What's on the MAHA agenda as of mid-2025: Where it's focused, and what it means for the healthcare industry

When we last wrote about “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) earlier this year, the initiative was more of a slogan than a true blueprint. And although broad themes were beginning to emerge (i.e., a focus on vaccines and preventive health), it wasn’t yet clear where the administration would focus its initial actions. But less than a year in, the MAHA agenda has evolved rapidly and begun to come into focus: in February 2025, the MAHA Commission was formally launched by Executive Order from President Trump, part of a growing federal emphasis on addressing long-term public health challenges. Its mandate is ambitious: advise the President on the state of Americans’ health, communicate with transparency, and, most specifically, develop strategies to tackle the root causes of a “childhood chronic disease crisis”—today, over 40% of America’s 73 million children have at least one chronic health condition, ranging from obesity and asthma to behavioral disorders and autoimmune disease. 

The commission, chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was given just 100 days to produce an Assessment Report, released in May 2025, with a follow-up Strategy Report initially expected in August, though now delayed.

While MAHA’s initial mission, improving the health of America’s children has been broadly welcomed, the path it has chosen has stirred both praise and deep controversy. The report’s framing of the childhood chronic illness crisis strikes a chord with many parents and health advocates, but its scientific credibility has come under intense scrutiny. Seven of the cited studies could not be located, and several legitimate studies were reportedly misrepresented by the authors. Additionally, some URLs in the references contained “Oaicite” markers, indicating that AI may have been used to fabricate or alter citations. These issues have fueled skepticism among public health leaders and scientists, raising concerns that even valid findings within the report risk being overshadowed by flawed sourcing. Compounding this, industry observers have pointed out a disconnect between the commission’s stated goals and its administrative actions, noting instances where the policies being implemented fail to align with the vision MAHA has publicly outlined. 

In today’s post, we’ll attempt to cut through the significant noise surrounding the report, and the MAHA commission more broadly, by taking an objective look at each of the (four) focus areas called out in the assessment report. For each pillar, we’ll break down: 

1. What conclusions the report drew 

2. Which conclusions are broadly accepted by the medical community, and which are sources of debate

3. What actions the administration could take (or has already taken) 

4. What these actions would mean for the healthcare industry 

   
   

The MAHA agenda, as of mid-2025: Four key focus areas 

The Assessment Report organizes its findings into four “pillars,” each representing what MAHA views as a core driver of childhood chronic illness. These pillars aren’t just for categorical purposes; they are the commission’s framework for diagnosing the problem and setting the stage for sweeping policy interventions. 

MAHA agenda focus area #1: Poor diet 

What conclusions the report drew:

In this initial section, MAHA frames the U.S. childhood nutrition crisis as a byproduct of systemic issues, not just individual choices. The report connects the dominance of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in children’s diets, now accounting for nearly 70% of their calories, to a consolidated food system, corporate influence over federal nutrition guidelines, and relentless marketing of sugar- and sodium-heavy products to children. Beyond calories, MAHA flags concerns about nutrient depletion, harmful additives, and the lack of access to fresh, locally sourced food.  

The report argues that: 

• Food industry consolidation has left “Big Food” companies in control of production, processing, distribution, and retail, squeezing small farms and limiting diversity in the food supply. 

• The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are criticized as “reductionist” and “agnostic” about food production and processing. They fail to address ultra-processed foods (UPFs) explicitly and, according to MAHA, are unduly influenced by corporate lobbying. 

• Nutrition research disparities, with industry-funded studies dominating, skew the scientific conversation and policy recommendations. 

• Aggressive marketing of high-sugar, high-fat, high-sodium foods to children reinforces unhealthy eating patterns. 

The report points to nutrient depletion in processed foods, the negative effects of certain additives, and the steady shift toward UPFs as major contributors to childhood obesity, metabolic issues, and other chronic illnesses. 

The report devotes significant attention to the role of federal programs in shaping children’s nutritional environments, identifying both positive contributions and areas of concern. On the positive side, initiatives such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and certain school meal programs are recognized for setting meaningful limits on added sugars and sodium. These programs, according to MAHA, demonstrate a proven track record of improving children’s health outcomes by promoting more balanced, nutrient-dense diets in early life and during the school years. However, the report also highlights what it sees as harmful gaps and contradictions in existing policy. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently permits the purchase of soda, processed meats, and other ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. Similarly, while school food policies address some nutrient thresholds, they often fail to impose restrictions on the consumption of UPFs, allowing heavily processed, calorie-dense options to remain part of daily menus. 

Degree of alignment with the medical community:

The findings align with many community concerns about the food system and children’s nutrition. Community stakeholders have long voiced frustration with the outsized power of “Big Food” and the way it limits local farm viability, food diversity, and equitable access to healthier options. Similarly, the critique of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans resonates with community skepticism toward federal nutrition standards that appear disconnected from lived realities, particularly the prevalence of UPFs in children’s diets. Parents, educators, and health advocates in many communities have raised alarms about aggressive junk food marketing targeting children, which reinforces unhealthy eating patterns and undermines household efforts to promote better habits. 

From the medical community’s perspective, there is broad consensus that UPF intake is too high and strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, and that food industry consolidation and influence, whether through political lobbying or advertising, has been a driver of unhealthy dietary patterns. Where debate exists is less about the direction of these harms than about their magnitude: how much industry influence has distorted science and policy relative to other social and economic factors. 

At the same time, the recognition of programs like WIC and school meal initiatives reflects community appreciation for policies that provide tangible health benefits, even as the report underscores persistent frustrations with gaps in SNAP and school food regulations that continue to permit UPFs. Here, the medical community’s stance diverges somewhat: while clinicians and public health experts often agree that these programs are essential, debates tend to center on cost, program efficiency, and the practical challenges of reforming supply chains, rather than on the underlying value of the programs themselves. 

Together, these findings highlight a clear alignment between MAHA’s analysis and community concerns, while also underscoring important nuances in the medical community’s perspective. Policy reforms that limit corporate influence and reduce UPFs are likely to find strong grassroots support, though their ultimate impact will depend on navigating the cost and feasibility questions that remain central in clinical and policy debates. 

What actions the administration could take (or has already taken): 

Recent policy shifts risk undermining, rather than advancing, the stated objectives of the MAHA Commission as it relates to poor diet. Recent budgetary decisions, most notably the $267 million reduction to SNAP under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” have heightened concerns that food insecurity will deepen and families’ access to nutritious options will shrink. The legislation introduces new work requirements for SNAP participants, shifts additional costs to states, and reduces overall federal investment in nutrition programs, marking a clear retrenchment in food assistance support. In parallel, USDA’s termination of the $1 billion Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program has weakened farm-to-school pipelines by curtailing resources that enabled schools and food banks to buy directly from local producers.

Future actions could more directly advance the commission's goals. On the regulatory side, HHS and the FDA have pledged to phase out petroleum-based synthetic food dyes (such as Red 40 and Yellow 5) by 2026, replacing them with natural alternatives. The administration has also explored restricting SNAP purchases of soda, candy, and other junk food, though such measures would require legislative changes or state waivers and have historically faced strong legal and political challenges.  

What these actions would mean for the healthcare industry:

These actions could have implications in the areas of prevention and population health, although the effects may not be felt in the near-term. Cuts to SNAP and the elimination of programs like Local Food for Schools would likely increase food insecurity and reliance on ultra-processed, calorie-dense foods, which could eventually drive higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. This would translate into increased demand for certain types of healthcare services, especially among low-income populations who already face barriers to care, and could further strain Medicaid, safety-net providers, and community health centers.  

Conversely, regulatory moves to phase out synthetic food dyes and tighten school nutrition standards could reduce children’s exposure to harmful additives and improve dietary quality over time, potentially lowering rates of diet-related chronic illness and associated healthcare costs. If efforts to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary drinks and junk food were implemented, the long-term benefits could be substantial, reducing disease burden and shifting the healthcare industry’s focus more toward prevention rather than costly downstream interventions.  

Overall, the net effect depends on whether policy changes lean more toward disinvestment in food security or toward meaningful improvements in nutritional quality; the healthcare industry will either face higher treatment costs for preventable disease or reap savings from healthier population outcomes. 

MAHA agenda focus area #2: Environmental chemicals 

What conclusions the report drew:

The MAHA report stresses that children and families are not exposed to single substances in isolation but to a cumulative chemical burden that spans food, water, and consumer environments. Dietary exposures layer onto pesticides, herbicides, industrial pollutants, and household chemicals, creating a constant “background load” that weighs most heavily on children’s developing bodies. Some evidence links this cumulative exposure to nutrient depletion, metabolic dysfunction, obesity, and rising rates of chronic illness. The report critiques regulatory approaches that test chemicals individually while overlooking the synergistic effects of combined exposures. It also flags inequities: low-income and minority communities bear higher cumulative loads due to heavier reliance on UPFs, limited access to fresh foods, and greater exposure to environmental pollutants. 

Degree of alignment with the medical community:

The report’s discussion of environmental chemicals is not entirely at odds with mainstream science, but some of its specific findings are: There is broad agreement that certain exposures, such as lead, mercury, and specific pesticides, can harm child development, and that more research is urgently needed on emerging contaminants like microplastics. 

A primary point of contention lies in the weight MAHA assigns to this issue relative to other drivers of childhood chronic illness. While some experts argue that environmental exposure deserves a central role in the national health agenda, others believe the emphasis should be more proportionate to the scale of other, more well-documented factors, such as diet and physical inactivity. 

Furthermore, the MAHA's findings around certain exposures—most notably flouride—are at direct odds with the scientific community, which has largely deemed existing exposure levels to be safe, and potentially beneficial.

What actions the administration could take (or has already taken):

When it comes to environmental health and potential contaminants, HHS and RFK Jr. have relatively limited direct authority. The primary regulatory power rests with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While HHS can play a supportive role, by funding research, aiding in environmental monitoring, and disseminating public health messaging, the authority to impose direct limits on such exposures ultimately lies with the EPA. 

That said, MAHA has already set several initiatives in motion. These include directing the FDA to conduct a scientific review of fluoride-containing supplements, with the stated goal of potentially removing them from the market by late October and initiating plans to phase out certain synthetic food dyes in favor of natural alternatives. At the same time, critics argue that these moves are being undercut by the administration’s own decisions elsewhere, namely, significant layoffs at the EPA, NIOSH, and NIH, alongside the cancellation of federal grants for environmental health research. Such cuts, critics argue, risk weakening the very agencies and resources needed to enforce MAHA’s stated environmental health goals. 

What these actions would mean for the healthcare industry:

For clinicians and researchers, proposed actions, such as FDA reviews of fluoride supplements and the phasing out of synthetic food dyes, could reinforce preventive health efforts by reducing toxic exposures at the population level. However, concurrent cuts to EPA, NIOSH, and NIH capacity raise concerns that regulatory oversight, monitoring, and independent research will be weakened, undermining the evidence base on which medical guidance depends. Ultimately, for the medical community, these policies represent both an opportunity to broaden prevention strategies through environmental health measures and a risk that underinvestment in research and regulation will limit progress and exacerbate existing gaps in patient care. 

MAHA agenda focus area #3: Lack of physical activity, and chronic stress 

What conclusions the report drew:

The report links the decline in children’s health not only to poor nutrition and exposure to environmental toxins, but also to modern lifestyle patterns that undermine physical and mental well-being. Many children fail to meet federal recommendations for daily exercise, and as many as 78% of high school students do not get enough sleep. Rates of chronic stress, sadness, hopelessness, and social isolation among teens are on the rise, fueled in part by excessive technology and social media use, averaging 8 hours and 39 minutes of non-school screen time each day. 

Degree of alignment with the medical community: 

This section of the report is also its least controversial. The MAHA report’s findings on declining child health due to insufficient physical activity and rising chronic stress are largely consistent with mainstream medical consensus. Pediatric and public health experts broadly agree that low levels of physical activity, inadequate sleep, and high rates of stress and social isolation are critical contributors to worsening child and adolescent health outcomes. The medical community also supports the integration of physical activity into schools and greater emphasis on preventive mental health strategies, though there is ongoing debate about the extent to which lifestyle-based interventions can substitute for clinical treatment in severe cases. The report’s concerns about excessive screen time align with growing evidence linking digital overuse to sleep disruption, depression, and anxiety.  

Where alignment is weaker is around the recommendation for wearable monitoring devices: while such tools could support wellness tracking, clinicians share concerns about cost, equity, and data privacy, particularly for vulnerable families. Overall, the report’s emphasis on holistic approaches resonates with medical priorities, though some proposed solutions may raise implementation challenges. 

What actions the administration could take (or has taken): 

In July 2025, President Trump reinstated the Presidential Fitness Test, first launched in 1966 to assess children’s endurance, strength, and flexibility, while also reestablishing the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition under the leadership of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Complementing this, the federal Safe Routes to School program continues to promote infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, that encourage active transportation and reduce obesity risks where safety is a barrier. Beyond physical activity, the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has directed more than $2.1 billion in grants to help school districts integrate mental health services, behavioral support, and early learning into safe and supportive environments. Similarly, the expansion of school-based health centers (SBHCs) has been key to providing on-campus health care, including mental health, nutrition education, and preventive services, particularly for low-income students. Addressing another dimension of child well-being, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), passed by the Senate in 2024 but not yet enacted, seeks to curb harmful screen time by requiring digital platforms to limit addictive features for minors, enhance privacy protections, and provide parents with stronger oversight tools. 

What these actions would mean for the healthcare industry:

The Presidential Fitness Test may raise awareness but needs broader support to have clinical impact. Safe Routes to School and related infrastructure can reduce obesity and chronic disease risk, while expanded school mental health programs and SBHCs could improve early access to care, easing strain on providers. If enacted, the Kids Online Safety Act could help curb stress, sleep disruption, and mental health challenges linked to excessive screen time.

As with the initiatives related to poor diet, these initiatives emphasize prevention, with the potential to lower long-term healthcare costs and improve child health outcomes—although such population heatlh-type goals and impacts have long been difficult to achieve.

MAHA agenda focus area #4: “Overmedicalization” 

What conclusions the report drew:

The final, and most politically charged, pillar of the MAHA Assessment Report contends that U.S. children are being overmedicated and subjected to unnecessary medical interventions. The report points to a steep increase in the use of medication among children: One in five U.S. children has taken at least one prescription drug in the past month; ADHD stimulant prescriptions doubled between 2006 and 2016; more than two million adolescents were prescribed antidepressants in 2022; and the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss is rapidly increasing. MAHA attributes these patterns to the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over research, clinical guidelines, and even legislation, suggesting that “corporate capture” plays a decisive role in shaping pediatric care. In response, the commission advocates for a shift toward lifestyle-based mental health treatments and for more independent, real-world monitoring of drug safety. 

Degree of alignment with the medical community:

This pillar of the report is undoubtedly most at odds with the broader medical and healthcare communities. That said, there are aa few areas of consensus: the MAHA report’s concern about rising pediatric medication use aligns in part with medical perspectives that call for more robust monitoring of safety and long-term outcomes. Clinicians widely recognize that prescriptions for ADHD stimulants, antidepressants, and newer treatments such as GLP-1 agonists have increased significantly, and there is broad support for strengthening preventive and behavioral health interventions.  

At the same time, the medical community emphasizes that these medications, when appropriately prescribed, remain essential tools for managing serious conditions. Mental health advocates caution that discouraging their use too strongly could create barriers to needed care. The report’s attribution of these trends to “corporate capture” marks another point of divergence, as does its stance on vaccines, which has proven its most contentious position; several major medical organizations have filed lawsuits challenging MAHA’s vaccine policies, citing risks to disease prevention efforts.

Overall, while the report reinforces medical priorities around reducing unnecessary prescribing and expanding non-pharmacological supports, it also raises considerable tensions over the role of industry influence and the continued place of vaccines and medications in pediatric care. 

What actions the administration could take (or has taken): 

The administration has already introduced sweeping changes to national vaccine policy, drawing sharp criticism from the scientific and medical communities. Funding for mRNA vaccine research has been significantly reduced, reflecting a shift in federal priorities away from next-generation vaccine development. The CDC has ended its long-running vaccine education campaigns, replacing them with “informed consent” messaging that public health experts warn could weaken confidence in immunization. A particularly controversial move was the dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a respected body long regarded as central to evidence-based vaccine policy; critics argue this action undermines institutional expertise and continuity in disease prevention. Adding further tension, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has endorsed alternative remedies for measles outbreaks, a stance condemned by pediatric and infectious disease experts as a threat to proven prevention strategies. 

In addition, there is active discussion within the administration about overhauling the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a change that could reshape liability protections and alter how patients access FDA-approved vaccines. Medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have responded with lawsuits, accusing the administration of dismantling the science-based vaccine infrastructure that has prevented millions of deaths. Looking ahead, the administration could pursue further structural changes, such as reconstituting advisory committees with new membership, shifting federal investment toward non-vaccine preventive strategies, or revising federal procurement and distribution models. Critics argue these measures risk weakening the nation’s capacity to prevent outbreaks, while supporters contend, they represent an attempt to decentralize vaccine policy and increase parental choice.

What these actions would mean for the healthcare industry:

The administration’s changes to vaccine policy could have far-reaching consequences for the healthcare system, and the most near-term impact of any of the previous three pillars. Cuts to mRNA vaccine research, the ousting of Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC, and the dismissal of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) threaten to erode the scientific infrastructure that guides evidence-based immunization, potentially leaving providers without clear, trusted recommendations.

The shift from education campaigns to “informed consent” messaging may lower public confidence in vaccines, increasing the likelihood of preventable disease outbreaks and placing new strain on hospitals, pediatric practices, and public health systems. Endorsing alternative treatments for infectious disease risks further undermining standard protocols, creating uncertainty for clinicians and insurers alike. Proposals to overhaul the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) also raise liability concerns, which could complicate vaccine delivery and drive-up costs for healthcare providers.

Overall, these actions could increase preventable illness, heighten operational and financial pressures on the healthcare industry, and weaken public health tools for reducing long-term care costs and protecting population health. 

The MAHA agenda: What's next

With the Strategy Report originally scheduled for release in August 2025, yet now delayed, MAHA stands at a pivotal juncture. We'll be keeping an eye out for the report and continue to share our analysis of the MAHA agenda, and its implications for industry stakeholders—subscribe to our newsletter below to ensure you never miss a post!