Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks after being sworn in as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Oval Office at the White House on Feb. 13, 2025. – Credit: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
A recent executive order has sparked widespread concern about the availability of medications treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a condition that affects more than 22 million Americans. Entitled “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” the executive order has Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s fingerprints all over it, focusing on several of the pillars of his MAHA campaign, from increasing Americans’ life expectancy to fighting chronic illness.
But the recent wave of anxiety about ADHD medications largely stems from a line from the executive order calling on the soon-to-be-formed MAHA Commission to produce a report on children’s health “assess[ing] the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.” Stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin are commonly used to treat ADHD in adults and children, along with behavioral treatment. This attack on ADHD medication comes more than two years into a nationwide Adderall shortage, which has already made accessing the medication especially difficult.
More from Rolling Stone
The language used in the executive order was an immediate red flag for Max Wiznitzer, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland and co-chair of the Professional Advisory Board at CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). “When they use the word ‘threat,’ it automatically implies there’s something wrong with this treatment, and ignores the mounds of scientific evidence about the utility of the use of medication in conjunction with a multi-modal approach towards target management of ADHD,” he tells Rolling Stone.
Positioning ADHD medications as a “threat” is in line with some of Kennedy’s previous remarks about the treatment in the context of his plan for “wellness farms,” where “addicts” taking illegal and legal drugs — including Adderall — could grow and eat organic food, learn a trade, and “learn to get re-parented.”
So, do parents of children with ADHD and adults with the condition need to worry? Does Kennedy actually have the power to take away or restrict access to people’s medications? Rolling Stone spoke with medical and legal experts to find out what Kennedy does — and doesn’t — have the authority to do, and why this messaging on ADHD medications from the federal government is both stigmatizing and dangerous.
What does the executive order say about ADHD medications?
The MAHA Commission executive order focuses on the use of stimulants to treat children with ADHD. It begins by claiming that the “health burdens” of chronic conditions in children — including allergies, asthma, and fatty liver disease — “have continued to increase alongside the increased prescription of medication.” The example provided is ADHD: specifically, that 3.4 million children are currently on medication for the condition. That figure comes from a 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, which also indicates that the 3.4 million children ages three to 17 who are taking medication for ADHD represent 53.6 percent of the kids with the diagnosis.
Later, the executive order stipulates that the MAHA Commission — with Kennedy at the helm — has 100 days to submit a report assessing “the prevalence of and threat” posed by stimulants used to treat ADHD, as well as other mental health medications, including mood stabilizers and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
“For now, the White House is only calling for an assessment of how these drugs are being administered and their impact on patients,” says Ana Santos Rutschman, a professor of law at Villanova University specializing in FDA law and policy, noting that the commission’s findings won’t be legally binding. In other words, the executive order “does not and cannot make a change in law, nor a change in the FDA’s approval of any medications,” says Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, professor of health law policy & management at Boston University. “Congress has set the procedures for that.”
The dangerous part of this executive order, Wiznitzer says, is that there’s a good chance that this report will be based on opinion, inaccurate facts, and preconceived notions rather than science. “When using the term ‘threat’ [in relation to ADHD medications], there’s a concern that they’re not going to be looking at this in an objective manner, but they’ve got a preset agenda that is to be addressed — and that’s not the scientific method,” he says. “The scientific method is asking a question in an unbiased manner and then investigating that question in order to come up with an answer.” This is problematic because the commission’s report(s) “will almost certainly be the policy basis for a couple of agencies to then take steps to make changes,” Rutschman tells Rolling Stone.
Plus, even if experts with appropriate training and expertise are appointed to the MAHA Commision, Kennedy’s still the one in charge. “Putting a secretary with zero epidemiological, medical, or scientific training or professional expertise in charge of studying and interpreting mountains of data is a cause for concern in itself,” McCuskey says. And if Kennedy were to say that ADHD medications aren’t medically necessary, that could create a conflict between the federal government and medical professionals and “make it a more chaotic environment for patients,” says Richard Pan, MD, a pediatrician who prescribes ADHD medications and former Democratic state lawmaker.
Does Kennedy have the power to ban ADHD medications?
Banning or restricting access to any medication currently used in the treatment of ADHD would have to involve the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which falls under and follows the policies of the Kennedy-led Department of Health and Human Services, Rutschman says. “These ADHD drugs have been approved by the FDA — which by law has to make a determination that a drug is safe and effective before a company can sell it,” she says. “Also by law, the FDA can withdraw approval or restrict distribution if new evidence suggests that an approved drug is not safe or effective.” So, banning or restricting access to these drugs would require some sort of FDA-initiated decision based on data raising concerns about a specific ADHD drug.
According to Rutschman, the MAHA Commission report itself wouldn’t be a sufficient source of this data; rather, it would need to come from several studies reflecting the current “scientific consensus” demonstrating that a specific ADHD drug was causing issues, or was not effective. “If the FDA makes a decision that does not reflect that consensus, then the decision could be challenged in court,” she says. Plus, as McCuskey points out, the FDA has to go through review processes and consider evidence before revoking the approval of a drug or imposing stricter prescribing or dispensing requirements.
Separately, the FDA can impose extra hoops to jump through or conditions for dispensing approved drugs, McCuskey says. One example of this is when the FDA established — and later removed — a restriction on the abortion medication mifepristone, requiring patients to take the pill inside the doctor’s office. But Kennedy can’t simply order the FDA to implement restrictions on ADHD medications: the FDA still has to go through the processes and produce the required justifications for these restrictions that Congress has defined.
“The Secretary absolutely can and certainly does influence FDA’s conduct and what it investigates, but he cannot dictate it,” McCuskey says. “There is cause for concern, but the administrative processes put in place by Congress and challengeable in court are designed to pump the brakes a bit on what any one political appointee can do to an approved drug.”
How else could this impact people taking ADHD medication?
Even if nothing comes from the executive order, the fact that it’s based on unfounded opinion rather than scientific fact is damaging in itself. “When executive orders are vague and not grounded in science, there’s a real disservice, because it’s undermining things that have been established to be true: like that ADHD exists, has profound impact on individuals, communities, countries, and their performance, [and] that it’s very treatable,” says Craig Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
Along the same lines, Surman’s concern is that people have access to reliable sources of scientific medical information so they can make informed decisions about their health and their children’s health. “I think it’s particularly concerning to be sowing any kind of distrust or confusion when there’s already quite a hurdle to clear for people to get good information,” he tells Rolling Stone. “There’s lots of misinformation about ADHD on TikTok, for example, and I would hope that the government can support entities that are conveying scientific information, because otherwise it’s all just guesswork and storytelling, and people don’t have access to treatments they need.”
Suggesting ADHD medication is a “threat” also casts a negative light on a treatment that for many has been life-changing. “For someone to stigmatize the medication after we’ve had all this positive feedback and these years and years and years of research showing us the benefits of what these medications can do for people, I think, is really to ignore the science,” Wiznitzer says. Casting doubt on the effectiveness of ADHD medication also does a disservice to people living with developmental disabilities, who may not be able to learn how to successfully manage the condition without medication, he adds.
Should access to stimulants be restricted, Surman is concerned that adults prescribed ADHD medications could begin self-medicating with alcohol, other substances, or “street” Adderall, which may be fake and contain fentanyl. “Having an FDA-sanctioned way for people to continue to function is pretty important,” he says.
So, what does this all mean for people living with ADHD? “Right now, I’d say don’t panic,” Pan says. “And hoarding medication probably is not going to be very productive. It’s unlikely that suddenly the medication is not approved, or that your health plan will say, ‘Oh, by the way, we’re not covering your ADHD medicine.’”
Even so, Wiznitzer says that it’s important to consider the impact that stigmatizing ADHD medication could have on the 22 million Americans living with the condition, as well as their families and society as a whole. “We know what happens when you don’t manage ADHD appropriately,” he says. “Productivity is down, there’s a greater risk for a negative impact on one’s health, a shortened life expectancy, increased suicide rate, and an increased chance of risk-taking behaviors, including substance use. Those are things that are not acknowledged by that executive order.”
Best of Rolling Stone
Sign up for RollingStone’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
