Opinion - RFK Jr. is bringing revolutionary change to American health
In one critically important way, there is no surprise as to why President Trump chose Kennedy for his Cabinet. Both men embody and personify the revolutionary traits of our Founding Fathers, and this is a subject I know fairly well. Three years ago, I authored a book titled, 'The 56: Liberty Lessons from Those Who Risked All to Sign the Declaration of Independence.'
I wrote the book because, about a year earlier, I had become alarmed as voices on the left were increasingly smearing our Founding Fathers, calling for their 'cancelation' and even calling for abolishing the Fourth of July. As such, I spent a number of months 'living' in the 1776 timeframe.
There were two realities, among many, that I discovered that connect Trump and Kennedy to the mindset of our Founding Fathers. The first was that in 1776, the vast majority of the wealthy either sided with the tyrannical British Crown or stayed on the sidelines so as to not rock the boat and to preserve their privilege and wealth. The second was that there were many highly intelligent and gifted women behind those Founding Fathers. In the book, I refer to them as the 'Manufacturing Mothers.'
With regard to the first connection, neither Trump nor Kennedy needed any of this. By 'this' I mean positions in the U.S. government. Both had lives of wealth, privilege and power and could have safely spent the rest of their time on earth living comfortably within those bubbles. But they did not. At some point, both men looked upon the nation they loved and felt it was in steep decline or headed to ruin.
Both men likely asked themselves the same two questions our Founding Fathers would have asked themselves: 'If not me, who? If not now, when?' And because they did, both have been subjected to the full wrath of some on the left.
Both Kennedy and Trump have had their reputations smeared while dealing with multiple death threats. Trump was shot by a would-be assassin in July last year. Kennedy has had his home broken into, with his wife Cheryl present, and had a heavily armed man intercepted at one of his events. Be it 1776 or today, there will always be those who don't want the status quo upended by revolutionary minds.
Regarding the second connection, Trump and Kennedy have continually surrounded themselves with highly intelligent and accomplished women. For his second administration, Trump has brought in Tulsi Gabbard as the director of the Office of National Intelligence, Pam Bondi as his attorney general, Kristi Noem as his secretary of Homeland Security, Brooke Rollins as his secretary of Agriculture, Lori Chavez-DeRemer as his secretary of Labor, Linda McMahon as his secretary of Education, Kelly Loeffler as head of the Small Business Administration and Susie Wiles as his chief of staff.
As for Kennedy, he has long partnered with and promoted highly accomplished women in the private sector and is surrounded by them now as part of his leadership team at Health and Human Services. And do you know who knows and appreciates that reality better than most? American moms.
Two months ago I wrote here about how RFK Jr.'s 'army of moms' has landed on the political shores of our nation, had burned their boats and are fighting their way forward on behalf of their children and themselves. They are doing so in large part because Kennedy's revolutionary voice and spirit galvanized them into action.
This past Tuesday, Kennedy announced that the government will phase out all artificial dyes from the food supply by the end of next year. The ban will affect products such as breakfast cereals, candy and snacks.
Kennedy said at the press conference, 'For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and development.'
In January, also in large part to Kennedy's revolutionary mindset and tactics, the FDA banned the dye known as Red 3 from the nation's food supply as it acknowledged that the dye, also known as 'erythrosine,' caused cancer in lab rats.
Just over 60 years ago, Kennedy's father — Robert F. Kennedy — courageously and heroically revolutionized the office of attorney general. And, by doing so, he literally put his life on the line for his nation.
Today, his son is revolutionizing all that affects the physical and mental wellbeing of the American people. And by doing so, he is going to positively affect the lifespan, weight and mental acuity of potentially millions of Americans.
Amazingly, there are some on the left who seem to be quite disturbed or even outraged by that. Why?
Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump May Expand His Revision of U.S. Capitalism
Andrew here. As the government negotiates for a stake in Intel, SoftBank is buying into the chipmaker, too. The big question: Where is demand for Intel chips going to come from? Is the Trump administration going to pressure tech giants to buy Intel chips, even if they are a lesser product? You might recall that the Biden administration tried to persuade big tech companies to buy Intel chips, but most demurred. Will this White House use more aggressive sales tactics? Intel and the new U.S. capitalism? We asked last week whether the U.S. government taking a cut of some artificial intelligence chip sales to China could be seen by Beijing and others as a sort of state-sponsored capitalism. What Washington may do with Intel is a potentially bigger step down that road. It's understandable why the Trump administration is weighing whether to take a large stake in the embattled chipmaker. But doing so could lead to major consequences for the tech industry, the A.I. race — and the federal government's relationship with private enterprise. The details (so far): The White House may seek to convert roughly $10.9 billion in federal grants to Intel, given as part of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, into a 10 percent stake in the company, according to The Times, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. (The mechanics of doing so aren't yet clear.) Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick believes that turning the grants into an ownership stake might be the best way to help Intel while protecting U.S. taxpayers' interests, The Journal adds. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Gives Assurance on Deploying US Troops to Ukraine
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump gave "my assurance" that there would be no U.S. troops deployed to defend Ukraine's border under any security guarantee that emerges in a peace deal to end Russia's invasion. Trump made the comment during an interview with "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning, August 19. He said European allies were willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of a security guarantee, and that the U.S. is "willing to help them with things," likely with support "by air". "There'll be some kind of security," Trump said, though emphasizing that it "can't be NATO," referring to Ukraine's hopes to join the U.S.-led defensive alliance. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump-Zelensky meeting: Are we closer to ending the war?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, along with key European leaders, met in Washington on Monday to discuss how to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. It was a gut check for the pro-Ukraine alliance after Trump's Alaska summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday, and Trump's evolving views on the conflict added a level of suspense to the proceedings. Unlike the last Oval Office meeting between the two heads of state, there seemed to be no outbursts of irritation, and Zelensky even wore a suit. But appearances aside, was any actual progress made toward ending this three-year-long war? I'm joined by my colleagues Jim Geraghty and Keith Richburg to discuss. — Jason Willick, columnist 💬 💬 💬 Jason Willick Jim, it's hard to disentangle the symbolism from the substance in diplomatic confabs — all the more so when Trump is leading them. Did Monday's assembly of leaders move the ball on the Ukraine war, and if so, how? Jim Geraghty It is much better to see Trump and Zelensky smiling, shaking hands and joking rather than shouting at each other. But as nice as it is, it's fair to wonder just how much has changed in the war compared with two summits ago. Putin still bombs aggressively and without fear of retribution. Ukraine fights on, hitting deep in Russian territory some days. Substantively, not much has changed. Jason Keith, did you see anything that made you think a resolution — and not just more summits — might be closer at hand? Keith Richburg It's hard to see a resolution just yet. It seems to me that, despite the more positive optics (which are important), there's still a gulf between what Russia wants for the fighting to stop and what Ukraine is willing to give. So to me, it looks like more summits. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jason How do you both think Putin is feeling compared with a week ago? After the Alaska meeting, Trump is apparently no longer threatening secondary sanctions on Russia. And the lack of a ceasefire means Russia can press its advantage. On the other hand, Trump now has a warmer rapprochement with Zelensky. If you're in the Kremlin, are you content to just buy time? Keith I think Putin could not be happier. Trump appears supportive of giving Russia some, if not all, conquered land, including Crimea, and ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine. And Putin can say he is no longer isolated on the global stage. He was hosted by the U.S. president on U.S. soil. Jim Yeah, Putin got something he wanted: an end to diplomatic isolation and a big, showy welcome ceremony (I admit, I loved the look on Putin's face during the B-2 flyover). That said, it is easy to forget that every inch of Ukraine's territory that Russia has stolen has come at an enormous cost in blood and treasure. The cracks in the Russian economy are really starting to show. Keith 💯 Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jason It seems as though the contours of a peace deal — or at least a pause — are visible. It's likely to involve some sort of territorial swap and some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine. The question is how much territory Ukraine can bear to give up, and how much security the West can provide. Am I right about that? Keith That's true. And how good are any Russian 'guarantees' not to attack again? The fact that Trump has moved on from the demand for an immediate ceasefire is very problematic for Ukraine. Putin can continue trying to grab a few more miles while the talking goes on. Another question is public opinion in Ukraine. Would people support giving up territory after so much bloodshed and sacrifice? And Zelensky has to face an election at some point. Jim Yeah, that seems like two real stumbling blocks. Why should Ukraine, the invaded party, have to give up even more territory (with people living on it!) to the aggressor in exchange for promises? Second, Putin and the Russian government have broken just about every treaty they have ever signed: Crimea, Georgia, the New START extension signed with President Joe Biden. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jason Well, the more Ukraine agrees to give up, presumably the greater the security guarantees it can ask of the West, including from Trump. Public opinion in Ukraine has moved from supporting victory at all costs to supporting a settlement. Though I agree, any Russian 'guarantee' has to be presumed worthless. Jim What's the point of co-signing a lousy deal if Putin or his successor is just going to invade again in a few years? I've got my doubts about that recent Gallup poll. Are the Ukrainians tired of war after more than three years? Sure. Everyone would love a negotiated solution. But that assumes the other side is negotiating in good faith and can be trusted. Jason What's your view, Jim? They ought to fight on indefinitely and hope to recover the territory eventually? Jim I think before the Ukrainians surrender more territory, it would be preferable for the West to give them the advanced weapons they asked for years ago and actually let them hit Russian targets anywhere on Russian soil. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jason So you believe Ukraine needs to escalate its defense before peace talks will bear fruit? Jim Yup. Riley McCabe laid out in June how Russia's gains in 2025 came at an enormous cost in blood. There's a common argument that Russians won't want to stop the war until they feel the consequences in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Keith The other problem is that Putin might be in power for many more years (he's only 72). Western leaders, including Trump, will leave the scene much, much sooner. Will future Western leaders be inclined to go to war to stop a future Russian incursion into Ukraine? Putin hinted at the nuclear threat just enough to raise fears of escalation. Jason Keith, that's a good point about Trump's time horizon. His incentive is to get a temporary peace, not necessarily a permanent one. But maybe a temporary peace is all that can be hoped for between Russia and the West. Keith I think Trump wants a 'win.' He wants to say he solved the problem Biden could not. What happens after he leaves will be the next president's problem.