RFK Jr. to tell medical schools to teach nutrition or lose federal funding
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he plans to tell American medical schools they must offer nutrition courses to students or risk losing federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Speaking at an event in North Carolina in April, Kennedy lamented, "There's almost no medical schools that have nutrition courses, and so [aspiring physicians] are taught how to treat illnesses with drugs but not how to treat them with food or to keep people healthy so they don't need the drugs."
He added, "One of the things that we'll do over the next year is to announce that medical schools that don't have those programs are not going to be eligible for our funding, and that we will withhold funds from those who don't implement those kinds of courses."
The idea, which Kennedy mentioned in passing at an event focused on plastics in the environment, lacks details but has drawn optimism from some nutrition experts who have for years sought ways for medical schools to teach more nutrition content.
An HHS official told ABC News that Kennedy "is committed to understanding and drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending childhood chronic disease, which includes fresh thinking on nutrition and over-reliance on medication and treatments."
The official did not respond to requests for more information about Kennedy's plan, like whether he would require medical schools to follow a specific curriculum. Nor did the official say whether Kennedy has begun speaking with medical schools about the issue.
MORE: RFK Jr.'s MAHA report cited nonexistent studies
A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Education in 2015 surveyed 121 American medical schools in 2012-2013 and found that medical students spend, on average, only 19 hours on required nutrition education over their four years.
This does not account for education during residency or fellowship training after medical school, or continuing medical education required throughout a doctor's career to maintain a medical license or board certification.
Those numbers have frustrated some nutrition experts, who argue doctors should focus more on preventing diet-driven conditions like obesity and diabetes and less on prescribing drugs that treat the problems.
"I think there's a great sense of urgency that we have to do something about this," said Dr. David Eisenberg, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who told ABC News that requiring nutrition education at all medical schools is "long overdue."
"I think the public imagines that physicians are required to know a lot more than they are trained to know about nutrition and giving practical advice about food to patients," added Eisenberg.
When presented with Kennedy's threats to withhold funding, some medical schools reached by ABC News said they already offer sufficient nutrition education.
"We have an extensive nutrition curriculum as part of our medical school training," Sarah Smith, a spokeswoman for Weill Cornell Medicine, said in an email.
A spokesperson for the University of North Carolina School of Medicine touted the school's Department of Nutrition, which the spokesperson said is "recognized as a global leader in research and training, and is unique in that it is the only nutrition department in the U.S. that is situated in both a school of public health and a school of medicine."
A representative for the Association of American Medical Colleges, which counts more than 170 medical schools among its members, declined to comment but told ABC News that an e-survey of medical schools the group conducted last year found that every school that responded reported "covering nutrition content in some form."
Still, the 2015 study, conducted by two researchers from the University of North Carolina and one from Harvard, painted a damning picture of the state of nutrition education at America's medical schools.
"Many US medical schools still fail to prepare future physicians for everyday nutrition challenges in clinical practice," the authors wrote.
Dr. Jo Marie Reilly, a professor at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, told ABC News that since the 2015 study (the most recent "scoping review" of medical schools' nutrition offerings, she said), medical schools have gradually begun offering more nutrition education.
The problem, though, according to Reilly, is the absence of a consistent set of standards for medical schools to abide by.
"Every school has got their own thing," she said.
That could be changing: Reilly and Eisenberg are among a group of medical and nutrition experts who last year published proposed recommendations in JAMA Network Open for a national curriculum, which would involve 36 "nutritional competencies" for medical students to meet.
"Nothing before this had said, well here's what we want [medical students] to know, this is what we think we should teach. Now we have those," Reilly told ABC News.
"We're moving in the right direction, but we have quite a ways to go," she said.
Kennedy has long spoken of the need to address chronic disease through changes to what Americans eat.
Withholding or withdrawing federal funding from medical schools, if HHS were to do so, would follow similar moves from departments across the new Trump administration.
This spring, HHS was among several departments which canceled grants to Columbia University in protest of what it called the school's "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students." The university said it planned to work with the federal government to restore its funding.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller spammed social media Tuesday night in a raging display of his unwavering support for President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as it faced increasing backlash from MAGA figures, including Elon Musk. The Trump loyalist went in hard to sell the 1,038-page document that passed the House by a single vote on May 22. Miller's comments came hours after former DOGE chief Musk attacked the mega-spending bill as the legislation moves to the Senate, labeling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest man also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' at next year's midterm elections. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. Miller responded by calling Trump's bill 'the most essential piece of legislation... in generations' and 'the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House.' Miller pointedly described those on Trump's side of the argument as the president's 'closest allies.' It is unclear how much personal animus there is between Miller and Musk after the tech billionaire walked out on the administration, taking Miller's wife Katie with him. Katie Miller was hired by DOGE under the same 'special government employee' status as Musk, meaning that she was also time-limited to 130 days in office, but that has done little to quell unsubstantiated internet speculation about Musk and the Millers. She will now reportedly work for Musk full-time. Miller began his own barrage of posts on X, first by claiming Trump's bill would fund increased deportation. '[The bill] will increase by orders of magnitude the scope, scale, and speed of removing illegal and criminal aliens from the United States,' Miller wrote. 'For that reason alone, it's the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World, in generations.' 'Now or never,' the 39-year-old wrote in another post. Trump's bill is estimated to increase the budget deficit by approximately $600 billion in the next fiscal year. Miller tried to explain his take on the bill by breaking it down into three sections: 'The most significant border security and deportation effort' in history, a full 'extension and expansion' of Trump's tax cuts and finally cutting almost $2 trillion through 'the largest welcome reform in history.' 'Item 1 alone (border security + deportation),' Miller wrote, 'makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' Critics of Trump's bill fear it would lead to millions of Americans losing health coverage by slashing Medicaid and introducing budget cuts to food assistance programs, with spending on border security and military programs increased. Some Republicans have also expressed fears about the rising cost of the bill, despite a deadline of July 4 to get the measure passed and signed into law. Miller's flurry of posts included him bragging that the bill 'was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters and that is exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close.' 'The bill was designed by President Trump, his loyal aides, and his closest allies in Congress to deliver fully and enthusiastically on the explicit promises he made the American People,' he wrote in another post. Miller also called out GOP Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who told Fox Business his biggest objection to Trump's bill was the addition of '$5 trillion to the debt ceiling' over the next decade. 'Why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals?' Miller asked in a post. Miller clarified Trump's bill would not fund the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts have, however, warned the bill could ruin student loan borrowers and universities and will have an environmental impact through increased mining and logging of public lands to raise revenue. 'We could have never dreamed of a bill like this in 2017,' Miller posted on X. Miller's loyalty comes as other Republican senators have joined Musk in questioning the contents of Trump's bill. At least four are demanding changes, according to Reuters. They include Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson. While Republicans have a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose support. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she had not read a part of the bulky bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of (the bill) that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene posted on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' California Republican Jack Kimble was also critical of the bill on Tuesday. He posted on X: 'Full transparency, I did not know that the big beautiful bill was a real budget and would be used to determine spending levels. It seems to me that this is something that should have been made known to those in the House of Representative[s].' When a follower told him 'you're supposed to read the bills before you vote on them' Kimble replied 'Yeah, my bad.' Ron Johnson also agreed with Musk's 'disgusting abomination' comments on the bill. Speaking to NewsNation's The Hill on Tuesday, Johnson said, 'He's telling the truth... that's all I'm doing, too.' 'The trajectory of deficits is up, and no matter what the 'big, beautiful bill' does, it does not address that long-term prospect, it does not bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was already aware of 'where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that he would not be changing it. 'This is one, big, beautiful bill,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'And he's sticking to it.'
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Breaks Silence With ‘Pork' Prod at Elon Musk
Stephen Miller has broken his silence after Elon Musk turned on his billionaire bestie, Donald Trump. The deputy chief of staff, usually a prolific social media poster, had been silent for hours online after the volcanic fall out between the two men, despite social media erupting with Musk's bombshell allegations including a claim that the president was named in the Jeffrey Epstein files. It comes as Miller's wife, Katie, followed Elon Musk out of the White House and DOGE duties last month, reportedly for a new job working with the tech billionaire. While Miller did not tag Musk or mention any of the billionaire's personal claims about Trump in a belated Thursday night post, he instead took a jab by referencing a comment made by the 53-year-old earlier this week. 'The only 'new' spending in the bill is to defend the homeland and deport the illegals—paid for by raising visa fees. All the other provisions? Massive spending cuts. There is no 'pork' in the bill. Just campaign promises," Miller wrote. Miller was quoting a pointed comment made by Musk which claimed Trump's bill is a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill,' adding it 'is a disgusting abomination.' The Trump confidante followed the veiled comment with another late-night post that read, 'Still trying to figure out what the objection is to a bill that combines record tax cuts with record spending cuts with record deportations.' Miller's relative silence on the issue was in stark contract with his flurry of posts throughout the week as the Musk and Trump drama boiled over, and the Trump adviser went on a posting spree in an attempt to save the bill's reputation. Miller also pulled out on a scheduled appearance on Larry Kudlow's Fox News show on Thursday afternoon, with the host apologizing for him. 'We lost Mr Miller to a meeting in the Oval Office,' Kudlow said. 'Perfectly understandable, when I was in government it would happen all the time, you'd have to kill a TV show, you're at the president's beck and call.' Miller then appeared in a White House discussion alongside Senior White House officials Taylor Budowich, Russ Vought and James Braid discuss Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The half-hour YouTube video was posted Thursday night, with Miller the first to speak. 'The most important thing in politics in American is honoring the promises you make to the American people, the sacred trust between the voter and the man they elect, in this case the president of the United States,' Miller said, noting the president made numerous promises on the campaign trail that 'are codified in this legislation.' Miller reposted numerous videos uploaded from the discussion to X by the White House's Rapid Response team. Musk earlier unfollowed Miller's account on X on Thursday, in an unfollowing spree that also included right-wing media personality Charlie Kirk. Appearing on Kirk's podcast on Thursday, Kirk said to Miller, 'I want you to say again that this would be one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in Republican party history.' Miller began the interview by telling Kirk, 'You've been such a critical element of the success of the MAGA movement. I hope your audience appreciates how much we appreciate you.' The interview descended into both men talking up the 'big beautiful bill.' 'If Ronald Reagan had just done no tax on tips, they'd still be giving speeches today about it at the Reagan Library,' Miller claimed. 'There'd be whole statues, there'd be museum displays, they'd have entire industries built off just telling the story of when Reagan did no tax on tips. Isn't that right Charlie?" The 30-minute discussion did not mention Elon Musk calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination' or his wife Katie's employment status. Miller did say he was 'optimistic' the bill would be passed 'because I have faith in the power of the Trump voter.'
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____