​

Since watching the explosion of the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which is aligned in many ways with climate advocacy, I've been confused about its attachment to a party uninterested in regulation. The supposed MAHA priorities are laden with demands for regulation over Big Food, Big Ag, and Big Pharma, so why are they tying themselves to a political party openly disinterested in the regulation of much of anything (other than women's bodies)?

I understand why Republicans want to tell stories encouraging people to buy into supporting their platform. I also agree that Americans are pretty unhealthy. But why do everyday Americans genuinely interested in making our society healthier fall for the mess of nonsense sprinkled throughout the MAHA movement?

fictions feel better than truths

Then I read Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI by Yuval Noah Harari, and much of it started to make sense. Harari describes that humans connect with and through stories better than through detailed lists of facts, figures, and white papers. We often prefer fiction and fantasies over truth because fiction can be simple, while the whole truth is almost always complicated and usually painful or disturbing.

The realities behind dwindling public health outcomes in the United States are complex and uncomfortable. MAHA advocates are right that Americans are not healthy. But then they start telling stories about "simple" solutions, from swapping ingredients in Froot Loops (which accomplishes a lot of nothing) to completely overhauling major government agencies without recognizing the good parts worth saving. Nor do they seem to have any fundamental ideas about how to overhaul the agencies or what to put in their place because… that's the hard “truth” part.

Just burn it all down, right? That's an easy and concise story to tell. But what comes next?

The truth is much more complex to understand and execute. Nuances that inform real solutions require deeper thinking, hard work, bipartisan collaboration, culture change, infrastructure adjustments, and wrestling with realities where sometimes there are zero great options.

None of that can be wrapped up in a bow for short-form social media videos or feels immediately achievable for one person from the comfort of their kitchen. Fixing our public health crisis requires cooperation, long-term investment, and compromise. There's no quick fix!

This doesn't sound too different from climate solutions, right?

science. science. science.

Here's the big difference between the MAHA and climate movements. Science.

Real, self-correcting, peer-reviewed science. But science is hard, and it’s also a hard story to tell.

Science and experts can and should inform solutions. They've been studying the problems and testing solutions their entire lives. How can they not have something valuable to offer? I mean… none of them?!

Climate advocates leaned into the consensus of experts. They tried to explain the truth to the public, advocate for real solutions, and lobby for government regulation to fix systems whose status quo will never support a long-term livable climate. A few people did the work to get behind the climate movement.

But Big Oil in the United States took the complexity, nuance, and uncomfortable reality of the climate crisis and created a simple fantasy to cancel the hard, scary truth. They said the climate crisis was a "hoax" and climate scientists were "corrupt," so let's go back to business as usual. Sounds easy, right?

Denial, blame, and a commitment to the status quo felt much more manageable (for the time being) to human brains than wrestling with the complexity of upending economic systems and lifestyles to protect the planet.

Then, Big Oil told the fantasy enough times that people started to believe it, just as expected.

MAHA warriors took a page from Big Oil1 and vilified nutrition scientists and public health experts. MAHA told a story of its own. Following the rules to maximize engagement in media, they chose fear-mongering and outrage stories as their preferred method of communication because media algorithms force these fictional stories to go viral.

MAHA decided that "burning it all down" was better than reviewing existing science and strategies to determine what to keep and where we lost the plot. Scrapping it all is a much simpler and more outrageous story than untangling the truth. It slides into short-form video like butter (or tallow, but definitely not seed oils).

selective storytelling

The MAHA community often appears frustrated by the disorienting and overwhelming experience of a global pandemic and angry about the bureaucracy of a healthcare system that regularly chooses profit over people. These are very valid concerns.

But then they throw all the established public health institutions into the fire; they toss the baby out with the bathwater. The platform ignores significant considerations and public health contributions that don't serve the narrative of squeezing MAHA into a Republican platform.

MAHA advocates ignore our country's abysmal social safety nets: a lack of broadly accessible public healthcare, pervasive food insecurity, and insufficient affordable housing, all of which are difficult to navigate even when they are available. How can one practice a healthy lifestyle without reliable housing, food, and basic healthcare access?

They ignore the lack of public infrastructure, such as limited access to walkable cities and public spaces to spend time outdoors, which, if available, would contribute to a much healthier lifestyle.

Moreover, they ignore the fact that most Americans aren't healthy precisely because they don't follow the health and nutrition guidelines from government and public health experts. Many MAHA suggestions for better health fit neatly into public health recommendations: eat more whole foods, be more active, and get plenty of rest and sunshine.

MAHA proponents ignore that many Americans struggle to follow these general health recommendations precisely because of the crappy social safety nets and lack of access to public infrastructure that supports more healthy lifestyles.

Ignoring these glaring circumstances hides real solutions that align with a liberal, well-funded, democratic government. Imagine how we could improve public health if we adequately invested in public spaces, stable housing, and more affordable access to healthy food. But doing those things is hard, takes a long time, and requires significant cooperation and compromise. That can feel daunting.

grifting and scaring instead of solving

Here’s a better idea? 💰 Instead of doing all that hard work, buy vitamins, detox juice, and toxic-free botox treatments (and let RFK Jr. handle all the hard work in Washington). Listen to the wellness advocates saying, "Everything's corrupt except me, and I can offer you a quick fix." They’ll tell you all the reasons for being scared and why they alone have the secret sauce to solve it.

It's much easier and more profitable to grift untested wellness supplements or recruit people to a multi-level marketing scheme than advocate for sidewalks, bike lanes, and universal free school lunches through private-public partnerships involving multiple government layers and agencies.

what are real solutions?

I could send you on a wild goose chase through fear-mongering podcasts and social media channels about all the ways the MAHA movement will make you prettier and skinnier. I'm not even joking that some of the most prominent voices explicitly sell this. 🤢 Pursue them as you wish, but those outlets offer few lasting solutions to bolster our public health.

environmental solutions

MAHA and climate movement goals align on desired environmental outcomes for public health: clean water, clean air, healthy soil, regenerative agriculture, biodiversity, and more. However, proposed MAHA pathways to solutions for these problems are bleak.

MAHA completely ignores Big Oil while railing against the byproducts of the industry (air pollution, microplastics, PFAS, pesticides, fertilizers, etc....). This is ridiculous. And Project 2025, alongside Team Trump, wants to shutter the Environmental Protection Agency, so.... yeah. 😬

Climate and environmental conservation advocates offer real solutions for removing chemicals and toxins from our ecosystems. Surprise, surprise. I don't have one pretty podcast or YouTube video summarizing them all. Also, surprise, surprise, because the solutions are broad and dense.

You probably know the usual suspects: decarbonization and investment in clean energy, better public transit infrastructure and walkable cities, more regenerative farming and agriculture that supports soil health, conservation of open space, reducing consumption, etc... Nothing Team Trump cares enough about to do the work of writing, negotiating, and passing legislation or regulation to pursue.

health and nutrition solutions

​This podcast from two down-to-earth nutrition experts (Jessica Knurick, PhD, RDN, and Adrian Chavez, PhD) enumerates the empty nutrition-related MAHA priorities. It highlights the real solutions we should consider to achieve better public health. They don't go too deep on any particular solution, but the two offer a calm, rational, and informed perspective to get the lay of the land.

They acknowledge the kernels of truth about poor public health, which MAHA has capitalized on. Then, they work through several agenda items and offer alternatives with both lasting and meaningful impacts. But of course, none of those solutions are easy stories to wrap up in a TikTok video, nor do they rely on rage to spread their message. Are you surprised their reasoned and thoughtful approach hasn’t gone viral yet? Sigh...

The podcast is worth your 53 minutes. Here are a few of their suggestions. Do you spy more overlap with environmental advocates? 🧐

• Design better cities that include bike lanes, walking paths, and more public transit. This would enable people to move more throughout their regular days instead of sitting in cars or chairs most of the time.
• Make health care more affordable and accessible (preventive care!)
• Invest thoughtfully in the USDA programs we already have that manage SNAP, WIC, school lunch programs, and more. We can use these channels to get more healthy food to Americans, especially those in poverty who struggle the most with poor health.
• Revisit and/or redeploy government subsidies for industrialized crops like corn, soy, and wheat that were well-intentioned but have had unintended consequences. Use the Farm Bill to shift some subsidies toward regenerative farming and specialty crops (like fruits, vegetables, and nuts) to make these foods more affordable and reduce the artificially low prices of ultra-processed foods that rely on subsidized crops as ingredients.

They note that regulating food companies could help, but oddly, MAHA comes from a party that typically opposes business regulation. Not only are Republicans generally against corporate regulation broadly, but they specifically attacked food regulation when it came from Democrats like Michelle Obama. Oh, partisan politics…

so what's the point?

I think MAHA is a good example of how we fall victim to simple storytelling that helps us feel like we made sense of a complex problem without actually solving anything. In this case, accepting the MAHA story at face value - that RFK Jr. is a hero and under Trump will somehow solve all our public health crises - also handed over power to a vengeful and hateful illiberal leader intent on dismantling many of the ways government helps people live healthier.

Suppose the Trump administration follows through on its promises. In that case, we can almost guarantee that public health will worsen by promoting the unfettered use of fossil fuels, protecting corporate profits over the well-being of people, and making access to healthcare and healthy food more expensive and difficult for many Americans. Talk about unintended consequences.