For American families, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is not abstract – it directly affects the safety of children, parents and grandparents. This role governs vaccine guidance, disease response and care systems for the elderly. More than a year into “Make America Healthy Again”-aligned leadership, the results suggest not reform but destabilization – one that leaves the youngest and oldest Americans more exposed.
Make America Healthy Again is an undeniably effective slogan. It captures real concerns about chronic disease, ultra-processed foods and a health care system that often treats symptoms rather than causes. But slogans are not policy. Addressing chronic illness requires long-term investment in research, environmental protections and preventive care. Infectious disease control operates on a much shorter timeline. When vaccination rates fall or public confidence weakens, outbreaks can escalate within months. A strategy that weakens immediate protections while promising long-term transformation is not visionary – it is risky.
The clearest warning sign is the resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease. The United States recorded 2,288 measles cases in 2025 and 1,748 more by April, compared with 285 in 2024. Measles is among the most contagious viruses known. Its return signals failure in one of public health’s most basic functions: prevention. Even small declines in vaccination coverage can double or triple the number of outbreaks, placing infants and older adults at greatest risk.
Institutional disruption is compounding the problem. HHS restructuring has cut tens of thousands of positions and reduced capacity at agencies like the Centers for Disease Control. Public health depends on continuity and expertise; once weakened, these systems cannot be quickly rebuilt. For families, this translates into slower responses to school outbreaks, delayed public guidance and fewer community health resources.
At the same time, federal policy is moving in the opposite direction, weakening access to care. The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” includes the largest Medicaid cuts in U.S. history – over $1 trillion – along with new work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and increased costs for low-income patients. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that roughly 10.9 million Americans could lose health insurance coverage as a result.
For families, this is not theoretical. Losing coverage means delayed care, missed medications and fewer preventive visits. Studies consistently show that uninsured individuals are more likely to forgo early treatment and instead seek care later in emergency settings, often with worse outcomes. Rural hospitals – many already financially fragile – face increased risk of closure as Medicaid funding declines and uncompensated care rises.
In Colorado, including communities across the Western Slope and District 3, the effects are already coming into focus. Medicaid (Health First Colorado) covers about 1.1 million residents, from children to seniors. New federal requirements – such as work mandates and more frequent eligibility checks – are expected to create significant administrative barriers and lead to more coverage losses.
State analyses warn that these changes will strain budgets, increase red tape and reduce access to care for children and families. In practical terms, that means more families losing coverage, not because they are ineligible, but because they cannot navigate complex reporting requirements or maintain continuous documentation.
MAHA also struggles with policy coherence. If environmental toxins are central drivers of disease, reducing exposure should be a priority. Yet federal actions have weakened water protections and delayed limits on PFAS, “forever chemicals,” substances linked to cancer, immune disruption and developmental harm. A credible health strategy cannot claim to fight environmental risk while easing oversight of it.
The strain extends to biomedical research. Funding reductions at the National Institutes of Health are cutting programs that study prevention, environmental health and disparities – the very areas MAHA claims to prioritize. A movement focused on root causes cannot simultaneously weaken the nation’s primary engine of scientific discovery.
To be sure, MAHA’s focus on nutrition addresses real concerns. Ultra-processed foods are linked to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But meaningful reform requires regulatory follow-through and institutional stability. So far, progress has been limited.
The pattern is clear: rising infectious disease, declining access to care and institutional disruption. For American families – especially the very young and the elderly – the consequences are immediate. More illness in classrooms. Greater risk in nursing homes. Delayed care when it matters most.
Public health is the invisible shield protecting the most vulnerable. Right now, that shield is weakening – and families are being left to bear the cost.
Paul N. Black, PhD, and Concetta C. DiRusso, PhD, spent 35 years as biomedical scientists and are Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Black is a Fellow of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and DiRusso served as a Jefferson Science Fellow working with USAID. They reside in Durango.