A Deep-Dive into the Make America Healthy Again Executive Order

With a new Secretary of Health and Human Services, we now have an executive order launching the Make America Healthy Again initiative. I’ve always believed in giving credit where it’s due—good policy and progress should be acknowledged, even if I don’t agree with everything. There are aspects of this order that I appreciate, but it’s also critical to recognize the subtle language that undermines the benefits of modern medicine and medications. Instead of promoting a balanced, science-driven approach, parts of this order lean into anti-science rhetoric commonly associated with the MAHA movement and RFK Jr."

Here’s some of the overall good

Comprehensive investigation into childhood chronic diseases

For the first time, a federal commission is mandated to conduct an in-depth study of childhood chronic diseases, examining potential contributing factors such as diet, environmental exposures, medical treatments, and lifestyle choices. This initiative aims to identify root causes and develop effective prevention strategies.

Historical context: While this is the first commission dedicated specifically to childhood chronic diseases, previous administrations have launched similar health initiatives. The Clinton administration focused on children's health through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Obama administration tackled childhood obesity through Michelle Obama’s "Let’s Move" campaign, and the Trump administration emphasized rural health initiatives that impacted pediatric care. However, this particular initiative stands out due to its broad focus on multiple chronic conditions rather than a single health concern.

Emphasis on transparency and open-source data

The executive order prioritizes transparency in federally funded health research by advocating for open-source data and eliminating conflicts of interest. The goal is to rebuild public trust in health recommendations and ensure research outcomes are unbiased and accessible to all.

Historical context: Transparency in federally funded health research has been a bipartisan concern for decades. The Obama administration expanded public access to taxpayer-funded research through an open-data directive, and the Biden administration recently required all federally funded studies to be available to the public by 2025. However, in MAHA’s case, the push for “transparency” raises concerns—RFK Jr. and other anti-science figures often weaponize transparency claims to discredit peer-reviewed research and promote flawed studies that fit their agenda.

Integration of multiple federal agencies

The MAHA Commission brings together leaders from Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency to collaboratively address health issues. This interdisciplinary approach recognizes the multifaceted nature of health and aims for cohesive policy development.

Historical context: Previous administrations have used interagency collaboration for major health initiatives. For example, the "Let’s Move" campaign involved HHS, USDA, and the Department of Education, and Operation Warp Speed (COVID-19 vaccine development) coordinated across multiple agencies. However, the current administration’s broader political stance contradicts this effort, as they have pushed to eliminate the Department of Education, which plays a key role in public health education and health programs in schools.

Accelerated reporting and strategy development

The commission is tasked with delivering a comprehensive assessment of childhood chronic diseases within 100 days and a strategic plan within 180 days. This rapid timeline signals an urgent commitment to public health.

Historical context: Fast-track public health initiatives aren’t new—the COVID-19 vaccine rollout under Operation Warp Speed was developed in record time through coordinated efforts. However, comprehensive disease studies typically require years of data collection to yield meaningful results. Past initiatives like the National Children’s Study (started under Bush and continued under Obama) aimed to track children's health over decades, but it was ultimately defunded because of logistical and funding challenges.

These are two sections I am very excited about

Here’s why this excites me as a pediatrician…

• Evidence-based evaluation of educational programs (well, hopefully evidence-based): Assessing the effectiveness of programs focused on nutrition, physical activity, and mental health ensures we’re using research-backed strategies to support children’s well-being. This approach prioritizes improvement over assumption and avoids dismissing modern medicine or preventative care.

• Data-driven review of federal health programs: Evaluating existing federal programs and funding helps refine efforts to prevent and treat childhood health issues. This ensures policy decisions are based on facts, not fear-mongering—focusing on improvement rather than distrust of public health initiatives. By emphasizing assessment and refinement over dismantling, this initiative can lead to meaningful progress—if done with scientific integrity and without anti-science rhetoric.

• A shift toward prevention and lifestyle changes: The executive order highlights healthy lifestyles, proper nutrition, and preventive care rather than just focusing on disease management. As someone who strongly believes in preventive medicine, this is a step in the right direction—but it’s important to recognize that this isn’t a new approach. For decades, U.S. health policy has prioritized prevention through initiatives like:

  • The Healthy People initiative (established in 1979) setting national prevention goals

  • The Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which expanded access to preventative services

  • The Food is Medicine movement, integrating nutrition into healthcare to combat diet-related diseases

So while it’s great to see prevention being emphasized, it’s not groundbreaking—it’s a continuation of existing efforts. What’s more important is how it’s being framed and whether it maintains scientific integrity.

But…here’s where my concerns start.

While prevention is essential, the way certain conditions are labeled as 'diseases' in this order is concerning. Some of the language misrepresents neurodevelopmental conditions and reinforces harmful narratives. Let’s break down these issues—and explore how pro-progress, science-based language could be used instead.

Here are some of my concerns

My critiques about this section

This section of the executive order presents childhood health conditions—including autism, ADHD, allergies, asthma, obesity, and metabolic disorders—as part of a growing crisis. While childhood health is important, this framing is misleading, lacks scientific nuance, and plays into fear-driven narratives rather than evidence-based solutions.

Autism and ADHD: We know why rates have increased

• The executive order emphasizes the rise in autism diagnoses, from 1 in 10,000 in the 1980s to 1 in 36 today, but fails to acknowledge that this increase is largely due to better diagnostic tools, expanded screening, and greater awareness—not an actual epidemic.

• Decades of research confirm a strong genetic basis for autism, yet this order echoes MAHA and RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that external factors—like vaccines, food, or environmental "toxins"—are driving the increase.

• Similarly, ADHD is not new, nor is medication inherently a problem. More children being diagnosed and treated means they are receiving the support they need, yet this order presents medication use as if it is a growing danger.

Childhood Chronic Conditions: A complex issue reduced to alarmism

• The inclusion of obesity, fatty liver disease, and prediabetes rightly highlights important public health concerns, but it ignores what we already know about their root causes.

• Social determinants of health, food deserts, socioeconomic disparities, and lack of access to healthcare play major roles in these conditions—yet this order presents them as if they stem from individual choices or medical interventions rather than systemic issues.

• This opens the door for MAHA-style pseudoscience, where the focus shifts away from evidence-based solutions (like improved nutrition programs and equitable healthcare access) toward unsupported "detox" regimens, anti-medication rhetoric, and misleading health claims.

Why This Language Is Concerning

• It frames neurodevelopmental differences as diseases that need "fixing," reinforcing stigma

•  It aligns with RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that external factors—rather than genetics—cause autism and ADHD.

• It ignores well-documented systemic causes of chronic conditions, making way for pseudoscience.

What would a more science-based pro-progress approach look like?

My critiques about this section

"Study the scope of the childhood chronic disease crisis"

• Potential Issue: The framing of a "childhood chronic disease crisis" implies a recent and escalating epidemic, which aligns with RFK Jr.’s alarmist messaging around health. While some chronic conditions (like obesity and type 2 diabetes) have increased, others (such as asthma or autism) are being diagnosed more frequently due to better screening, not necessarily because of a crisis. We know pollution and environment has an impact on asthma and so perhaps working a focus on that would be useful.  

• How It Could Be Misused: This broad and vague language allows misinformation campaigns to link chronic conditions to unfounded causes, such as vaccines, 5G, or food additives.

“Absorption of toxic material”

• Potential Issue: "Toxic material" is a loaded phrase often used by pseudoscience proponents to push anti-vaccine, anti-medication, and anti-GMO rhetoric. RFK Jr. frequently claims that vaccines contain "toxins" (despite scientific evidence proving otherwise).

• How It Could Be Misused: This phrasing allows for fear-mongering about substances like aluminum in vaccines or preservatives in food, rather than focusing on real public health concerns like air pollution or lead exposure.

“Medical treatments”

• Potential Issue: This suggests that modern medical treatments (which include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and medical interventions) may be a major cause of chronic disease. RFK Jr. and MAHA have repeatedly promoted the baseless claim that vaccines and medications contribute to autism, ADHD, and other chronic conditions.

• How It Could Be Misused: It feeds into anti-vaccine and anti-pharmaceutical narratives, implying that traditional medicine is a root cause of childhood health issues rather than a solution.

"Food production techniques"

• Potential Issue: While food quality and production methods are important topics, this phrase is vague and can be misused to promote anti-GMO and anti-pesticide fear campaigns, rather than focusing on genuine dietary concerns like excessive sugar intake and processed foods.

• How It Could Be Misused: It provides a vehicle for spreading disinformation about GMOs, pesticides, and "organic-only" health claims, which are often promoted in alternative health spaces.

“Electromagnetic radiation"

• Potential Issue: This is a classic pseudoscientific concern, with RFK Jr. and other conspiracy theorists frequently linking 5G and Wi-Fi radiation to autism, cancer, and other conditions—despite a lack of credible scientific evidence.

• How It Could Be Misused: This phrase plays directly into fear-based claims about "EMF sensitivity," which has been debunked by numerous studies. Including it lends credibility to unfounded health scares.

“Government policies” and “corporate influence or cronyism”

• Potential Issue: While corporate influence on health policy is a real concern (e.g., lobbying by food or pharmaceutical companies), RFK Jr. often distorts this issue to suggest that public health agencies like the CDC and FDA are "captured" by Big Pharma to harm children.

• How It Could Be Misused: This language supports RFK Jr.’s broader anti-establishment messaging, which promotes distrust in legitimate public health institutions.

What would a more science-based pro-progress approach look like?

My critiques about this section

Assumes a “threat” without scientific basis

• "Assess the threat" presupposes that medications, food ingredients, and chemicals are inherently dangerous, rather than evaluating them objectively.

• This mirrors RFK Jr.'s fear-driven messaging, which assumes harm before evidence supports it.

• A true scientific inquiry should assess potential risks neutrally, rather than starting with a presumption of danger.

Frames "over-utilization of medication" as a crisis

• While responsible prescribing is important, the phrase "over-utilization" is often misused by alternative health advocates to discredit necessary medications, including vaccines, insulin, ADHD meds, and psychiatric drugs.

• This lacks specificity—what qualifies as "over-utilization"? This ambiguity allows for broad, bad-faith interpretations that undermine evidence-based treatments.

Uses vague, alarmist terms around "certain food ingredients" and "certain chemicals"

• These phrases are classic dog whistles in pseudoscience, often used to stir fear around GMOs, preservatives, artificial flavors, and even vaccines.

• Toxicity depends on dose, not just presence, yet this language equates anything synthetic with harm, rather than focusing on legitimate dietary concerns like excessive sugar intake or ultra-processed foods.

• If food safety is a concern, specific issues should be named rather than using broad, fear-inducing terminology.

Misuses “chronic inflammation” as a catch-all scapegoat

• While chronic inflammation plays a role in some diseases (e.g., autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease), pseudoscience frequently misuses this term to claim that vaccines, medications, and foods "cause inflammation" without evidence.

• RFK Jr. has repeatedly falsely linked vaccines to inflammation-related conditions like autism and autoimmune diseases—claims that are thoroughly debunked.

• Without scientific parameters, this phrase could be co-opted to push misinformation tying vaccines, medications, or food additives to unproven inflammation-related diseases.

Misuses "international comparisons" to push anti-science narratives

• Anti-vaccine and alternative health figures often cherry-pick international health policies to claim that European countries, which regulate food dyes or have different vaccine schedules, have healthier children.

• This ignores broader public health factors like healthcare access, socioeconomic disparities, and nutrition policies.

• Without scientific context, this approach risks distorting data to fit an anti-American or anti-medication agenda.

What would a more science-based pro-progress approach look like?

My critiques about this section

Stigmatizes mental health treatment

• "Threat posed by the prescription" implies psychiatric medications are dangerous rather than critical tools for managing mental health.

• Reinforces stigma, discouraging families from seeking necessary care.

• ADHD, anxiety, and depression are real conditions—framing treatment as a “threat” invalidates those who rely on them.

Mirrors RFK Jr.’s anti-psychiatry rhetoric

• RFK Jr. frequently attacks psychiatric medications, claiming they are overused and harmful—despite scientific evidence proving their effectiveness.

• Pushes Big Pharma conspiracies, suggesting that mental health treatments cause harm rather than provide relief.

• Echoes anti-psychiatry movements, which have long spread misinformation about psychiatric care.

Misrepresents the science

• These medications are FDA-approved, well-studied, and safe when prescribed properly.

• Discussions on prescribing are valid, but this language assumes harm rather than focusing on evidence-based best practices.

• ADHD stimulants are among the most effective treatments, with decades of research supporting their safety and efficacy.

Ignores systemic causes of anxiety and depression

• Mental health conditions don’t occur in a vacuum—but this order blames medication rather than addressing root causes.

• Well-documented systemic contributors to childhood anxiety and depression include:

  • Academic pressure and lack of school-based mental health support

  • Economic instability and family stress

  • Social media overexposure and online bullying

  • Healthcare access disparities, especially in underserved communities

  • Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) like trauma, abuse, and neglect

• Before demonizing psychiatric medications, will they focus on fixing these systemic issues?

Risk of harmful policy decisions

• Could lead to restrictions on essential psychiatric medications, limiting access to life-changing treatment.

• Plays into pseudoscientific “natural” treatment claims, ignoring medical consensus.

• Aligns with anti-medicine narratives, favoring unproven interventions over evidence-based care.

What would a more science-based pro-progress approach look like?

If we truly cares about mental health, will they fight for more school counselors, better access to therapy, economic policies that reduce childhood stress, and social media regulations to curb anxiety?

Or will they just continue the cycle of blaming medication while ignoring the real systemic issues that drive the mental health crisis?

My critiques about this section

Restore the integrity of science

• Potential Issue: Implies that science is currently compromised, reinforcing RFK Jr.’s narrative that health agencies (CDC, FDA, NIH) are corrupt and controlled by Big Pharma.

• How It Could Be Misused: This language undermines trust in scientific institutions, often used to justify anti-vaccine, anti-medication, and alternative health claims.

"Eliminating undue industry influence"

• Potential Issue: While corporate influence in science is a legitimate issue, RFK Jr. exploits this to claim that all vaccines and medical research are tainted by industry greed, ignoring peer review and independent research safeguards.

• How It Could Be Misused: Can be twisted to dismiss all mainstream science, opening the door for pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

"Releasing findings and underlying data to the maximum extent permitted under applicable law"

• Potential Issue: Transparency is important, but this phrase is a common anti-science talking point used to demand raw, decontextualized data.

• How It Could Be Misused: RFK Jr. and conspiracy theorists cherry-pick and misinterpret raw data from vaccine trials and medical studies to spread misinformation—a tactic used to falsely claim vaccines cause autism or that COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe.

"Increasing methodological rigor"

• Potential Issue: Suggests current scientific methods are inadequate, aligning with RFK Jr.’s false claims that vaccine trials and medical research are rigged.

• How It Could Be Misused: Pseudoscience groups move the goalposts, demanding impossible proof standards while ignoring extensive, high-quality research already available.

What would a more science-based pro-progress approach look like?

In Conclusion

It’s encouraging to see a national focus on children’s health—one that acknowledges the importance of nutrition, mental well-being, and responsible medical care. But good intentions mean little without integrity, scientific rigor, and a commitment to evidence-based solutions—free from stigma, fear-mongering, or misinformation.

One of the biggest challenges we face isn’t just childhood chronic disease—it’s the growing skepticism toward science itself. The COVID-19 era accelerated public distrust, fueled by inconsistent messaging, rapidly evolving data, and the intentional spread of misinformation. And that distrust has consequences: vaccine hesitancy, rejection of proven medical treatments, and policies that prioritize ideology over truth.

But beyond skepticism, there’s another urgent crisis: The very infrastructure that supports children’s health—our schools, our healthcare systems, and our public health initiatives—is crumbling. We cannot meaningfully discuss prevention while ignoring underfunded schools that lack mental health resources, hospitals and clinics closing in underserved areas, or public health programs being systematically dismantled. The best prevention strategies won’t work if families don’t have access to care, if educators aren’t equipped to support children’s well-being, or if healthcare remains out of reach for those who need it most.

If we truly want to improve children’s health, we must address more than just symptoms—we must fix the foundation. That means demanding transparency without distortion, promoting policies grounded in rigorous peer-reviewed research, and ensuring that public health decisions empower families with knowledge and support.

Science should never be a tool of division. It is a compass for progress—a method for refining what we know and challenging what we assume. The real test of this initiative won’t be its rhetoric; it will be whether it follows the data, even when it’s inconvenient.

Because when we let science lead—not agendas, not fear, not politics—better health isn’t just a goal. It’s a certainty.

On The Podcast

Cold and flu season can be especially tough on parents, with sleepless nights, restless children, and the constant challenge of managing symptoms like congestion and cough. A humidifier, paired with soothing steam, can be a game-changer in making those difficult nights more manageable.

This week, I welcome Stacey Ishman, a pediatric otolaryngologist, to discuss the benefits of humidification and Vicks products like VapoSteam and humidifiers for improving sleep, especially during cold and allergy seasons. 

She joins me to discuss:

• The benefits of using a humidifier during illness

• How soothing ingredients like camphor and menthol help create a calming bedtime routine for your family

• That your child can breathe easier and sleep better with Vicks

On YouTube

As a pediatrician and mom, I’ll teach you the S.E.R.E.N.E. method to handle tantrums without timeouts. Watch now for expert tips on managing big emotions. The video covers:

• Are tantrums normal?

• How to handle a tantrum and helpful tips

• How to ensure safety during a tantrum

• Importance of recognizing your toddler’s emotions

• Provide nurture and comfort during a tantrum

• Reflecting and showing love post-tantrum

• Example of handling a tantrum with S.E.R.E.N.E.

Ask Dr. Mona

An opportunity for YOU to ask Dr. Mona your parenting questions!

Dr. Mona will answer these questions in a future Sunday Morning Q&A email. Chances are if you have a parenting concern or question, another parent can relate. So let's figure this out together!