Public Health: Dangers in the new "Make America Healthy Again" report
Trump's MAHA initiative promises to fight chronic disease, but critics warn it undermines science and opens the door to pseudoscience.
Trump's speech and the launch of the Commission
On 13 February 2025, during a TV speech from the White House, President Trump announced the establishment of the MAHA Commission in stark words: “Too many children are sick, and no one wants to talk about why. We will”.
In the speech, Trump accused federal agencies - including the FDA, CDC and NIH - of enabling the spread of chronic diseases in children, speaking about “silent complicity” with industrial and pharmaceutical interests. The emphasis on the need for “truth and transparency” introduced the ideological tone that then permeated the entire initiative.
The announcement was formalised a few hours later with the signing of Executive Order 14212, which defines the MAHA initiative as an integral part of the federal strategy to address “the critical health challenges of our time”, in particular obesity, diabetes, mental disorders, and chronic diseases in childhood.
The order states the will to restore the integrity of the scientific process within public institutions, accusing official research of being influenced by improper interests. At the same time, it declares as its goal the promotion of research into the “root causes” of diseases, as opposed to pharmacological management of symptoms.
Among the most talked-about measures, the order envisages greater support for flexibility in treatment and insurance coverage, the expansion of unconventional therapeutic options, and a strengthened collaboration with the agricultural sector to improve the nutritional quality of food products.
“Make Our Children Healthy Again: An Assessment”
In the document published by the White House in May 2025, the MAHA Commission identifies four priority areas for action.
- It starts with criticism of ultra-processed food, accused of being the main source of calories for more than 70 per cent of American children. It is proposed, for example, to ban the purchase of sugary drinks with food stamps.
- This is followed by a denunciation of exposure to environmental toxins such as PFAS, glyphosate and atrazine, also found in breast milk samples, with a call for safety limits to be revised.
- The document also links the excessive use of electronic devices to a deterioration of children's mental and physical health.
- Finally, emphasis is placed on the over-medicalisation of the paediatric age, criticising the increasing use of psychotropic drugs, attention deficit drugs and molecules such as semaglutide for weight control.
Criticism from the scientific community
Many of the statements in the MAHA Report have been described as alarmist, ideological or distorting the scientific literature.
Jason Schwartz, professor of health policy at Yale, stated that the assumption that paediatric vaccines overload the immune system is “scientifically unfounded and potentially harmful”. The entire vaccine schedule is the result of decades of studies, reviews and reliable surveillance systems such as VAERS and VSD.
Particularly controversial is the selective use of scientific studies. A case in point is the assertion that “almost all breast milk in America contains PFAS”, which in the text suggests a health risk, whereas the cited study specifies that this is not a reason to discourage breastfeeding, the benefits of which remain preponderant.
The claim that prescription drugs are the “third leading cause of death” in the USA was also refuted: CDC data indicate that the main causes remain cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms and accidents, including accidental poisonings.
Finally, several experts pointed out that the document completely omits some of the main threats to children's health in the USA, in particular gun violence, which was the leading cause of death among children under 18 between 2020 and 2022.
NIH, research and therapeutic freedom
One of the most discussed proposals in the MAHA Report concerns the reorganisation of health research. The executive order calls on the NIH (National Intitutes of Health) to preferentially fund studies that explore the “root causes” of chronic diseases, criticising projects that focus on symptom management alone.
According to virologist Angela Rasmussen, this rhetoric could result in selective censorship of biomedical research, excluding entire fields such as vaccines, clinical pharmacology or pain therapy. Rasmussen also denounced the proposal to redefine who can be considered a “scientific expert”, opening the door to individuals without an academic background or from movements opposed to evidence-based medicine.
Also of concern are the economic and regulatory implications of the expansion of so-called “therapeutic freedom”. It is feared that insurance reimbursements for validated treatments may be reduced in favour of alternative approaches that are not subject to scientific scrutiny. The report explicitly mentions raw milk, supplements, homeopathy and other products that are currently strictly regulated by the FDA.
International perspectives and systemic effects
The MAHA's approach could also influence the European and international context. The announced restrictions on food additives and pesticides are likely to hit agri-food exports to the US.
No less worrying is the possible influence of the MAHA discourse on the public perception of vaccines. The adoption of ambiguous or openly sceptical positions by top US federal institutions, especially when raised by highly visible public figures, risks legitimising antivaccinationist movements outside the US as well, weakening confidence in vaccine prophylaxis in contexts where it is still fragile or contested. Countries with strong US media penetration could suffer a direct media backlash.
Added to this is the fear, expressed by several academics and researchers, that the NIH reform envisaged by the MAHA Report will lead to a reduction in opportunities for transnational scientific collaboration. If the selection of projects to be funded is guided by ideological criteria (such as the prior exclusion of studies on vaccines, drugs or biotechnology), whole areas of international clinical research could be cut off from important cooperation networks and strategic funds. This could slow down progress in areas such as oncology, infectious diseases, neuroscience and pharmacogenomics.
International scientific communication could also suffer. The MAHA Report uses language that mixes scientific terminology, populist rhetoric and references to the “independence of science” to justify interventions that actually reduce the centrality of clinical evidence. This communicative strategy could contaminate public discourse even in European contexts, fostering an epistemological relativism in which every opinion becomes equivalent, and every adjustment is perceived as suspect.
Finally, the promotion of “therapeutic freedom” could inspire legislative pressure in other countries to include non-evidence-based practices in public health, with potential consequences for the sustainability of health systems and the quality of care.
- The White House. (2025, February 13). Executive Order 14212 – Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission.
- The White House. (2025, May). The MAHA Report: Assessment of the Rising Tide of Chronic Disease in American Children.
- Sun, L. H., & Ableson, R. (2025, May 22). Trump administration’s new MAHA report distorts science, experts say. The Washington Post.
- Rasmussen, A. [@angie_rasmussen]. (2025, May 21). Thread on the MAHA Executive Order and threats to scientific integrity [Tweet thread]. ThreadReaderApp.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Underlying cause of death, 1999–2022. CDC WONDER.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), & Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (n.d.). Vaccine safety monitoring systems.