Do Democrats and Corporations Really Hate a Healthy America?
The fight for MAHA continues.
On March 25, the Senate confirmed Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH) and Dr. Marty Makary (FDA). Both are highly qualified, are medical doctors, and have been employed by two of the most elite universities in the USA as full professors. In normal times, both of these candidates would have been confirmed with strong bipartisan support.
But not a single Democrat voted to confirm Dr.Bhattacharya . The rot in the democrat party has festered to the point where they can no longer vote on qualifications - only along party lines. Shame on them.
Only three Democrat Senators voted for Dr. Marty Makary. In committee, almost no democrats voted for either candidate. Why does this matter?
For some of Trump’s earlier nominees, there was cross-over support from Democrats, but not so true for the HHS positions. Of which only three have been confirmed, and five have not.
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS): Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed on February 13, 2025. All of the Democratic senators voted against Kennedy's confirmation.
Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya was confirmed on March 25, 2025. All of the Democratic senators voted against Bhattacharya's confirmation.
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Marty Makary was been confirmed on March 25, 2025. Three Democratic senators who voted in favor of confirming Dr. Marty Makary were Dick Durbin from Illinois, Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire, and Jeanne Shaheen also from New Hampshire.
Not yet confirmed by the Senate:
Nominee Gustav Chiarello III for Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services has not been confirmed.
Nominee Michael Stuart for General Counsel for Health and Human Services has not been confirmed.
Nominee Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General has not been confirmed yet.
Nominee Dr. Oz. for Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not been confirmed yet.
Nominee Dr. Susan Monarez for Director Centers for Disease Control.has not been confirmed yet.
The Senate's practice of referring presidential nominations to committees for review before the full Senate considers them has evolved over time. The requirement for nominations to be referred to "appropriate committees" was formally established in 1868. However, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that committees began routinely holding public hearings and conducting in-depth reviews of nominees.
President Trump is in the third month of his second term, and the Senate has yet to confirm most of his nominees for HHS. This is unacceptable. Frankly, the vetting process for nominees has become ossified political theater, and worse, voting along party lines by the Democrats has become status quo. The Majority Senate leader, Senator John Thune, must streamline this process, and the confirmation process must be reformed as soon as possible.
In the meantime, the HHS Secretary has his hand somewhat tied behind his back, as he does not have his permanent leadership positions filled.
However, the truth is that the public expects and supports the complete reform of HHS. They are looking to President Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy to act quickly. While the Senate dithers and Democrats refuse to support initiatives to overhaul the organization, the public will remember how the Democrats have worked to block reforms and candidates, including using lawfare, during the upcoming next midterm elections.
But what are the reforms currently being considered?
People seem to have already forgotten that the big win for MAHA, was President Trump’s Executive Order on February 15, 2025, banning the mandates of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for school children and college students. That order states:
It is the policy of my Administration that discretionary Federal funds should not be used to directly or indirectly support or subsidize an educational service agency, State educational agency, local educational agency, elementary school, secondary school, or institution of higher education that requires students to have received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend any in-person education program.
-The White House
Another win for MAHA is that The Kennedy team in HHS/CDC is finally beginning to get access to the VAERS and adverse event reporting systems. You should expect more on this story in the upcoming months. Acting and pending CDC Director Dr. Susan Monarez is playing a key role in making this happen.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is also spearheading “Operation Stork Speed” which intends to review baby formula nutrients and increase ingredient testing for heavy metals and other contaminants. This is important because the USDA inspection process and regulations have proven inadequate.
A recent Consumer Report study analyzed 41 types of powdered formula. They detected arsenic, a known carcinogen, in seven baby formulas and harmful levels of lead in 18 tested formulas. That means 41% of the formulas tested have high levels of lead, a neurotoxin, and 17% have high levels of a known carcinogen.
This is beyond unacceptable.
Furthermore, the amount of corn syrup, sucrose, and sugar in infant formulas is exceptionally high, as highlighted by various researchers.
Given the high rate of dental cavities in the USA, the childhood addiction to sugar, simple carbs, and bad fats, and the skyrocketing rates of childhood obesity and cardiac disease, this ingredient list should give anyone pause. Frankly, every person in the United States should be praying the HHS succeeds in making infant formula healthy. A recent study showed that one of the main culprits in these formulations is added sugars:
A (recent) study … from the University of Kansas in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis shows most infant formulas on the U.S. market contain primarily added sugars rather than the healthier, naturally occurring lactose found in cow-milk base that would be best for babies because it’s closest to human breast milk.
“Added sugars are contraindicated for infants and children under the age of 2 — they’re not supposed to have them,” said lead author Audrey Rips-Goodwin, a KU undergraduate who headed the analysis from KU’s Health Behavior and Technology Lab. “Previous research has shown that some infant formulas contain added sugars. We sought to identify the best infant formulas available in 2022 — those with the highest proportion of naturally occurring lactose. We found that only five out of 73 formulas tested contained from 70% to 90% naturally occurring lactose.”
Senior author Tera Fazzino, associate professor of psychology and associate director of the Cofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research & Treatment at KU’s Life Span Institute, said the study’s data was a revelation because the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t have nutritional requirements or labeling mandates for the sugar profile of formula marketed to American parents and caregivers…
“The FDA stipulates that infant formulas must contain a specific proportion of calories from fats and proteins, but it does not regulate sources of carbohydrates,” she said. “Because of this, formula companies can use any type of carbohydrate, including added sugars (e.g., corn syrup solids, fructose, glucose) and starches in their formulas.”
Even with something as desperately needed as a review on nutritional guidelines for infant formula, the leftwing nattering nabobs just can’t help themselves. Conflict of interest prone Former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Scott Gottlieb chimes in about Operation Stork Speed:
Operation Stork Speed was literally launched within the first sixty days of the Trump Presidency and before the new Commissioner of the FDA was confirmed, but evidently, it isn’t moving fast enough? Yeah, right.
The other significant initiative that the Trump administration is working on is to prohibit soda from being bought with governmental food stamps. As specific items such as alcohol and tobacco are already banned from food stamps, this is not a big stretch objective.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. The SNAP program needs to be reformed, as HHS Secretary Kennedy is proposing. But personally, I believe that the solution should be much broader.
The solution is simple and easy - SNAP should follow the WIC guidelines for food choices. The WIC program provides nutritious foods to support the health and well-being of pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, as well as infants and children. Grocery already have to labels foods that can be bought within the WIC program. The program's food packages include items like milk, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meat, and proteins but exclude sugary drinks such as soda as well as most ultraprocessed foods.
The Libertarian arguments about choice are not relevant. The money used for food stamps (electronic debit) was taken from taxpayers. The government must spend that money wisely. Buying junk food for people is not a wise use of that money.
Of course, the exclusion of soda from the SNAP program has corporate Big AG and the food industry in hysterics. Why? Because the amount of money people spend on soda using government money is enormous.
Grok3 states that a “2016 USDA study found that sweetened beverages, including soda, accounted for 9.3% of total SNAP grocery spending (!!!). This category was the top purchase among SNAP households, with about three-quarters of these purchases made using SNAP benefits rather than cash. In fiscal year 2023, SNAP spending totaled approximately $113 billion. Using the 9.3% figure, this suggests that around $10.5 billion of SNAP funds were spent on sweetened beverages that year.” Think about how much healthy food 10.5 billion dollars would buy!
This also means that soda and beverage companies stand to lose over 10 billion in revenue annually.
Their response has been to use social media influencers to convince followers that SNAP recipients should have the “right” to purchase soda for their own personal use with government money, and set-up fake NGOs - “astroturf” citizen groups to fight against soda being removed from allowed SNAP items. Nick Sortor writes that:
Large Soda Companies are paying “influencers” upwards of $1,000 PER POST to lobby against the SNAP (food stamp) soda ban Why? Because Coca-Cola and PepsiCo pull in over $5 BILLION each year off taxpayer-funded food stamps. DON’T FALL FOR IT. Big Soda is paying for these posts.
-Nick Sortor
And in fact, Nick then has screenshots of several influencers pushing the idea that the government is impeding on individual “rights.”
“Clown World” immediately realized the bad optics and withdrew from the campaign soon after.
Nick also writes:
These globalist corporations will gladly tear MAHA and MAGA apart if they can - to augment their bottom line. They are not to be trusted.
Furthermore, paid influencers who take money for unworthy causes or unethical services must be exposed for what they do. Some might call this behavior grifting. This is not acceptable. Please consider unfollowing such people. They aren’t worthy of your time.
Rome was not created in a day.
Team Trump has done exactly what Trump promised during his campaign and more. MAHA has been extraordinarily successful, given that they just started their third month in office. But hold on tight - the ride to reforming the HHS has only just begun!
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We are deeply grateful to the decentralized network of paid subscribers that enables us to continue doing what we do to support freedom.
They don't hate healthy America. They hate the billions $$$ they stand to lose and they will fight for the love of money.
I'm an influencer now: "Our arsenic is better than their arsenic"