An Academic Perspective on RFK Jr. and ‘MAHA’

Authored by: Mary Wall

Art by: Grace Liu

In February, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was appointed Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration. Since assuming this role, he has generated considerable controversy [1]. Critics have targeted his funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health and his restructuring of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel [2]. Supporters have praised his efforts to limit processed foods in the American diet and enhance hospital price transparency.

Given the conflicting information circulating on social media, I sought insights from experts in fields most affected by these policies. In this article, I share perspectives from leaders in health economics and policy and clinical research to understand how the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement could reshape the nation’s health landscape. 

To illustrate the potential economic effects of MAHA, I spoke with Dr. Beth McGinty, co-founding director of the Cornell Health Policy Center and professor of population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medical College. McGinty earned her PhD in Health and Public Policy from Johns Hopkins University in 2013. Her research focuses on health policy, Medicaid, mental health, pain management, and substance use.

When asked about the near-term effects of MAHA, particularly regarding prevention and population health programs, McGinty predicted we may see increased financial incentives, such as higher insurance reimbursement rates, for delivering preventive services like dietary counseling. These incentives, she explained, could encourage health systems to expand partnerships with public health agencies.

Addressing NIH funding cuts, McGinty warned reductions could undermine the field’s ability to train junior researchers and evaluate policy impacts, slowing long-term progress.

Hospital price transparency, defined as the public disclosure of hospitals’ standard charges, negotiated rates with insurers, and discounted cash prices for common services, and affordability are central to MAHA rhetoric [3]. According to the White House, the movement aims to “empower patients with clear, accurate, and actionable healthcare pricing information” [4]. When asked which policies most effectively improve affordability and competition, McGinty emphasized the need for more research but pointed to market consolidation, particularly vertical integration (when insurers and health systems acquire physician practices), as a trend that undermines transparency [5].

Finally, when asked what metrics to follow to measure policy impact, McGinty cautioned readers that meaningful outcomes may take time to emerge. “Policy impacts often take longer than 12–24 months to manifest,” she said. “That said, I think some short-to-medium term impacts to look out for include ‘bellweathers’ that are not measures of health outcomes, which might take longer to see, but indicators that we know from research can influence health outcomes down the line: things like insurance coverage rates and preventive service utilization, including but not limited to immunization."

McGinty’s insights highlight the duality of MAHA: while new incentives could expand preventive care, concurrent NIH funding cuts threaten the infrastructure needed to sustain research and innovation.

To further examine MAHA’s impacts on clinical research, I spoke with Lauren Wall, M.S., Senior Director of the Cancer Clinical Trials Support Office at the University of Chicago. Wall oversees strategic planning for the university’s cancer research portfolio and serves on both the Institutional Review Board and Clinical Trials Review Committee. She also teaches courses in Clinical Trial Management and Regulatory Compliance at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University.

When asked how high-profile public health movements like MAHA influence trust in medical research, Wall said the impact depends heavily on execution. “When done well, these initiatives can raise awareness and communicate information in a way that’s accessible to the public,” she said. “But if they’re not done well, they can cause fear and mistrust.”

Many MAHA proposals emphasize the prevention of chronic illness and “holistic wellness.” When asked how policymakers can ensure such proposals are grounded in evidence, Wall underscored the importance of reliable data. “One critical step is making sure policymakers are developing proposals based on reputable, peer-reviewed sources grounded in scientific evidence,” she said.

Wall also discussed how clinical research infrastructure, particularly in cancer trials, can adapt to evaluate claims from large-scale public health movements. She pointed to pragmatic trials, large-scale studies testing interventions under real-world conditions, as a promising approach [6].

On transparency, a cornerstone of MAHA, Wall clarified what genuine openness in research entails. “Transparency in clinical trials begins at the very start, from study design through completion and publication of results, whether positive or negative,” she said. “Unfortunately, many trials go unpublished, which limits both the research’s value and the trust it can build. Ensuring that all results are shared is essential. The FDA now requires trial sponsors to publish their results or face penalties. Equally important is communicating those results in plain, understandable language that helps patients grasp what the findings mean for them.”

On how scientists and clinicians should engage with politically-driven health policy narratives, Wall stressed objectivity: “It’s important to stay evidence-focused rather than get drawn into partisan debates. You need to stay focused on data and avoid reacting emotionally to political messaging.”

Looking ahead, Wall said future alignment between public health movements and research will hinge on communication. “Being able to explain both benefits and uncertainties in lay language will help build trust and transparency,” she said.

Ultimately, experts agree MAHA’s impact will depend on how effectively its policies are implemented. Expanded incentives could improve preventive care and transparency, though changes to research funding and public communication strategies will determine whether its promises translate to measurable progress.

References:

1. Takakazu, Y. (2025). The Trump Administration’s Domestic Health Policy and Global Health. Asia-Pacific Review, 32(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2025.2513203

2. Honigsbaum, M. (2025). RFK Jr could be a disaster for American healthcare. Index on Censorship, 54(1), 92-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064220251332645 (Original work published 2025)

3. Jiang JX, Krishnan R, Bai G. Price Transparency in Hospitals—Current Research and Future Directions. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2249588. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49588 

4. The United States Government. (2025, September 9). Maha. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/maha/  

5. Amado GC, Ferreira DC, Nunes AM. Vertical integration in healthcare: what does literature say about improvements on quality, access, efficiency, and costs containment? Int J Health Plann Mgmt. 2021; 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3407   

6. Roland M, Torgerson D J. Understanding controlled trials: What are pragmatic trials? BMJ 1998; 316 :285 doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7127.285