Vice President JD Vance has never been one to shy away from controversy, but his recent comments at the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) summit in Washington, D.C., have set off a fresh round of debate about medicine, science, and the boundaries of political humor. The event, held on November 12, 2025, brought together some of the Trump administration’s most prominent voices, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Their candid conversation—part policy talk, part personal philosophy—has quickly become a flashpoint in the ongoing national conversation about public health and scientific credibility.
Vance, a former senator known for his populist streak, took the stage with Kennedy Jr. before an audience eager to hear the administration’s latest thoughts on health and wellness. The vice president wasted little time in sharing his skepticism about common medical practices, particularly the widespread use of over-the-counter pain medications. "I’m like one of these crazy people, the one way in which I’m more instinctively MAHA is that if, if I have, you know, a back sprain, or I slept weird and I woke up with back pain, I don’t want to take Ibuprofen," Vance told the crowd, according to USA Today. "I don’t like taking medications. I don’t like taking anything unless I absolutely have to. And I think that is another MAHA-style attitude. It’s not anti-medication, it’s anti-useless-medication."
Ibuprofen, found in household brands like Advil and Motrin, is one of the most commonly used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the United States. It works by blocking enzymes that produce the hormones responsible for inflammation, pain, and fever. Yet, Vance’s remarks—labeling the drug as "useless"—have struck a nerve with medical professionals and science advocates, who warn that such sweeping generalizations could undermine public trust in proven therapies.
His comments come on the heels of a controversial White House announcement in late September, when Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump jointly warned about the supposed risks of acetaminophen (Tylenol) use during pregnancy, linking it to higher incidents of autism in children. This claim, along with Kennedy Jr.’s subsequent assertion in October that circumcised children are twice as likely to be autistic, has been widely debunked by scientists. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that autism currently affects 1 in 31 American children, but emphasizes that genetic anomalies and environmental factors, not over-the-counter medications or circumcision, are most significant in determining risk.
For many in the scientific community, the administration’s recent messaging represents a worrying pattern. As reported by USA Today, the Trump administration’s “hostility toward science and public health isn’t exactly a secret,” but the sight of both the vice president and the health secretary openly questioning the value of common medicines at a high-profile summit was nonetheless jarring. Kennedy Jr., who has a long history of promoting unscientific claims—including the idea that Wi-Fi causes “leaky brain”—used the summit to complain that those who challenge scientific “orthodoxies” are often “destroyed.”
Vance, for his part, agreed, arguing that, "Science as practiced in its best form is that if you disagree with it, then you ought to criticize it and you ought to argue against it." He added, "It’s wrong to silence those who push back against the scientific canon." This rhetoric, while superficially reasonable—after all, the scientific method is built on skepticism and debate—has raised alarm bells among experts who point out that the quality of criticism matters. As USA Today observed, there’s a difference between rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific debate and the spread of unsubstantiated, misleading claims by individuals lacking relevant expertise.
But the week’s headlines didn’t stop with the MAHA summit. On November 13, Vance found himself in hot water again, this time for a quip made during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. When asked if he was prepared to assume the presidency should something happen to President Trump, Vance replied, "I try not to think about it since Trump is very healthy." He continued, "But if I served under Joe Biden, I’d probably be worried every minute of every day that he was going to croak and that I’d have to become president," laughing as Hannity joined in. "Like I’d never be able to sleep. I’d always have my cellphone as loud as possible."
The joke, which many found tasteless, came as Trump himself faces growing questions about his health. The president recently underwent an MRI at Walter Reed Medical Center—his second “yearly” checkup in just six months. Observers have noted bruising on Trump’s hand (explained by the White House as a result of frequent handshakes and aspirin use) and swollen ankles, which officials attribute to chronic venous insufficiency, a condition marked by poor blood flow from the legs back to the heart. Trump has also been seen struggling to stay awake at daytime events, prompting Democratic leaders to accuse him of possible dementia. The White House, for its part, maintains that Trump has “a lot of energy” and is “extremely healthy.”
Vance’s critics wasted no time in taking to social media, with many accusing the vice president of hypocrisy and poor taste. After all, jokes about the mortality of political opponents rarely land well in the current polarized climate. Others pointed out the irony of Vance’s unwavering confidence in Trump’s health—despite mounting evidence of the president’s physical struggles—while simultaneously mocking Biden’s age and fitness for office.
Meanwhile, the broader implications of the administration’s approach to science and medicine continue to ripple through public discourse. The MAHA summit’s anti-medication rhetoric, combined with Kennedy Jr.’s history of vaccine skepticism and conspiracy theories, has left many public health experts worried about the erosion of trust in established medical guidance. As the CDC’s autism statistics make clear, misinformation about the causes of developmental disorders can have real consequences, fueling unnecessary fear and potentially impacting health decisions for millions of families.
Yet, for the administration’s base, the message seems to resonate. Vance’s “MAHA-style attitude” toward medication—described as “not anti-medication, it’s anti-useless-medication”—taps into a broader skepticism of pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment that has grown in recent years. Kennedy Jr.’s complaints about the “silencing” of dissenting voices likewise play into longstanding anxieties about censorship and the power of elite institutions.
All of this leaves the country at a crossroads: balancing the need for open scientific debate with the responsibility to prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation. As the MAHA summit and subsequent media appearances by top officials have shown, the lines between skepticism, advocacy, and outright denial can be blurry—and the stakes, when it comes to public health, couldn’t be higher.
As the dust settles from a week of headlines, one thing is clear: the Trump administration’s approach to science, medicine, and political discourse continues to provoke strong reactions on all sides, with little sign of consensus in sight.
