02-19-2025

Establishing the President's Make America Healthy Again Commission

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14212, issued on February 13, 2025, establishes the "President's Make America Healthy Again Commission." The commission's initial goal is to study the crisis of chronic diseases in American children and recommend government-wide policy changes to address it.

Money: The order does not appropriate new funds. It mandates that the commission's work "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." (Sec. 7(b)) This means the commission will operate using existing funds from the departments involved.

Your Impact: Initially, the direct effect on an average American will be minimal. The commission is an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its future recommendations, however, could lead to significant policy changes in areas like food safety, school nutrition, healthcare coverage, and environmental regulations.

Status: Established by Executive Order on February 13, 2025. The commission is active.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14212 creates a new federal body to investigate and address the rising rates of chronic and mental health conditions in the United States, with a specific initial focus on children. The order directs federal agencies to re-prioritize health research and policy toward preventing disease rather than just managing it.

Core Provisions:

  • Establishes the Commission: Creates the "President's Make America Healthy Again Commission," chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and composed of heads of major federal agencies like the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and the EPA. (Sec. 3)
  • Initial Mission: The commission's first task is to tackle the "childhood chronic disease crisis." (Sec. 4)
  • 100-Day Assessment: Within 100 days of the order (by approximately May 24, 2025), the commission must deliver a "Make our Children Healthy Again Assessment" to the President. This report will identify the scope of the crisis, assess potential causes (including diet, medications, and environmental factors), and evaluate existing federal programs. (Sec. 5(a))
  • 180-Day Strategy: Within 180 days (by approximately August 12, 2025), the commission must submit a "Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy" with recommendations to restructure the federal government's response and propose "powerful new solutions that will end childhood chronic disease." (Sec. 5(b))
  • Policy Shift: The order sets a new federal policy to "aggressively combat" health challenges by focusing on the root causes of disease, ensuring food quality, and promoting transparency in research. (Sec. 2)

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to address the "alarming trajectory" of American health, citing that the U.S. lags behind other developed nations in life expectancy and has soaring rates of chronic diseases, cancer, and mental illness, especially among children. (Sec. 1)

  1. To redirect national focus toward understanding and drastically lowering chronic disease rates. (Sec. 1)
  2. To restore integrity and transparency to the scientific process by protecting it from "inappropriate influence." (Sec. 1)
  3. To ensure the healthcare system "promotes health rather than just managing disease." (Sec. 1)

Key Facts:

  • Affected Sectors: Healthcare, Agriculture, Food and Drug Production, Environmental Regulation, Education.
  • Timeline: The commission must produce a detailed assessment within 100 days and a full strategy within 180 days of February 13, 2025. (Sec. 5)
  • Scope: The commission's recommendations will be government-wide, affecting multiple federal departments and agencies.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Rise of Chronic Conditions (1980s-2020s):

For decades, public health officials have noted a dramatic shift in the primary health challenges facing Americans. While infectious diseases were once the leading cause of death, chronic conditions—many linked to lifestyle and environment—have taken their place. The Executive Order itself highlights several key data points: 6 in 10 Americans have at least one chronic disease, and 90% of the nation's $4.5 trillion in annual healthcare expenditures is for people with chronic and mental health conditions. (Sec. 1) Concerns over issues like rising obesity, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders have been building for years, alongside growing public distrust in the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Growing Health Crisis: The order leverages alarming statistics—such as the U.S. having the highest cancer incidence rate among 204 countries and autism rates increasing from 1 in 10,000 in the 1980s to 1 in 36 today—to frame the issue as a national crisis requiring immediate executive action. (Sec. 1)
  • Economic and Security Threat: The text explicitly links poor health to national security, noting that 77% of young adults are ineligible for military service largely due to health reasons. (Sec. 1) It also frames the $4.5 trillion in annual healthcare spending as an unsustainable economic burden.
  • Shift in Focus: The establishment of this commission reflects a political strategy aimed at shifting the healthcare debate from insurance and treatment (the focus of the Affordable Care Act) to prevention and root causes. This approach seeks to address public concerns about food safety, over-medication, and environmental health factors.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This Executive Order primarily affects government agencies and industries involved in health and agriculture; its direct impact on most Americans will come later if the commission's recommendations become law or policy.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Focus on Prevention: If successful, the commission's work could lead to policies that more strongly promote healthy lifestyles, potentially improving public health outcomes and reducing the incidence of chronic diseases.
  • Increased Transparency: A key goal is to increase transparency in scientific data related to health. (Sec. 5(a)(ix)) This could give consumers more insight into the safety and sourcing of their food and medicine.
  • New Health Options: The order encourages agencies to expand treatment options and insurance flexibility for lifestyle changes and disease prevention, which could lead to coverage for services not traditionally included in health plans. (Sec. 2(d))

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Industry Pushback: Industries in the food, chemical, and pharmaceutical sectors may face increased scrutiny and pressure to change their practices, which could lead to lobbying efforts and public disagreements over the commission's findings.

Long-term:

  • Regulatory Changes: The commission's recommendations could lead to stricter federal regulations on food ingredients, agricultural practices, and prescribed medications, potentially affecting consumer costs and choices.
  • Shifts in Government Programs: Federal programs like school lunches, nutrition assistance, and public health campaigns could be significantly redesigned based on the commission's strategy.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Farmers, food manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare providers, and federal agencies (HHS, USDA, EPA).
Secondary Groups: Parents and children (due to the focus on childhood disease), public schools, and health insurance companies.
Regional Impact: The impact could be greater in agricultural states or regions with high concentrations of food processing and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

Bottom Line: This Executive Order sets the stage for a potential overhaul of America's approach to health, focusing on why we get sick rather than just how to treat sickness.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Promoting Health and Deregulation"

Core Stance: The Republican platform generally supports initiatives aimed at improving public health through personal responsibility, market-based solutions, and reducing government bureaucracy. An executive action like this, focused on root causes and efficiency, can align with GOP goals of reforming the health system.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Supporters would praise the focus on transparency, reducing over-reliance on medication, and addressing the economic burden of chronic disease.
  • ✓ The emphasis on military readiness and cutting wasteful spending aligns with core conservative principles.
  • ⚠️ Some Republicans may express concern that the commission could lead to new, burdensome federal regulations on farmers and businesses, conflicting with the party's goal of deregulation.
  • ✗ Staunch fiscal conservatives might oppose any new government initiative, even an advisory one, if it is perceived as expanding the size and scope of the executive branch.

Legislative Strategy: The party would likely monitor the commission's work, supporting recommendations that align with market principles and deregulation while pushing back against proposals that expand federal control over the private sector.

Democratic Position: "Health as a Right"

Core Stance: The Democratic platform frames quality healthcare as a fundamental right and supports robust government action to expand access, lower costs, and address health disparities.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Democrats would likely support the goals of tackling chronic disease, addressing health inequities, and investing in preventative health.
  • ✓ The focus on environmental factors and corporate influence as potential causes of illness resonates with the party's progressive wing.
  • ⚠️ There would likely be skepticism regarding the commission's framing ("Make America Healthy Again") and concerns that it could be used to undermine existing programs like the Affordable Care Act or to cut funding for Medicaid under the guise of reform.
  • ✗ Democrats would strongly oppose any recommendations that weaken consumer protections, deregulate the food and drug industries, or shift costs onto individuals.

Legislative Strategy: Democrats would likely engage critically with the commission's findings, advocating for solutions that strengthen the social safety net and build on existing health laws, while opposing efforts to privatize services or weaken federal oversight.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to establish this commission stems from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President broad executive powers. Specifically, the power to commission officers and the responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" have been interpreted to allow presidents to create advisory commissions to aid in their executive functions.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution (Article II, Section 3): "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient... and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Constitutional Implications:

  • Executive Power: Establishing presidential commissions via executive order is a long-standing and accepted practice used by presidents of both parties to study complex issues and formulate policy.
  • Precedent: Presidents have historically created numerous commissions on topics ranging from civil rights and national security to administrative management and public health. This order fits squarely within that precedent.
  • Federalism: The order is carefully worded to avoid direct overreach into powers reserved for the states. It establishes a federal commission to advise on federal policy. (Sec. 7(a)) Any subsequent implementation of its recommendations through legislation or regulation would have to respect the constitutional balance of power.

Potential Legal Challenges:

It is highly unlikely that the establishment of the commission itself would face a successful legal challenge. The order explicitly states that it does not create any new enforceable rights and must be implemented consistent with existing law and appropriations. (Sec. 7) Legal challenges would more likely arise later, in response to specific regulations or laws proposed based on the commission's findings.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111. "I am calling to express my support for Executive Order 14212, the President's Make America Healthy Again Commission. I support its focus on preventing chronic disease."
  • Contact HHS: As the chair of the commission, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is a key figure. Contact information can be found on HHS.gov.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Send a message to the White House and the Secretary of HHS explaining why you support this initiative, perhaps sharing personal stories or data related to the health issues mentioned in the order.
  • Join an Organization: Look for advocacy groups focused on preventative health, nutrition, food safety, or environmental health that may align with the commission's goals.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111. "I am calling to express my opposition to Executive Order 14212. I am concerned that [e.g., it could lead to harmful deregulation, it will be ineffective, it could undermine existing health programs]."
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I want to voice my concern about Executive Order 14212 to [Rep./Sen. Name]. I urge them to conduct oversight of this new commission."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper outlining your concerns about the commission's potential impact on healthcare policy, government spending, or individual liberties.
  • Join an Organization: Identify groups that advocate for causes you believe this order might threaten, such as organizations protecting the Affordable Care Act, opposing government overreach, or representing industries that may be negatively targeted.