Food and politics are intertwined, whether we’re at the grocery store or grabbing something from a taco truck. Under the second Trump administration, food stamps have become a tool for political maneuvering, risking the nutrition of low-income Americans. In Los Angeles, ICE agents have even reportedly targeted street vendors, leaving their food unattended. Meanwhile, tensions with Iran are causing fertilizer prices to rise for U.S. farmers, given the crucial shipping routes involved. Food prices overall are climbing, partly due to tariffs that raise questions about their legality. For instance, between January 2025 and January 2026, ground beef prices jumped from $5.54 to $6.75 per pound, while Trump claimed in his State of the Union address that prices were falling. Ironically, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is advocating for Americans to consume more meat.
The Trump administration seems to introduce new controversies regularly. Kennedy has already impacted public health—by undermining vaccination efforts and even making cuts at the CDC. Now, he’s shifting perspectives on the link between diet and health, pushing a meat-centric agenda that’s more symbolic than factual, given his own carnivorous diet. He consumes primarily meat and fermented items, avoiding processed foods entirely. This new focus on meat is perhaps an attempt to upend the food pyramid established years ago, which had been revamped under the Obama years. Now, under Kennedy’s influence, grains are at the bottom and meats at the top, attempting to advocate a specific dietary narrative with potentially serious implications.
Kennedy and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have stated their aim to “reclaim” the food pyramid for educating Americans. Yet, food policy scholar Marion Nestle notes that the original pyramid was itself a product of political influence, highlighting the relationship between food choices and big agribusiness interests. The new version seems aimed at promoting a specific diet rather than offering balanced nutritional advice.
Initially, I found the flipped pyramid concept puzzling. Why not just have meat on the bottom and grains like bread on top? Maybe it’s a misguided attempt to visually prioritize meat. The rhetoric of “returning” to a past ideal aligns with a broader narrative that got Trump re-elected. Eating offal as a staple? It feels like a nostalgic nod to a bygone era of prosperity.
Promoting a meat-heavy diet isn’t a unique American phenomenon. Historically, meat has often symbolized strength and modernity, from the Japanese Emperor’s push for beef-eating to challenges against dietary norms in Italy. Even as beef remains a focal point of national identity, alternatives like curry are gaining prominence in British cuisine. Yet, the insistence on meat often overlooks the nutritional benefits of beans and grains, which were historically consumed by immigrant communities but later dismissed as low-status foods.
The MAHA movement shares some of its goals with progressive food activism, though it emerges from a conservative standpoint. While Kennedy encourages people to reduce processed foods, his recommendations might overlap with those made by typical progressive food advocates. They also promote sustainable farming initiatives, like regenerative agriculture, which can be appealing across political lines. However, Kennedy’s agenda emphasizes individual dietary purity over collective health, downplaying notions like herd immunity.
Meat-centric diets raise health concerns. While individuals might benefit from increased protein, the broader environmental impact is troubling. Industrial livestock farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. As Frances Moore Lappé outlined long ago, meat production requires far more resources than growing vegetables. Ethical concerns from animal welfare activists further complicate the picture. Although consuming meat might seem beneficial on an individual level, it poses challenges for society as a whole.
In terms of policymaking, Kennedy’s stance against vaccines has notably affected the CDC. Aside from modest SNAP adjustments to curb soda purchases and the new food pyramid, a coherent food policy under the Trump administration seems lacking. Given the administration’s deregulation tendencies, it’s questionable how serious the MAHA movement’s proposals will be considered. The EPA has approved new pesticides, raising concerns about public health. So far, there’s no apparent friction between Kennedy’s agenda and the administration, but conflicting interests abound. MAHA activists have rallied against harmful chemicals, whereas Trump administrations have often sided with large agribusiness.
Kennedy’s meat-focused dietary advice is laden with irony. While Americans eat various meats, offal isn’t typically part of the mainstream diet, often relegated to ethnic cuisines. In fact, as socioeconomic status rises, consumption of these “lesser” cuts declines. Asking people to embrace such alternatives, laden with socio-political symbols, may not resonate well. It suggests a longing for a past that many might romanticize without realizing its implications. The vision of a healthy future tied to increased meat consumption strikes me as unlikely to address the broader issues at play.
