Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his allies in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement have no shortage of targets — products, policies, foods and drinks that they see as worsening the nation’s health. Alcohol seems to have so far avoided their outrage.
Kennedy, if confirmed as health secretary, would be handed power over a broad range of issues. Beyond his direct job duties, he would secure a platform to shape public discussion of health and, through incoming President Trump, motivate Congress to act. Could he inspire a new temperance movement and change alcohol’s status as politically untouchable?
“During the campaign, RFK and President Trump talked about the need to stop recommending harmful chemicals and to stop subsidizing them. Phase 1 of MAHA is full transparency on what’s making us sick to the American people and lawmakers can make informed decisions,” Calley Means, a Kennedy adviser, told STAT when asked if alcohol could become part of the movement.
In many ways, alcoholic drinks share commonalities with the foods Kennedy wants to crack down on, said Nicholas Reville, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Addiction Science, Policy, and Research. Both alcohol and ultra-processed foods can become addictive, buzzing through the brain’s pleasure circuitry and driving intense cravings in some people. Many forms of alcohol are even considered ultra-processed foods, since they contain additives, preservatives, and added sugars — but often don’t need to list them on labels.
Both are also linked to various common health problems, though the evidence of alcohol’s risks is more clear-cut than that of ultra-processed foods. Excessive alcohol consumption — defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as more than four drinks in a sitting (five for men) or more than eight drinks per week (15 for men) — can cause damage across the body. Heavy drinking has been associated with an increased risk of heart disease, liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure, and half a dozen types of cancer.
In recent weeks, two reports have called attention to the potential harms of alcohol even at “moderate” levels of use: one drink per day for women (two for men). The outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, released an advisory this month calling for stronger warning labels on containers of alcohol, including mention of the alcohol-cancer connection. In December, a scientific report that will be used to shape the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans documented an association between moderate drinking and an increased risk of breast cancer. (That same report also found moderate drinking was associated with a lower risk of death for any reason, though it’s not clear whether alcohol alone was the factor that lowered risk.)
And while there is ongoing public debate about just how dangerous light-to-moderate alcohol consumption is, researchers agree there are undeniable risks that come with more intense levels of drinking. At least 178,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive drinking, CDC data suggest.
While Kennedy himself has not spoken in recent months about alcohol as a driver of chronic disease and death, others in his sphere have. Marty Makary, Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration and a gastrointestinal surgeon, has referred to alcohol as a “blind spot” in the larger conversation about public health. “More people die of alcohol abuse than opioids and fentanyl. I don’t think we talk enough about the abuse potential,” he said in October on “The Prof G Pod” with author Scott Galloway.
Casey Means, co-founder of the health tech company Levels and (along with her brother, Calley) a prominent member of MAHA from its early days, wrote at length about quitting drinking in 2024. “I want to lower my own risk for cancer, and amazingly, alcohol is the third leading modifiable risk factor for cancer,” she wrote on her blog. Means’ mother died of cancer in 2021.
Kennedy is in long-term recovery from drugs and alcohol, and has said he attends nine AA meetings per week. He has also taken mixed stances on addiction treatment in the past. Trump has previously said he does not drink because his brother Fred died in his early 40s after developing alcohol use disorder. “He would tell me, ‘Don’t drink. Don’t drink.’ He was substantially older, and I listened to him,” Trump said in 2018.
Still, alcohol is big business. Trump owns a winery and has participated in events sponsored by alcohol companies. He also used to have a vodka brand. The U.S. alcohol industry is a mega economic engine, encompassing the makers of beer, wine, spirits, and mixed drinks, as well as distributors, liquor stores, bars and restaurants, and other retail outlets. It’s estimated to support millions of jobs and generate tens of billions in tax revenue each year.
As a result, alcohol — like food — has the backing of powerful corporations. The beer, wine, and liquor industries gave millions to lawmakers in both parties in the last election cycle. Congress has seemed to defend its interests, even investigating a federal panel studying alcohol’s health harms for the dietary guidelines. (Two groups, one at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and another led by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, were tasked with combing through the scientific literature on alcohol’s risks.)
Dozens of lawmakers, led by Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), chair of the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services, have alleged the SAMHSA study was improperly assembled and includes researchers with a bias against alcohol. That panel’s report is due later this month.
“The Biden administration has repeatedly ignored Congress’s mandate and taken improper authority over the study on health effects due to alcohol consumption. It’s imperative these guidelines, that impact Americans’ health, are based solely on scientific research and not an agenda being pushed by unelected bureaucrats,” McClain told STAT in a statement.
Advocates have criticized lawmakers for intruding on the scientific process. Some have also cast doubt on the NASEM panel’s ethics, since it originally included researchers with ties to the alcohol industry. These kinds of conflicts of interest are common in the realm of alcohol research. George Koob, the longtime head of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, has been criticized as being too cozy with industry. An analysis of emails between 2013 and 2020 suggests dozens of other staffers and leaders at the agency interacted with alcohol representatives, updating them on policy developments and at times criticizing public health research. (Koob said he has since distanced himself from the industry.)
Kennedy has made a career of exposing government corruption — mostly related to environmental pollution — and his MAHA platform pledges to root corporate influence out of Washington. He could set his sights on alcohol research and policy. However, Trump’s love of deregulation and big business could win out. In 2017, Trump slashed federal taxes on alcohol, and Congress later made those cuts permanent. His free-market-minded followers would chafe at government regulations that interfere with business.
“Since Prohibition was repealed, they have intervened in the system and ultimately created a state system for control that is probably way too onerous. We could probably achieve better health outcomes with a lighter touch,” Michael LaFaive, senior director of fiscal policy at the free market think tank Mackinac, said. Trump could also adopt recent recommendations from the Treasury Department to increase competition in the alcohol sector — a report the Biden administration did not act on — and further drive down prices for consumers, LaFaive said.
The wild card is MAHA itself, and its ability to gather previously discordant ideas under the same banner. Alcohol attitudes are not necessarily partisan, said Jason Taylor, an economic historian at Central Michigan University. “I cannot imagine an issue like this sticking to party lines today,” he said. Both parties have a wing that would oppose any anti-alcohol efforts as infringing on people’s freedoms, and both have a wing that would favor such policies, he said.
Certain reforms, such as tying taxes to alcohol content (rather than volume of liquid) and improving labeling, could gain bipartisan support if framed as health-focused measures. But even enacting those would be a challenge because of alcohol’s unique place in the culture. It would likely require a public pressure campaign and strong health advocacy, similar to that surrounding tobacco control laws, Reville said. “With MAHA, it’s very possible that we will have warning labels on addictive foods before we have them on addictive substances.”
In that way, perhaps only something like ideology-bending MAHA could transform alcohol from a meddling “nanny state” issue into a nonpartisan effort to improve the nation’s health.
Lev Facher contributed reporting.
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.