The MAHA Movement

Welcome to The StratComm Insights!

In this Insight Edition we analyse the rise of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, a case study in how emotionally driven narratives, distrust in institutions and identity-based storytelling are reshaping public health discourse.

What is MAHA 

From late 2023, the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement has moved from TikTok and Instagram to the centre of U.S. health policymaking. Initially popularised as a social media slogan by wellness influencers and vaccine-sceptical mothers, the movement was formalised during Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential run and gained political momentum when he dropped out to endorse Donald Trump.  

What followed was more than a rebrand. From a fringe narrative, MAHA turned into a formal policy power. 

Narrative Strategy: What MAHA Communicates and How 

The MAHA movement’s success comes from emotional simplicity – “natural is better”, “the system is corrupt”, “parents know best” and “health is freedom”. These themes are repeated across platforms and communities, from TikTok videos to Instagram reels to testimonial blog posts. The messaging is short, emotionally resonant and repeatable. It taps into frustration, distrust and desire for control among wellness influencers, chronic illness communities, libertarian health advocates and others who feel failed by health systems. 

The movement often begins with sincere concern. A child gets sick, asthma, a diagnosis that does not quite fit, a doctor who does not really listen. It is no accident that these stories flourish on social media. They are intimate, visual and aspirational. The power does not lie in statistical evidence but in aesthetic and affective cues; they feel deeply human. 

On TikTok alone, #MAHA has appeared in more than 224,000 videos. Many of them are posted by “crunchy moms” who combine political messaging with everyday lifestyle content. Around them, other prominent voices, including former fitness celebrities, chronic illness advocates, and “medical freedom” entrepreneurs, use their platforms to monetise coaching services, “clean” supplements and non-toxic everything under the banner of “health freedom”. 

Mothers as Movement 

If there is one group at the centre of the MAHA movement, it is mothers. They are the ones filming TikTok stories and swapping stories in Facebook groups – they are communicators, organisers and identity anchors. In the MAHA movement, motherhood is the ultimate protector, reclaiming control over food, health and information.  

As Leana Wen points out, MAHA moms, often known as “crunchy moms”, usually fall into three groups: 

• Naturalists, often left-leaning, focused on organic food, essential oils and living “low-tox”. 

• Chronic illness caregivers, who have watched their kids suffer and see mainstream medicine’s answers as inadequate. 

• Medical freedom conservatives, who feel threatened by government regulations and adore Kennedy because of his anti-vaccine and anti-establishment advocacy. 

Despite differing political affiliations, these groups share scepticism of public health institutions. Mothers in these communities rely on each other more than on the local paediatricians or school vaccine schedule. Facebook groups and TikTok threads function as digital support networks where symptoms are discussed and decisions debated.  

This presents a structural challenge. If you are not speaking from inside the circle, you are probably not being heard. And if you sound too certain, too official or too quick to correct, you are more likely to be blocked. That means health communication cannot rely on institutional tone alone, it must engage with the emotional and underlying personal identities that support the MAHA movement. 

Across contexts, the stereotypical caregiving role of female gender have often been mobilised for political ends. A parallel example comes from France, where the far-right feminist Collectif Némésis has used women’s safety as a gateway to promote anti-immigration narratives. Both MAHA and Collectif Némésis claim to “protect” - children in one case, women in the other – but by doing so they are redirecting legitimate concerns into exclusionary agendas. 

Like MAHA, Collectif Némésis invokes familiar concerns like protection, vulnerability and institutional failure, to build emotional credibility. In Collectif Némésis case, they frame gender-based violence as something “imported” by migrants and minorities. 

Sociologist Charlène Calderaro calls this an appropriation of feminism. These activists are not borrowing feminist ideas to look more modern, they are reshaping what feminism means and aligning it with ethnonationalist goals. Like with MAHA, the emotional authority of lived experience, fear and protection, gives force to these narratives. 

Ideological Contradictions and Populist Health Framing 

If the MAHA movement feels contradictory, that is because it is. It claims to defend public health, demanding action on food additives, toxins and chronic illnesses, while simultaneously supporting a political project that dismantles the very regulatory institutions required to deliver those protections. This is not some accidental inconsistency. It reflects a pattern in U.S. political history, in which populist grievances are co-opted by neoliberal or authoritarian agendas that ultimately betray their original aims. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rise illustrates this. For years, he was written off as an anti-vaccine supporter and conspiracy theorist. Now, he is a symbol of resistance against “the system”, even as he now leads one of the most powerful health institutions in the U.S., as Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

But here is where it gets foggy. The MAHA movement is a hybrid of traditionally left-wing health activism (organic food, non-toxic living, European food standards), and right-wing populist outrage and personal liberty. It rallies against ultra-processed foods, dyes and additives and then celebrates raw milk, butter, red meat and the carnivore diet as political resistance. 

MAHA is looking for agency in a system that has left them feeling powerless. They create a sense that something is being done, even if bigger drivers like sugar overconsumption, food insecurity, or unequal healthcare access are left untouched. 

Despite concerns about corporate influence, the movement rarely critiques the economic systems that drive dietary inequality or expose vulnerable communities to environmental toxins. Instead, the focus is on cultural enemies: scientists, regulators, health agencies.  

The MAHA movement represents a clear example of how populist health narratives can be mobilised in ways that contradict their stated goals.  

From Neoliberalism to Authoritarian Wellness 

The MAHA movement is the latest chapter in a much longer story. It builds on decades of declining trust in public institutions and frustration with a health system that, for years, was shaped by market logic, industry lobbying and regulatory inertia.  

Today’s calls for “health freedom” are tied to cultural resentment, anti-science sentiment and conspiratorial thinking.  What we are seeing now is not that the system could work better, but instead that the system is corrupt, and we are all better off without it.  

The appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services is emblematic of this evolution. Kennedy’s agenda includes phasing out food dyes, promoting raw milk and red meat as the backbone of American health, and challenging regulatory norms. He has promoted the idea that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) wages a “war on health”, and scientific institutions are seen as complicit in mass harm. The institutions tasked with protecting public health, such as the FDA, CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and NIH (National Institutes of Health), are caught in a precarious position, as they are being underfunded or lobbied against. 

When Kennedy talks about banning food dyes through “understandings” with corporations, it sounds bold. But meanwhile, core drivers of poor health, like ultra-processed foods, sugar overconsumption, food insecurity or socio-economic disparities, stay untouched.  

Personal Beliefs Undermine Structural Solutions 

At the centre of the MAHA movement is a faith in personal responsibility as the primary route to health. “Low-tox” living, dietary vigilance, sunlight exposure and supplement use are all framed not just as lifestyle choices, but as acts of protection, particularly from a system perceived as indifferent, incompetent, or harmful. However, this narrative, while empowering on the surface, shifts attention away from the structural conditions that shape public health and challenges the very institutions that could address them. 

The result is the individualisation of health. What is new in the MAHA movement is the emotional and political charge attached to these choices. As seen in the stories of women like April LoConti and Mikyla Page, personal health crises, often involving unsatisfactory encounters with the medical system, serve as radicalising moments. These experiences, instead of being met with demands for systemic reform, make people retreat into self-regulation. The implicit message is “the state cannot protect you, so you must protect yourself”. The result is a cycle that is hard to break; the more institutions try to intervene, the more it validates the idea that they are intrusive.  

However, the emphasis on consumer action, from buying organic, to avoiding certain oils, or rejecting mainstream medicine, provides a false sense of agency and distracts from the systemic drivers of chronic disease. It means that while the movement talks about resistance, what it often ends up reinforcing is a marketplace logic. It is a resistance only to those you can afford it.  

If trust in regulatory systems collapses and health governance is replaced, the state’s ability to protect vulnerable populations deteriorates. Those most at risk are left with fewer options and weaker protections. 

Rebuilding Trust and Engaging with Health Populism 

Dismissing the movement outright, or its supporters as “anti-science”, risks deepening the very alienation that fuels its growth. The challenge is not just to correct misinformation, but to understand the motivations that make it appealing and to build bridges. 

It is essential to understand that the MAHA movement is a mix of groups and grievances. Each of these groups has their own fears and political leanings and are motivated by something different.  

We must start where trust still exists. For many MAHA moms, institutional voices no longer hold authority. But a mom on TikTok who’s a nurse or a wellness coach who supports vaccines, might be easier to reach. Because of this, credible actors within communities should be given a voice: health professionals who are also mothers, local wellness practitioners with science-based views, or former vaccine sceptics who have changed position. 

Many MAHA supporters, especially mothers, feel dismissed, unheard, or ridiculed. Institutions that want to regain trust must create visible channels for them to feel heard. Whether through moderated community forums, co-hosted webinars, or partnerships with patient advocacy groups.  

We need to build common ground and credible alternatives. Many of the underpinning  issues MAHA raises are legitimate. By collaborating on these shared concerns, institutions can turn allies, instead of adversaries. This might include co-developing educational content on food systems or supporting reforms that reduce harmful additives. 

Finally, traditional models of top-down public health messaging do not hold anymore. Messaging must be emotionally intelligent, platform-specific and aesthetically resonant. Data should be translated into narrative to make it more compelling.  

Strategic Communication Lessons

The MAHA movement presents a paradox: while it frames itself as a movement for health, it weakens the institutions designed to protect it. Its success reveals not only the limits of traditional health communication, but the extent to which institutional legitimacy has lost power in the face of emotionally driven, identity-based storytelling. 

It is a warning about the long-term consequences of neglecting public trust, narrative resonance, and the lack of involvement with communities. MAHA thrives because it fills a gap: the one left by institutional silence, rigidity, or tone-deaf messaging. 

While this may look like a uniquely North American phenomenon, the implications are wider. When trust in science, regulation and shared facts starts to decline, it opens doors, not just to domestic discontent, but to exploitation by external actors.  

Rebuilding trust requires a shift in how public institutions listen, communicate and partner with the people they serve.  

Additional research is needed to understand the full width of the phenomenon, also beyond the US borders. For example: 

• What is the reach of the MAHA movement outside the US? What online ecosystems does it tap into? 

• In Europe, are there interactions with audiences orbiting in the anti-vaccination sphere? If so, are there any links with pro-Russian galaxies, which have been anchoring themselves to the anti-vaccination movements in the aftermath of the war on aggression to Ukraine? 

• How the MAHA movement, through its political backups, currently contributes to promoting the model of ‘tradwives’? 

• What political support is the MAHA movement outside the US?  

GDG Inspire is happy to support clients and partners wishing to design and develop further research in this matter. Get in touch! 

Ignite Your Inspiration 

🔹Can RFK Jr make America's diet healthy again? by Madeline Halpert

🔹RFK Jr. releases "MAHA" report on childhood chronic disease. Here's what to know. by Alexander Tin