By Dr. Naomi Wolf
Outspoken
June 20, 2025
This is one of those essays I dread writing. It's about a movement I cherish and about people whom I generally greatly admire.
Headline: MAHA leadership is risking a derailment; it risks losing President Trump and the Republicans the midterms.
The cause of this danger is an oddly adolescent, somewhat cult-y, and far too personalized approach to the challenges and rigors of national politics. I write this essay out of love and support for the MAGA/MAHA alliance, in the hope that MAHA can course-correct quickly. (MAGA, in my view, is doing more than fine).
I need to paint the picture in snapshots. As you know from my last post, I was the coauthor and signatory, along with my colleague commentator Shannon Joy of The Shannon Joy Show; analyst Sasha Latypova of Due Diligence and Art; and physician Dr Mary Talley Bowden of AmerciansforHealthFreedom.org, of an open letter criticizing HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's misleading announcements about having revised the CDC recommendations for the mRNA injection.
Though the announcement purported to be a step in the right direction, and was being welcomed rapturously by MAHA-aligned influencers as a removal of the mRNA shot from the CDC recommendations, we pointed out that it was still targeted against sick kids, and against all pregnant women. Our letter also took issue with the fact that HHS has not pulled the mRNA platform from the market, and is failing to deliver on various key MAHA policy goals, which we itemized.
The response to this letter has been extremely supportive, with signatures from many grassroots citizens and health freedom activists. It generated a good deal of press, including stories in Yahoo.com, coverage in podcasts such as Dr Drew, and so on.
Some seemingly positive MAHA deliverables were set in motion the following week. Sec Kennedy fired the corrupt ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) committee, for instance, and appointed 8 replacements. These included the science/ freedom hero, Great Barrington Declaration signatory Dr Martin Kulldorff. The well-known critic of lockdown excesses Dr Retsef Levi of MIT was also appointed (a slightly baffling choice upon deeper scrutiny, as his field is food security, not vaccines. He also spent 12 years in the Israel Defense Forces' Intelligence Wing, but no matter). Self-described inventor of the mRNA platform, Dr Robert Malone, was a pick as well.
So this dramatic gesture of Sec Kennedy's turns out not to be black and white. Shannon Joy rightly pointed out, for instance, that eight replacements are just short of a majority.
There will surely be more MAHA "victories" to come, and more questions to be raised about those "victories," step by step by step. In other words, HHS had a positive-to-messy week, following high-profile pressure from an outside group, along with other internal and external pressures of all kinds, no doubt.
My point is this: this is how politics works.
"Principals", meaning people situated as Sec Kennedy or President Trump are, try to weave, every day, through the thicket of competing agendas that surrounds them, and to draw down from the opposition all around them, the least amount of damage. Everyone is trying to avoid rousing unnecessarily the ire of the biggest investors in both parties' campaigns: in this case, Big Pharma. There are belligerent watchdogs over Sec Kennedy on the inside - reportedly, Sen Bill Cassidy has placed a rigid gatekeeper in the mix - advisor Calley Means is also tasked with keeping too much real MAHA momentum from taking place, it appears - and the whole operation is overseen by another stern gatekeeper, President Trump's Chief of Staff, former lobbyist Susie Wiles.
In all of this complexity, the base yells and screams about its own issues. Some accommodation is made, for a compromise that is no one's ideal. And things move haltingly forward.
Everyone who has ever done politics at a national level, understands this chaotic, tug-of-war dynamic; and knows that this is the reality of power, all day, every day. Grownup, experienced national politicians and their chiefs of staff know that it is very useful for them when their base yells and screams about an issue, especially publicly, because it gives them cover to deliver outcomes that their voters want, but that lobbyists and special interests do not want the voters to receive.
MAHA leadership and insiders really have to learn about and understand this dynamic.
I remember Vice President Al Gore, who is quite a decent person, explaining this dynamic to me. He said that citizens don't usually have a seat at the table, and that this can be very frustrating for decent "principals", since special interests do always have a seat at the table. The best message he could give to citizens who wanted a specific outcome from him was for them not simply to complain about what he was not delivering, but rather, as he put it, to "Make me." That is to say, citizens needed to organize and create formal pressure groups, and publicly press on the Principal and his or her team.
The example the Vice President gave was AARP - the American Association of Retired Persons. Before this pressure group existed, the elderly had little power or voice; but after it was organized, no President or Congressperson on the right or left wanted to infuriate American elders' numerically powerful public advocacy group.
I took that lesson to heart.
But it appears that many MAHA insiders, and certainly many among the satellites of (sorry, I have to say it) men who are now informally surrounding Sec Kennedy, really don't seem to understand this, or to get, in general, how to play grown-up politics.
MAHA insiders and the satellite spokespeople and "Bobby" "helpers" seem to be resorting to middle-school mean-girl tactics, rather than waging serious adult national politics on behalf of Secretary Kennedy.
These men are resorting, for example, to adolescent personal attacks at the least provocation.
When I raised questions on social media about Calley Means' company TrueMed's biometrics harvesting business model, the HHS advisor called me "unhinged." He declined to debate me or publicly to discuss the issue. I later wrote an essay revealing that his sister, Surgeon General nominee and Levels cofounder Casey Means, had a company with nearly flat growth and with problems with the visitor base, but with a valuation of $313 million dollars.
A grownup HHS press office would have made sure that Sec Kennedy appeared with Dr Means in multiple venues, and would have booked her a round of TV, print, radio and podcast interviews, in which such questions, and those from others, could have been addressed. Or, if it turned out that Dr Means was unready for such appearances and that the problems I and others raised were insurmountable, grownup politicos would cut bait, release a lovely statement about Dr Means having other projects to pursue, and move on to another nominee.
But that is not what happened. Dr Means has been kept in some off grid location somewhere (I am joking. I mean that she vanished from sight).
Instead of our witnessing a grownup media strategy, I received a call from a close advisor to RFK Jr and colleague now of Calley Means'. The caller told me to be nicer about the Means siblings, if I wished to "support" RFK Jr, and not to be "divisive" to the MAHA movement in criticizing the Means siblings.
That wasn't the end of my punishment from the kids at the coolest lunchroom table. I later discovered that it was Calley Means who was gatekeeper for the seating at Sen Ron Johnson's hearing based on my Pfizer Papers team's uncredited work - a hearing that we were told was "too full" for us to attend.
Darn it all - Stacy didn't invite me to her prom afterparty.
A week or two later, Shannon Joy, Sasha Latypova, Dr Mary Talley Bowden, and I ran our open letter critical of the deployment of the mRNA injection recommendations targeting sick kids and pregnant women.
After that, MAHA middle school got really weird and punitive. Over by the lockers, rumors were rampant that there would be a fight by the bleachers during lunch period.
Dr Robert Malone called our group of signatories, publicly, a "hate group." He wrote on social media that the critics of MAHA, clearly referencing our letter and Nicole Shanahan's recent, separate critiques, had nefarious motivations: "There is a clique of historically liberal women influencers, mostly from California or the Northeast" who are "actively seeking to divide the MAHA movement."
Dr Malone's whole comment on Nicole Shanahan's criticisms of HHS and MAHA for not delivering on campaign agendas, is worth reproducing:
"It is no question in my mind that the two movements [MAHA and MAGA], although they have overlap, come from very different, ideological roots, political roots. And you can see that in- Well, Nicole Shanahan kind of embodies that. Nicole Shanahan is basically a Bay Area, Silicon Valley type attorney [...]Who met, you know, met one of the founders of Google at Burning Man. You know, that's just the way it is. And they became married, had a child, and then separated, because the child had, let's say, I don't want to put words in her mouth, let's say developmental disabilities, that plausibly could have been associated with the pediatric vaccine schedule, that led to a very contentious, divorce, major settlement for Ms. Shanahan. And she now lives a life of luxury, with a new significant other, this challenged child, and has decided to become not just politically active, but potential candidate for governor of California. And has apparently made a significant commitment to let's say becoming an influencer and to some extent a media celebrity.... Her words that she used recently on X, are very consistent with someone who is seeking attention as a media celebrity....Now, that position that she's taken has a pretty dark component to it in that what she's functionally saying...When a donor to a political campaign seeks to gain promises from a political candidate in exchange for their contribution, this is commonly referred to as influence peddling or in more severe cases as a form of political corruption or bribery. When a powerful person withholds support from a candidate to extract specific promises, this is also influence peddling. If powerful people are doing this to kill or support MAHA or MAGA goals or objectives, it is still influence peddling... So, not politically astute, kind of, comes across as angry, unnecessarily."
Dr Malone here depicted Ms Shanahan, without whose advocacy and funding Sec Kennedy and President Trump would not now be in power, as being motivated by a desire for attention, hungry for celebrity, and "angry" - all of these being sexist stereotypes traditionally used to undermine strong women leaders.
He also tried subtly to smear Shanahan, noting that she met her husband-to-be "at Burning Man. You know, that's just the way it is." Men may miss the dog-whistle here, but every woman who reads this, understands what "You know, that's just the way it is" and "Burning Man" mean, when used together within the lexicon of slut-shaming.
Finally he threateningly invoked a sometimes illegal act when describing the expectations that every major donor has, that his or her agenda will get serious consideration from the candidate whom he or she supported. "Influence-peddling" can be illegal, and is an offense close to bribery or coercion. The threat that Dr Malone made here, that Ms Shanahan's expectations as a donor that her agenda be considered, could be recast by the Trump team as an illegal activity, is a serious threat.
Dr Malone also told an audience at Freedom Fest that he and I - "Naomi", as he called me, though I always refer to him as "Dr Malone" - got into a "Twitter Twat", a conflict that was spun up by "chaos agents." In other words, he implied to this audience, one made up of my own community, that I was too stupid to figure out my own opposition to some of his views, and that my mind was being manipulated by some mysterious outside force.
As far as what a "Twitter Twat" is - I have no idea, but I want the T-shirt.
These attacks and adolescent social punishments were not all.
Some of us received a range of calls from male MAHA insiders. Many of them used non-politically-serious approaches to our public opposition to various MAHA outcomes. There were amateurish carrots brandished, as well as sticks; one insider told me that if I did not "attack" the leadership, if I just said that I was happy "as an activist" and celebrated "the greater good", I would benefit from greater book sales. Another suggested that I might be up for a job in HHS.
Other approaches to the signatories of our letter weirdly emotionalized what we were expected to do and not do as political activists. I received a call and a DM from two separate MAHA satellite "Bobby" "helpers", both urging me in the exact same language, to direct "gentle encouragement" to "Bobby" in regards to what I wanted to see from Sec Kennedy, and not engage in "snarky" public criticism.
I replied that I am not Sec Kennedy's therapist, and that is it my job as a citizen to raise public opposition when leadership strays from what I see as the movement's agenda.
I got DMs from RFK Jr's high-level supporters asking me "why this distrust of Bobby?" Many said that I should be glad that he is there at all as "the alternative would be so much worse."
Some of my co-signatories sustained phone calls from MAHA insiders that seemed on the surface to be supportive, but that also contained the theme that we should not be "divisive" by engaging in public criticism.
Several of the men who called me — I am a woman who directly helped two Presidential candidates' campaigns, President Bill Clinton's and Vice President Al Gore's, win the popular US vote; who helped to develop messages and talking points, read through speeches, consulted on events, reviewed polling, and was part of strategy discussions — prefaced their messages to me about why I should be nicer and quieter, by stating that I did not understand how politics was played.
I don't even care about this personally demeaning treatment, and I am sure my colleagues do not care. We are too focused on trying to prevent any more babies and children from being killed; to prevent any more more pregnant women from needlessly losing their babies.
What happened to us personally, does not matter.
All of this that I described above, though, matters because it reveals a serious problem in the MAHA leadership at HHS, and in the satellites around Sec Kennedy who are outside of HHS.
One problem it reveals is that some key MAHA insiders and informal spokespeople, dramatically do not know how to listen to and respect women; to respect moms.
That is a very serious problem, since MAHA is overwhelmingly, a movement of women — of moms. This demographic makeup is why MAHA is such an historic and important movement, and why the MAGA/MAHA alliance, if executed properly, could secure power in America for the next two hundred years.
No one has ever been able to count on that suburban white moms' vote before. An alliance that can count on it, is unbeatable.
A second problem these approaches reveal, is that MAHA insiders don't know how to "play politics" in an adult way with their own constituents as a whole, with their critics and with opposition groups.
None of this is how you do grown-up politics.
If I were advising Secretary Kennedy — which I am not — and I saw that Nicole Shanahan was publicly posting criticism of Sec Kennedy, and that four MAHA voices with major platforms, had signed a critical open letter — I would say something like this:
"Secretary Kennedy, Chief of Staff Heather Flick Melanson, we need to prevent this emerging situation from becoming serious. Nicole Shanahan is in a position to fund a third party challenge to us and to President Trump. The signatories of that letter have millions of followers. We need to bring those people to the table. We risk losing them and their allies — that critical independent female swing vote.
We need to send reporters, including these critics, bullet points every week about what we have accomplished in terms of the MAHA campaign agenda. We need to have weekly calls in which a surrogate or HHS press secretary presents to reporters, and to these critics, Secretary Kennedy's deliverables. We need to send a surrogate to do a video debate with these critics or send Sec Kennedy to hold a town hall, to answer every single question that has arisen in this, and in other, criticisms related to failing to deliver on MAHA promises. We need to show progress on more MAHA deliverables.
We need to shore up the MAHA moms in time for the midterms and for 2028."
Here is what I would not advise:
"Send out some men to tell these ladies that they don't understand politics. Oh, and while they are out there, these guys should slut-shame the world-renowned activist billionaire mom with the disabled child. They should then tell the famous feminist to be"gently encouraging"to "Bobby,"and to be nicer in general, and they should instruct the Texan doctor-heroine, who nearly lost her license, and the beloved, fearless radio host with hundreds of thousands of followers, that they are part of a"hate group." The guys should imply that the respected critic who grew up under Soviet Communism, and who spent 25 years in the field of clinical trials, clinical technologies, and regulatory approvals, is part of a group of"liberal West Coast"women with corrupt motivations. Tell those ladies to"trust""Bobby"and to"be grateful"for him, and to stop being so"angry".
Yeah — I wouldn't advise that.
The thing is — again — it doesn't matter what happens to us personally. We are not raising these issues for personal glory.
A final reason that it is disastrous to approach MAHA politics in such a middle-school, mean-girls way as that above, is that everyone can see it.
Once people are in power, or near it, they tend to forget how smart voters are. The millions of women who follow what Sec Kennedy, the men I identified above (and the ones I did not identify), Nicole Shanahan, and the signatories of our letter, are all doing, can see how our criticisms are being received by these spokespeople and satellite "Bobby""helpers". And voters, again, are not stupid; what we signatories saw, millions of others can see; many voters can see for themselves that MAHA is not delivering on its main promises.
Then there is the debacle of the missing or impossible-to-locate, press apparatus.
There is no specific press officer listed as the HHS press contact. It is just ASHmedia@hhs.cov. Press is handled by the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. You can see the org chart, but not contact the humans by name or email.
There are no talking points, videos, or white papers sent weekly by a human press officer to reporters, in an email list that should have been compiled during the campaign. You have to be"credentialled"as a reporter even to get your request answered via the anonymous website! You can sign up as a reporter for talking points or livestreams on this clunky, offputting, bureaucratic website, but it appears that you can't ask to speak with a human press officer, let alone get a quote from the Secretary or from his Chief of Staff.
Signing up on a website to watch a livestream, with no way proactively to contact a human press officer or press office, is not how any real top level press outreach, works. When you search for"HHS Press Secretary" you get nothing but a story by Mother Jones, claiming that Emily Hilliard is HHS Press Secretary. Then you click around and see that Ms Hilliard announced on LinkedIn that she is joining HHS as Deputy Press Secretary. Is Ms Hilliard Press Secretary? Where is a prominent landing page with contact information for her, if so? How do I reach her? It is a profound mystery.
The MAHA Report — which does not exist on its own url, so can't be easily shared, and which an insider told me was put together in coordination with Calley Means — contained multiple errors: citations of studies that do not exist. The legacy media, of course, had a field day with this. The HHS press officer (maybe?) had, disastrously, to tell the media covering the errors, that these were caused by "formatting":"In a statement provided to Mother Jones, HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard repeated prior claims characterizing the fake citations as "minor" and "formatting errors." A real press office has a last-stage phalanx of fact-checkers and researchers, who make sure, with multiple reviews, that this kind of catastrophe can never, ever, ever, ever happen. Why does Sec Kennedy and HHS's MAHA comms seem not to have that standard, basic protection?
A MAHA insider proudly showed me, at a recent dinner, the new page listing the Chief of Staff, Heather Flick Melanson. It was created by the nameless Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and it had — no email, and no phone number, and as a result looked completely anomalous and amateurish. I bit my tongue, and passed a tray of meringues.
It is a thicket of unknowables.
This set of arcane barriers, bureaucratic mysteries at HHS, and missing comms essentials, rules out reporters such as myself, and thousands of others who want to tell a fair story.
I should have been able to find and contact the HHS press secretary easily, or some flunkie in her or his office tasked with dealing with people like me, and say, "I am writing a critical piece about Calley and Casey Means. Can I have a comment?" That would provide balance to any news coverage of Sec Kennedy and HHS.
But I can't even do that. So: neither can thousands of other independent or affiliated reporters who may want to write a story informed by Sec Kennedy's own agenda and showcasing his point of view. This leaves Sec Kennedy at the mercy of the press.
By the way, five times, in different contexts, close MAHA insiders have asked me to describe what a functioning press apparatus for an agency such as HHS should look like, and five times I have done so. One of them suggested I text that information to "Bobby." I explained that as a reporter, that would be a conflict of interest, but that they were free to pass the information on.
My descriptions seem to have vanished into a black hole.
Meanwhile, the men who tell me that I do not understand politics, commit appalling comms hygiene blunders, such as always saying sensitive and newsworthy things to reporters without the prefaces "off the record" or "on background."
One's head explodes.
I am writing all of this because I am a supporter of MAGA/MAHA. But above all, citizens are supposed, said our Founders, to hold their appointeds' and electeds' feet to the fire.
I like Sec Kennedy, whom I know slightly, very much; he is very inspiring. I respect him, for the most part, deeply.
I want Secretary Kennedy and President Trump to win. I want MAHA deliverables reasonably executed.
Susie Wiles should realize that if MAHA deliverables are ignored, Pres Trump risks the midterms, and his allies, 2028.
I want Sec Kennedy to respond, and to have a team who responds, effectively to pressure such as ours.
I want his helpers and acolytes to realize that we must do politics at the highest level; that we are not middle-schoolers bent on creating social hierarchies, insiders and outsiders, emotional dramas.
"Bobby" needs a functioning press office, not a group of guys who calls angry moms to tell them to be more "gently encouraging" to him.
President Trump won't "sour on Bobby", one of the fears shared with me by one of these acolytes, if the base is active and yelling.
Why? Because there is no one to replace "Bobby" in mollifying that active base.
But if the base goes silent, as these acolytes are advising the ladies to do, "Bobby" becomes, paradoxically, more expendable.
The guys who phone us, really need to understand that math.
I want MAGA and MAHA to win.
They can save this nation.
I want them to be happily married forever.
As with any good marriage, it is not when you go silent that things work out.
It is when you speak up.
And, as with any good mother, it is not when you go quiet, and act "nice," that you effectively defend your cubs.
It is when you face off against those who threaten them,
Bare your teeth,
And roar.
naomiwolf.substack.com