What the MAHA Movement Misses About America’s Health Challenges
How misdiagnosing the problem leads to false solutions, and distracts us from the real ones
Hi - I write this to cut through the noise and bring you the truth about what’s happening in science and public health. If that matters to you, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Every new subscriber helps me reach more people and do more of this work.
I often get a certain kind of response when I push back against misinformation coming from RFK Jr. or the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Perhaps surprisingly, it’s rarely combative. More often, it’s a mix of frustration, confusion, and genuine concern. I imagine much of the feedback comes from people who genuinely care about health. They’re looking around at the state of our country and wondering how, in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, so many people are sick, struggling, and unable to access basic care. They see rising rates of chronic disease in children, soaring costs, and food systems that clearly aren’t working. And when I critique the narratives coming out of MAHA or point out the inaccuracies in RFK Jr.’s messaging, it can feel to them like I’m suggesting that everything is fine. That the status quo is acceptable. That no change is needed.
But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
The challenges to our health are real, from rising rates of lifestyle-related chronic conditions to persistent gaps in access to care. And so is the frustration, especially when it feels like no one is offering real solutions. The desire for something better is both understandable and, in my opinion, justified. And in many ways, the MAHA movement has gained traction because it acknowledges this reality. It names problems that have largely felt ignored, or not adequately discussed, including our broken food environment, the rise of low nutrient, ultra-processed diets, and the outsized influence of industry in both medicine and agriculture. These are not fringe concerns. They’re real, and they deserve attention.
But naming the problem isn’t enough. You have to accurately identify the causes as well. Because when the causes are misdiagnosed, the solutions, no matter how well-intentioned, will miss the mark. And in some cases, they’ll make things worse.
The MAHA Rhetoric
From the beginning, the MAHA movement has positioned itself not just as a response to declining health in America, but as a challenge to the institutions tasked with protecting it. It arose at a moment of deep skepticism when trust in government, science, and medicine was declining and misinformation was spreading quickly online. But rather than work to rebuild trust or strengthen public understanding, MAHA leaned into that distrust, framing the health crisis as a result of institutional failure, corruption, and even intentional harm.
That framing is part of what makes the movement so compelling to some. It names real concerns like rising rates of chronic illness, poor nutrition, and over-medicalization, but it wraps them in a narrative that casts doubt on science itself. And that’s where the logic starts to go wrong.
This pattern shows up consistently in how the MAHA movement talks about health. While it claims to be focused on improving outcomes, its messaging leans heavily into a narrative built on toxins, fear, and scientific corruption. It blames everything from declining life expectancy to rising childhood illness on a mix of “toxic” food, overprescribed medication, and institutional corruption, largely framing regulators, doctors, and scientists as either negligent or complicit.
On the surface, some of these concerns may sound reasonable. There’s no doubt our food environment is broken, that sedentary lifestyles are widespread, and that we should be talking more openly about things like sleep, movement, and stress. There’s also room for legitimate conversations around pharmaceutical marketing, overprescribing, and corporate influence in science, medicine, and food policy.
But when you look closely at how these issues are framed, what becomes clear is that the narrative is designed less to promote understanding than to erode trust. The diagnosis centers on vague, often unprovable threats like “toxins” and institutional corruption, while the solutions lean heavily on personal vigilance to avoid the chemicals, reject the medications, follow wellness influencers, and do your own research. The burden of staying healthy is placed squarely on the individual, even as the movement insists the entire system is rigged against them.
What’s missing is any meaningful discussion of the real, evidence-based reasons we’re here, and the policies and structural changes that could actually improve health in America. There’s no exploration of why our food environment is dominated by low nutrient, ultra-processed products, or why we spend more on healthcare than any other country while getting worse outcomes. No mention of the decades of policy decisions that have prioritized corporate profit over public health, stripped funding from health agencies and safety net programs, and deepened economic inequality. There’s no genuine inquiry into the social, economic, and environmental conditions that shape people’s health, or the inequities that determine who gets sick, who gets care, and who gets left behind. Food insecurity, racial disparities, lack of access to care, stagnant wages, and weak social supports all directly affect people’s health, yet none of them appear in MAHA’s narrative.
Instead, MAHA distracts from these root causes to reinforce the idea that the real threat to health is personal irresponsibility, or worse, institutional malice that includes corrupt scientists, poisoned food, and overmedicated children. It’s a story designed to provoke fear and distrust, while giving the appearance of taking the problem seriously. But it’s not rooted in evidence, and it doesn’t lead us toward meaningful solutions.
The Real Root Causes (and What to Do About Them)
The truth is that America’s chronic disease crisis isn’t being driven by seed oils, food dyes, or scientific corruption.
It’s the result of decades of policy failures and choices that have shaped our food environment, infrastructure and public spaces, healthcare access, and economic realities in ways that make it harder for people to live healthy lives.
We’ve allowed corporate influence to shape policy through campaign finance laws that give industry enormous sway over what gets regulated and what doesn’t, resulting in a system that too often protects profits over public health.
We’ve subsidized crops that are profitable for export and heavily used in the production of low-cost, nutrient-poor foods, while making fresh, nutrient-rich options harder to access and afford. At the same time, we’ve shaped communities for millions of Americans through decades of zoning, development, and transportation policy where grocery stores are scarce but fast food and dollar stores are everywhere, limiting people’s ability to make healthier choices even when they want to.
We’ve built neighborhoods without sidewalks, parks, or safe places to be active. We’ve allowed huge gaps in access to preventive and mental healthcare to persist, particularly in low-income and rural communities. And we’ve built an economy where millions of people work long hours for low pay, without the time, space, or stability to prioritize their health, leaving many to make impossible tradeoffs between food, housing, and medical care.
[For more on these root causes and policy-based solutions, see my post here.]
These aren’t fringe theories. They’re well-established realities that public health researchers, clinicians, and policy experts have been researching and talking about for years. And yet they’re almost entirely absent from the MAHA narrative.
Which is a problem because when the root causes are misunderstood, the solutions that follow are often ineffective and actively harmful.
For example:
Health campaigns that push personal responsibility while vilifying everyday foods, medications, and nutrition science, often without evidence.
Policy shifts that roll back vaccine recommendations and public health protections, increasing risk for the most vulnerable.
Legislation that cuts access to nutrition assistance and healthcare access while claiming to “restore integrity”
A population that’s increasingly distrustful of public institutions, yet more vulnerable to unregulated, overpriced “wellness” fixes
And all of it distracts from the kind of bold, systemic solutions we could pursue if we were honest about what’s making Americans sick.
Final Thoughts
Public health experts, scientists, and the medical community also need to take some responsibility here. For too long, we’ve largely relied on inherited trust, assuming that if the data were sound and the intentions were good, people would follow. But it’s clear that trust doesn’t work like that, especially not when institutions have failed so many people in other ways.
From a communications perspective, we haven’t done enough to meet people where they are. Scientists, in particular, often write and speak in a language that is largely inaccessible, while publishing their work behind expensive paywalls. And even when we do communicate our work, that language has too often been dry, technical, and published on websites most people never visit.
We’ve written for each other instead of for the public. And for years, it was frowned upon, and even professionally risky, to meet people where they actually are going for information, which for better or worse, is largely on social media.
So when people were asking urgent, emotional questions about their health, their kids, and their future, they often didn’t hear from us. Or if they did, it was in ways that felt distant and impersonal. That silence created space for louder, more confident voices to step in and manipulate the narrative with answers that weren’t rooted in evidence, or grounded in reality.
The frustration and the distrust from people are real. But, I’m hopeful that the opportunity here is real as well. The opportunity to have a better, more honest conversation about what’s hurting us, and what would actually make us healthier.
The root of almost all the policies you mentioned is greed. Maximizing profits seems more important than maximizing health.
Appreciate your science-/evidence-based and balanced perspective. There is a lot I could say in response to this post, but one thought that keeps coming back to me is how the word ‘research’ is so misused by people who don’t actually understand what it means.
Research is something that people with science backgrounds are trained to do - from idea, to study design, to conduct, to analysis and publication of results. What most people are referring to when they say they ‘do their own research’ is really just reviewing information from a source.
This may seem nuanced, but misuse of a word degrades its meaning and importance over time. Most lay people don’t know how to interpret actual study data (identify bias, poor study design, etc.), so they are mostly getting their ‘research’ from social media and news outlets that are summarizing for them (from their own, and likely biased, perspective).
Let’s start with defining what research actually is, and stop using the term to describe scrolling the internet for information.