EPA Met with Bayer CEO Before Supreme Court Push on Roundup Cancer Claims

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faced scrutiny this week as reports surfaced detailing a meeting last June between EPA Chief Lee Zeldin and Bayer CEO Bill Anderson, just months before the Trump administration took steps to bolster Bayer’s legal defense before the Supreme Court. The meeting, focused on litigation surrounding Bayer’s glyphosate-based herbicides – most notably Roundup – and potential Supreme Court action, raises questions about the extent of industry influence on regulatory decisions. This development comes as Bayer navigates billions of dollars in settlements and legal awards related to claims that Roundup causes cancer.

EPA Meeting Preceded Administration Support

Internal government records, including EPA visitor logs and internal emails, confirm the June 17 meeting took place as planned. Bayer’s team, led by Anderson and two other top executives, arrived at the EPA a little before 1 pm. According to a June 13 internal EPA email planning for the meeting, Bayer’s team was “going to bring up some legal/judicial issues,” and discussion topics were to include “Supreme Court Action.” The company would “give an update to the Administrator on where they stand in litigation and labeling options,” the planning email states. This meeting preceded a request from the Supreme Court for the Trump administration’s Justice Department to weigh in on whether or not the court should hear Bayer’s case.

Attending the meeting alongside Zeldin were Nancy Beck, formerly senior director at the American Chemistry Council and now the EPA’s principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention; Sean Donahue, confirmed last May as the EPA’s general counsel; and Turner Bridgforth, senior advisor for Agriculture & Rural Affairs Office of the Administrator at the EPA. Zeldin’s calendar confirms the meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes.

Concerns Over Industry Influence

The timing of the meeting and subsequent actions by the Trump administration have drawn criticism from environmental and consumer advocacy groups. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, stated, “It’s becoming abundantly clear that the political appointees at the EPA are more invested in protecting pesticide company profits than the health of Americans.” He added, “When the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world is meeting with political appointees in a U.S. Regulatory office, it shows just how much power and influence these corporations have on decisions that can have very real consequences for the health of all Americans.”

Bayer maintains that such meetings are “a normal part of the regulatory process” and that the company has been “transparent about our position on these topics.” They point out that interactions with regulatory agencies are not exclusive to registrant companies and that numerous other groups, including non-governmental organizations, also engage with the EPA. Bayer cited recent meetings between EPA leadership and members of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement as examples.

Trump Administration’s Support for Bayer

Since the June meeting, the Trump administration has taken several actions that appear to favor Bayer. In a December 1 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, appointed by the Trump administration, urged the court to hear Bayer’s case, and the court subsequently agreed. President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act on February 18, 2026, to protect the production of glyphosate herbicides and provide what the administration termed “immunity” for glyphosate makers like Bayer. This action was justified by citing glyphosate as a “cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.”

Bayer then filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court on February 23, citing Trump’s executive order. On March 2, Solicitor General Sauer filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, offering the full support of the U.S. Government to Bayer’s case, signed off on by the EPA’s Donahue.

The Glyphosate Litigation and Bayer’s Strategy

At the heart of the controversy is the ongoing litigation surrounding Roundup, Bayer’s glyphosate-based herbicide. Tens of thousands of plaintiffs allege they developed cancer as a result of Roundup exposure, claiming the company failed to adequately warn users of the potential health risks. Bayer’s key legal strategy centers on convincing the Supreme Court that if the EPA does not require a cancer warning on glyphosate products, the company cannot be held liable for failing to provide such a warning. While one appellate court has sided with Bayer, multiple others have rejected this argument, as did the U.S. Solicitor General under the Biden administration.

The financial stakes are high for Bayer, with settlements and jury verdicts already totaling billions of dollars. A favorable Supreme Court ruling could significantly limit the company’s liability and contain the ongoing litigation. Bayer has so far spent billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdict awards.

Dicamba Approval and Broader Concerns

The EPA’s support for Bayer extends beyond the glyphosate case. The agency also recently re-approved dicamba, another controversial herbicide sold by Bayer, despite its tendency to drift and damage non-target crops. This decision has raised further concerns about the influence of industry lobbying on regulatory decisions. Critics argue that the EPA is prioritizing corporate profits over public health and environmental protection.

Tracey Woodruff, professor at Stanford University, stated, “Rather than solve the corporate capture of regulatory agencies…this administration is doubling down on giving toxic industries more access and by installing former chemical and pesticide industry lobbyists to run EPA. It is a complete capture of the regulatory process that is supposed to protect health and the public will pay for it with higher rates of disease and death.”

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, echoed these concerns, stating that the meeting and subsequent actions by the government are “similar to a pattern” of industry influence on regulatory agencies. She noted that her organization had met with EPA leadership multiple times but had not seen similar responsiveness to their concerns.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the merits of Bayer’s case by June 2026.