In a lengthy speech, announcing a suspension of his presidential campaign, Robert Kennedy Jr., spent nearly 20 minutes talking about environmental health and chronic diseases in children. Along with concerns about the military industrial complex and media censorship, Kennedy noted his concerns about chemical pollution, leading to chronic diseases, as one of his key motivations for supporting the Trump campaign. He spoke with passion about the challenge of endocrine disruptors in pesticides and food additives causing hormonal imbalances and linking these to a perplexing rise in a range of developmental ailments. The science on these connections is well-established across a range of studies, and certainly not controversial (unlike his views on vaccines and mercury).
Kennedy acknowledged that both parties are financially supported by large agrifood businesses, but he appears to have received some assurance that a Trump presidency would be less beholden to such vested interests. This is quite surprising since the Trump administration in its first term rolled back more than a hundred environmental regulations. In particular, the Center for Biological Diversity has documented that during the Trump presidency 94% of new pesticide applications were given approval (more than a hundred of which are banned elsewhere or were slated for phaseout). As a notable environmental lawyer, Kennedy would also know that Trump-appointed justices enabled the overturning of the Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council decision. This has now opened the way for far more judicial hurdles to implementing environmental regulations.
How Kennedy has been able to convince former President Trump to have a more vigilant environmental stance on pesticides and other chemicals deserves greater scrutiny. Perhaps there has been a well-spring of concern among many male Republican voters about the emasculating effects of pesticides on testosterone that is also well established in science. It may also be a bargain that the Republican campaign has made with major donors like Bill Ackman, who backs Trump but also defies the MAGA and Musk orthodoxy by supporting Environment, Society and Governance (ESG) investing. Such influences that may green the Trump campaign even slightly could potentially be consequential in swing states.
The Democrats should not dismiss the Kennedy-Trump alliance as an aberrational side show. There may well be some substance to the environmental health aspects of this unlikely “team of rivals.” Kennedy’s sincerity to environmental causes, even when it may be misguided at times, should not be doubted. He devoted much of his career to supporting environmental organizations. As an educator, I have seen his influence and impact with youth worldwide involved in the Waterkeeper Alliance – an organization with 350 chapters in 48 countries that he led for over twenty years. If he can focus his campaigning on science-based advocacy of environmental health concerns and clean water delivery and not be distracted by other conspiratorial matters, he could have a positive impact regardless of who wins the election.
