MAHA and Ingroups of the New Right by Sarah Matsumoto

In his 2008 TED Talk, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt outlined research about the moral foundations of human behavior, and how these five foundations mapped onto conservative and liberal political ideologies. These foundations include care/harm, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Haidt explained that across cultures and countries, liberal-identifying people tended to prioritize care/harm and fairness/reciprocity much higher than the other three foundations, while conservative-identifying people tended to hold a more evenly-distributed prioritization of all five foundations, with a sharp increase in the importance of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Highlighting this increase, Haidt observed that while every country and culture tended to agree that care/harm and fairness/reciprocity were important, the “moral arguments within cultures are especially about ingroup, authority, and purity.” To the last foundation (purity/sanctity), Haidt offered a quick point about how it manifests on both the political right and political left: while the political right may moralize about sexuality, in his view, the political left is increasingly moralizing food with “ideas about what you’re willing to touch or put into your body.”

Haidt’s understanding of the dimension of purity as motivating the political left in the United States rang true when he delivered his TED Talk, amidst rising concerns about genetically-engineered foods and a 2007 statement from Barack Obama about food labeling (“Americans have a right to know what they’re buying[,]” said the candidate during a campaign stop in Iowa). But along with so much in the political landscape, the ability to successfully discern a person’s political ideology based on any stated ideas about food have become more complicated. Two decades ago, expressed skepticism about “Big Ag” and food additives more reliably signaled a left-leaning speaker or Democrat; in 2025, these statements could just as easily come from a two- or three-time Trump voter. When the aperture is widened to define “purity” to include health and wellness values in addition to food, the vision that forms in the viewfinder is of a growing political coalition unified in its rejection of establishment institutions and embrace of a “crunchy” lifestyle. This, of course, is MAHA.

MAHA, or “Make America Healthy Again,” is at once a hashtag, a campaign slogan, and a mini-movement within American culture and politics. Its origins can be traced to a rebrand of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s presidential campaign—he attempted to run as a Democrat—converted into an endorsement of President Donald Trump’s campaign. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, had been gaining a following among people who shared his opposition to the influence of large pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations, or were searching for a viable alternative to the two main party candidates. While some MAHA views, like support for removing or reducing coloring in food, offer fairly widespread appeal, others wade directly into conspiracy theory waters. After Donald Trump won reelection in 2024, MAHA followers were optimistic that Kennedy would play a prominent role in his administration and elevate the issues that they felt mattered most.

MAHA’s hopes have been partially satisfied; Kennedy was confirmed as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. The White House’s recent MAHA Report identified a number of areas of concern affecting the health of America’s children (at a 30,000-foot view), including: so-called “ultra-processed foods,” environmental chemical exposure, childhood behavior in the digital age, and overmedicalization. Notably, the report excluded or deemphasized certain focal points of the official MAHA Political Action Committee, including advancing regenerative agriculture and protecting natural habitats. Critics of MAHA and Kennedy, including the conservative-leaning Cato Institute, have not been shy in pointing out the report’s inaccurate statements and errors, or in describing the Commission’s subsequent Strategy Report as having friendly eye toward industry. 

MAHA devotees have found ways to connect with one another in furtherance of their health and wellness priorities, and in doing so, offer a surface-level illustration of Haidt’s moral foundation of both “purity” and “ingroup.” According to Haidt and his colleagues, the “ingroup” foundation evolved from living in kin-based groups where dissent and criticism of the group are immoral. Rituals that reinforce or strengthen group solidarity, like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, are considered virtuous. The New York Times recently profiled Aberlin Springs, a MAHA “agri-community” in southwest Ohio. Aberlin Springs attracts homesteaders with a vision of “familial utopia,” in which a series of families live in homes surrounding a shared, working farm. In keeping with the nuanced politics of MAHA more broadly, Aberlin Springs residents include married couples with children, single women, and LGBTQ families. As the Times reports, political signs are prohibited, and neighbors are instead drawn together by their shared interests in healthy food and the feeling of being part of an extended community. Consistent with Haidt’s articulation of the ingroup/loyalty foundation, group selection here is by unrelated people with a shared adherence to certain ideas and ideals. Rituals, like the required participation in a Community Supported Agriculture subscription, reinforce the group’s chosen identity. 

Is there anything new or unique about MAHA as an ingroup that has united the political left and political right? Recent cracks in MAHA’s foundation may reveal the answer to that question or whether MAHA can even tell us anything new about modern partisan politics. MAHA supporters (including those at the Aberlin Springs community) disagree about vaccines. Further, many of the deregulatory actions undertaken or promoted by the Trump administration are in direct conflict with MAHA goals of a healthy environment and sustainable food systems. Some MAHA supporters have been disappointed by Kennedy’s relative silence about pesticide use, especially given his past crusade against glyphosate. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has cancelled over a billion dollars in funding that would have supported food programs benefitting regenerative and organic farms. Although more frequent and intense extreme weather events can shorten growing seasons and cause crop and livestock loss, the Trump Administration is actively seeking to remove any efforts to mitigate climate change or better prepare for its negative consequences, including consequences for domestic agriculture; President Trump announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. While MAHA favors action to protect against exposure to microplastics and PFAs, the Administration terminated EPA and NIH grants supporting research in those areas. And MAGA backlash to MAHA was recently ignited when Trump nominated wellness influencer Casey Means as surgeon general.

The internal conflict within MAHA and between MAHA and the Trump administration shows the strain that this new ingroup is experiencing as it is confronted with dissent from within and disappointment stemming from perceived betrayals by its leadership. It is possible that these strains will cause MAHA to splinter into factions. Some members may search for a new ingroup, although many traditionally left-leaning MAHA supporters would likely feel less welcome in other growing movements on the political right. In rural Arkansas, another group of homesteaders is hard at work building residences and a community center. The Return to the Land Movement seeks to build a community of only white, heterosexual people; its potential residents must answer questions about ancestral heritage, and its founders openly espouse discriminatory, white nationalist views. In the Pacific Northwest, a region with a long history of far-right enclaves, the Greater Idaho movement and American Redoubt promote communities united less overtly by race and more by a rejection of government, traditional Christian values, and gun ownership. Former Washington State representative Matt Shea sought to sever the state at the Cascade Mountains and form a new State of Liberty which would be governed by Biblical Law.

Members of MAHA, Return to the Land, Greater Idaho and the American Redoubt all value some degree of ingroup loyalty and group selection centered around specific values. But, with three years remaining in the second Trump administration, it is possible that the gap between MAHA’s expressed interests and the administration’s environmental and food-related policies will continue to widen. Whether MAHA can exist beyond Trump 2.0 and maintain its political influence as a movement will depend, at least in part, on the ability of its members to decide that loyalty to the group—and the group’s values—transcends support for a specific political figure or party.

Sarah Matsumoto is a Clinical Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Getches-Green Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Clinic