On February 13, 2025, the White House issued an executive order establishing the “Make America Healthy Again Commission.” Ostensibly aimed at addressing America’s chronic disease crisis, this initiative is deeply flawed in both its premise and execution. While the dire state of American health is undeniable, this order represents a misguided approach that fails to address the root causes of the problem, undermines scientific integrity, and introduces troubling political overreach into public health.
1. Misuse of Health Statistics to Justify Political Ideology
The executive order begins with a parade of alarming health statistics—some accurate, some misleading—to justify sweeping federal intervention. While it is true that chronic diseases and mental health conditions are prevalent in the U.S., the framing of these issues in the order distorts their complexity. The document cites autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence as if its rising diagnosis rate reflects an actual epidemic rather than improved diagnostic criteria and awareness. Similarly, it highlights increased asthma and autoimmune conditions without acknowledging the role of environmental factors such as pollution and climate change—issues this administration has historically ignored or exacerbated.
Moreover, the mention of increasing cancer rates in the U.S. compared to other countries fails to account for critical factors such as improved detection methods and longer life expectancy. Cancer incidence naturally rises in populations that live longer due to lower mortality from infectious diseases and acute conditions. Such cherry-picked statistics create a misleading sense of crisis that conveniently aligns with the administration’s broader policy goals, rather than fostering evidence-based health solutions.
2. A Politicized and Unscientific Approach to Public Health
One of the most disturbing aspects of the commission is its stated goal of “restoring the integrity of the scientific process.” While this might sound noble, the phrasing suggests an underlying distrust of established medical and public health institutions. The executive order calls for “eliminating undue industry influence,” but there is no mention of ensuring that policy decisions are informed by independent, peer-reviewed research. Instead, the language implies a preference for so-called “alternative” approaches to health—ones that may align with political ideologies rather than rigorous scientific scrutiny.
The commission also prioritizes reducing reliance on medication without acknowledging that many chronic diseases require pharmacological intervention. The implication that rising medication use is inherently problematic is dangerous; it risks stigmatizing necessary treatments for conditions such as ADHD, depression, and diabetes. Without robust alternatives in place, the directive to “avoid or eliminate conflicts of interest” could be a veiled effort to discredit pharmaceutical research in favor of unproven, politicized health interventions.
3. Dangerous Overreach into Personal and Medical Decisions
The order repeatedly emphasizes the role of government in determining what constitutes “healthy” lifestyles, nutrition, and medical treatments. While public health initiatives are critical in promoting well-being, they must be grounded in individual autonomy and medical expertise—not dictated by political appointees. The commission’s sweeping mandate, which includes investigating “certain food ingredients, certain chemicals, and certain other exposures,” raises concerns that regulatory decisions will be driven by ideology rather than science.
For example, the document’s emphasis on environmental factors affecting childhood chronic disease—without specifying what those factors are—could lead to unfounded regulatory overhauls that ignore well-established research. Similarly, the directive to assess “electromagnetic radiation” as a contributor to disease suggests an interest in advancing fringe health theories rather than addressing well-documented public health challenges such as food insecurity, socioeconomic disparities, and access to healthcare.
4. An Ineffective and Redundant Bureaucracy
Rather than strengthening existing public health agencies, the commission adds another layer of bureaucracy that will likely be ineffective at best and actively harmful at worst. The executive order tasks the commission with producing multiple reports within unrealistic timeframes—100 days for an “assessment” and 180 days for a “strategy.” Given the complexity of chronic disease research, these deadlines suggest that the commission is more concerned with rapid political messaging than with developing meaningful, evidence-based policy solutions.
Furthermore, the composition of the commission raises red flags. While it includes key public health agencies, such as the CDC and NIH, it also involves politically appointed officials with no medical expertise, including members of the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The inclusion of these figures suggests that the administration intends to prioritize cost-cutting measures and deregulation over genuine health improvements.
5. Ignoring the True Causes of America’s Health Crisis
If the administration were truly committed to improving American health outcomes, it would focus on expanding access to healthcare, addressing systemic inequities, and strengthening public health infrastructure. Instead, the executive order leans into a familiar conservative narrative: blaming individuals and lifestyle choices rather than acknowledging broader systemic failures.
A serious approach to combating chronic disease would prioritize universal healthcare access, stronger environmental protections, and investments in community-based health initiatives. Instead, this order promotes a vague, ideologically driven agenda that ignores the primary drivers of poor health outcomes: poverty, lack of healthcare access, food insecurity, and systemic racism in medical treatment.
Conclusion: A Distracting, Dangerous, and Ideological Initiative
The “Make America Healthy Again Commission” is little more than a political stunt masquerading as a health initiative. Its focus on politically expedient narratives rather than scientific rigor threatens to undermine public health, stigmatize necessary medical treatments, and waste resources on redundant bureaucracy. If the administration truly cared about addressing the chronic disease crisis, it would invest in evidence-based policies rather than promoting pseudoscience and government overreach. Instead, this order represents yet another attempt to use public health as a vehicle for ideological manipulation rather than meaningful reform.
