Public Health Needs MAHA
The Atlantic explores the MAHA movement, arguing that public health officials should engage with its supporters rather than dismissing them as anti-science. The author suggests that while the movement has an anti-vaccine wing, many followers are primarily concerned with environmental toxins, healthcare costs, and institutional capture.
Why it matters
It highlights a growing divide between institutional public health and populist movements, suggesting that ignoring these concerns may alienate a significant portion of the American public.
The field must swallow its pride and admit where the insurgent movement is right.
Illustration by The Atlantic. Sources: Taylor Hill / Getty; Bogdan Nicolaescu / Getty. July 25, 2026, 7 AM ET Share Save Since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took office, more than a year ago, I’ve been trying to understand the MAHA movement from the inside. I’ve sat in on MAHA Institute roundtables, roamed the conference halls of anti-vaccine gatherings , and talked with grassroots supporters across the country. They tell me their concerns about toxic chemicals and ultra-processed foods and the worrying rise in childhood chronic conditions. But when I share what I’m hearing with my colleagues in medicine and public health, many chide that engaging with MAHA is completely pointless. For them, the whole movement is nothing more than a subversive anti-vaccine, anti-science syndicate.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in