Once prominent Make America Healthy Again supporters are turning their backs on Robert F. Kennedy after the Health and Human Services head walked back a major claim.
Though RFK Jr made it clear he would seek to outlaw glyphosate in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, his position has since softened. Donald Trump confirmed the chemical, most commonly found in weed killer, would still be used in food production. RFK Jr released a statement supporting this decision.
He said on February 18, "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."
A further statement from the Health and Human Services Press Secretary, Emily Hilliard, backed the use of the pesticide. Hilliard says a sudden removal of glyphosate would be "severe".
Shaughnessy Naughton, the president of the science-forward political action committee 314 Action, and a former chemist and drug researcher, believes RFK Jr's actions are unforgivable and that the Health Sec must stand down from his post.
Naughton told Salon, "It’s time for [Kennedy] to resign. I just feel like it is the ultimate betrayal. He sounds like he wrote the press release for Monsanto, and I think this is a big problem for the MAHA movement."
Dr. Lori Hoepner, an assistant professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at SUNY, also urged caution over the continued use of glyphosates in food production.
She said, "Low doses over time would be a concern that would need to be followed up on, because early life is a critical time period for exposures. As with almost every pesticide, there is a potential for neurodevelopmental outcomes.
"It could lead to poisoning. It really does depend on the amount that one is exposed to, and the frequency. These chemical companies don’t make just one product- they’re making things like weapon-grade chemicals.
"They’re making lots of different products from these key ingredients. If you’re limiting their ability to produce glyphosates, you’re limiting their ability to produce phosphorus and profit from it."
"Something has gone horribly wrong. All of those people, with some exceptions, were 'never Trumpers' in 2016," Fuentes said. "[Ben] Shapiro didn't vote for Trump in '16, Mark Levin was critical of Trump in 2016. Where were these people when the movement was actually born, when those pillars were in place? Now all of those people are in the center. The movement is something else now, and what we need in 2028, this is our last chance, we need in 2026 for this administration to be shut the f--- down."
"What does this administration do other than cover up the Epstein files, embezzle money through government contracts and bring us to war for Israel?" he added. "This administration needs to be shut down immediately."
Fuentes then advised his "groyper" followers to withhold their votes from Republican candidates or even back Democratic candidates in November in protest of the Iran war.
"Do not vote in the midterms, and if you do, vote Democrat," Fuentes said. "F--- this. That is what the Republicans deliver. That is what our golden age looks like. The tariffs were refunded, the deportations were stopped. They wound down and withdrew the ICE from Minneapolis. What does this administration do other than embezzle money, go to war with Iran and bury the Epstein files – oh, and blackmail Harvard so they police antisemitism and ban people who criticize Israel from being in American."
"This administration needs to be shut down immediately," he added. "It has forfeited its mandate. They promised no new wars, they promised mass deportations and America first, and we're not getting any of it. So shut it down. In 2026, shut it down, and our only hope is that in 2028 in the Republican primary somebody will emerge who will actually put America first."
Trump has positioned Vice President JD Vance as his preferred successor, although Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also been floated as an heir to his MAGA movement, but Fuentes explicitly rejected both of them.
"I am not voting for the vice president and the secretary of state that brought us to war in Iran,," he said. "I won't do it – 2026, shut it down. You've to to burn the house down with them inside, metaphorically, and in '28 you better hope somebody has a prayer to run the Trump strategy and do another hostile takeover of the GOP. Otherwise, I'm going to become a Democrat, like, at that point, rather than be beholden to this country."
"That is our last chance," he added. "[In the] '28 Republican primary, we need a Trumpian figure to relight the candles. Someone needs to take the flame and take it further than Trump. He needs to take the baton and take it further and fulfill America first. That is the only way out of this at this point. Anyone that is not on this is not serious. The only takeaway that I have on all of these events, you are not pressuring this administration. All of these people told us, if Trump takes us to war in Iran, we'll just tweet about it. Yeah, well that's not really working, is it?"
CONTINUE READINGShow less
In his Substack, Krugman pointed out two reasons people should be more worried about the economic volatility that may follow a strike on Iran.
He wrote, "Yet there are, as I see it, at least two reasons — in addition to the threat to shipping — to be more worried about a war in the Middle East than we would have been decades ago.
"First is financial fragility. In 1979, the U.S. financial system was still highly regulated, so that there was little room for serious bank runs and other disruptions. Today, many observers have been warning about potential risks to financial stability, most urgently from private credit. Could the Iran war trigger a broader financial crisis? I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem alarmist to be worried.
"Also, might the war burst a market bubble? The next-to-last line in the table shows the price-earnings ratio for the S&P 500, which was low in 1978 but is very high now. Will those high valuations be sustainable if the fallout from the war causes significant economic damage?"
The Middle East's growing importance in the world economy is also a concern for Krugman, who believes strikes against Iran and subsequent retaliatory strikes on neighboring nations could affect the economy further.
He wrote, "Finally, one point I haven’t seen many observers emphasize is that the modern Middle East now plays an important role in the world economy that goes beyond its status as a major source of oil. Dubai in particular is an important node in the global financial system, as well as playing host to many extremely rich people who thought they had found a safe haven.
"One indicator of that changing status is the transformation of Dubai International Airport into one of the world’s most important travel hubs. To the extent that the war disrupts this new role for the region, that will be another risk to the world economy."
CONTINUE READINGShow less
With regard to Iran, he suggested the invaded country in some ways may have the upper hand since the US has military needs all over the world.
“The last thing I'd talk about is the president, when he was talking to the New York Times last night, talked about the amount of munitions that are being used; 2000 strikes as of this morning,” he told co-host Joe Scarborough. “About that number, precision weaponry used in all of them, defensive systems like the Patriot missiles and the THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] batteries that are protecting various Gulf states and soldiers in the regions have very expensive missiles that they shoot.”
“Those can only last so long, he cautioned. “And as we've said, the intel estimates say that Iran has anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 missiles that they can launch. You can only shoot them down with so many defensive weapons.”
“So the dynamics of expenditure gets into something called battlefield math,” he elaborated. “And somebody at the Pentagon is now concluding, where are we taking risk around other places in the world? I know they're doing that in the Pentagon, because that used to be my job when we were in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000’s.”
- YouTube youtu.be
CONTINUE READINGShow less
