As the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission prepares its final strategic recommendations to the White House, new survey data shows growing public skepticism about the initiative-particularly among Democrats.

Launched via Executive Order 14212 in February 2025, MAHA aims to combat childhood chronic disease by addressing four key factors: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization. While the campaign initially received bipartisan support, findings from the latest Gardner Food and Agricultural Policy Survey (GFAPS) suggest a notable erosion in approval among Democratic respondents.

Between May and August 2025, overall awareness of the MAHA campaign rose slightly-from 65% to 68%-but public views became more divided. Among those familiar with the campaign, the share of Democrats with a "very positive" view of MAHA dropped by 16 points, while "very negative" views increased by 6 points. Republicans, by contrast, held relatively steady in their views, showing only minor shifts. Independent/Other voters showed a small increase in negative sentiment, though support remained more stable than among Democrats.

Respondents aware of MAHA were also asked whether the campaign reflected their values in three areas: food, agriculture, and medicine. The most significant drop occurred in perceptions about medicine: Democrats' agreement that MAHA reflected their values about medicine fell from 60% in May to 39% in August-a 21-point decline. Agreement dropped by 16 points for agriculture and 11 points for food.

For Republicans, alignment with MAHA remained high: agreement that the campaign reflected their values about medicine dropped only slightly, from 88% to 81%, while responses on agriculture and food saw minimal change. Independent/Other voters also saw modest declines, particularly regarding medicine (from 61% to 52%), but less so on agriculture or food.

Table 1. Respondents' Perspectives on MAHA Across Waves and Political Affiliation

Note: Responses include only those who were aware of MAHA prior to the survey. Sums may not equal 100% due to rounding.

This erosion in public alignment coincides with political criticism over the Commission's upcoming policy recommendations. A draft of the final MAHA strategy, leaked earlier this month, has been described as "industry-friendly" and met with both criticism and praise. The draft reportedly avoids new restrictions on pesticides or controversial food additives, prompting concern from public health and environmental groups that the Commission is backing away from some of its more ambitious early critiques.

The Commission's May report explicitly named additives, pesticide residues, and the medicalization of routine health as contributing factors to rising childhood illness. That early positioning helped earn MAHA public support from both progressive health advocates and some conservative agricultural reformers. But the shift toward a more cautious, market-oriented policy tone may now be alienating the coalition that initially supported it.

In addition to tracking support levels, the August GFAPS also asked all respondents to rank the importance of the four health priorities identified by MAHA. The most frequently ranked as "most important" was poor diet (36% of respondents), followed by environmental chemical exposure (31%), lack of physical activity and chronic stress (20%), and overmedicalization (14%). These rankings were consistent across political groups, indicating broad consensus on diet and chemical risks as leading national concerns.

For stakeholders in agriculture, these rankings may signal shifts in consumer expectations and regulatory momentum. If policy recommendations emphasize diet and chemical exposure, pressure could mount on sectors related to food labeling, processed ingredients, and the use of agricultural chemicals.

Table 2. Proportion of Respondents Who Agreed With the Statement "The ‘Make America Healthy Again' campaign reflects my values about ..."

Note: Responses above do not include those unaware of MAHA prior to the survey.

For example, tighter scrutiny of pesticide use and calls for transparency in food sourcing may become politically viable if the MAHA Commission includes such measures in its final recommendations. While the current draft stops short of calling for new bans, the public prioritization of diet and chemicals suggests any final report perceived as too weak could trigger backlash-not only from health advocates but from voters expecting meaningful reform.

Agricultural producers and policymakers will need to closely monitor how MAHA's policy framework aligns with broader USDA and farm bill objectives, particularly around child nutrition, crop subsidies, and sustainability mandates.

Moreover, MAHA's potential to reshape public health discussions is clear. By placing agricultural policy in direct conversation with health outcomes, the campaign could open the door for cross-sector collaboration-or fuel further polarization depending on how the final report balances science, industry input, and public opinion.

As the White House prepares to review MAHA's strategic plan this fall, the political and practical implications of the campaign are coming into sharper focus. Public trust, once a key asset of the initiative, may hinge on whether MAHA can deliver actionable, credible reforms that resonate across party lines and reinforce the link between nutrition, farming, and national health.