Our 7 Takeaways from the New MAHA Report
The White House published its MAHA commission report, outlining key priorities of the Trump administration for transforming the US healthcare system and presenting a “call to action.”
With the flurry of FDA updates, we’ll be sharing brief, semi-regular news roundups — quick, digestible explainers to keep you on top of the latest developments. Make sure you’re on our paid tier to get each issue in full.
The hotly anticipated 68-page document released on Thursday is a master list of items on HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda.
It provides an overview and initiates an 80-day period before the commission delivers policy recommendations to the president. The report reviews the childhood vaccine schedule, without suggesting the removal of specific shots.
This assessment aligns with the FDA’s new framework for Covid-19 vaccines, which restricts their initial authorized use to children at higher risk of severe illness. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated during a press call on Thursday that the commission's work "officially begins with this report.”
Kennedy described the report as a “diagnosis,” with the upcoming policy recommendations serving as the "prescription." He noted, "It represents a consensus that is probably the strongest and most radical consensus by a government agency in history about the state of America’s health."
The White House's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report presents a comprehensive assessment of chronic disease in America, with significant implications for the life science industry.
Here are our initial takeaways.
1. The reported medication numbers are staggering—and now they're political
The report doesn't just cite statistics; it deploys them through a political frame. Consider the trajectory given:
Stimulant prescriptions for ADHD increased 250% from 2006 to 2016.
By 2022, 11% of all children had an ADHD diagnosis, with boys reaching nearly 1 in 4 by age 17.
But here's where it gets interesting—the report notes that antidepressant prescription rates in teens increased by 1,400% between 1987 and 2014, and frames this alongside a statistic: "Systematic overview shows that psychotherapy is just as effective as drugs in the short term and potentially more effective in the long term."
The commission goes further, highlighting that antipsychotic prescriptions for children increased by 800% between 1993 and 2009, "with most of these medications prescribed for conditions not approved by the FDA for use in children." That's a direct shot at off-label prescribing practices.
Perhaps most tellingly, the report estimates that "more than 35%—equivalent to more than 15 million prescriptions—of childhood antibiotics are unnecessary." The commission's math is simple: that's 15 million children "prescribed unnecessary antibiotics, offering only risk with no chance of benefit."
2. GLP-1s are in the crosshairs
While GLP-1 agonists have had remarkable market success, the MAHA report paints them as potentially dangerous experiments on children. The commission notes these drugs are "increasingly common among US kids," and ties this directly to the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation to use weight loss drugs and surgery "early and at the highest available intensity."
The report warns these "popular weight-loss and diabetes drugs with complicated metabolic effects lack neurodevelopmental and other long-term safety data, raising the specter of unforeseen problems that interrupt, damage, or impair metabolism and growth development." This isn't just an academic concern—it's a preview of potential regulatory action against one of pharma's fastest-growing markets.
3. The vaccine schedule analysis is more nuanced than expected
Kennedy has long been a vaccine skeptic, but the report takes a surprisingly measured approach—which might make it more dangerous to industry interests. Rather than calling for vaccine removal, it systematically questions the entire framework.
The numbers comparison is stark: "Since 1986, for the average child by one year of age, the number of recommended vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule has increased from 7 injections to 29 injections." The report then notes that Denmark's schedule has "nearly half as many" vaccines, yet "no trials have compared the advisability and safety of the U.S. vaccine schedule as compared to other nations."
The commission takes particular aim at clinical trial design, noting that "many vaccines on the CDC's childhood schedule involved small participant groups, had no inert placebo controlled trials, and had limited safety monitoring, some lasting six months or less, raising concerns about the ability to detect rare or long-term adverse effects."
Most provocatively, the report highlights what it calls a fundamental conflict of interest: "The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986...shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine-related injuries, creating a unique regulatory and legal framework. This framework creates financial disincentives for pharmaceutical companies to identify safety issues either pre- or post-licensure."
4. "Corporate capture" becomes official government language
The report doesn't mince words about pharmaceutical influence. It states bluntly that "the overmedicalization of American children...signals a critical policy failure where corporate profitability supersedes the health of children."
The report attempts to map financial tentacles in detail:
Between 2010 and 2022, the industry provided $6 billion to patient advocacy organizations.
From 1999 to 2018, pharma spent $4.7 billion on federal lobbying—"more than any other industry."
The revolving door statistics are damning: "9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners and approximately 70% of the agency's medical reviewers have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry."
The report even calls out specific settlements, noting companies have settled with the U.S. government for "major settlements of $430 million, $2.2 billion, and $3 billion."
5. Medical journals get torched by their own editors
The report quotes medical journal editors condemning their own publications:
Richard Horton of The Lancet: "Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry."
Richard Smith, former BMJ editor, is quoted as saying: "Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies."
Arnold Relman, former NEJM editor: "The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful."
The report notes that one prestigious journal "lost an estimated $1-1.5 million in advertising revenue" after publishing an article critiquing pharmaceutical advertisements, "revealing the true colors of the pharmaceutical industry, which was willing to flex its considerable muscles when it felt its interests were threatened."