Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has cultivated a national following by galvanizing the anxieties of Americans apprehensive about the sway wielded by corporations—among them manufacturers of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, processed foods and pesticides.

Yet in the preceding week, the figurehead of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement extended his endorsement to a most improbable sector: artificial intelligence.

Addressing a MAHA summit attended by AI and Silicon Valley executives, Kennedy proclaimed that the technology would emancipate Americans from “medical tyranny” by empowering them to “fact check their own medical advice.”

“Never again shall we find ourselves subjugated by public officials who enjoin us: ‘Trust the experts,’” Kennedy told the invite-only audience.

Certain prominent MAHA voices were swift to censure Kennedy’s embrace of AI, contending that the movement’s leaders are increasingly ingratiating themselves with the very corporate interests they once subjected to scrutiny.

Concurrently, medical experts contend that Kennedy’s conception of AI as a bulwark against the medical establishment is fundamentally misconceived.

"He manifestly fails to comprehend the mechanics of AI," observed Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an oncologist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"AI collates the data at our disposal across the medical literature and case studies.

Consequently, what one is in fact receiving is medical expertise."

Both OpenAI and Anthropic proffer health-oriented conversational agents capable of scrutinising users' medical records and addressing their healthcare inquiries.

Their models are trained upon thousands of peer-reviewed medical papers and professional guidelines, and they incorporate feedback furnished by physicians.

"What he craves is for AI to mirror his every utterance," Emanuel observed.

"Yet that is scarcely the province of AI done well."

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said Emanuel was circumscribing "one narrow use" of the technology.

Kennedy aspires to afford Americans greater agency over their own health data by deploying AI “to help them understand it, interrogate it, compare it with the evidence, and make better decisions with their doctors,” Hilliard said.

The technology will enable physicians to work more expeditiously, affording them “more time to treat and care for patients,” she added.

OpenAI and Anthropic numbered among the sponsors of last week’s MAHA Summit, as did more than a dozen other companies with pending business before the U.S. government, among them developers of psychedelic drugs, fitness wearables and an experimental cancer test.

Sponsors, having contributed sums reaching $300,000, were in many instances afforded speaking slots on panels that counted among their participants several of the administration's most senior health officials, Dr. Mehmet Oz of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services among them.

“It was quintessential pay-to-play,” remarked Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher who has cast doubt upon the safety of mRNA inoculations and who recently sat on a federal vaccine panel under Kennedy.

Malone and other luminaries of the MAHA movement contend that the summit laid bare the manner in which large corporations are supplanting the “MAHA moms” and other grassroots activists who had originally galvanized the movement.

“There was no representation of those who have been at the very nucleus of MAHA and its genesis, be they physicians, patients, or patient advocates,” Malone said.

The summit was convened by MAHA Center Inc., one among a constellation of nongovernmental organizations operated by Kennedy's associates, all of which are devoted to advancing his agenda.

The others comprise the MAHA Institute, a think tank, and MAHA PAC, a political fundraising apparatus.

Tony Lyons, a publisher at the helm of the MAHA Center, MAHA PAC and sundry affiliated organizations, took up the matter of criticisms levelled at corporate sponsorships during a reception held on the eve of the summit.

“The veritable crux of the matter is that we are endeavouring to galvanise the most expansive movement we can conceivably muster in order to effect tangible outcomes,” Lyons said.

Kennedy’s alignment with Silicon Valley dovetails with broader undertakings throughout the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has vigorously resisted efforts to impose greater oversight upon AI companies, which have helped propel the stock market to record highs.

Among Trump’s first actions upon returning to the White House was the revocation of a Biden administration executive order on AI oversight.

It took the administration more than 16 months to supplant it with its own order.

In recent weeks, Trump has announced a move to allow the AI industry to police itself, sought to rebrand the technology as “super intelligence,” and dismissed bipartisan concerns regarding the impacts of data centers on nearby residents.

Concurrently, Dr. Oz and fellow administration officials have extolled AI as the panacea for a litany of U.S. healthcare afflictions, encompassing escalating medical expenditures, healthcare fraud, physician shortages, and the shuttering of rural hospitals.

Medicare officials have engaged in deliberations with a number of medical chatbot enterprises, among them the one underpinning a Utah initiative that facilitates AI-enabled prescription refills.

According to Glenn Cohen, a bioethics expert at Harvard Law School, the remarks made last week by Kennedy and other officials bespeak a “techno-utopian” conception of AI’s putative benefits.

Cohen observes that a substantial portion of RFK’s agenda over the past year has been devoted to endeavoring to curtail food industry practices he deems deleterious to consumers, encompassing the use of artificial colors and undeclared chemical additives.

In light of Kennedy’s skepticism toward “big food,” Cohen remarked that he was taken aback that the health secretary failed to perceive “the risk that market incentives may diverge from the public good.”

Several of the most conspicuous MAHA organizations are actively marshalling their efforts in opposition to AI interests.

By way of illustration, Moms Across America conducts campaigns at both local and national echelons, issuing warnings against the pollution, water consumption, and electricity expenditures entailed by the construction of data centers.

The organization was founded by Zen Honeycutt, formerly a staffer on Kennedy's presidential campaign.

Moms Across America did not respond to a request for comment.

AI experts do not dispute that the technology will fundamentally transform the manner in which doctors and patients approach medical decisions.

Dr. Robert Wachter, a medical technology expert at the University of California, San Francisco, concurs that Kennedy is correct in asserting that AI will empower patients with more insights about their health.

Nevertheless, according to Wachter, AI adoption is likely to further bolster the recommendations of medical professionals, rather than the contrarian views often favored by Kennedy.

“Democratization is a laudable objective,” Wachter observed.

“Yet it necessitates the dissemination of the most rigorous science at our disposal—which, by and large, entails science produced by those who possess genuine expertise in the matter.”

Considerable contention persists among experts regarding the imminence with which artificial intelligence might assume decision-making responsibilities from physicians.

A spate of recent investigations has demonstrated that AI, operating in isolation, surpassed both physicians practising unaided and physicians collaborating with AI when confronted with consequential decisions.

Such studies, however, by and large furnished the AI with meticulously detailed written scenarios to resolve — tantamount to a medical examination.

When researchers scrutinised the manner in which patients interact with AI in real time, they identified a number of problems: people frequently furnish insufficient information for the AI to diagnose their medical issue correctly, and chatbots often respond with an admixture of sound and unsound advice.

"We must ascertain, in the crucible of real-world application: do these instruments genuinely function?" Wachter said.

"What transpires when they are deployed in circumstances wherein individuals are labouring under duress or lack the wherewithal to interpret the outputs?"

Reporters’ health and science coverage is underwritten by the Reporters Fund for Journalism and private foundations.

AP alone bears responsibility for all content.

AP’s standards for collaborating with philanthropies, a roster of supporters and the areas of funded coverage are available at AP.org.