By Michal Ruprecht, CNN

(CNN) — Supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” strategy have long railed against pesticides, making opposition to them a pillar of the movement.

But an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last week collides with that long-held stance.

The order states that glyphosate — an herbicide found in Roundup, the world’s most widely used weed killer — is “central to American economic and national security” and calls for an adequate domestic supply.

Glyphosate inhibits protein synthesis in plants and microorganisms, leading to their death. Scientists can genetically modify corn, soybeans and cotton — three field crops that account for the vast majority of glyphosate use in the United States — to choose which crops survive and which die after glyphosate treatment.

US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a key figure in the MAHA movement, has long opposed glyphosate-based pesticides. In 2018, as an attorney, Kennedy helped win a lawsuit alleging that maker Monsanto knew that Roundup caused cancer. He reiterated last month on Katie Miller’s podcast that “I believe glyphosate causes cancer.”

But Kennedy sounded a different tone.

“Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” the HHS chief said in a statement. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

The day before Trump’s order was announced, Monsanto’s owner, Bayer, proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve current and future claims alleging that the product causes cancer. The settlement would not include an admission of liability or wrongdoing, and Monsanto maintains that there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

“Experts and regulators worldwide have concluded that glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed,” the company states.

Moms Across America, a nonprofit that supports the MAHA agenda, has advocated for glyphosate bans and called the new executive order “outrageous,” saying it could shield Monsanto — the only domestic producer of glyphosate — from lawsuits over products sold in compliance with the order.

“I was outraged. I was actually sick to my st

By Ella Nilsen, CNN

(CNN) — Last week, the Trump administration delivered a catastrophic blow to US climate policy by repealing the longstanding scientific finding that planet-warming pollution poses a danger to humans.

Getting to this point was one of the administration’s most audacious deregulatory goals. But it doesn’t represent a complete success — yet. Now comes the years-long race through the courts to see if they really can pull off kneecapping the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating climate pollution ever again.

They are facing a phalanx of opponents. Last week, more than a dozen major environmental and public health groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Those organizations are setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Ironically, that’s the place this all began. In 2007, a major Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, found that greenhouse gases met the definition of an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA had the authority to regulate them. That ruling gave birth to the endangerment finding two years later.

Now, environmental legal experts say, the Trump administration is hoping a far more conservative court will undo it all. If they are ultimately successful, the administration can more easily overturn other rules that reduce climate pollution emitted from power plants and oil and gas operations — and make it much harder for a future administration to put the rules back in place.

“I think they’re certainly trying to get it to the Supreme Court,” said Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former climate official in the Obama White House. The five justices that ruled in the majority for Mass v. EPA in 2007 are no longer on the bench; the three who dissented — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts — are still there and have since been joined by three more conservatives.

“The Trump administration is doing math, and they think they might be able to get five votes for their arguments, even though they’re arguing really a rehash of the same kinds of things that were argued back then and lost,” Freeman said.

The lawsuit will first go before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where the process of getting a ruling could be lengthy.

“This will take a few years,” said Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at environmental legal group Earthjustice. “It’s going to be a relatively large, complicated piece of litigation, because there’s so many players involved.”

Asked for comment on the legal challenge, an EPA spokesperson said, “unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended — not as others might wish it to be.”

If the case winds up in front of the Supreme Court, and if its conservative justices side with the Trump administration, it’s game over for the EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Only Congressional action could restore it, Freeman and other experts said, and it is difficult to see a highly polarized Congress agreeing on a bipartisan climate change bill.

But it’s not even clear if this is what the oil companies want. Major industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute have not fought to kill the federal endangerment finding, because a patchwork of state laws could ultimately replace it — leading to legal headaches and a raft of nuisance lawsuits against them, experts said.

“What I think industry wants is a weak EPA with weak regulation; that probably is their sweet spot,” Freeman said. “But not pulling the endangerment rug out from under the Clean Air Act.”

EPA vs. environmental groups

The Trump EPA is relying on a series

By Alexandra Banner, CNN

The US government has to refund at least $134 billion in tariff revenue, which the Supreme Court ruled was collected illegally. You probably paid higher prices due to these tariffs, but unfortunately, you won’t get a slice of the refunds.

Here’s what else you need to know to get up to speed and on with your day.

1⃣ State of the Union

President Donald Trump will deliver the 2026 State of the Union address to the 119th Congress tonight at 9 p.m. ET. The primetime speech will allow Trump to outline his administration’s goals and accomplishments and to address the nation’s most pressing issues. It comes amid a particularly troublesome stretch for the president, as he faces numerous domestic and international challenges. In polling, Trump also remains deeply unpopular, battered by Americans’ anxiety over the cost of living and dissatisfaction with his approach to addressing it. A CNN poll released Monday shows his approval rating at just 36%, down from 48% last February.

2⃣ Bomb cyclone

The Northeast is reeling from a historic bomb cyclone that swept the region overnight Sunday and throughout Monday, dumping more than two feet of snow across several states. Dangerous conditions prompted multiple emergency declarations and travel bans as tens of millions of people under blizzard warnings hunkered down. Parts of the East Coast, including New York, Philadelphia, and Atlantic City, will briefly climb above freezing later today. But meteorologists caution that any melted snow is likely to refreeze after sunset, creating slick conditions through Wednesday morning.

3⃣ Mexico violence

Mexico is grappling with unrest after its military brought down its most wanted drug lord, Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes. He died after being wounded during a raid in Tapalpa on Sunday, triggering clashes that left dozens dead. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said authorities are now restoring “peace, security, and normalcy” after suspected gang members torched buses and businesses while confronting security forces. The US State Department advised on Monday that some areas of Mexico have “returned to normal,” but cautioned US citizens in Puerto Vallarta, Guadalajara, and Ciudad Guzman to continue sheltering in place.

4⃣ Nancy Guthrie

The masked person seen on the doorbell camera footage of Nancy Guthrie’s Arizona home the morning she is believed to have been kidnapped was also at her doorstep on another night, a source tells CNN, another clue in the exhaustive search for the mother of “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie. The 84-year-old disappeared from her secluded Tucson home after she was last seen on January 31. Local, state and federal law enforcement surged to the area and have spent over three weeks scouring the rugged desert landscape for Guthrie or any evidence that could bring her back home.

5⃣ Ukraine

Ukraine today is marking four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion, a somber milestone in a Read more

Por Jeanne Sahadi, CNN

El aumento de agentes federales de inmigración en Minnesota durante los últimos meses dejó a muchas personas no solo traumatizadas sino también en dificultades económicas.

Las personas perdieron ingresos porque tenían demasiado miedo de ir a trabajar o porque su sostén de familia fue secuestrado por agentes del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) o de la Patrulla Fronteriza de Aduanas (CBP). Los pequeños empresarios, a su vez, perdieron ingresos porque sus trabajadores y clientes no acudieron.

Solo en Minneapolis, el gobierno de la ciudad estima ahora que 76.000 residentes, o alrededor del 20 % de la población de la ciudad, tienen necesidades urgentes en términos de pérdida de salarios, inseguridad alimentaria e incapacidad para pagar el alquiler, entre otras cosas.

Grupos de ayuda mutua de voluntarios se han movilizado para colaborar con los vecinos que se refugian en sus casas con artículos esenciales para la vida.

Estos grupos no son organizaciones sin fines de lucro ni están formalmente organizados. En cambio, ofrecen asistencia entre pares, lo cual es más rápido y ágil que una organización sin fines de lucro o una fundación a la hora de brindar ayuda de emergencia tangible y específica.

“Pueden actuar más rápido porque están dirigidos por voluntarios y escuchan directamente a los vecinos que necesitan ayuda”, dijo Rachel Sayre, directora de gestión de emergencias de Minneapolis.

Sayre dijo que su asociación de vecinos efectivamente ha estado brindando ayuda mutua a los más vulnerables de su comunidad.

Hay tantos grupos de ayuda mutua de este tipo que es imposible contarlos.

StandWithMinnesota.com, un sitio que se creó una semana después de que Renee Good fuera asesinada por agentes de ICE, tiene como objetivo ser un recurso centralizado para las personas que quieren colaborar y enumera grupos de ayuda mutua, campañas de financiación colectiva y organizaciones sin fines de lucro que participan en esfuerzos de ayuda mutua sobre el terreno.

En conjunto, han recaudado cerca de US$ 20 millones, según su creadora, Ashley Fairbanks, exresidente de Minnesota. Fairbanks, consultora de comunicaciones para organizaciones sin fines de lucro y organizadora política, ha creado una nueva campaña, Keep MN Housed, para ayudar a familias con dificultades a pagar el alquiler y evitar el desalojo. (Solo en Minneapolis, el gobierno municipal estima que se necesitan casi US$ 16 millones en asistencia adicional para el alquiler debido a la pérdida de ingresos familiares como resultado del aumento de casos de ICE).

Mientras tanto, muchos negocios han emprendido sus propias iniciativas de ayuda mutua. “En cada cervecería, en cada cafetería. En todas partes”, dijo Sayre, señalando que las tiendas y restaurantes informaban a los clientes y transeúntes que estaban recolectando productos específicos en días específicos para distribuirlos a quienes los necesitaban.

Algunas organizaciones sin fines de lucro se han involucrado en brindar su propia asistencia directa en especie. La Asociación Hmong Americana (HAP, por sus siglas), por ejemplo, normalmente presta microcréditos a emprendedores Hmong, del sudeste asiático y refugiados inmigrantes, y ayuda a brindar vivienda, mano de obra y oportunidades comunitarias en el área metropolitana de Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

Durante el aumento, ICE instaló una tienda en su estacionamiento, que está ubicado cerca de muchos de los integrantes del grupo, dijo May yer Thao, presidente de HAP.

Entonces su organización dio un giro.

Decidió usar parte de su propio presupuesto para otorgar subvenciones de emergencia de entre US$2.500 y US$ 5.00

Análisis por Aaron Blake, CNN

En marzo de 2025, la comunidad de inteligencia estadounidense evaluó que Irán “no estaba construyendo un arma nuclear”.

Sin embargo, en junio, la administración Trump lanzó ataques aéreos contra el programa nuclear de Irán.

El Gobierno de Trump podría golpear militarmente nuevamente en cualquier momento a Irán por sus ambiciones nucleares, esta vez a pesar de que el propio presidente ha asegurado repetidamente que los bombardeos aéreos de junio habían “destruido” el programa del país persa.

Trump y su equipo rara vez se han preocupado por ofrecer razones consistentes para el uso de la fuerza militar.

Pero, de cara a una campaña potencialmente más extensa en Irán (de la que Trump probablemente hablará el martes por la noche en su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión), sus fracasos a la hora de construir un argumento coherente a favor de la guerra se están volviendo aún más notorios.

Trump y su administración se esforzaron al máximo para destacar el éxito de esos ataques de junio, de maneras que parecían ir mucho más allá de la evidencia disponible en ese momento. Y hoy, esas grandilocuentes afirmaciones de repente parecen un lastre.

En los últimos días, la administración ha citado repetidamente la potencial amenaza nuclear de Irán, al tiempo que ha planteado la posibilidad de utilizar su fuerza militar si Teherán no llega a un acuerdo.

“Nuestro principal interés aquí es que no queremos que Irán obtenga un arma nuclear”, declaró el vicepresidente J.D. Vance a Fox News la semana pasada.

“No pueden tener armas nucleares; es muy simple”, expresó Trump la semana pasada.

Y durante el fin de semana, el enviado especial de Trump, Steve Witkoff, sugirió que la amenaza nuclear de Irán era bastante inminente.

“Han estado enriqueciendo mucho más de lo necesario para la energía nuclear civil. Ha llegado al 60 %”, declaró Witkoff a Fox. “Probablemente estén a una semana de tener material para fabricar bombas de grado industrial, y eso es realmente peligroso”.

Pero si Irán realmente está tan cerca de tener material para fabricar bombas nucleares, eso representaría una recuperación verdaderamente milagrosa, al menos, en la medida en que se le crea a Trump.

Después de todo, hace apenas ocho meses Trump declaró que el programa nuclear iraní había sido “aniquilado”.

Inicialmente, Trump se limitó a decir que las instalaciones nucleares de Irán habían sido aniquiladas.

“Las principales instalaciones de enriquecimiento nuclear de Irán han sido completamente destruidas”, afirmó el día de la operación, el 21 de junio.

Incluso esa fue una respuesta extraña, dado a que los informes posteriores a la acción suelen tardar bastante.

No estaba claro cómo Trump pudo llegar a esta conclusión tan rápida y categóricamente. Y, de hecho, el jefe del Estado Mayor Conjunto, Dan Caine, ofreció una versión más circunspecta al día siguiente.

Pero Trump repitió la afirmación en redes sociales. Y el secretario de Defensa, Pete Hegseth, en sus propias declaraciones del 22 de junio, fue aún más lejos, declarando que no solo se destruyeron las instalaciones, sino también las ambiciones nucleares de Irán.

“Gracias al lideraz