The Highwire with Del Bigtree - BACKLASH BUILDS OVER GLYPHOSATE MOVE

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

A new executive order aimed at ensuring an “adequate supply” of glyphosate-based herbicides is drawing backlash from MAHA leaders—who say it echoes the 1986 liability shield created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They argue the move functions as a protection plan for manufacturers while limiting public recourse, and warn it could be a lobbyist-driven push to expand legal immunity for chemical companies. With public pressure now building, MAHA voices are urging viewers to mobilize—before glyphosate follows the same path vaccines did.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

This is a firestorm moment, though, and it has arcs and tentacles throughout our entire genetic memory in America when we're searching for justice when it comes to the poisoning of our children and our families and our communities. And I want to paint a picture here because we've been down this road before, and I hope everyone pays attention. So I want to look at New York Times. This was just this December, just almost a couple months ago here. And New York Times wrote this article and they said the war over a weed killer might be headed to the Supreme Court. Well, we know it is now in the Supreme Court, but it quotes the CEO of Barron here. And he says this, the stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy. So he's saying this Supreme Court case, these lawsuits are threatening the tools of farmers

in the very economic viability of the United States. So I want to say this arc of justice has a long memory, and we've been down this road before. Lobbyists have stabbed American children and families in the back when it came to their health before, and it looked like this. In 1984, early 80s, we had headlines that looked really similar to what I just read you. Look at this one, 1984. Fear of lawsuits prompts DPT vaccine shortage and rationing. They're saying all these lawsuits, these vaccine men, manufacturers are receiving, we may have vaccine shortage, we have to ration vaccines,

there's going to be outbreaks. Here's another one, same time frame. Vaccine liability threatens supplies. Well, I want to take the executive order Trump just signed last week on glyphosate. Look at the wording. It's the exact same thing, the same wording, ensuring an adequate supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, and the chemical manufacturers want legal immunity from the harms their products cause. We've seen this before. It was 1986. Ronald Reagan was the president, and this is the bill he

signed. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. You go into this bill and it says this, provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death resulting from unavoidable side effects. These shots are unavoidably unsafe, but the government and the manufacturers, they're not going to be held liable. And then, Jeffrey, just to that point, and this is so critical, right? You know, the art of war, know your enemy, know their strategy. We've seen this strategy, so we know how this playbook has been written. But just that point, that they know they are unavoidably unsafe there,

that they have known side effects. But after signing that bill, did our government go out and start giving us informed consent, saying just so you know, some of your kids are going to be maimed and injured by this product? No, they went on a campaign after giving liability protection to lie to the American people and go with a slogan, safe and effective, safe and effective. And if anybody questioned safety, which Ronald Reagan and that bill says right there, it is not perfectly safe for everybody. This will destroy lives.

And for that reason, we're giving liability protection. Then they should have been honest with the American people and saying, this product is not perfectly safe. There are going to be lives destroyed by this. And instead, every doctor, every scientist, every government official since that moment has been gaslighting America and lying to us and frankly around the world saying, totally safe, anybody that questions it's a lunatic. Really?

Because we gave you liability protection because it's not safe for everybody. And this industry operation is happening again right now on our watch. And it's important to learn from the people and the parents and the mothers that were there in 1986 and in the early 80s who went through that fight. One of them is Barbara Lowe Fisher, the head of NVIC, the National Vaccine Information Center. Here's what she had to say about that time. Take a listen. Okay. They say, we're going to leave the country without any vaccine. And the Congress said, we've got to protect the vaccine supply in this country.

And they said to Jeff, you can come to the table and fight for what you think the parents and the children should get. Or you cannot come to the table. But we're going to pass this legislation to protect the vaccine supply. And we're going to do it with or without you. So we said, we'll come to the table. But there is three things. We will never agree to complete liability protection for doctors or for manufacturing. Number two, if you're going to protect the vaccine supply, you have to protect the children by safety provisions.

Safety provisions have to be part of this law. Equal emphasis. And the third, because they immediately went to a federal compensation program. We said if there's going to be a federal compensation program, it has to be an alternative to a lawsuit. In other words, parents can choose to either go to court or they can choose to get compensation. We understood they couldn't do both. Amazing when you look at that. And I think those are, you know, we really need to think about what she just said. There was basically three provisions. Not one of those provisions ended up holding up. They wanted there still to be the right to sue outside of vaccine court. That ended up being taken away. It was the only way forward. All the safety measures disappeared, which was the heart of the lawsuits that started the informed consent action network. As you know,

Those were the first lawsuits against FDA, CDC, NIH. We proved they never did the safety measures. They never put forward the task force that was supposed to improve these products. Nothing happened. There was no improvement of the product, just a total gaslighting of America and the poisoning of America and a ramp up of the amount of vaccines that were then forced on our kids through mandate. It actually increased the toxic level into our children. And so I think as we look at this right now, let's not make the same mistake.

I think Vani Harri is right. We're not going to send five parents in to negotiate some part of this that'll be okay for America. We're going to stand as one loud body as we should have back in 1986 outside the halls of justice. I think we have to stand up, shout, and make sure that our voices are heard that we are not going to accept this here in this country. Adele, this goes beyond glyphosate. So right now, lobbyists are leveraging the midterms to drive a wedge between Trump and the Maha-focused agenda that Kennedy brought in, that really propelled Trump into the president. without Kennedy, clearly Trump would not be sitting as a president right now. And this is no clearer than in this political article from just a couple days ago,

and listen to this, it's literally framed by lobbyists, the entire articles of victory lap by the lobbyists. It's titled, RFK Jr.'s' days of going wild on health may be over. They say this about RFK Jr. For Washington lobbyists, the move was an early glimpse of how midterm realities are forcing the administration to shift away from Kennedy's answer vaccine and anti-chemical plans. Instead, the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries he's long targeted are breathing a sigh of relief as the White House signals is raiding in Kennedy's attacks on their products and tasking him with touting healthy eating in the President Trump's efforts to cut drug prices and deals. Kennedy's not there and Trump are not there so lobbyists can breathe a sigh of

relief. But I want to go on. And then it goes on and say they actually get quotes from lobbyists. So they're running circles and victory laps in this thing. This guy says, picking on farmers. Now they're talking about trying to get this harmful chemical glyphosate out of our food supply, trying to get the lawsuits that and get people that were damaged by this to make sure they don't have immunity to keep doing this. This is what they say picking on farmers. That's how they frame that. That's the base of your party, said Sam Goldig, managing partner at CGCN, a Republican lobbying shop that has worked for food maker Kraft Heinz. You don't

want to mess with that before an election. So that's That's the kind of conversation Trump's getting in his ear. But then it goes on to say this. Drug makers and manufacturers of chemicals, including pesticides, are some of the biggest spenders in Washington, typically outpacing food makers. The pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America, which represents brand name drug makers,

spent nearly 38 million on lobbying last year. It's highest on record, the American Chemical Council, meanwhile spent almost 19 million last year. These are not mom and pop farmers. This isn't your local person at, you're down the road, selling you eggs. These are big ag. This is the biggest of the biggest of chemical manufacturers, big pharma manufacturers. They're attempting to essentially bubble wrap Washington at this

point and the president and insulate him from the American people and the MAHA focused. So when we talk about polls, the midterms are coming right around the corner and there's a lot of polling you're going to see out there right now. And so they're trying to get the pulse check of the American public and also influence the elections at the state levels. Here's one of them that's coming up and they can be deceptive. Polling agencies should be unbiased. Listen to this polling agency. This is the intro before they even present the data that they pulled from.

They say this. In the districts that will decide the control of the House of Representatives next year, Republican and Democrat candidates who support eliminating longstanding vaccine requirements will pay a price in the election. Goes on to say vaccine skepticism is bad politics. All right, well, so much for unbiased. Let's look at their questions they're asking. the respondents, the respondents were asked, what do you think about this?

Please tell us whether you agree or not. Do vaccines save lives? They also say vaccines are the best defense against many infectious diseases. There's no nuance there. There's no room for maybe they save lives sometimes, but what about safety? We'd like to see more safety. We wouldn't like mandates. We don't like those things.

No room for nuance. So these are crafted. These polls are crafted. But at the same time, we really know which way is going. Despite the media trying to divide us, despite lobbyists trying to paint pictures or polling companies trying to pay pictures, America is actually more united than they try to tell us that we are. So here is a 2025 Gallup poll going right into this year. And it talks, they're asked what your view of business sectors in the U.S. are.

And you can see a list of business sectors there. Look at the bottom. Pharmaceutical industry and the federal government, least favored businesses, in the negatives. And that, clearly federal governments in Washington, and they're being assaulted by pharmaceutical lobbyists. This is not America. This is not the American people, what they wanted. And now let's continue.

This is a Brownstone Institute article by Jeffrey Tucker. What the polls say about the pharmaceutical industry in vaccines. And you can see there it starts right out. Public confidence, here's another way of putting it. In key U.S. institutions, you can see pharma right there down from the year 2000, 60 percent of people love big pharma. Now it's 28% in 2025 compared to other industries. But now let's go to some real polling.

Here is a poll that everyone should pay attention to. This green, the green spot right there, represents giving families a choice. People said families should have a choice when they respond to this in their vaccination decisions. You average that across. That's across the entire political spectrum, independent, Republican, Democrat. Average that across is almost 50% say that, that they want that. And then if you look at the red, the red tells you basically that vaccines are unsafe. You average that across, it's about 8 or 9 percent across the spectrum. Just straight-up vaccines

are unsafe. But here's the real slam dunk, the home run, the closest to a sure thing in an uncertain political environment, this is the poll everyone should be looking at. It crosses all party lines, the opposition to giving vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity. Just how we started this section. There's the red. Across the board, you average all that together, across the entire political spectrum. You're looking at high 70 something percent. Everyone wants this immunity gone from vaccine manufacturers.

So why would we put it on pesticide makers? Why would we allow them to have that if this is so unpopular? But it doesn't just stop there. The only way is if we don't make our voices known, right? And look, I am into issues in this country. I really have said I'm politically marooned. I still am politically marooned, but I see a president right now that is vulnerable to public opinion That actually cares about public opinion and I think he's getting some bad polling from you know

Not public opinion but lobby opinion I think we all need to make our voices known I think the best thing you can do if you believe you're a part of maha Is to say you're absolutely not happy with this and not being represented and this could affect your vote That we want to see a different we want to see a different outcome here. We want to see a different strategy towards our farming practices. We would love to see massive investment into regenerative farming practices and teaching tools for farms. I think we all care about farmers. You know, it's not necessarily their fault that they've been manipulated, manipulate over years and really made to be addicted to this product and its weed killing, you know, properties. When there's all sorts of new

technologies, there's lasers that kill weeds and bugs and all of it. Why aren't we modernizing like that? We're going to have AI take over the world, but we can't have some robots go out to clean up the weeds. Come on, President Trump, let's get on this. And the lobbyists, my message, the lobbyists will speak for you if you don't speak for yourself. Amen. And that's at the federal level and that's at the state level. So I present this not to demoralize, but to show people that it's time to get involved. It's really time to stand up and do this, whether it's phone calls, emails, however you want to activate. Because it's not just glyphosate, it's not just vaccines. Lobbyists are already rolling back what we report

it as Maha victories in the past. So in 2025, I want to show this article here. Trump moves to tighten rules on risky research on viruses. So we put it in executive order together basically to end risky gain of function research. That was a celebration. And right after he did that, you had the National Institutes of Health. They already began terminating networks aimed at stopping these pandemics before they start. They tried to frame it as a bad thing. This is the Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Disease. This was a Tony Fauci-led initiative. This is This is an initiative that gave Peter Dazic, EcoHealth Alliance grants. Christian Anderson, he's part of the authors of the Proximal Origins saying, no way this virus

came out of a lab, but in private emails as we've shown, we're saying, oh, it looks like this might have. These are the people that were getting the grants from this. Trump, Kennedy, they shut that down, NIH shut that down. Here's the new article, the most recent article. Congress forces NIH to reverse policy, continue funding Fauci's unsafe infectious disease centers and it says this in the article university lobbyists have struck back managing a slip language into managing to slip language into the congressional appropriations bill that forces the n a h to spend 18.2 million

to fund creed centers once again it doesn't just stop there gavi the vaccine alliance started by funded seed funding by bill gates we celebrated this when it happened the vaccine alliance has its billion dollar grant cut by trump administration now he's Here's the more recent headline. US Congress backs Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, despite Trump administration cuts. And it's now slipping a rider in a foreign assistance bill. And you can read the language for yourself right here.

And how much does it carve out for Gavi? Well, a total of over $3.5 billion. You can see that number right there for Gavi and other initiatives. These are lobbyists at work. This is how it's done. They slip things into bills. And they basically do this outside of the view of American people, unless journalists spotlight

and people try to activate in Washington at the state level and say, do not do this. These are victories that we voted for. Do not reverse these. Amen, huge, huge importance there. And again, we're waiting for journalists that are funded by Bear, Monsanto, Moderna, Sonofi Aventis. That's why your work is so important, Jeffrey, and the work that we're doing here, because obviously we're not getting any money from any of those people. Really, you know, unbelievable moment.