In a dramatic reversal of decades of public health policy, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is demanding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stop recommending community water fluoridation, calling the practice outdated and dangerous. The announcement came during a visit to Utah, the first state to enact a statewide ban on fluoridated drinking water.

“Fluoride should not be in our water,” Kennedy declared to applause during his Utah stop on the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) tour. He added, “The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming.”

Kennedy’s stance marks a significant shift in federal health policy. While the CDC has long promoted fluoridation as a key dental health strategy, Kennedy is now leveraging his Cabinet role to dismantle that consensus. He insists that fluoride offers “zero systemic advantage” when consumed and instead poses a threat to the brain, kidneys, thyroid, and bones. “Topical application is fine,” he said, “but ingestion through public systems is not.”

As part of his initiative, Kennedy said he will formally instruct the CDC to end its recommendation for community water fluoridation and is creating a task force to propose new federal guidance. “I’m very proud of this state for being the first to ban it, and I hope many more will come,” he told the crowd.

The renewed push against fluoride is part of a broader MAHA legislative package taking shape in red and purple states. In Utah, where Kennedy spoke, lawmakers passed three MAHA bills, including the fluoride ban and new restrictions on artificial dyes and chemical additives in food and beverage products.

Kennedy’s announcement aligns with recent findings by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which published a meta-analysis linking fluoride to lower childhood IQ. That study found a consistent correlation between fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L and cognitive harm in children. The current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard remains at 4.0 mg/L—more than double the threshold associated with developmental damage.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the NTP, previously told the Daily Caller there is now “sufficient data” from various epidemiological studies showing that “early life exposure to fluoride is associated with an increased risk of IQ loss.”

Kennedy referenced that evidence, saying, “We know it causes IQ loss. Profound IQ loss. The more fluoride you get, the more likely it is you lose IQ.”

He also cited health risks beyond neurological damage, including kidney disease, liver damage, hypothyroidism, and even osteoarthritis. “It makes no sense to have it in our water supply,” Kennedy said bluntly.

Predictably, the medical establishment has pushed back. The American Dental Association and other public health organizations continue to argue that fluoridation is a safe, effective, and low-cost way to reduce cavities, particularly among children. They accuse Kennedy of fueling conspiracy theories and undermining trust in public health.

But Kennedy’s allies say it’s the public health bureaucracy—not Kennedy—that’s clinging to outdated science. “This isn’t the 1950s,” said one senior HHS official. “The government should not be mandating mass medication, especially when the risks are increasingly clear and the benefits can be achieved by other means.”

The EPA, for its part, has confirmed it is reviewing fluoride regulations in light of recent studies, suggesting that Kennedy’s pressure campaign may gain momentum.

The clash over fluoride is emblematic of Kennedy’s broader philosophy at HHS: question entrenched assumptions, emphasize transparency, and put individual health sovereignty over institutional orthodoxy. Whether it’s vaccines, agricultural chemicals, or now water fluoridation, Kennedy has proven he’s willing to break from public health dogma—and he’s bringing the full force of the federal government with him.

The battle lines are drawn, and fluoride is now the flashpoint. With Utah leading the way and Kennedy at the helm, other states may soon follow. And if the CDC does reverse course, it would be a monumental shift in American health policy—one that could redefine what government considers acceptable in our water, our food, and our bodies.