Annenberg Survey: MAHA Support at 26%, Food Concerns Widespread

The Make America Healthy Again movement, which gained prominence during the 2024 presidential campaign following Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s endorsement of Donald Trump, continues to shape public health discourse in the United States. Now serving as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has predicted that the movement will be a significant factor in the forthcoming 2026 midterms, citing widespread enthusiasm from its supporters. New data from the Annenberg Public Policy Center provides a detailed portrait of the demographic and policy preferences of those who identify as MAHA supporters, as well as those who do not. The findings reveal a complex landscape where support for the movement itself is distinct from support for specific health policies, particularly those concerning food safety and chemical additives.

In a nationally representative survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, approximately one in four U.S. adults, or 26 percent, identified as supporters of the MAHA movement. Conversely, 40 percent stated they were not supporters, while a third, or 33 percent, indicated they were unsure of their stance. This distribution of opinion highlights a significant segment of the population that remains undecided or ambivalent about the movement. The survey, part of the Annenberg Science and Public Health panel, was conducted in two waves: the first from April 14 to 28, 2026, among 1,639 adults, and the second from August 4 to 17, 2026, among 1,904 adults. These data points allow researchers to track shifts in public opinion over the course of the year and provide a robust baseline for understanding the movement’s reach and influence.

Political affiliation plays a crucial role in determining support for MAHA. The data shows that MAHA supporters are more likely to identify as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. Specifically, 51 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners reported being MAHA supporters, compared to only 8 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners. Among independents, 16 percent supported the movement, while 51 percent remained unsure. Income levels also correlate with support, with middle-income households, defined as those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, showing higher support rates at 37 percent, compared to 22 percent of higher-income households and 21 percent of lower-income households. This demographic profile suggests that MAHA resonates particularly with middle-income voters who lean Republican, potentially influencing electoral strategies in the upcoming midterms.

Despite the distinct political alignment of MAHA supporters, the survey reveals that concerns about food additives, chemicals, and highly processed foods are widespread across all groups. When asked about 17 health policy positions associated with the MAHA movement, favorability was high for all six issues related to regulating chemicals and additives in foods and processed foods. On average, 73 percent of all respondents favored these issues, with 83 percent of MAHA supporters and 73 percent of non-MAHA supporters in agreement. Regulating chemical additives in food was the leading priority for all groups, including those unsure about MAHA. Removing highly processed foods from school lunches and banning glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, also ranked near the top for all three groups. This consensus on food safety issues suggests that the core concerns of the MAHA movement have broader appeal than the movement itself.

Support for MAHA does not necessarily indicate a broad distrust of medical professionals. The survey found that MAHA supporters are overwhelmingly confident that their own doctors, nurses, or other primary healthcare providers are offering them trustworthy public health information. Specifically, 85 percent of MAHA supporters and 91 percent of nonsupporters expressed this confidence, a statistically significant but minor difference. Similarly, when asked to choose between relying on trained medical professionals and relying primarily on their own judgment for medical care and food choices, 81 percent of U.S. adults chose doctors and health professionals. While there was a significant difference between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters, with 69 percent and 88 percent respectively favoring medical professionals, both groups showed high rates of support. This finding challenges the narrative that MAHA supporters reject medical expertise in favor of personal judgment.

Perceptions of federal public health agencies also show nuanced differences between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters. Similar proportions of both groups expressed confidence in the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with 57 percent and 58 percent for the FDA, and 58 percent and 62 percent for the CDC, respectively. However, a significant difference emerged regarding the National Institutes of Health, where only half of MAHA supporters expressed confidence, compared to 63 percent of nonsupporters. The greatest disparity was in confidence in HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a source of trustworthy public health information, with 75 percent of MAHA supporters expressing confidence compared to only 12 percent of nonsupporters. This pattern suggests that MAHA support is strongly associated with attitudes toward Kennedy himself rather than a blanket rejection of federal public health institutions.

Vaccine policies represent some of the sharpest divides between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters. The policy of reducing the number of childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC was favored by 53 percent of MAHA supporters but only 7 percent of nonsupporters. Similarly, replacing vaccine requirements with shared clinical decision-making was favored by 53 percent of MAHA supporters and 15 percent of nonsupporters. Ending vaccine mandates in schools garnered less support, with 35 percent of MAHA supporters and 4 percent of nonsupporters in favor. Despite these significant gaps, vaccine-related policies were less popular than the food-related policies, with even MAHA supporters showing only a bare majority in favor of the most contentious vaccine measures. This indicates that while vaccine policy is a key differentiator, it is not the primary driver of MAHA support for many adherents.

Finally, the survey identified several low-priority issues for both MAHA supporters and nonsupporters. Making it easier to sell raw milk was the lowest priority among the 17 policies across all groups, with 31 percent of MAHA supporters and 38 percent of nonsupporters ranking it among their bottom three issues. Ending public water fluoridation was also a low priority, with 24 percent of MAHA supporters and 31 percent of nonsupporters placing it in their bottom three. These findings suggest that while the MAHA movement encompasses a wide range of health policies, certain issues, such as raw milk sales and water fluoridation, hold less salience for the general public and even for the movement’s core supporters. The data underscores the importance of distinguishing between the movement’s identity and its specific policy agenda, as many Americans share the movement’s concerns about food safety without necessarily supporting its broader political or vaccine-related positions.

Subject of Research: Public opinion on MAHA movement support and health policy preferences in the United States

Article Title: One in 4 Americans supports MAHA, but three times as many share food-related concerns

Article References: One in 4 Americans supports MAHA, but three times as many share food-related concerns. Original publication (Bibliographic details unavailable.)

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: MAHA, Public Opinion, Health Policy, Food Safety, Vaccines, Annenberg Survey, Political Affiliation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, FDA, CDC, Americans, supports