Trump and RFK’s false claims about autism and Tylenol aren’t an aberration — they’re part of a consistent strategy.
By Lizzie Chadbourne ,
Trump and RFK’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) commission has come for us, and public health in the U.S. is already suffering.
A closer look at the recent debacle in which the Trump administration baselessly claimed that autism is caused by taking acetaminophen during pregnancy offers a microcosm through which to understand the Trump administration’s larger public health agenda — a project fundamentally shaped by a patriarchal view of health and pregnancy, disregard for individuals’ bodily autonomy, the pathologization of neurodiversity, traditional gender roles, the moralization of illness and disability, and distrust of science and medicine.
As evidenced by Trump and RFK’s sloppy and unsupported claims about Tylenol and autism, the MAHA movement is also fully willing to promote dangerous misinformation in order to lay more groundwork for the regime’s authoritarian health agenda. Moreover, the Trump administration’s rhetoric on Tylenol and autism undermines science and stigmatizes autistic people.
Days after the acetaminophen announcement, the FDA also announced a review of medication abortion drugs, which reproductive rights reporter Susan Rinkunas argued uses the same strategy as the acetaminophen announcement: misrepresenting the implications of research studies, many of which are inconclusive or of poor quality, for political gain.
After the Trump administration made its ungrounded claim about Tylenol use by pregnant people causing autism in children, many medical and disability organizations based in the United States and abroad issued statements contradicting the claim and described the comments as a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence related to pregnancy and acetaminophen, the drug in Tylenol and other common over-the-counter medications.
Autistic advocates also criticized the assumption inherent in President Donald Trump’s speech that autism is a problem to which the solution is reduction and prevention, in contrast with an emphasis on accommodation and understanding.
The neurodiversity paradigm understands autism to be one of countless natural variations in the ways people think and experience the world and considers these variations to be neutral rather than disordered. Although the autistic community is far from a monolith, many autistic people say they would prefer research efforts and funding go toward improving the lives of autistic people rather than focus on preventing the existence of autistic people, which many autistic people and autism advocates describe as eugenics.
Trump’s comments also reflect a patriarchal understanding of health and pregnancy that minimizes women’s pain and undervalues their safety. The assertion that those experiencing pain or fever while pregnant should simply suffer through it — “tough it out,” as the president suggested — aligns with patriarchal Christian beliefs that value potential fetal health outcomes over the pregnant person’s actual health, autonomy, and safety. These same pro-natalist perspectives also underpin anti-abortion policies that treat pregnant people as expendable vessels and lead to the criminalization of pregnant people.
Proponents of Trump’s MAHA movement have unsurprisingly celebrated the Tylenol announcement and credited the influence of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , who is a key figure in the MAHA movement.
Kennedy has long been a harsh critic of the medical establishment and a vocal opponent of vaccination mandates. During his senate confirmation, he assured senators he would not take actions that discouraged or impeded vaccination. But once confirmed, Kennedy dismissed all sitting members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and handpicked new ones, including at least three known conspiracy-theory-driven vaccine critics.
ACIP has since decided COVID-19 vaccine policy should be defined by “individual decision-making” and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) limited approval of this year’s boosters means access for many is dependent on age and health status. This has also led to problems accessing boosters even for those who meet the criteria, contrary to a purported ethos of maximizing personal choice –– leading some to argue the lack of access is the point, taking a cue from anti-abortion policies that create de facto bans by targeting access.
The responses of MAHA movement leaders and supporters indicate a possible road map for the federal government’s future steps toward further embracing a set of formerly fringe medical theories that define the MAHA movement — theories that are not accepted within biomedical science. These theories are centered on concepts pertaining to immunity and detoxification and are interwoven with key conservative ideologies, including patriarchal family structures, traditional gender roles, and a moralistic view of health defined by individualism and personal responsibility. Such conservative beliefs about health then serve as justification for the dismantling of health and safety regulations and the defunding of social programs.
Pushing the claim that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes autism suggests the government is preparing to endorse these medical theories, laying the groundwork for changes to vaccination policies that go against the recommendations of infectious disease experts. First, it challenges the notion that autism is primarily determined by genetics. The vast majority of human traits and health outcomes result from complex interplays between our genes and our experiences. Although autism does appear to be particularly determined by genetics, there are likely many genes and non-genetic factors at play in the development of autism that probably vary from person to person. The idea that there is one true cause is considered extremely unlikely by most experts.
Trump’s comments and later social media posts specifically argue that autism can be avoided through individual choices made by pregnant women. Making “irresponsible” mothers and Big Pharma jointly responsible for “causing” autism conveniently blames two frequent villains of conservative narratives. This simultaneously portrays autism as easily avoidable with an individual-level fix: just don’t take Tylenol while pregnant.
Some reproductive rights advocates saw the emphasis on the choices of mothers and pregnant people as part of a pervasive cultural and historical pattern of blaming parents, especially mothers, while overlooking structural factors that deeply influence pregnancy outcomes and the social determinants of health of infants and children.
But the larger villain in this narrative is the overall medical establishment, including professional organizations like the American Medical Association and government agencies, especially the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This arguably is the most critical component of this strategy: undermining the public’s already low levels of trust in medicine and science by demonizing medical organizations and institutions that have long claimed Tylenol is safe to take during pregnancy. Already, leaders within the MAHA movement are suggesting these same actors could similarly be withholding information about the risks of other health care interventions, in particular, childhood vaccinations, stoking distrust of physicians and other health care workers.
The claims made by such figures are wrapped in scientific-sounding language that lends a sense of legitimacy, yet they also seamlessly gel with so-called conservative “family values.” The primary theory at the center of this scientific worldview focuses both on the risks of vaccination and also the apparent futility of them. The argument is that, should parents follow all their recommended health advice by exercising their personal responsibility, their children’s immune systems will be strong enough that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.
The MAHA guidance for building this innate immune system includes “natural births” without Caesarean sections or epidurals, then breastfeeding only; opting for supplements, homeopathy, and chiropractic treatment while avoiding conventional medications during pregnancy and childhood; and most importantly: no vaccinations. These recommendations notably involve significant barriers to working while parenting, pushing mothers out of the workforce to stay at home so formula is never necessary and even so that they can homeschool their children, where there are no vaccination requirements — or any risk of exposure to different cultures or perspectives.
Some physicians and other experts attempted to debunk these theories in the wake of the announcement, providing more accurate interpretations of the research findings that RFK Jr. and his ilk have been twisting. However, faux “science” gets promoted at higher rates by algorithms that reward simplicity and drama over nuance and accuracy.
Experts and medical institutions need to lean into the nuance of complex issues to combat this scientific facade. The assertion that scientists have not found statistically significant links between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and having an autistic child is not true. When professional organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists simply claim there is no evidence of any association rather than explaining why the available evidence overall does not indicate acetaminophen use during pregnancy is a cause of autism, this oversimplification feeds into the perception that mainstream medicine is more interested in protecting itself than helping people live healthier lives.
It is true, however, that the existing research findings on this topic are inconclusive and largely based on weak evidence, and thus making a public, confident claim that acetaminophen use during pregnancy does cause autism is unscientific and unethical, as is promoting a possible related treatment that has barely been studied at all.
Yet no matter who is espousing claims that complex health outcomes can be explained by simple answers, especially those that involve individual-level behavior change over structural approaches, it’s important to be skeptical. It’s empowering to acknowledge the role we can each play in our own health care, but all too often this personal agency is co-opted by neoliberal efforts to further dismantle, deregulate, and privatize our health care system, ultimately limiting our personal choices when it comes to our health and well-being.
The erosion of social programs, such as the massive cuts to Medicare in the president’s budget bill, is what makes autistic children and adults, and all people, less safe and less healthy. Focusing on addressing structural factors, strengthening public assistance, and addressing environmental health and climate change would improve the health of everyone, especially autistic people. But these solutions don’t align with the agenda of the Trump administration to sow distrust in institutions and cut social services. Individual choices cannot solely determine health outcomes or disability, and those claiming otherwise are employing a disingenuous strategy to deflect attention from their woeful failures to protect our health.
