By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Health Secretary, RFK Jr., declared an end to the supposed “war on protein” as part of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines, which now prioritizes protein at every meal. This move, despite the lack of evidence suggesting a restriction on protein consumption in the United States, aligns with a larger MAGA movement that centers on body image, fitness, and traditional masculinity. The emphasis on animal proteins and a return to saturated fats found in products such as full-fat milk, butter, and beef tallow is viewed by some as projecting an idealized masculine image by capitalizing on cultural perceptions of food and gender. This focus on fitness and masculinity is further emphasized by the inclusion of events like the UFC cage fight as part of the White House’s 250th-anniversary celebrations.
Read the original article here
RFK Jr. says he’s ending the war on protein. It doesn’t exist. This is the central idea, and it’s met with a collective groan, a mix of bewilderment, and outright incredulity. The very premise – that there was a “war on protein” in the first place – seems to have completely missed the mark. Everywhere you look, protein is being aggressively marketed. It’s in your water, your coffee, your oatmeal, and of course, your endless array of protein powders. The shelves are overflowing. The idea that there’s some kind of scarcity or suppression is baffling.
The prevailing sentiment is that the opposite is true. We’re inundated with protein, and perhaps, even obsessed. Products scream their protein content from the rooftops, a constant barrage aimed at convincing consumers of its importance. This isn’t a battle; it’s a conquest. If anything, the real concern is the potentially unhealthy overconsumption that’s being encouraged. The idea of ending a war that never happened feels like a transparent grab for attention, a tactic pulled from a well-worn playbook of political grandstanding.
The comments express a variety of opinions, including those that find the whole concept ridiculous. The sheer availability of protein-enhanced products is cited as evidence against the idea of a war. People point out that the cost of protein, particularly beef, chicken, and pork, is undeniably high. Some people are wondering if his movement is based around ending saturated fat consumption, but their core principles are the same, wellness grifter 101. Others express that our health recommendations would shift toward a grade D cube-steak every three days. The focus, instead, should be on the areas where people are actually deficient, like fiber, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Many comments focus on the implications of the message, seeing it as part of a broader trend. This is seen as a recurring theme in some political circles, where the world is framed in terms of constant “wars.” War on Christmas, war on marriage, now a war on protein—it all seems exhausting and contrived. There’s a recognition of the connection between this rhetoric and appeals to traditional, often outdated, ideas of masculinity. It’s an attempt to rally a specific demographic by creating enemies and falsely claiming to be the savior. The implications of this rhetoric are also worrisome, especially if this kind of messaging aligns with average MAGA members, pushing fringe theories and downplaying expert opinions.
The reactions are a mix of frustration, sarcasm, and genuine concern. There’s a general sense that this claim is detached from reality and serves a more nefarious purpose. The argument that meat is the only source of protein pushes a specific agenda. The fact that the idea is so far removed from the everyday experience of grocery shopping and the abundance of protein-rich foods is the most ironic part. The general idea is to simply declare a war and end it, thus claiming victory. It’s perceived as a cynical tactic, designed to manipulate and distract, rather than address any real issues or concerns. This whole concept is nothing more than a gish-gallop of ignorant bullshit.