The Changing Language of Federal Health Discourse and Its Impact on Disability Communities

The rhetoric surrounding public health in the United States is undergoing a concerning transformation, especially in the context of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. This movement, while generating discussions about health policies and outcomes, has also raised alarm among disability and chronic illness communities due to the language it employs.

Recent analyses reveal that the way officials discuss health and disease increasingly emphasizes individual responsibility, often to the neglect of systemic issues. This approach, rooted in the concept of the individualization of risk introduced by sociologist Ulrich Beck, frames health problems as personal choices. Beck argued that modern societies tend to shift the burden of risk onto individuals, obscuring the role of large-scale policies and societal factors. Historical examples, such as government denial of radiation hazards near nuclear plants, illustrate this dynamic.

In the context of the MAHA movement, this rhetoric manifests in framing chronic conditions like autism, obesity, diabetes, and neurodevelopmental disorders as primarily preventable through lifestyle changes—such as diet, exercise, and reduced exposure to chemicals—while largely ignoring systemic contributors like healthcare access, environmental pollution, and genetic factors. The movement’s reports often omit discussions of these systemic factors, despite robust evidence of their importance.

Furthermore, the language employed by figures like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reflects a tendency to portray neurodivergence and disabilities in a way that undermines their humanity. Statements making assumptions about the societal burden of autism, along with claims that environmental or lifestyle factors fully account for these conditions, can contribute to stigmatization. This framing risks politics that justify reducing federally funded supports and services for disabled individuals, or even viewing neurodiversity as societal “damage,” which echoes darker history like eugenics.

Another troubling aspect is how questions are used as rhetorical tools to sow doubt regarding established scientific knowledge—an approach known as sealioning. This tactic undermines public trust in science and medicine, confusing the public about complex issues like vaccine safety and environmental risks. By selectively questioning scientific consensus, the movement fosters misinformation and hampers evidence-based policy making.

Overall, these shifts in language and responsibility reflect a broader political and social agenda that prioritizes individual lifestyle choices over structural change. The implications for disability communities and public health policy are profound, potentially leading to reduced support, increased stigmatization, and a retreat from comprehensive, systemic solutions necessary for improving health equity.

Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-08-federal-health-shifting-ways.html