Surprising new research finds Americans oppose technology that kills us, support technology that saves lives
Survey Overview
On August 13, 2025 - August 15, 2025 Tavern Research surveyed 7,913 Americans about their views on Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). The survey was conducted on the web with the sample drawn from commercial web panels. The survey is weighted to the voting population of the US.
Bottom Line
Voters support some parts of the MAHA agenda and oppose other parts. Food safety reforms are popular, but voters oppose vaccine and public health cuts.
Survey Results
Americans are divided on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" agenda, with 42% support and 40% oppose.
At first glance, this could read as another partisan divide, but the data tell a richer story. The public strongly backs Kennedy's food safety initiatives like:
Banning artificial dyes (63% support)
Stricter FDA review of food additives (66% support)
Restricting ultra-processed foods in federal programs (51% support).
But the public also rejects the more controversial positions on vaccines and public health infrastructure: Clear majorities oppose:
Canceling mRNA vaccine research funding (49% oppose vs. 30% support)
Replacing the vaccine advisory committee (46% oppose vs. 33% support)
Cutting 20,000 health agency jobs (55% oppose vs. 29% support).
Americans also favor government coverage for gym memberships and healthy food (60% support) but remain skeptical about removing fluoride from water (44% oppose vs. 35% support) and worry that Kennedy's policies overall may endanger public health (45%) rather than improve it (33%).
This nuanced response suggests voters appreciate Kennedy's populist critique of corporate influence on food safety while rejecting his assault on established public health institutions and vaccine science.
Democratic Messaging Analysis
Democratic messaging on RFK Jr.'s health policies moved support toward the party by 0.26 percentage points (indistinguishable from 0,) meaning that Democrats don’t benefit from offering broad critique here.
Most Effective Messages
The most effective Democratic messages focused on positive, tangible, and bipartisan solutions. Themes like eliminating toxins from the food supply, promoting bipartisan action on the chronic disease crisis, and balancing science with transparency were highly effective, moving support toward Democrats by as much as 2.26 percentage points.
High-performing message example:
“America's chronic disease crisis needs Democrats and Republicans to work together on common-sense prevention that makes economic sense."
Least Effective Messages
Conversely, messages that were negative, highly partisan, and focused on direct attacks proved counterproductive. Criticizing the "Big Wellness" industry, tying RFK Jr. to a "war on science," and directly labeling him a spreader of misinformation were the least effective approaches, often backfiring and benefiting Republicans.
TL;DR
This analysis suggests the public is more receptive to solution-oriented language that acknowledges shared problems and proposes cooperation than it is to direct, ideological critiques. Voters appear to prioritize tangible outcomes and a sense of unity over purely negative or partisan attacks.
Conclusion
The MAHA health agenda presents Democrats with a messaging challenge that requires nuance rather than blanket opposition. While Americans reject attacks on vaccines and public health infrastructure, they embrace critiques of ultra-processed foods and corporate influence on nutrition policy. This split response means Democrats cannot simply denounce the entire MAHA platform.
The most effective approach acknowledges the legitimate concerns about chronic disease and food safety while defending essential public health institutions.
Messages emphasizing bipartisan solutions and practical improvements significantly outperformed partisan attacks or warnings about anti-science extremism.
Democrats that oppose MAHA should champion the popular parts of the health reform agenda while quietly blocking the dangerous elements through oversight and legislation rather than making Kennedy himself the focus.
The issue ultimately plays as a wash politically, but Democrats can gain modest advantages by staying positive, solution-focused, and above the fray of ideological warfare.
