Robert F. Kennedy Jr., newly appointed by President Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, is pushing sweeping reforms to ban pharmaceutical TV ads and restrict sugary drink purchases through food assistance programs, triggering fierce resistance from industry giants.
At a Glance
- RFK Jr. proposes banning TV ads for prescription drugs and reforming SNAP purchases.
- His “Make America Healthy Again” plan targets chronic illness and industry influence.
- Kennedy claims mass marketing by Big Pharma and junk food companies fuels health crises.
- Critics warn SNAP restrictions could hurt low-income communities.
- Both initiatives face legal, political, and industry pushback.
Kennedy’s Mission to “Make America Healthy Again”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Trump, is taking a high-stakes approach to chronic disease prevention through a two-pronged campaign targeting pharmaceutical marketing and junk food consumption. Under his banner of “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), Kennedy plans to eliminate pharmaceutical advertising on television and remove sugary sodas and processed snacks from eligibility under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Kennedy told CBS News that Trump gave him a direct mandate: “I want to see results, measurable results in the diminishment of chronic disease within two years.” Kennedy responded, “Mr. President, I will do that.” His $1.8 trillion agency will play a central role in these efforts.
The initiatives are framed as a public health crusade to break what Kennedy calls a “mass poisoning by big pharma and big food.” But the aggressive scope of his plan has already drawn concern from both industry groups and civil rights advocates.
Targeting Pharmaceutical Ads
At the heart of Kennedy’s plan is an unprecedented effort to ban direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising on TV. The United States is one of just two countries that allows such ads, which bring in billions annually for broadcasters and pharmaceutical firms.
Critics, including journalist Peter Schweizer, argue these ads artificially inflate demand. “They are meant to create demand for new, expensive drugs,” Schweizer told American Compass, calling the system a product of “exploiting the third-party payer system.”
While Kennedy presents the measure as a matter of public health and fiscal responsibility, media and pharma interests are likely to challenge it in court, raising First Amendment concerns. As BBC News reports, the legal threshold for restricting commercial speech in the U.S. remains high.
SNAP Restrictions and Sugary Foods
Kennedy’s second initiative encourages states to seek federal waivers to bar SNAP recipients from using benefits to purchase sugary drinks and ultra-processed junk foods. “If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, that’s up to them,” said Rep. Josh Breechan in a post shared by Vermillion Policy Works. “But don’t ask the taxpayer to pay for it and then also expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the resulting health consequences.”
Watch RFK Jr. outline his SNAP reform proposal.
Kennedy has applauded the 24 states reportedly drafting legislation to align SNAP rules with his MAHA vision. His platform also supports improved school lunches and increased food labeling transparency. However, critics argue that these changes risk punishing low-income families. “This is just another way to cut benefits,” said Gina Plata-Nino, a food policy advocate quoted by CBS News. “How do we restrict people more? How do we stigmatize them more?”
Industry Resistance and Uncertain Outcomes
Kennedy’s reforms are expected to face formidable resistance from powerful lobbying groups. The pharmaceutical sector remains the top spender on lobbying in Washington, and food and beverage companies have a track record of fending off SNAP-related legislation.
Some observers question whether Kennedy’s lack of conventional medical or bureaucratic experience will hinder his ability to execute the reforms. However, he counters that institutional disruption is precisely what’s needed. “What we need is expertise on decoupling the agency from institutional corruption,” Kennedy said in the same CBS interview. “Because it’s the corruption that has distorted the science.”
As Kennedy prepares to lead an agency with 80,000 employees and broad regulatory reach, his ability to deliver on Trump’s two-year benchmark for measurable health improvements remains an open question. Whether Kennedy’s policies mark a true turning point or fall victim to entrenched political and legal barriers could define not only his legacy at HHS, but also the broader direction of public health in the U.S.
