Revising the Dietary Guidelines: Governance, Evidence, and Federal Nutrition Policy
Every five years, the federal government issues the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), a document that shapes what most Americans eat every day. They determine what schools can serve for lunch, what foods nutrition assistance programs will cover, what advice doctors give patients about diets, and healthy eating initiatives such as MyPlate. The 2025-2030 edition, which is now in its final stages of development, has become particularly contentious, raising questions about how scientific evidence should inform federal nutrition policy and who gets to decide.
Mandated by the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, the guidelines are updated at least every five years by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) through a process designed to reflect the most current scientific evidence on diet and health.
As the federal government prepares to release the 2025–2030 edition of the DGA, the details of the process and the content of the guidance itself have become focal points for debate among public health scholars, nutrition scientists, and policy advocates that reflect broader tensions in U.S. food and nutrition policy, particularly concerning the relationship between expert scientific evidence and political priorities. Under the second Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, modifications to both the advisory process and the substantive recommendations have raised questions about scientific independence, transparency, and trust in a document that directly influences programs ranging from school meals to SNAP and WIC.
At the heart of the DGA process is the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a panel of nutrition and health experts appointed by the USDA and HHS to synthesize nutrition science based on systematic reviews, data analyses, and modeling to produce a scientific report. Traditionally, this report informs the policy-development phase undertaken by the USDA and HHS. While the DGAC’s scientific report is not itself the guideline document, it has historically provided the foundation upon which the USDA and HHS build their policy recommendations.
In the current revision cycle, however, senior administration officials have publicly critiqued aspects of both the committee and its work. They have raised concerns about conflicts of interest among committee members and questioned long-standing dietary recommendations, particularly those concerning micronutrients and macronutrient targets. These criticisms have been amplified in conjunction with broader MAHA policy priorities that emphasize chronic disease prevention through changes in diet and nutrition education while also signaling departures from conventional science-based dietary guidance.
One point of contention involves recommendations related to saturated fats. The 2020–2025 DGA consistently advised limiting saturated fat intake to no more than 10 percent of total energy, a stance supported by a broad body of research linking saturated fats to elevated LDL cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk. Currently, however, administration officials, including HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have argued that previously “demonized” sources of saturated fat, such as meat and full-fat dairy, deserve renewed consideration. These pronouncements diverge from longstanding expert consensus and have alarmed nutrition scientists concerned about the empirical basis for such changes.
In addition to content debates, proposed reforms to the guideline development process itself have triggered intense discussion. Legislative proposals and executive considerations would restructure advisory mechanisms, expanding the role of politically appointed boards to determine the scientific questions that the DGAC could examine and, in some cases, limiting the scope of evidence considered. Critics argue that such reforms risk politicizing what has historically been a science-driven review, undermining the ability of the guidelines to evolve with emerging evidence on nutrition, health equity, and social determinants of diet. They caution that narrowing the topics reviewed by excluding considerations of diet in the context of socioeconomic disparities, cultural practices, or broader food systems could diminish the guidelines’ relevance and public trust.
Beyond procedural questions, the potential influence of broader political priorities on DGA content magnifies concern. For example, MAHA’s framing of chronic disease prevention, which places the burden of disease on the individual, shapes discussions of regenerative agriculture, nutrition education in clinical settings, and dietary messaging in ways that emphasize individual choice over structural determinants of health. While increased focus on nutrition literacy and prevention is welcome in principle, the risk arises when such priorities are advanced without clear anchoring in peer-reviewed evidence or when they diverge from scientifically validated dietary patterns shown to reduce disease risk.
These debates unfold against a backdrop of broader shifts in federal food policy. The Trump administration’s actions on SNAP eligibility and work requirements, interruptions in nutrition assistance, and reallocations of regulatory oversight feed into a larger narrative about the role of federal guidance and safety nets in supporting healthful eating and underscore the far-reaching consequences of dietary guidance as it ripples through food systems, public health programs, and consumer behavior.
The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines will inform federal nutrition programs, health communications, and nutrition standards across multiple sectors, including education, health care, and food assistance. Ongoing discussions among federal agencies, scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and policymakers reflect differing interpretations of the evidence base and varying perspectives on the appropriate scope of federal dietary guidance. The outcomes of these discussions will shape the way the Guidelines are implemented and referenced over the next five-year cycle, as well as how they are understood by institutions and the public.
