As Donald Trump assumed the presidency earlier this week, significant questions loom regarding the impact of his administration on the US healthcare system and its ripple effects on global healthcare landscapes.
His “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda has sparked intense speculation, especially in light of his controversial nominees for key health positions. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine sceptic with minimal experience, has been nominated as Health Secretary, while Dr Mehmet Oz, known for his unconventional medical beliefs, is set to lead Medicare and Medicaid. This article delves into the implications of these appointments, Trump’s pledge to withdraw from the WHO, and how his pro-business agenda may reshape regulatory processes with global consequences.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Is He Really That Bad?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who initially opposed Trump during the 2016 campaign, later lent his support and was rewarded with the nomination for Health Secretary. Kennedy’s contentious views have raised alarm among public health experts. Notably, he has advocated for removing fluoride from public water supplies, claiming it “lowers IQ in children” and “causes bone cancer.” These assertions are widely debunked, as fluoride is recognised as a cornerstone in preventing tooth decay and improving dental health.
However, Kennedy’s most polarising stance is his opposition to vaccines. He has echoed Trump’s rhetoric in questioning vaccine safety, a position that threatens the future of vaccine manufacturers and immunisation programmes in the US. While Kennedy has moderated his public stance in recent months, likely to secure Senate approval, there remains concern that he may implement anti-vaccine policies once confirmed.
On a more positive note, Kennedy has pledged to prioritise combating chronic diseases in the US. With 60% of Americans suffering from conditions like heart disease and obesity, his focus on prevention over treatment is noteworthy. He advocates for addressing the root causes of these conditions by promoting healthier diets, shielding health policymaking from corporate influence, and redirecting government-funded research towards chronic disease prevention. For instance, he proposes pausing infectious disease research to better support his anti-junk food agenda. While these policies could reduce deaths from non-communicable diseases, critics warn that neglecting infectious diseases could have catastrophic consequences—”a healthier diet means little if you succumb to preventable diseases like polio.”
Withdrawal from the WHO: A Public Health Crisis?
Trump’s pledge to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) has caused widespread concern. This decision stems from his belief that the US disproportionately funds the organisation compared to other nations. Trump has also accused the WHO of aiding China in allegedly covering up the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Global reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. Critics argue that the withdrawal could weaken international public health efforts, create a leadership vacuum for China to fill, and undermine global health security. Ironically, if China becomes the WHO’s largest donor, it could increase its geopolitical influence rather than diminish it. Whether this aligns with Trump’s intent to financially pressure China is a matter of debate.
Domestically, the US also risks significant losses. Withdrawal from the WHO would limit American access to critical global health data—data that pharmaceutical companies rely on to design vaccines and public health programmes, such as the annual flu vaccination. The absence of this collaboration could hinder the US’s ability to respond to future pandemics and public health emergencies.
Regulation: Implications for the UK and Europe
Trump’s pro-business stance suggests he will push for reduced regulatory barriers for new drug approvals. While this may accelerate the availability of new treatments in the US, it poses risks for global health markets. Through initiatives like Project Orbis, a US-led collaboration promoting faster cancer drug approvals, these changes could have far-reaching effects.
A flood of cancer drugs with less certainty about their safety and efficacy may overwhelm European and UK markets. Regulatory agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), will face tough decisions about whether to maintain alignment with the US under Project Orbis or adopt a more cautious approach. Such a shift could result in significant regulatory divergence, impacting drug access and healthcare costs across the region.
Final Thought
Trump’s healthcare agenda represents a complex and often conflicting set of priorities. While the focus on chronic disease prevention and deregulation could yield some benefits, the broader implications of his administration’s policies raise serious concerns. Withdrawal from the WHO risks isolating the US from critical global health collaborations, while controversial appointments like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may undermine public trust in vaccines and science-based policymaking. For Europe and the UK, Trump’s regulatory shifts could prompt difficult choices about whether to follow the US’s lead or chart an independent course.
As the world watches these developments unfold, one thing is clear: the decisions made by Trump’s administration will not only shape the future of American healthcare but will also reverberate across the global health landscape for years to come. The challenge lies in balancing innovation and access with safety and global cooperation.
For exclusive insight on the healthcare policy landscape, become one of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group subscribers. Please email team@curiauk.com for more information.