‘Devastating’: Jillian Michaels isn’t happy after an executive order that seeks to boost a controversial pesticide

Jillian Michaels didn’t try to hide how she felt. Before NewsNation’s Blake Burman even finished setting up the topic, he said he could hear her sighing as they headed into the segment, and he joked that he could “see all of the enthusiasm” she had for what was coming next.

The issue Burman put on the table was President Trump’s executive order that, as he framed it, seeks to boost the controversial herbicide glyphosate. Michaels, a television personality and host of the “Keeping It Real” podcast, responded with a blunt verdict right away: “This is actually devastating.”

From there, the conversation turned into a fast-moving argument about cancer risk, corporate behavior, and what Michaels believes is a political decision that protects chemical companies instead of consumers.

Michaels’ Core Claim: “Not A Conspiracy Theory”

Michaels’ main point was simple and emphatic: she argued that glyphosate’s link to cancer is not some fringe rumor that got legs on social media, but something she says is backed by “hundreds of studies.”

In her words, Michaels said those studies show glyphosate “increases risk significantly” for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and she connected that claim to what she described as a long trail of litigation and whistleblowers.

She also put a huge number on the scope of the legal fight, telling Burman there have been “over 170,000” lawsuits. In her telling, those lawsuits – and the stories behind them – paint a picture of an industry that knew about the risk and worked to keep the public from seeing the full picture.

Michaels claimed the chemical company “tried to bury the information,” went after independent researchers, and even produced “studies to try to tell a different story,” as she put it, in order to protect the product and the brand around it.

And when it came to money, she didn’t treat it as a minor footnote. Michaels said the makers of glyphosate have had to pay what she described as $7.25 billion to victims, and she used that figure as proof that this wasn’t theoretical harm.

The Executive Order, And The Part That Set Her Off

Michaels’ biggest complaint wasn’t just that glyphosate remains on the market. It was her belief that the executive order effectively shields the industry from accountability going forward.

She told Burman that “the day after” the companies paid out billions, the president “essentially gives blanket immunity to the chemical companies for glyphosate going forward.” That’s her interpretation, and she delivered it like a warning: when government steps in on the side of the product, the balance shifts away from the people who actually live with the exposure.

In Michaels’ view, what “should have happened” is the opposite. She argued glyphosate should be “pulled off the shelves,” not reinforced through federal action.

She also widened the frame beyond farmers and rural communities, saying this isn’t a niche issue that stays in the fields. Michaels claimed glyphosate is so widespread that “they’d probably find it in yours and my urine right now” if someone tested for it, which is her way of saying exposure isn’t rare – it’s routine.

That’s the emotional center of her argument: it’s not just about regulation in theory, it’s about the idea that people are living inside the consequences.

Burman’s Pushback: The Supply Chain And China Question

Burman didn’t let the interview stay one-sided. He brought up the argument the White House is using, as he described it: the need to protect the U.S. food supply and avoid relying overseas, including on China.

It was a classic question of trade-offs, and Burman asked it plainly – what’s the balance here?

Michaels basically rejected the premise that glyphosate is necessary to prevent a food crisis. She argued the U.S. is already awash in what she called “ultra-processed crops,” naming corn and soy as examples, and she said there’s “unfortunately no shortage” of those products.

Then she tied that abundance to policy, pointing to “hundreds of billions” in subsidies as part of why the system produces what it produces, and why she thinks the “we need this” argument is not the real reason behind the executive order.

Her suspicion was that power moved behind the scenes. Michaels suggested that after paying billions, powerful interests framed the situation as an “existential threat” and leaned on the political system to secure protection. She didn’t present documents on-air, but she framed it as the kind of influence play Americans recognize: a giant company under fire calls in favors, and government responds.

That, in her view, is why this story matters even to people who never step foot on a farm.

“Grade The President”: A B, Until This

Late in the segment, Burman broadened the discussion and asked Michaels to “grade” the administration on a collection of health and policy moves, mentioning changes to vaccine recommendations, petroleum-based food dyes, the food pyramid, and what he called “Operation Stork Speed” tied to baby-related health issues.

Michaels surprised him a little by not going scorched-earth. She said that up until “today,” she would have given them “a solid B,” then rattled off several actions she viewed positively.

She credited the administration for rolling back gender-affirming care for anyone under 18, for removing heavy metals from baby formula, and for closing what she called the “GRAS loophole” – the “generally recognized as safe” pathway that she said has allowed thousands of chemicals into the food supply.

She also said changing the food guidelines is a “monster” move, because once you change the food pyramid, you influence where those massive subsidies flow, shaping what gets grown, sold, and pushed into the mainstream diet.

But Michaels called the glyphosate move a “big bruiser,” a major setback that, in her mind, drags the grade down hard. She framed it as a turning point: a run of changes she liked, followed by one decision she believes cuts against everything else.

The Bigger Tension This Segment Exposed

What made the exchange feel sharper than a typical partisan food fight is that it wasn’t framed as “government vs. business” in the abstract. Burman kept it grounded in the administration’s justification – food supply, global competition, China – and Michaels kept dragging it back to personal exposure, cancer claims, and whether accountability is being erased.

Even if someone listening doesn’t agree with Michaels’ conclusions, her underlying fear is easy to understand: when an issue involves something that can end up in food, water, or a person’s body, people don’t just want a policy memo. They want to know who’s protecting them, who’s protecting industry, and whether the public is being asked to accept risk so the system can keep running smoothly.

That’s the uncomfortable question hanging over this whole segment. Burman tried to frame it as a balance problem. Michaels framed it as a morality problem – one where the cost is paid in health, not in dollars.

And when she called it “devastating,” she wasn’t using the word like a throwaway line. She used it like a verdict on what she thinks this decision will mean for regular people who never asked to be part of the trade-off.