WASHINGTON— Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and other top officials met with Bayer’s CEO to discuss “legal/judicial issues” months before the Justice Department weighed in at the Supreme Court on the chemical company’s behalf, according to a memo and visitor logs obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity.

In December the Trump Justice Department supported Bayer’s request to the Supreme Court to consider its appeal in Monsanto v. Durnell for a shield against liability for the health harms linked to pesticides. In January the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

The memo and proposed agenda for a June 17, 2025 meeting said Bayer’s CEO also planned to thank the EPA for “its work on MAHA” and “updating the glyphosate web page,” in apparent reference to the agency withdrawing its previous support for California’s cancer warning on glyphosate labels.

“These documents show the unfettered access one of most powerful pesticide corporations in the world has to EPA’s top officials and it raises serious questions about just how far Trump’s political operatives within the EPA and the DOJ were willing to go to bat for Bayer,” said Nathan Donley, the Center’s environmental health science director. “It’s disgusting that the EPA administrator is so accessible to the pesticide industry. He almost certainly wouldn’t give the time of day to the thousands of Americans suffering from cancers linked to glyphosate and other EPA-approved pesticides.”

According to the memo, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, at the June meeting Bayer CEO Bill Anderson, EPA Administrator Zeldin, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the chemicals office Nancy Beck, and General Counsel for the EPA Sean Donahue were set to discuss “legal/judicial issues” involving the Supreme Court. The proposed meeting agenda covered:

• “Supreme Court Action: Bayer will give an update to the Administrator on where they stand in litigation and labeling options”
• “Thanks: Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate web page and work on MAHA.”

The “glyphosate web page” update is likely a reference to the EPA’s decision in May 2025 to withdraw its 2022 letter stating that California was authorized to require language on pesticide labels for products containing glyphosate warning of cancer risk so long as the label also stated that the EPA did not agree with that conclusion.

An internet archive search revealed that the only change to the EPA’s glyphosate webpage during that time period was the letter withdrawal, and metadata from the withdrawal letter indicated it was updated on May 9, 2025 by staff that work under Beck at the EPA chemicals office.

Withdrawing that letter likely played a part in the Department of Justice’s decision to reverse its 2022 position that states can add warning labels on pesticides beyond what the EPA requires under federal law. The letter withdrawal was specifically cited in the Solicitor General’s brief arguing for the Supreme Court to consider Bayer’s case.

The following timeline indicates the June 17 meeting at EPA headquarters came at an important juncture leading up to the Supreme Court’s January decision to hear the glyphosate case:

• April 4, 2025: Bayer seeks Supreme Court review for glyphosate case.
• May 9, 2025: EPA updates glyphosate webpage to include link to withdrawn letter to state of California.
• June 17, 2025: Bayer meets with top EPA officials regarding legal/judicial issues; thanks EPA for updating webpage.
• June 30, 2025: Supreme Court asks the Trump solicitor general for its position on glyphosate case.
• Dec. 1, 2025: Citing the EPA’s letter withdrawing its previous support for California’s right to add pesticide warnings, the solicitor general files a brief with the Supreme Court, reversing course and supporting Bayer’s position that federal law preempts states from adding warnings on pesticide labels beyond those established by the EPA.
• Mar. 2, 2026: The solicitor general files another brief with the Supreme Court that further supports Bayer’s position. This brief was specifically supported by Sean Donahue, as evidenced by his name appearing on the brief along with members of the Office of the Solicitor General.

“The Department of Justice has completely trashed its proud tradition of independence and apolitical pursuit of justice,” said Donley. “It’s a very sad day in America when our own DOJ is actively working to deny Americans their day in court.”