How to Read the New Federal Dietary Guidelines as a Health Equity Advocate
Madeline Moritsch January 13, 2026

For health equity advocates and believers in science-based medicine, the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans released by the Trump administration last week are only partly palatable. 

These guidelines, a joint venture between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, pack real influence. They inform the food choices of individuals and families across America and shape the standards for federal nutrition programs that feed children, seniors, military service members, and veterans. So it’s critical that they reflect accurate evidence and support equitable access to nutritional health.

The new guidelines broadly focus on the impact of food choices on health and chronic diseases with the theme to “eat real food.” They emphasize whole, minimally processed foods such as protein, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains—many elements of a healthy diet that medical experts and nutrition professionals have been stressing for years. Yet in the details, some of the guidelines and accompanying federal actions make it harder, not easier, for Americans to equitably access healthy food.

Here are some of the key elements for health equity advocates to focus on:

1) Evidence matters.

The focus on whole, nutrient-dense foods should be celebrated. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and decades of research, health-promoting diets emphasize a variety of fruits and vegetables, plant-based protein sources such as beans and legumes, and whole grains like oats, maize, and wheat. 

Although the guidelines support the consumption of whole foods and have many similarities to previously published guidelines, they also baselessly prioritize the consumption of animal based-protein and fat sources by recommending red meat, butter, and beef tallow over plant-based sources like beans, legumes, and vegetable oils.

During a White House press conference, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that the guidelines are “ending the war on saturated fats.” Yet the American Heart Association, following decades of scientific evidence, recommends limiting saturated fats because they increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death for Americans. In December 2024, a federal advisory committee made up of 20 independent nutrition experts proposed a different set of recommendations based on extensive scientific evidence. Some of these recommendations are contradicted by the new guidelines, which were created by the new panel of scientists installed by the Trump administration, many of whom have ties to the meat and dairy industries. 

What to do: Equitable access to health hinges on accurate information and evidence-based public nutrition programs. Without those, people with the time, resources, and information to access healthier foods will be more able than others to do so. To anchor in science, encourage patients, communities, healthcare leaders, and public officials to follow the dietary guidelines published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Center for Biological Diversity and supported by the previous advisory committee’s recommendations.

2) Language matters.

The fact sheet announcing the guidelines taps into a sense of moral goodness when it comes to individual food choices. Language like “Evangelizing Real Food” ties religion, specifically Christian ideals, and an overall sense of morality to food. While some foods might be more nutrient dense, moralizing language conveys the connotation that eating one food over another grants the consumer a sense of superiority. According to the National Alliance for Eating Disorders, connecting eating habits to moral character can lead to food-related anxiety, food avoidance, and the development of disordered eating behaviors.

As health-equity advocates with a deep sense of obstacles and opportunities across communities, we know that our food choices are complex. At every meal, we take into account factors such as:

  • Affordability: Which foods fit my budget?
  • Physical access: Does the store near my home sell that food?
  • Personal or cultural preference: Does this food bring me joy? 
  • Convenience: Do I have time to cook tonight?
  • Cooking ability: Do I know how to and have the equipment to cook that food?


If whole, minimally-processed foods are the only foods considered “good,” then other foods are implied to be “bad.” People who eat processed foods, for a wide variety of reasons, may then experience shame and avoid seeking support or health care.

What to do: The National Alliance for Eating Disorders recommends removing morality language from food. Encourage colleagues and leaders to do the same. Food is more than just good or bad; it is what fuels our body, fits our family’s budget and schedule, and brings joy and connection to culture and loved ones.

3) Health equity is essential to health outcomes. 

The new dietary guidelines explicitly prioritize “health outcomes, not health equity.” This political division implies—falsely—that one can happen without the other.

As Upstreamists working to improve the social and structural determinants of health, we understand that prioritizing health equity is the key to improving health outcomes. People cannot follow even the most robust, evidence-based food guidelines without adequate household budgets, access to full-service grocery stores in their neighborhoods, and the time, information, and equipment to cook whole foods. So without explicit efforts to improve equity, only some communities will be able to access the positive outcomes of a healthful diet. 

Unfortunately, other actions taken by the Trump administration and the current Congress undermine the equity that would support better health outcomes for all. For example, H.R.1 (the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”) slashed funding for federal food support (SNAP) and eliminated the Nutrition Education and Obesity Grant Prevention Program (SNAP-Ed). As a result, the Urban Institute estimates that 22.3 million U.S. households would lose some or all of their SNAP benefits. Many will also lose the opportunities provided by SNAP-Ed to learn and develop skills to make healthy food choices. 

This contradiction—recommending healthy food while stripping away the support that puts it in people’s reach—makes it far harder for many Americans to turn the “real food” vision into reality. 

What to do: Identify actions and collaborations that match your role and setting from the following resources.

 

Madeline Moritsch is a HealthBegins Senior Program Manager and a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist with a Master of Science degree in nutritional science and over 14 years of experience implementing policy, systems, and environmental changes in community-based settings.