RFK Jr.'s Adviser Blasts 'Utterly Failed' Health Care System
Calley Means is collaborating with Kennedy to revamp the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), unapologetically endorsing significant reductions to the agency's bureaucracy.
TroibNews 
Of all Donald Trump’s controversial cabinet selections, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stands out due to the strong reactions he has provoked while leading one of Washington's most influential departments — the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy's plan to reduce his agency's workforce by approximately 25% during a time when measles is spreading in Texas and bird flu poses a potential pandemic threat has sparked significant backlash from the health community. However, he has simultaneously garnered support from a dedicated movement—nicknamed MAHA—that vehemently criticizes an establishment they assert produces subpar health outcomes per dollar spent compared to any system worldwide.
Among MAHA’s prominent figures is Calley Means, a bestselling co-author of *Good Energy* and a former lobbyist for the food and pharmaceutical industries, who now holds a role as a “special government employee” alongside Kennedy. Means has engaged actively in discussions—especially on platforms like the Joe Rogan podcast—about how the Trump administration intends to tackle the rising rates of chronic illness in America.
I had the opportunity to interview Means for the Playbook Deep Dive podcast during PMG’s Healthcare Summit to delve into the essence of MAHA and its aims for reform in Washington. Our discussion took place in front of an audience that openly expressed skepticism toward the MAHA initiative, while Means offered a pointed critique of the current health system, which he described as a “system of utter failure.”
As the dialogue progressed, I questioned Means about the implications of drastic workforce cuts within HHS, the challenges of providing healthy food to underserved communities, and his rationale for believing that reducing funding will enhance the scientific foundation of his proposed healthcare reforms.
This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the complete Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
#### Interview Transcript
Now that the MAHA revolution has assumed power, what does success look like for you? At a minimum, what are your goals for the next four years?
I think this is really important because there’s a lot of stakeholders in this room and many questions about Secretary Kennedy. I think we should all just understand what he’s trying to do and what the Trump administration is trying to do, which is that in 50 years, the history books will look back at this moment as the time the chronic disease crisis started to reverse. Right now, 38 percent of teens have pre-diabetes, and 50 percent are overweight or obese. We have, out of 212 countries, the highest cancer rates of any country in the world. We spend four times more per capita on healthcare than Italy and live seven years less. We’re not lazier than Italians. There’s something wrong with our system.
So fundamentally, what we’re building towards is a world where hospitals are incentivized for beds to be empty, not full; where pharmaceutical companies create therapeutics that reverse and prevent disease and promote longevity, not just manage it; where insurance companies are incentivized to promote health—not as they do today, where they’re really incentivized to see certain costs increase. We’re trying to initiate a conversation about a healthcare system that fosters disease reversal and prevention.
To get there, we need to start with very popular initiatives, focusing on transparency, reducing conflicts of interest, increasing benefit flexibility, and addressing core concepts that the administration has discussed. But it’s crucial to start securing wins.
Currently, however, it appears the top priority has been to implement extensive cuts. Recently, mass layoffs at HHS have been reported, with around a quarter of its 82,000 employees expected to leave. Significant portions of offices responsible for vaccine and drug research, HIV/AIDS research, AI, service funding for the elderly and low-income individuals, STD prevention, and rural health have all been affected.
What do you say to the public's concerns regarding drug safety and whether we're prepared for the next pandemic with such abrupt cuts?
To the reporters and lobbyists in the room: Feel free to make your case, but I’d genuinely request a little humility in understanding what voters conveyed by placing Bobby Kennedy Jr. in this influential role; a recognition of why Bobby Kennedy and President Trump are the two most popular political figures in America by a significant margin. Voters are indicating that the system is fundamentally flawed. The NIH oversaw the literal creation of a pandemic, and its stated purpose is to promote American health, yet it has presided over a shocking deterioration in health over the past two decades as disease rates have skyrocketed.
Innovation with small pharma and novel therapeutics at the FDA has remained stagnant. It costs a billion dollars to navigate the process. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is an agency with a budget exceeding that of the Defense Department, controlled by the American Medical Association, a pharmaceutical lobbying entity.
There are real issues at play. Tune into CNBC, and you’re met with a constant barrage of pharma advertisements, while meaningful discussions about the mental health crisis go ignored.
But Calley, how does reducing the number of HHS employees resolve these issues?
It's absurd to imply that adding more government bureaucrats stands between us and better health outcomes. That notion is demonstrably false. Those employees include scientists, researchers, and safety assurance personnel.
Those scientists have overseen a dismal record of failure.
Is that humor for you? Where is the evidence that the scientific community, or the quadruple per capita spending on healthcare in the U.S. compared to other nations, has fostered innovation? Has there been even one chronic disease treatment in modern American history that has reduced rates of chronic illness? Is it appropriate for the American Academy of Pediatrics, predominantly funded by pharmaceutical interests, to advocate for medications like Ozempic for six-year-olds?
Why not utilize your current authority to shift the existing system toward this direction rather than dismantling it outright?
This isn’t about dismantling; it’s about reverting to 2017 levels. That's not a slash.
It's more like resetting to 2002 levels, though, isn’t it?
It corresponds to roughly a workforce of 68,000 employees now.
Will these cuts persist?
The perception that Bobby Kennedy is not authorized to initiate drastic changes within the leadership and personnel overseen by those responsible for the devastating state of American health—one that lobbyists in this room seem unwilling to acknowledge—is astounding. Lobbyists here laugh while we grapple with the highest rates of childhood illness in developed nations.
If you view the situation in that manner—if you suggest that the voices of MAHA supporters don’t matter and that substantial shifts in American healthcare aren’t required—then you clearly misunderstand the mandate voters provided when supporting Bobby Kennedy's vision.
Many here continuously collaborated with figures like Peter Marks, who dismissed the recommendations of leading vaccine scientists regarding the COVID vaccination for military personnel. The fact that individuals like him cannot be removed, while Kennedy struggles to bring in transformative leaders such as Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya, underscores why drastic reform is necessary. That’s precisely what voters are seeking.
Yet, with changes being implemented, how can ongoing projects crucial for public health be transitioned smoothly? How humane is it to abruptly deny access to individuals who have devoted their lives to critical areas of study?
We face an existential moment in American history. Our children are the unhealthiest in the developed world.
But my inquiry focuses on how these changes facilitate the achievement of your stated goals.
Anecdotes can paint a vivid picture, but fundamentally, Bobby has taken charge of a department that has manifestly failed. CMS manages an expansive budget surpassing the Defense Department's. Medicare and Medicaid expenditures are outpacing two times the growth rate of defense spending, while childhood illness rates continue to escalate.
If your intention is to cut Medicare and Medicaid…
Ninety percent of NIH funding is absorbed by pharmaceutical research and development that serves the interests of the pharmaceutical industry while ignoring core research into the root causes of illness. The FDA typically limits innovation, functioning primarily as a means for major corporations to gain drug approvals, with minimal pathways for new therapeutic approaches and AI-driven diagnostics that provide greater preventative care.
These institutions are in dire need of reform. Why aren't we discussing viable options for that?
That's precisely my question. If your approach centers on eliminating inefficiencies, how do you enact that strategy?
By appointing Marty Makary, the first FDA commissioner in thirty years who hasn’t taken a pharmaceutical position after his term, alongside Jay Bhattacharya, an eminent scholar of accountability. Additionally, bringing on Dr. Oz, who has founded a formidable team ready to drive reforms, will help foster discussions about chronic disease prevention, transparency, and reducing conflicts of interest. That’s the strategy.
Any reputable business, faced with the metrics displayed by HHS, which illustrate rising costs and declining health outcomes, would undoubtedly restructure leadership and terminate employees. This entity is set on collaborating with industries while assertively addressing the need for new directional guidance.
Let’s shift to the topic of food, an area where you have expertise. Currently, healthier food options are often more expensive, creating barriers for low-income families who already experience poor health outcomes. How do you propose to reduce the costs associated with healthier living in America?
Bobby Kennedy will not entertain arguments from food industry lobbyists who leverage pricing issues to justify harmful practices that hurt children. I believe that notion is deeply misguided.
We have 10,000 chemicals in our food banned in other countries. Essentially, American food manufacturers create products with different ingredients than their Canadian counterparts, using crude oil-based dyes while labeling them as wholesome here.
The FDA currently lacks an inclusive list detailing our food contents; it operates on a self-regulatory basis. Therefore, Kennedy plans to collaborate with the NIH and FDA to create a comprehensive list of ingredients and implement a post-market review of those chemicals.
There exists significant lobbying against transparency regarding food contents; the industry fears reputational harm from reinforced scrutiny. We need accurate science regarding chemical exposure from our food supply.
You advocate for increased corporate accountability and transparency, yet President Trump is often seen as pro-business and keen on reducing the regulatory burden on companies. How does this approach align with Kennedy's plans to implement some level of regulation on these companies?
Donald Trump is a defining political figure of our era because he embodies the principle of anti-corruption. The MAGA movement is focused on challenging systems that serve elite interests over those of the average American. Thus, neither Trump nor Kennedy supports initiatives like the food stamp program, which primarily funds soda purchases, nor a structure that endorses ultra-processed foods. The USDA guidelines under the Biden administration even suggested that a sugar-filled diet is acceptable for toddlers, making problematic claims about a diet consisting mostly of ultra-processed food.
What Trump and Kennedy advocate for isn’t a matter of pro- or anti-business. It’s fundamentally anti-corruption.
Has President Trump granted Secretary Kennedy the authority to address corporate practices if that leads to healthier Americans?
It isn’t about a carte blanche approach against corporate interests. It’s about delivering honest information to Americans. MAHA’s objectives will inevitably involve considerable effort and negotiations around Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement frameworks. Yet the current healthcare system’s incentives are undeniably broken, evident when comparing expenditures to health outcomes.
But a significant part of this concern involves corporate stakeholders, right?
I’m uncertain what you’re implying by using the term corporate.
Companies selling unhealthy food products…
Trump and Kennedy take the stance that if your business model profits from the poor health of children, you should be concerned. Those corporate interests need a shift towards preventing and reversing illness for the populace. This point simply isn’t part of our dialogue.
You’ve made statements about these companies harming children.
No, I assert that these companies profit from the sickness of American children, which is a clear economic reality.
In light of that, Kennedy might compel them to alter their business practices.
There exists a voter-backed demand for a healthcare system that centers on preventing and reversing illness. I want to clarify that I do not perceive Kennedy as vengeful or excessively anti-corporate. Instead, there's a notion of collective responsibility. This moment compels us to confront a well-documented problem stemming from a decade of agriculture incentives leading 70 percent of American children's diets to comprise ultra-processed foods, while the figure is only 10 percent in Japan. That’s simply unjust. Those dynamics are driven by economic incentives; industry isn’t to blame.
How do you foster collaborative dialogues with these industries?
Consensus exists around the importance of healthier children. Most people would agree on a ten-year vision for a system that prioritizes disease prevention and reversal. The goal is to cultivate a robust healthcare sector optimizing patient outcomes economically while promoting longevity for Americans.
Countless steps are necessary for that transition. I’d advise industry representatives to consider potential immediate wins. There is commendable dialogue occurring about promoting more value-based healthcare systems, opportunities for healthier outcomes, and expanding health care flexibilities. Kennedy advocates against a top-down healthcare system, suggesting a model where mothers with children facing challenges could have access to pills as well as functional medicine options.
Wouldn’t this entail expanding access to varied treatment options under Medicare and Medicaid?
Two core principles Kennedy has highlighted include providing accurate patient information and ensuring high-quality scientific backing, then allowing individuals to partner with their doctors in making informed healthcare choices.
In terms of transparency—something many in this room may desire—how will pharmaceutical companies manage their data publishing?
Accountability is projected from various angles, and it’s increasingly within the industry’s interests to transparently share their findings.
Let's discuss SNAP: You’re advocating for beverages like soda to be excluded from SNAP benefits, correct?
Yes.
On the flip side, how can you ensure healthy options become more accessible? Many SNAP recipients primarily encounter junk food and sodas in their local stores.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that removing soda from these benefits would negatively affect children.
That isn’t the essence of my question. Besides removing unhealthy options, how are you addressing the availability of healthier food choices?
Bobby Kennedy has partnered with the West Virginia governor to promote innovative waivers linked to work requirements, which would see soda removed from SNAP benefits. He’s encouraged governors to reach out for collaboration. Presently, there are governors discussing innovative waivers aimed at increasing funding for healthy food purchases. SNAP operates under significant state discretion, serving as a strong example of potential federal-state collaboration.
Could this model be aligned on a national scale?
Kennedy is urging all governors—both red and blue—to engage with him alongside Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in developing state-centered innovations which might include removing harmful items from SNAP. The idea that government-sponsored soda is essential for child nutrition is outdated. That concept has been dismissed; we are actively encouraging state-level movement toward removing soda from SNAP and pursuing innovative solutions for enabling access to healthier food.
Do you have specific strategies aimed at assisting low-income Americans to adopt healthier lifestyles and gain easier access to nutritious foods? Currently, many reside in food deserts with limited options.
Regarding food deserts, I argue that they are largely a byproduct of the SNAP program, which is colossal, ranking as the fourth-largest entitlement and costing $120 billion. It heavily influences agricultural incentives worldwide. Notably, around 67 percent of SNAP funds go towards ultra-processed foods, a scenario not paralleled in any other country.
But the fundamental question remains: How do you engage these individuals toward healthier outcomes?
Removing soda and unhealthy options from SNAP would free up tens of billions for purchasing healthier food, which in turn would alleviate the food desert issue since most SNAP funding currently goes toward ultra-processed items.
Furthermore, “food is medicine.” Over $4.9 trillion is spent on health care, with the vast majority of health costs associated with chronic illnesses and their repercussions. The health system has long maintained a problematic separation, treating obesity, diabetes, and dementia as distinct conditions, which contribute to fragmented care.
Regarding healthcare flexibility, we advocate for increasing Americans’ control over their health care. This leads to effectively steering healthcare dollars towards the best clinical interventions. There is clinical evidence indicating that many of these diseases are related to food choices.
When you highlight the current trend of pressuring Ozempic on young children, I contend that while there could be cases where it’s applicable, often those children require improved dietary support, including dietary coaching and functional medicine blood tests to assess nutrient deficiencies.
The long-term vision of this administration revolves around established scientific understanding. Jay Bhattacharya has articulated a desire to delve into the root causes of disease—many of which resonate with food—while reallocating healthcare spending toward the most effective strategies for disease prevention and management.
This approach necessitates funding. Are you in favor of maintaining or cutting the financial allocations for Medicare and Medicaid?
There's an allocation of $4.9 trillion for funding. What does that have to do with reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid? Consensus exists around utilizing Medicare and Medicaid for the most effective treatments addressing American disease burdens. This isn't about policy; it’s more about the clinical logic dictating these programs. At present, that logic resorts to prescribing statins for kids with high cholesterol, SSRIs for depressed youths, or Ozempic for the overweight—not addressing the interconnected nature of these issues.
What solution do you propose?
Increasing NIH research funding to identify both the causes of disease and potential preventative strategies would be crucial.
Are you prepared to see NIH research funding reinstated despite recent cuts, as this research is imperative for your agenda?
Has NIH funding been reduced?
Yes. [Audience laughter]
No. Research spending has not been trimmed.
The funding has, indeed.
Research funding has not been slashed. The administration has emphasized directing resources strategically, reducing indirect funding to channel more directly to frontline researchers. This sends a clear message: bureaucratic roles are being minimized to increase support for researchers. Consequently, more funds will flow to scientists doing tangible research and less to bureaucratic layers.
For instance, Harvard previously received much funding—around 70 cents on each dollar—not for research directly but to support bureaucratic functions. Cutting indirect costs reallocates more funds toward direct research initiatives. Throughout this administration, there’s a strong emphasis on fueling actual research rather than dictating research outcomes to scientists or steering research toward any predetermined conclusions.
There has been concern over the measles outbreak. Secretary Kennedy faced criticism for not being more visible in addressing this crisis, leaving many wondering why that was the case.
Media may issue coverage about Bobby Kennedy assuming leadership of the largest government department and encounter various procedural challenges. However, rest assured that he is sincerely concerned about the measles situation, and the administration is committed to implementing best possible infectious disease control responses. His team is being mobilized to ensure we deliver top-tier responses. Interestingly, I also notice an overwhelming media focus on this singular measles incident while failing to respond adequately to the significant percentage of teens facing pre-diabetes and the dire circumstances technology and under-represented chronic illnesses present for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Why did it take so long for Americans to hear from the Secretary of Health and Human Services amidst a crisis?
In his initial week, he released a statement and responded promptly. I can't speak to the timeline of a few days for responding…
Why hasn’t HHS taken a more proactive stance regarding vaccinations and prevention?
They’ve been clear in communicating their viewpoints on that.
Overall, looking four years ahead, how do you envision changes in American healthcare?
The NIH will have shifted its focus toward understanding the underlying factors contributing to sickness in America. A significant portion of the NIH budget—around 80 percent—will be redirected towards genuinely innovative ways to reverse and prevent disease rather than managing it.
Additionally, the FDA will see deregulation encouraging innovation from therapeutic developers and preventative technologies. There will be transformative advances in AI and technological applications that support disease prevention and reversal strategies. Conflicts of interest, which are currently a significant scandal within the FDA, will be mitigated, and this reform will lead the CMS sector to evolve insurance standards in alignment with scientific findings—ultimately fostering awareness that lifestyle conditions triggering chronic disease require proactive approaches, while the CDC will also enhance its infectious disease protocols while continuing to address chronic health issues.
In four years, you will see an atmosphere where individuals who currently view Bobby Kennedy as radical will begin to reflect more critically on the necessity for disease prevention and reversal strategies.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Kennedy's plan to reduce his agency's workforce by approximately 25% during a time when measles is spreading in Texas and bird flu poses a potential pandemic threat has sparked significant backlash from the health community. However, he has simultaneously garnered support from a dedicated movement—nicknamed MAHA—that vehemently criticizes an establishment they assert produces subpar health outcomes per dollar spent compared to any system worldwide.
Among MAHA’s prominent figures is Calley Means, a bestselling co-author of *Good Energy* and a former lobbyist for the food and pharmaceutical industries, who now holds a role as a “special government employee” alongside Kennedy. Means has engaged actively in discussions—especially on platforms like the Joe Rogan podcast—about how the Trump administration intends to tackle the rising rates of chronic illness in America.
I had the opportunity to interview Means for the Playbook Deep Dive podcast during PMG’s Healthcare Summit to delve into the essence of MAHA and its aims for reform in Washington. Our discussion took place in front of an audience that openly expressed skepticism toward the MAHA initiative, while Means offered a pointed critique of the current health system, which he described as a “system of utter failure.”
As the dialogue progressed, I questioned Means about the implications of drastic workforce cuts within HHS, the challenges of providing healthy food to underserved communities, and his rationale for believing that reducing funding will enhance the scientific foundation of his proposed healthcare reforms.
This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the complete Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
#### Interview Transcript
Now that the MAHA revolution has assumed power, what does success look like for you? At a minimum, what are your goals for the next four years?
I think this is really important because there’s a lot of stakeholders in this room and many questions about Secretary Kennedy. I think we should all just understand what he’s trying to do and what the Trump administration is trying to do, which is that in 50 years, the history books will look back at this moment as the time the chronic disease crisis started to reverse. Right now, 38 percent of teens have pre-diabetes, and 50 percent are overweight or obese. We have, out of 212 countries, the highest cancer rates of any country in the world. We spend four times more per capita on healthcare than Italy and live seven years less. We’re not lazier than Italians. There’s something wrong with our system.
So fundamentally, what we’re building towards is a world where hospitals are incentivized for beds to be empty, not full; where pharmaceutical companies create therapeutics that reverse and prevent disease and promote longevity, not just manage it; where insurance companies are incentivized to promote health—not as they do today, where they’re really incentivized to see certain costs increase. We’re trying to initiate a conversation about a healthcare system that fosters disease reversal and prevention.
To get there, we need to start with very popular initiatives, focusing on transparency, reducing conflicts of interest, increasing benefit flexibility, and addressing core concepts that the administration has discussed. But it’s crucial to start securing wins.
Currently, however, it appears the top priority has been to implement extensive cuts. Recently, mass layoffs at HHS have been reported, with around a quarter of its 82,000 employees expected to leave. Significant portions of offices responsible for vaccine and drug research, HIV/AIDS research, AI, service funding for the elderly and low-income individuals, STD prevention, and rural health have all been affected.
What do you say to the public's concerns regarding drug safety and whether we're prepared for the next pandemic with such abrupt cuts?
To the reporters and lobbyists in the room: Feel free to make your case, but I’d genuinely request a little humility in understanding what voters conveyed by placing Bobby Kennedy Jr. in this influential role; a recognition of why Bobby Kennedy and President Trump are the two most popular political figures in America by a significant margin. Voters are indicating that the system is fundamentally flawed. The NIH oversaw the literal creation of a pandemic, and its stated purpose is to promote American health, yet it has presided over a shocking deterioration in health over the past two decades as disease rates have skyrocketed.
Innovation with small pharma and novel therapeutics at the FDA has remained stagnant. It costs a billion dollars to navigate the process. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is an agency with a budget exceeding that of the Defense Department, controlled by the American Medical Association, a pharmaceutical lobbying entity.
There are real issues at play. Tune into CNBC, and you’re met with a constant barrage of pharma advertisements, while meaningful discussions about the mental health crisis go ignored.
But Calley, how does reducing the number of HHS employees resolve these issues?
It's absurd to imply that adding more government bureaucrats stands between us and better health outcomes. That notion is demonstrably false. Those employees include scientists, researchers, and safety assurance personnel.
Those scientists have overseen a dismal record of failure.
Is that humor for you? Where is the evidence that the scientific community, or the quadruple per capita spending on healthcare in the U.S. compared to other nations, has fostered innovation? Has there been even one chronic disease treatment in modern American history that has reduced rates of chronic illness? Is it appropriate for the American Academy of Pediatrics, predominantly funded by pharmaceutical interests, to advocate for medications like Ozempic for six-year-olds?
Why not utilize your current authority to shift the existing system toward this direction rather than dismantling it outright?
This isn’t about dismantling; it’s about reverting to 2017 levels. That's not a slash.
It's more like resetting to 2002 levels, though, isn’t it?
It corresponds to roughly a workforce of 68,000 employees now.
Will these cuts persist?
The perception that Bobby Kennedy is not authorized to initiate drastic changes within the leadership and personnel overseen by those responsible for the devastating state of American health—one that lobbyists in this room seem unwilling to acknowledge—is astounding. Lobbyists here laugh while we grapple with the highest rates of childhood illness in developed nations.
If you view the situation in that manner—if you suggest that the voices of MAHA supporters don’t matter and that substantial shifts in American healthcare aren’t required—then you clearly misunderstand the mandate voters provided when supporting Bobby Kennedy's vision.
Many here continuously collaborated with figures like Peter Marks, who dismissed the recommendations of leading vaccine scientists regarding the COVID vaccination for military personnel. The fact that individuals like him cannot be removed, while Kennedy struggles to bring in transformative leaders such as Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya, underscores why drastic reform is necessary. That’s precisely what voters are seeking.
Yet, with changes being implemented, how can ongoing projects crucial for public health be transitioned smoothly? How humane is it to abruptly deny access to individuals who have devoted their lives to critical areas of study?
We face an existential moment in American history. Our children are the unhealthiest in the developed world.
But my inquiry focuses on how these changes facilitate the achievement of your stated goals.
Anecdotes can paint a vivid picture, but fundamentally, Bobby has taken charge of a department that has manifestly failed. CMS manages an expansive budget surpassing the Defense Department's. Medicare and Medicaid expenditures are outpacing two times the growth rate of defense spending, while childhood illness rates continue to escalate.
If your intention is to cut Medicare and Medicaid…
Ninety percent of NIH funding is absorbed by pharmaceutical research and development that serves the interests of the pharmaceutical industry while ignoring core research into the root causes of illness. The FDA typically limits innovation, functioning primarily as a means for major corporations to gain drug approvals, with minimal pathways for new therapeutic approaches and AI-driven diagnostics that provide greater preventative care.
These institutions are in dire need of reform. Why aren't we discussing viable options for that?
That's precisely my question. If your approach centers on eliminating inefficiencies, how do you enact that strategy?
By appointing Marty Makary, the first FDA commissioner in thirty years who hasn’t taken a pharmaceutical position after his term, alongside Jay Bhattacharya, an eminent scholar of accountability. Additionally, bringing on Dr. Oz, who has founded a formidable team ready to drive reforms, will help foster discussions about chronic disease prevention, transparency, and reducing conflicts of interest. That’s the strategy.
Any reputable business, faced with the metrics displayed by HHS, which illustrate rising costs and declining health outcomes, would undoubtedly restructure leadership and terminate employees. This entity is set on collaborating with industries while assertively addressing the need for new directional guidance.
Let’s shift to the topic of food, an area where you have expertise. Currently, healthier food options are often more expensive, creating barriers for low-income families who already experience poor health outcomes. How do you propose to reduce the costs associated with healthier living in America?
Bobby Kennedy will not entertain arguments from food industry lobbyists who leverage pricing issues to justify harmful practices that hurt children. I believe that notion is deeply misguided.
We have 10,000 chemicals in our food banned in other countries. Essentially, American food manufacturers create products with different ingredients than their Canadian counterparts, using crude oil-based dyes while labeling them as wholesome here.
The FDA currently lacks an inclusive list detailing our food contents; it operates on a self-regulatory basis. Therefore, Kennedy plans to collaborate with the NIH and FDA to create a comprehensive list of ingredients and implement a post-market review of those chemicals.
There exists significant lobbying against transparency regarding food contents; the industry fears reputational harm from reinforced scrutiny. We need accurate science regarding chemical exposure from our food supply.
You advocate for increased corporate accountability and transparency, yet President Trump is often seen as pro-business and keen on reducing the regulatory burden on companies. How does this approach align with Kennedy's plans to implement some level of regulation on these companies?
Donald Trump is a defining political figure of our era because he embodies the principle of anti-corruption. The MAGA movement is focused on challenging systems that serve elite interests over those of the average American. Thus, neither Trump nor Kennedy supports initiatives like the food stamp program, which primarily funds soda purchases, nor a structure that endorses ultra-processed foods. The USDA guidelines under the Biden administration even suggested that a sugar-filled diet is acceptable for toddlers, making problematic claims about a diet consisting mostly of ultra-processed food.
What Trump and Kennedy advocate for isn’t a matter of pro- or anti-business. It’s fundamentally anti-corruption.
Has President Trump granted Secretary Kennedy the authority to address corporate practices if that leads to healthier Americans?
It isn’t about a carte blanche approach against corporate interests. It’s about delivering honest information to Americans. MAHA’s objectives will inevitably involve considerable effort and negotiations around Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement frameworks. Yet the current healthcare system’s incentives are undeniably broken, evident when comparing expenditures to health outcomes.
But a significant part of this concern involves corporate stakeholders, right?
I’m uncertain what you’re implying by using the term corporate.
Companies selling unhealthy food products…
Trump and Kennedy take the stance that if your business model profits from the poor health of children, you should be concerned. Those corporate interests need a shift towards preventing and reversing illness for the populace. This point simply isn’t part of our dialogue.
You’ve made statements about these companies harming children.
No, I assert that these companies profit from the sickness of American children, which is a clear economic reality.
In light of that, Kennedy might compel them to alter their business practices.
There exists a voter-backed demand for a healthcare system that centers on preventing and reversing illness. I want to clarify that I do not perceive Kennedy as vengeful or excessively anti-corporate. Instead, there's a notion of collective responsibility. This moment compels us to confront a well-documented problem stemming from a decade of agriculture incentives leading 70 percent of American children's diets to comprise ultra-processed foods, while the figure is only 10 percent in Japan. That’s simply unjust. Those dynamics are driven by economic incentives; industry isn’t to blame.
How do you foster collaborative dialogues with these industries?
Consensus exists around the importance of healthier children. Most people would agree on a ten-year vision for a system that prioritizes disease prevention and reversal. The goal is to cultivate a robust healthcare sector optimizing patient outcomes economically while promoting longevity for Americans.
Countless steps are necessary for that transition. I’d advise industry representatives to consider potential immediate wins. There is commendable dialogue occurring about promoting more value-based healthcare systems, opportunities for healthier outcomes, and expanding health care flexibilities. Kennedy advocates against a top-down healthcare system, suggesting a model where mothers with children facing challenges could have access to pills as well as functional medicine options.
Wouldn’t this entail expanding access to varied treatment options under Medicare and Medicaid?
Two core principles Kennedy has highlighted include providing accurate patient information and ensuring high-quality scientific backing, then allowing individuals to partner with their doctors in making informed healthcare choices.
In terms of transparency—something many in this room may desire—how will pharmaceutical companies manage their data publishing?
Accountability is projected from various angles, and it’s increasingly within the industry’s interests to transparently share their findings.
Let's discuss SNAP: You’re advocating for beverages like soda to be excluded from SNAP benefits, correct?
Yes.
On the flip side, how can you ensure healthy options become more accessible? Many SNAP recipients primarily encounter junk food and sodas in their local stores.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that removing soda from these benefits would negatively affect children.
That isn’t the essence of my question. Besides removing unhealthy options, how are you addressing the availability of healthier food choices?
Bobby Kennedy has partnered with the West Virginia governor to promote innovative waivers linked to work requirements, which would see soda removed from SNAP benefits. He’s encouraged governors to reach out for collaboration. Presently, there are governors discussing innovative waivers aimed at increasing funding for healthy food purchases. SNAP operates under significant state discretion, serving as a strong example of potential federal-state collaboration.
Could this model be aligned on a national scale?
Kennedy is urging all governors—both red and blue—to engage with him alongside Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in developing state-centered innovations which might include removing harmful items from SNAP. The idea that government-sponsored soda is essential for child nutrition is outdated. That concept has been dismissed; we are actively encouraging state-level movement toward removing soda from SNAP and pursuing innovative solutions for enabling access to healthier food.
Do you have specific strategies aimed at assisting low-income Americans to adopt healthier lifestyles and gain easier access to nutritious foods? Currently, many reside in food deserts with limited options.
Regarding food deserts, I argue that they are largely a byproduct of the SNAP program, which is colossal, ranking as the fourth-largest entitlement and costing $120 billion. It heavily influences agricultural incentives worldwide. Notably, around 67 percent of SNAP funds go towards ultra-processed foods, a scenario not paralleled in any other country.
But the fundamental question remains: How do you engage these individuals toward healthier outcomes?
Removing soda and unhealthy options from SNAP would free up tens of billions for purchasing healthier food, which in turn would alleviate the food desert issue since most SNAP funding currently goes toward ultra-processed items.
Furthermore, “food is medicine.” Over $4.9 trillion is spent on health care, with the vast majority of health costs associated with chronic illnesses and their repercussions. The health system has long maintained a problematic separation, treating obesity, diabetes, and dementia as distinct conditions, which contribute to fragmented care.
Regarding healthcare flexibility, we advocate for increasing Americans’ control over their health care. This leads to effectively steering healthcare dollars towards the best clinical interventions. There is clinical evidence indicating that many of these diseases are related to food choices.
When you highlight the current trend of pressuring Ozempic on young children, I contend that while there could be cases where it’s applicable, often those children require improved dietary support, including dietary coaching and functional medicine blood tests to assess nutrient deficiencies.
The long-term vision of this administration revolves around established scientific understanding. Jay Bhattacharya has articulated a desire to delve into the root causes of disease—many of which resonate with food—while reallocating healthcare spending toward the most effective strategies for disease prevention and management.
This approach necessitates funding. Are you in favor of maintaining or cutting the financial allocations for Medicare and Medicaid?
There's an allocation of $4.9 trillion for funding. What does that have to do with reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid? Consensus exists around utilizing Medicare and Medicaid for the most effective treatments addressing American disease burdens. This isn't about policy; it’s more about the clinical logic dictating these programs. At present, that logic resorts to prescribing statins for kids with high cholesterol, SSRIs for depressed youths, or Ozempic for the overweight—not addressing the interconnected nature of these issues.
What solution do you propose?
Increasing NIH research funding to identify both the causes of disease and potential preventative strategies would be crucial.
Are you prepared to see NIH research funding reinstated despite recent cuts, as this research is imperative for your agenda?
Has NIH funding been reduced?
Yes. [Audience laughter]
No. Research spending has not been trimmed.
The funding has, indeed.
Research funding has not been slashed. The administration has emphasized directing resources strategically, reducing indirect funding to channel more directly to frontline researchers. This sends a clear message: bureaucratic roles are being minimized to increase support for researchers. Consequently, more funds will flow to scientists doing tangible research and less to bureaucratic layers.
For instance, Harvard previously received much funding—around 70 cents on each dollar—not for research directly but to support bureaucratic functions. Cutting indirect costs reallocates more funds toward direct research initiatives. Throughout this administration, there’s a strong emphasis on fueling actual research rather than dictating research outcomes to scientists or steering research toward any predetermined conclusions.
There has been concern over the measles outbreak. Secretary Kennedy faced criticism for not being more visible in addressing this crisis, leaving many wondering why that was the case.
Media may issue coverage about Bobby Kennedy assuming leadership of the largest government department and encounter various procedural challenges. However, rest assured that he is sincerely concerned about the measles situation, and the administration is committed to implementing best possible infectious disease control responses. His team is being mobilized to ensure we deliver top-tier responses. Interestingly, I also notice an overwhelming media focus on this singular measles incident while failing to respond adequately to the significant percentage of teens facing pre-diabetes and the dire circumstances technology and under-represented chronic illnesses present for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Why did it take so long for Americans to hear from the Secretary of Health and Human Services amidst a crisis?
In his initial week, he released a statement and responded promptly. I can't speak to the timeline of a few days for responding…
Why hasn’t HHS taken a more proactive stance regarding vaccinations and prevention?
They’ve been clear in communicating their viewpoints on that.
Overall, looking four years ahead, how do you envision changes in American healthcare?
The NIH will have shifted its focus toward understanding the underlying factors contributing to sickness in America. A significant portion of the NIH budget—around 80 percent—will be redirected towards genuinely innovative ways to reverse and prevent disease rather than managing it.
Additionally, the FDA will see deregulation encouraging innovation from therapeutic developers and preventative technologies. There will be transformative advances in AI and technological applications that support disease prevention and reversal strategies. Conflicts of interest, which are currently a significant scandal within the FDA, will be mitigated, and this reform will lead the CMS sector to evolve insurance standards in alignment with scientific findings—ultimately fostering awareness that lifestyle conditions triggering chronic disease require proactive approaches, while the CDC will also enhance its infectious disease protocols while continuing to address chronic health issues.
In four years, you will see an atmosphere where individuals who currently view Bobby Kennedy as radical will begin to reflect more critically on the necessity for disease prevention and reversal strategies.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
