Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. surprised many in the health freedom movement by announcing a massive advertising campaign to push wearable health trackers on every American within four years. Framing it as a cornerstone of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, Kennedy Jr. told Congress, “We think that wearables are a key to MAHA … My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”
The backlash was immediate. Former HUD official Catherine Austin Fitts, once an RFK Jr. supporter, blasted the move, saying, “If RFK is promoting this, it’s because those are his political orders. He knows better.” Journalist Jeremy Hammond echoed concerns, calling the plan “lunacy” and a betrayal of the grassroots health freedom movement.
Kennedy Jr. attempted to soften the blow, telling the Daily Caller the campaign “is not about wearables,” but about fighting chronic disease by cutting ultra-processed foods. He added that wearables “are not for everyone” due to privacy and cost concerns, but his earlier remarks left many unconvinced.
The deeper concern centers on surveillance and data misuse. Privacy advocate Csilla Brimer warned that “Palantir is creating a 360-degree surveillance grid that’s impossible to avoid,” highlighting fears that data from wearables could fall into Big Tech’s or Big Pharma’s hands, paving the way for a social credit system reminiscent of China. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon has also sounded the alarm, saying, “We’re not for the surveillance state. We’re not gonna have it.”
Palantir insists it is not building a master database, but Americans have reason to remain skeptical. Recent trends show data breaches skyrocketing, with a 17.9% spike in healthcare data leaks in April alone, making wearable data a prime target for hackers and government overreach.
Critics also note the suspicious ties within Kennedy Jr.’s circle. Trump’s Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Casey Means, co-founded Levels Health, a company selling glucose monitors. Calley Means, a Kennedy Jr. ally, co-founded a health spending startup. Susan Monarez, Trump’s CDC pick, previously worked at ARPA-H, which invested in wearable tech. While these figures have claimed they will divest, the potential for conflicts of interest remains.
Proponents argue wearables will help people take control of their health, potentially reducing dependence on expensive pharmaceuticals like Ozempic. WHOOP, a leading wearable tech company, claims its privacy protections are strong, stating, “Members have full control to delete their data or export their data if they like.”
But critics aren’t reassured. Hammond warned that “chronic illness is being monetized,” arguing that the push for wearables is more about profit and control than health, despite Kennedy Jr.’s promises not to collect data without consent.
As RFK Jr. navigates this backlash, conservatives and medical freedom advocates should remain vigilant. The idea of a government-backed push to put tracking devices on Americans—no matter how well-intentioned—should concern every patriot who values privacy and freedom. While technology can play a role in health, it cannot come at the cost of liberty. Americans must decide if they are ready to trade privacy for promises of health improvement under a system that could quickly become another tool for government control.
