2025, President Donald Trump, flanked by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and other top officials, announced a $12 billion farm aid program designed to soften the economic blow to U.S. farmers caused by his administration’s trade policies. According to Grist, more than 92 percent of the bailout is earmarked for major commodity farms—those growing corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, wheat, and soybeans—while just $1 billion is set aside for farmers who produce other crops. When those payments will be made available remains uncertain. This move comes on the heels of a near-record $40 billion in farm subsidies allocated this year, with at least two-thirds of those funds flowing to commodity farms.
But the administration’s support for Big Agriculture hasn’t stopped at subsidies. As Grist reports, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, has softened chemical regulations—particularly those governing pesticides. The agency has approved five pesticides containing PFAS, or so-called “forever chemicals,” for use on commodity crops such as canola, corn, soybeans, and wheat. The EPA defends these approvals by using a narrow definition of PFAS, excluding chemicals with single fluorinated carbons, despite international definitions to the contrary. This has alarmed environmentalists and public health experts, who warn that these chemicals persist in the environment and are linked to a range of harmful health conditions.
Adding to the controversy, the EPA plans to forgo cumulative risk assessments for these pesticides, a move confirmed by a review of agency documents by Grist. This decision has drawn concern from a former EPA staffer, who told Grist that the agency’s focus on streamlining new approvals comes at the expense of reevaluating older, potentially hazardous pesticides still in widespread use. The staffer warned that without cumulative risk assessments, the EPA will have a limited understanding of how these new chemicals might interact with existing ones—potentially increasing risks to both human health and the environment.
In response to mounting criticism, an EPA spokesperson insisted that the agency’s actions are in “full compliance” with federal law, stating, “The administrator made clear that protecting American families remains the top priority—ensuring that EVERY approved pesticide undergoes thorough gold-standard scientific safety evaluations and poses no health risks when used as directed, with NO exceptions. Period.” The spokesperson further claimed, “The Trump EPA has not approved any pesticides containing PFAS. This is basic chemistry. And it’s not just us saying this—in fact, it was the Biden EPA that officially ruled single fluorinated compounds are NOT PFAS or ‘forever chemicals.’”
Despite these assurances, the administration’s actions have sparked a feud within the right-wing political sphere—particularly among supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. During the 2024 campaign, both Trump and Kennedy promised to crack down on dangerous pesticides and reduce industry influence within the federal government. This message resonated with a broad swath of voters, from health-conscious parents to vaccine skeptics, all eager for a cleaner, safer food system.
Yet, after taking office, the administration’s policies shifted. The appointment of Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist, to help lead the EPA’s chemicals office, and the hiring of Kyle Kunkler, a former American Soybean Board lobbyist, to oversee pesticide policy, have fueled accusations that the agency is prioritizing corporate interests over public health. According to Grist, the EPA has also altered reporting requirements for PFAS chemicals, weakened endangered species protections to permit more pesticide use, and proposed reinstating pesticides like dicamba—previously vacated by federal courts despite links to cancer and ecosystem damage.
The growing frustration among MAHA supporters came to a head in November 2025, when the EPA rapidly approved several of the controversial PFAS pesticides. Nearly three weeks before December 15, a group of MAHA leaders and activists launched a petition urging Trump to fire Zeldin, accusing him of “prioritizing the interests of chemical corporations over the well-being of American families and children.” The petition, which quickly garnered more than 8,000 signatures, warned, “These chemicals, now being released into our food and water supplies, pose serious threats to both present and future generations.”
Kelly Ryerson, one of the petition’s organizers, told Grist, “A key part of the MAHA agenda is removing corporate interests from our regulators. If anything, the EPA is significantly worse off in this administration than it was during the Biden administration. And that is something that really frustrates tons and tons of voters that came along with this promise.” Ryerson praised Kennedy, Rollins, and Trump for other initiatives, such as the $700 million pilot program announced on December 10, 2025, to support regenerative agriculture—citing it as evidence of the administration’s commitment to cleaning up the nation’s food system. Still, she acknowledged the outsized influence of factory farming, saying, “Factory farming has dominated agriculture, and we all know it’s a really inconvenient fact, but we all know that it’s killed our soil.”
Meanwhile, the administration has moved aggressively on another front: restricting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase junk food. Eighteen states have now agreed to prohibit SNAP recipients from buying unhealthy foods, with the ban set to take effect in 2026. According to the USDA, Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee joined twelve other states—Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia—in submitting waivers to amend the statutory definition of “food for purchase” under SNAP.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy praised the states for their embrace of the MAHA movement, stating, “Thank you to the 18 governors who are leading the charge on SNAP reform to restore the health of Americans—especially our kids. Their courageous leadership is exactly what we need to Make America Healthy Again. We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create.”
Agriculture Secretary Rollins echoed Kennedy’s sentiment, highlighting the MAHA initiative as a historic step to reverse chronic disease: “President Trump has made it clear: we are restoring SNAP to its true purpose – nutrition. Under the MAHA initiative, we are taking bold, historic steps to reverse the chronic disease epidemic that has taken root in this country for far too long. America’s governors are answering that call with courage and innovation, offering solutions that honor the generosity of the taxpayer while helping families live longer, healthier lives.”
Governors from states adopting the SNAP reforms have also voiced their support. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin said, “We all recognize that better nutrition is a critical step to making Virginia the strongest she’s ever been.” Tennessee Governor Bill Lee added, “The Trump administration’s leadership to create innovative, responsible solutions that strengthen families and improve health outcomes will have a lasting impact on Tennesseans for generations to come.”
As the administration continues to champion both nutrition reforms and industrial agriculture, the tensions between public health advocates, Big Ag supporters, and government regulators remain as sharp as ever. The coming year may well determine whether these ambitious—and often conflicting—initiatives can coexist, or whether the pressure from grassroots movements like MAHA will force a reckoning at the highest levels of American food policy.
