* President Trump’s executive order invokes the Defense Production Act to classify glyphosate-based herbicides as essential for national defense, shielding producers like Bayer from most civil lawsuits and ramping up domestic production.

* The move is framed as protecting America’s food supply chain by preventing immediate disruptions to farmers heavily dependent on glyphosate for high-yield crops such as corn and soybeans.

* Decades of federal policy have locked U.S. agriculture into a chemical-dependent model, making abrupt restrictions potentially devastating to many operations and food prices.

* Widespread glyphosate exposure is documented: over 80% of Americans aged six and older show detectable levels in urine, with higher concentrations found in pregnant women and children.

* Scientific studies link the chemical to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (already the basis for billions in Bayer settlements) as well as emerging evidence of gut issues, obesity, diabetes, neurological disorders, and rising autism rates.

* The order directly contradicts core promises of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which pledged to reduce exposure to harmful pesticides as part of addressing the chronic disease epidemic.

* Kennedy defends the action as a temporary bridge, arguing a sudden ban would bankrupt farmers and destabilize food production, while he promotes a gradual shift to regenerative agriculture, organic methods, and non-chemical weed control technologies.

* Critics view the immunity provision as a betrayal that rewards corporate interests after years of litigation exposed industry awareness of risks, echoing historical patterns seen with tobacco and opioids.

* A genuine path forward requires shifting subsidies toward soil-regenerating, chemical-free farming, investing in biological and precision alternatives, and setting firm timelines for phasing out glyphosate dependency.

* Without enforceable reforms, the order risks undermining public trust in MAHA and perpetuating a system that prioritizes short-term agricultural output over the long-term health of American families.

President Trump’s recent executive order shielding glyphosate producers from legal accountability might seem like a pragmatic win for American agriculture, but it’s a dangerous concession that prioritizes short-term food output over the long-term health of the nation. By invoking the Defense Production Act to declare this controversial herbicide essential for national security, the administration has handed a get-out-of-jail-free card to companies like Bayer, even as mounting evidence links glyphosate to a host of chronic illnesses.

Farmers may breathe a sigh of relief, avoiding immediate disruptions to their operations, but the rest of us are left wondering: at what cost to our families and future generations?

The order, titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides,” draws on a 1950 law originally designed for wartime mobilization. It classifies glyphosate— the key ingredient in Roundup—as a critical material, ramping up domestic production while granting immunity from lawsuits under Section 707.

This move comes amid ongoing litigation where Bayer has already shelled out billions for claims tying Roundup to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, with tens of thousands of cases still pending in federal court. Trump’s rationale centers on safeguarding the food supply chain, arguing that abrupt restrictions could cripple farms reliant on these chemicals for high-yield crops like corn and soy.

For decades, U.S. agricultural policy has funneled subsidies and incentives toward industrial-scale farming, creating a system where glyphosate is indispensable. Genetically modified “Roundup Ready” seeds allow farmers to douse fields with the herbicide, killing weeds without harming crops. Without it, many operations could falter, leading to potential shortages and higher food prices.

Supporters of the order point out that this isn’t just about profits; it’s about maintaining America’s food independence in an era of global uncertainties. Yet, this dependency didn’t happen overnight—it’s the result of policies that favored quantity over quality, locking growers into a chemical treadmill.

The health toll tells a different story. Since its introduction in 1974, over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate have been applied in the U.S., accounting for about 20 percent of global usage. Studies show it’s pervasive: more than 80 percent of Americans over age six have detectable levels in their urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Recent data reveals even higher concentrations in pregnant women and children, with the chemical crossing the placental barrier and appearing in cord blood. Links to cancer are well-documented, but emerging research suggests connections to gut dysfunction, obesity, diabetes, neurological disorders, and even autism, where rates have skyrocketed in recent years.

This executive action clashes head-on with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, a cornerstone of Trump’s return to the White House. Led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services, MAHA promised to tackle the root causes of America’s chronic disease epidemic, including phasing out harmful pesticides. Kennedy, a longtime critic of glyphosate, has built his career exposing corporate influences in public health. His involvement was key to mobilizing health-conscious voters, yet now he finds himself defending the order as a necessary bridge to reform.

Kennedy argues that a sudden ban would destabilize the food supply, insisting the transition must be gradual. “Pesticides and herbicides are toxic by design, engineered to kill living organisms,” he stated in a recent press briefing. “America must move away from its reliance on them, but we can’t risk farmers going out of business overnight.”

He highlights alternatives like regenerative agriculture—practices that restore soil health without chemicals—and innovative technologies such as laser-based weed control. While these sound promising, the order’s immunity clause raises alarms: it allows producers to continue operations unchecked, potentially delaying real change for years.

Critics see this as a outright betrayal, handing glyphosate makers a license to profit from harm after decades of lobbying Washington. The immunity isn’t just symbolic; it shields companies from accountability at a time when lawsuits are forcing transparency. Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto in 2018 brought a wave of legal battles, revealing internal documents that showed awareness of risks. By framing this as national defense, the administration sidesteps these realities, echoing past instances where industry interests trumped public welfare. It’s a pattern we’ve seen before, from tobacco to opioids, where short-term economic arguments masked long-term devastation.

What’s needed is a clear exit ramp from this toxic dependency. Regenerative farming models, proven by pioneers like Joel Salatin, show that diverse, chemical-free operations can yield abundant food while rebuilding ecosystems. Government incentives should shift toward organic practices, offering subsidies for soil restoration and non-GMO seeds. Research into biological pest controls and precision agriculture could accelerate the pivot, ensuring farmers thrive without poisoning the land—or the people who eat from it. Kennedy vows progress, but without enforceable timelines, skepticism grows.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. America’s chronic disease crisis costs trillions annually, burdening families and straining healthcare. If MAHA is to succeed, it must confront these entrenched systems head-on, not grant them reprieve. President Trump’s order may buy time for agriculture, but it risks eroding trust in a movement built on promises of real healing. Farmers deserve support, yet not at the expense of the nation’s vitality. It’s time to chart a path where prosperity and health align, before another generation pays the price.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedunderground.substack.com

* Prince Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince and leading voice of Iran’s democratic opposition, declared the Islamic Republic regime is “on its last leg and about to collapse” due to a deepening economic crisis intensified by sanctions.

* Pahlavi stated this is the most favorable moment in decades for regime change, urging the West to apply “maximum pressure on the regime” while giving “maximum support to the Iranian people.”

* He warned against throwing the regime any more “lifelines,” calling it “disingenuous and dishonest” and insisting Western leaders must trust the Iranian people instead.

* Pahlavi revealed plans for an “Iran Prosperity Project” that would reopen the country to Western investment and generate more than $1 trillion in revenue for the American market in the first 10-15 years after regime change.

* He highlighted unprecedented unity among Iranians, with ongoing nationwide protests and demonstrations signaling the regime has lost the consent of the governed.

* The crown prince predicted mass defections from regime elements once the tipping point is reached, paving the way for a smooth transition to a secular democracy.

* He framed the stakes clearly: a collapsing theocracy aligned with Russia, China, and terror proxies versus a free Iran that could become a prosperous Western partner.

* Pahlavi’s message is blunt: push the regime “over the cliff” because it is already falling—no more negotiations that only buy the mullahs time.

For 46 years the ayatollahs have strangled Iran with their medieval theocracy, exported terror across the Middle East, and screamed “Death to America” while their people starved. Today, the man who should have been Shah of Iran says the nightmare is almost over.

In a powerful interview with Fox Business, Prince Reza Pahlavi delivered a message many Americans have waited decades to hear: the Islamic Republic is “on its last leg and about to collapse.” The combination of crushing economic sanctions and the Iranian people’s unbreakable will has the regime teetering on the edge.

“This is a moment in time where the circumstances are the most favorable for this to happen,” Pahlavi declared. He is not asking for American boots on the ground. He is asking America to stop propping up evil.

The crown prince’s prescription is simple, tough, and refreshingly Reaganite: maximum pressure on the regime paired with maximum support for the Iranian people. No more Obama-style cash pallets. No more Biden-era appeasement. No more “deals” that only enrich the mullahs and their terror proxies.

Pahlavi was crystal clear: “Your best bet is to trust the Iranian people and not trust more this regime… Just push the regime over the cliff, because it’s on its way down, and not throw it yet again another lifeline.”

He also unveiled the “Iran Prosperity Project”—a post-regime blueprint to flood Iran with Western investment and turn a former enemy into a booming market. His projection? Over one trillion dollars in new revenue for American businesses in the first decade and a half. That’s not foreign aid; that’s smart power. That’s jobs for Americans and freedom for Iranians.

For too long, Washington’s foreign-policy class has treated the Iranian people as an afterthought while cutting deals with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Prince Pahlavi is flipping the script: the Iranian people are ready, they are unified, and they are finished with the mullahs.

Nationwide protests continue despite brutal crackdowns. The economy is in freefall. The regime’s own enforcers are losing faith. The only thing keeping the Islamic Republic alive is the hope that weak Western leaders will once again blink and offer another lifeline.

Patriots have always understood that peace through strength works. Ronald Reagan didn’t negotiate with the Soviet Union from a position of weakness—he bankrupted it. The same principle applies to the ayatollahs. Starve the regime of money, legitimacy, and time. Stand unequivocally with the Iranian people. The reward will be a secular, democratic Iran that no longer threatens Israel, funds Hamas and Hezbollah, or races toward nuclear weapons.

The window is open right now. Prince Reza Pahlavi has given the West a clear roadmap. The only question left is whether Washington will finally have the courage to follow it.

The mullahs’ days are numbered. Let’s make sure America doesn’t spend its last breath trying to save them.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedunderground.substack.com

There's a difference between depending on someone and being dependent. As humans, we should be able to depend on the people around us to help us when we need, just as they should be able to depend on us when we are needed. There's nothing wrong with depending on family and friends. Even our neighbors can be benefits to us just as we should be benefits to them. That's part of the American way and it's part of being human.

There are times when we should be able to depend on our communities as well. In times of major strife, being able to turn to the local community, our church, or local organizations can be true blessings when we need them the most.

With family, friends, neighbors, churches, and our communities, we can engage in the fellowship associated with being both dependable to others and depending on them when we need. Dependence on government, however, is completely different. It is a one-way street. They do not depend on us for anything, and while we may believe they depend on us for tax dollars that they steal regularly or our productivity that they rely upon to keep society going, they don't really need us. We are a number to them, and as such, to them, our existence makes no difference.

This is why being dependent on government in any way is an affront to our freedom. It is why we should, as a free people, strive to rid ourselves of any dependency we have on government. By being dependent, we are beholden. By being beholden, we are at their mercy. And if you think that any government is benevolent and working only on behalf of the people, then you haven't been paying very much attention. What they say and what they do are two very different things.

By no means am I suggesting that we don't need government. Law and order require governing bodies to make certain those who do wrong are held accountable. But even in this basic expectation we should have for our government, so many of them have been failing miserably at it. From defunding police to letting violent criminals off regularly, it's clear that many governments at every level are not fulfilling their oath to defend the constitution and thereby defend the people from forces of evil.

It's a reasonable expectation that our government should keep us safe from foreign invaders. Yet even the most tone-deaf politicians are having a hard time ignoring the sad song being played at our southern border. If an illegal alien enters the country and tests positive for Covid-19, they will not be sent back for instance. If an American citizen tries to reenter the country after testing positive for Covid, they will be turned away. This is just one of dozens of examples of the hypocrisy that we're facing with a government that has abandoned its role of preventing foreign invasions.

As billions of dollars are being sent to Ukraine to be distributed among their oligarchs and helping to prolong the war with Russia, thereby prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people, American citizens are getting shafted with massive food shortages, including the insane baby formula shortage. We're often told by virtue-signaling politicians that we must defend the most vulnerable among us. Well, there are no Americans more vulnerable than infants, and our government has failed miserably to prevent or end the baby formula crisis. Shelves in the baby aisle should be the last ones to go bare in a civilized and caring society, yet they are the first in the long line of food shortage dominoes to fall. That is an unexpected insult to add to our growing list of injuries.

As a free people, we can no longer have a reasonable expectation of safety, security, or prosperity safeguarded by our government. That hasn't been the case for a long time in the United States of America, but it's quickly becoming our present-day reality. And perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps we have grown too complacent, too expectant, and too beholden to government. Right now, today, it is time for Americans to wake up from the slumber that our past comforts have afforded us and take matters into our own hands. This should have happened long ago for most of us. Some have been doing it for years. If we are to continue to be a free people, we must take full responsibility for our own safety, security, and prosperity. At no time during our generation has that been more obvious.

And to do that, we must break free from any and all dependence on government.

That does not mean taking action against government, let me make that clear. It's a sad state of affairs when I'm forced to declare that important caveat. I am not calling for insurrection. I am not calling for crime, violence, or terrorism in any way. Breaking free of government does not require us to topple it. All it means is that every attachment we have to government apparatuses should be dissolved as quickly as possible. Some think of that as living off the grid. That may be the best way to go for some. But even those who are not able to run off to their secluded homestead in Montana should be striving to relinquish government control over our lives.

It starts with food. If food shortages are coming, and they certainly seem to be, then we must do whatever is in our power to preserve, store, stockpile, and possibly even produce our own foods. Prices are going up and that's not going to change for the foreseeable future. It behooves all of us, even if we're not in the "doomsday prepper" camp, to secure as much long-term food as possible. When the grocery store shelves go empty, the vast majority of Americans will be demanding that our government do something about it. You do not want to be among those waiting in breadlines. You do not want to feel the need to join marauding bands of desperate people trying to steal whatever food they can find. And you do not want to hold your hand out and hope your government selects you to be the beneficiary of their largesse.

Today, many are dependent on government to keep us safe from crime. That is already fool-hardy for most. As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Being able to defend your person, your family, and your property is a natural right that has been fundamental throughout human history. With many politicians pushing to eliminate our ability to defend ourselves, it is time to take the opportunity while it is still available to us. In the very near future, we may not have that option.

Our healthcare is arguably the toughest need for us to fulfill independently. Many of us need government in some form or fashion, whether through insurance or government-beholden medical systems. But just as food will be used to control the masses, healthcare will be used to control those who have their own food security in hand. This is why it is a best practice to find doctors who are willing to work outside of government programs. It's also a best practice to work through private medical funding organizations like medical cost-sharing programs. If we've learned anything over the past two years, it's that even doctors and hospitals will allow themselves to be played like the government's fiddles on behalf of Big Pharma. To break free from that requires a willingness to find those in the medical field who are just as skeptical of government as you are.

We could talk for a very long time about the various ways to build and sustain our freedoms by breaking away from government dependency, but it really comes down to you and your situation. Examine what attachments you have in your world to government and determine a strategy to remove those attachments as quickly as possible. Today, government offers a series of conveniences that act as anchors to keep us compliantly docked in their ports. That is not freedom. Perhaps there was a time when freedom and working closely within the government system was possible, but today they're mutually exclusive. You're either reliant on government in many ways or you're not. You're either dependent or you're free. There are degrees of dependence and freedom, and as patriots we must strive to reduce our dependency as we progress towards freedom.

One does not have to be isolated from society to be free. There's a difference between detaching from government and detaching from society. Perhaps someday that won't be the case, especially if society reacts to near-future catastrophe by running to government for solutions, which they most certainly will do. In that case, we may find ourselves isolated.

Our nation is on a collision course with disaster. It may not be too late to reverse course, but it's foolhardy to assume that will happen. We all have difficult choices to make, and those choices must not be pushed off much longer. Will you choose to be free and isolated or enslaved with the masses? If enough people are isolated in their freedom, are we not the seeds upon which a future rebirth of freedom can be realized? Whatever the future holds, I choose freedom, and I hope I am not alone.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedunderground.substack.com

We are pleased to announce that we're consolidating the various podcasts that JD and Tammy Rucker do regarding politics to the NOQ Report Podcast! Please be sure to find us and subscribe there. Easiest way is to find us at noqreport.com

The famed religious leader is all in for Covid vaccines. He participated in a sales push by ABC News to get more Evangelicals and Catholics to get the jabs. But in doing so, he went a bit too far in his claims of knowing how Jesus Christ would have reacted to Covid-mania.

Various reports, most of which have been buried, combine to paint a very evil picture of the true origins of Covid-19. As the original Covid-19 origin investigator for the federal government, David Asher, noted recently, the disease has all the hallmarks of being experimented on to develop an antidote for a bioweapon that originated at the Wuhan Virology Lab.

We didn't have high hopes in the Biden administration's ability to deal with China, but what we saw yesterday is being characterized by even friendly leftist and international news outlets as a disaster. This seems to be more than just bad diplomacy. It seems very likely intentional.

2019 was the worst year on record for UACs (Unaccompanied Alien Children). At the pace that UACs are flooding across the border today, the Biden administration will blow that number out of the water. In fact, he's on pace for TRIPLING the worst year ever.

California's besieged governor used his platform during the "State of the State" address to try to make people believe he's not one of the worst leaders in America. He wants us to think he isn't the least effective governor in California state history. But his message fell short and he must be recalled.

Anecdotal data shows the surge at the southern border may be the worst influx of illegal aliens the nation has ever seen. Unfortunately, anecdotal data is all we have since the Biden administration refuses to give us actual numbers. They're even silencing employees of Homeland Security, making it impermissible to talk about it at all to the press or the American people.