Revolving Door Project | From Industry Watchdog to Industry Wish List

How RFK Jr.’s MAHA Lost Its Would-Be Spine

This newsletter was originally published on our Substack. Read and subscribe here.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent years cultivating an image as a corporate watchdog. As Health and Human Resources (HHS) Secretary, he has continued to position himself as a political outsider taking on industry influence over public health. But the reality of how he actually acts when in power—and who benefits from his actions—tells a different story.

In its first published report, Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission took aim at pesticides, industrial pollution, and ultra-processed food, pledging bold action to combat childhood chronic illness. However, the policy strategy it released last week reads like an industry wishlist, reflecting a familiar pattern from Kennedy (and the modern GOP more broadly) of pairing populist rhetoric with pro-corporate governance.

Hours after RFK Jr.’s confirmation, President Trump signed an executive order creating the MAHA Commission. Led by Kennedy, the commission was tasked with advising Trump “on how best to exercise his authority to address the childhood chronic disease crisis.”

To that end, MAHA first had to study the root causes of childhood chronic disease “including the American diet, absorption of toxic material, medical treatments, lifestyle, environmental factors, Government policies, food production techniques, electromagnetic radiation, and corporate influence or cronyism.” Within 180 days, the commission had to report its findings and outline a policy response strategy.

Ironically, but unsurprisingly, the results reflect the very corporate cronyism that the commission was supposed to root out.

The “Make Our Children Healthy Again” report, released in May, singled out four major drivers of childhood chronic disease: ultra-processed foods, environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization.

Despite Kennedy’s claims of utilizing “gold standard” science, the original report drew immediate condemnation for citing AI-generated invented studies. The report faced further criticism for its softness towards Big Ag; that issue was even more apparent in a leaked draft of the MAHA Strategy.

A recent piece by Carey Gillam and Shannon Kelleher in The New Lede summed up the differences between the commission’s May and September releases up well:

“…the new report speaks of already ‘robust’ regulatory oversight from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and removes or softens language about health risks stemming from exposures to pesticides and other chemicals. It also stresses a need for deregulation in farming operations to reduce the ‘regulatory burden’ of permitting requirements for such things as hazardous waste handling.”

Explicit references to the risks associated with exposure to glyphosate and atrazine, some of the world’s most widely used pesticides, were completely erased from the final report.

Instead, the final report featured language pulled directly from Croplife America: a lobbying group for some of the agriculture industry’s biggest players, like Bayer and Syngenta (the former Monsanto Co.). Again, from The Lede:

“CropLife said the May report includes ‘misleading and alarmist statements about pesticides’ and recommended instead that the MAHA report ‘reiterate the robust, respected process used by EPA to review pesticides…’ The final version of the report states that the ‘EPA, partnering with food and agricultural stakeholders, will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s pesticide robust review procedures and how that relates to the limiting of risk for users and the general public and informs continual improvement.”

Public health experts bemoaned the toothlessness of the commission’s strategy. But perhaps the most telling reaction came from Kennedy’s own supporters—many of whom now feel betrayed by his unwillingness to stand firm.

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, a grassroots MAHA group, expressed disappointment that “the committee allowed the chemical companies to influence the report.” Others within the broader MAHA movement, like Elizabeth Kucinich, were even more direct with their disapproval: “The pesticide section of the report, which directs EPA to partner with industry on PR campaigns to convince Americans the system is ‘robust,’ reads like it was written by Bayer and Monsanto.”

The report’s refusal to name other glaring sources of childhood morbidity and mortality, such as gun violence, automobile accidents, and food insecurity, is further cause for concern. This is especially true for tobacco use, which is barely covered at all. Despite remaining one of the leading causes of preventable death in the US, the words “smoking” and “nicotine” aren’t featured at all. (The word “tobacco” appears only once, in a reference to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.)

This omission joins a growing list of Trump 2.0 giveaways to Big Tobacco, including:

Withdrawing a proposed ban on menthol cigarettes
Eliminating the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health
Ousting the former director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products
Approving the sale of Juul Labs e-cigarettes in the US market

Put all the pieces together, and a familiar pattern emerges. Kennedy talks like a populist, but governs in ways that benefit powerful industries. He rails against government capture by industry while enabling it when in government. He calls for transparency and accountability, even as his own actions undermine both. And most tellingly: When faced with a choice between protecting public health or placating corporate interests, Kennedy will side with the latter.

The fact that Americans feel energized by Kennedy’s rhetoric is proof that cracking down on corporations is good politics. But public health issues aren’t solved with rhetoric alone, and Kennedy is unwilling to turn his posturing into policy.

This should be a wake-up call.