Luna Publicly Humiliates John Thune In Explosive Farm Bill Showdown

According to the Daily Caller, the Florida congresswoman, a leading Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) ally, blasted Thune after he criticized her successful House amendment stripping a liability shield for pesticide companies from the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026. Thune, who represents the deeply agricultural state of South Dakota, told KOTA-TV that he opposed Lunas move and favored keeping the original language, which would have insulated pesticide makers from certain lawsuits.

I think that was a carefully calibrated and negotiated provision in the bill as it emerged from the House Agriculture Committee, Thune said, defending the protections as the product of months of work by lawmakers and industry stakeholders.

Luna, who has framed the fight as a test of whether Republicans will side with families or powerful corporations, responded with unusually blunt language for an intra-party dispute. Of course this guy would say that. He is everything that is wrong with politics, Luna told the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), underscoring the growing divide between populist conservatives aligned with MAHA and more traditional, business-friendly GOP leadership in the Senate.

The House Agriculture Committees version of the Farm Bill, advanced in March, originally contained the pesticide liability shield as part of a sweeping package to set federal agricultural and food policy for the coming years. Thune argued that the pesticide language was a carefully calibrated and negotiated provision and warned that its removal could raise production costs and expose companies to a wave of litigation, potentially driving up prices for farmers and consumers.

So, in my view, no, but I mean, thats a debate that you have to have. And there were enough Republicans that teamed up with Democrats in the House to get it stripped out, Thune said, lamenting the bipartisan coalition that backed Lunas amendment. He also acknowledged that it remains uncertain whether the broader Farm Bill can clear the Senate, hinting that the pesticide fight could become a major stumbling block in conference negotiations.

A source familiar with Thunes thinking told the DCNF that the majority leader is acting squarely in line with his states interests. The source said Thune represents constituents from an agricultural state and supports polices that he believes benefit South Dakota, a reminder that for many farm-state Republicans, shielding producers and input suppliers from costly lawsuits is seen as essential to keeping American agriculture competitive.

Luna, however, moved quickly after the committee markup to strip the pesticide liability language from the House bill, introducing an amendment that passed on April 30 by a 280142 vote. That amendment, now embedded in the House-passed version, reflects a growing bloc of Republicans who are skeptical of corporate immunity and more willing to challenge large chemical and agribusiness firms on health grounds.

She has made clear she will not back down, even if it means derailing a major piece of GOP-led legislation. Luna vowed she would not vote for a bill that protects corporations that were allegedly responsible for giving children and adults cancer, casting the issue in stark moral terms rather than as a technical liability question.

I have a little boy, and the amount of articles I have seen on pesticides and herbicides popping up in childrens products (to include organic) is very bad, Luna, a MAHA-aligned Republican, wrote in an X post on April 28. On behalf of all the moms and dads that arent in office, I am not going to be bullied into supporting a bill that is providing protections and immunity to corporations that are responsible for giving children and adults cancer.

Luna has also warned that the Senate may try to quietly restore the liability shield when it crafts its own version of the Farm Bill. She has preemptively urged senators to resist pressure from industry lobbyists and leadership, signaling that House conservatives are prepared to sink the final package if it comes back with corporate protections intact.

To the Senate: dont, Luna said in a May 4 statement. If this comes back with those protections included, we have the votes to kill it. A number of Republicans are already regretting their vote against the amendment and are feeling the pressure from MAHA moms back home for their reelections.

The House vote marked a significant victory for MAHA-aligned Republicans and a handful of Democrats who argued that the original provision would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from accountability in cases where plaintiffs say they were not adequately warned about health risks. For these lawmakers, the fight dovetails with a broader conservative-populist critique of multinational corporations that profit from products linked to serious illnesses while seeking special legal protections from Washington.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine led the bipartisan push to excise the pesticide language. Massie warned that, had the shield remained, farmers themselves could be barred from suing companies if they later developed certain cancers, and he told LindellTV that this administration has sided with a German company trying to get immunity from the harm that their products may cause.

Not all Republicans agreed, with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson urging colleagues to reject Lunas amendment and keep the liability protections in place. Thompson argued that the language was really important for food affordability, reflecting a more traditional GOP emphasis on regulatory certainty and protection from what they view as opportunistic litigation.

It would prevent frivolous lawsuits if its in compliance with the science that the [Environmental Protection Agency] has put forward, Thompson said, pointing to EPA standards as the benchmark for product safety. I think this is a tool thats really important for food affordability, because these are tools that are important for yield, to be able to feed the nation, feed the world.

Still, a notable number of Republicans broke with leadership and sided with Luna and MAHA activists. A spokesperson for Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told the DCNF that Burchett backed Lunas amendment because it allowed pesticide manufacturers to be sued, a stance that aligns with a growing conservative skepticism toward granting broad immunity to large corporations.

In the final tally, 73 Republicans voted with Luna to remove the pesticide language, while 172 opposed the amendment. Six Democrats, including Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, voted to keep the liability shield, underscoring that the divide cuts across party lines and reflects deeper tensions over corporate power, environmental risk, and the role of the courts.

The debate is unfolding against a complex backdrop in the executive branch, where concerns about pesticides coexist with national security and food supply priorities. While Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized pesticide use for years, he backed President Donald Trumps executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate production, saying in February that while it is toxic by design, the order is necessary for agricultural stability and national security.

That apparent contradiction highlights the broader policy dilemma facing lawmakers: how to balance the need for robust agricultural production with legitimate questions about long-term health impacts and corporate accountability. HHS did not immediately respond to a question about Kennedys position on the pesticide amendment, leaving open how the administration will navigate a fight that pits populist conservatives and MAHA-aligned parents against powerful agribusiness interests and Senate leadership as the Farm Bill heads into its most contentious phase.