Trump Released the New Dietary Guidelines — Here’s Why They’re Wrong, From a Dietitian’s Perspective

When Dietary Guidelines Ignore Science: Why the 2025–2030 Recommendations Miss the Mark

Last week’s release of the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans should have been an opportunity to move public health forward.Instead, the final guidelines represent a troubling departure from science-based recommendations made by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)—particularly when it comes to plant-rich diets and chronic disease prevention.

At a time when heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer continue to rise, nutrition guidance must be grounded in evidence, not industry influence.

Where the Guidelines Get It Right

To be fair, the updated guidelines appropriately emphasize reducing ultra-processed foods, a move strongly supported by decades of research linking these foods to obesity, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular risk. Unfortunately, this progress is undermined by several major contradictions.

Key Concerns with the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines

1. Red Meat Is No Longer Limited

One of the most alarming changes is the removal of limits on red meat consumption—visually reinforced by steak placed at the top of the new food pyramid.

This directly contradicts longstanding evidence linking high red meat intake to:

• Heart disease

• Obesity

• Type 2 diabetes

• Certain cancers

Previous guidelines explicitly recommended limiting red meat for these reasons. The science has not changed—only the messaging has.

2. Protein Is Overemphasized While Fiber Is Ignored

The guidelines recommend a dramatic increase in protein intake. In practice, this will almost certainly translate into greater consumption of factory-farmed animal products, not plant-based proteins.

This is concerning because:

• Americans already consume ~224 pounds of meat per year

• That’s more than 2.5x what the 2020–2025 guidelines recommended

• And 3x the global average

Meanwhile, 97% of Americans fail to meet fiber recommendations, a shortfall strongly linked to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, gut dysfunction, and cardiovascular disease.

More protein is not the solution.

More fiber-rich, plant-based foods are.

3. Toxic Chemical Exposure Is Entirely Overlooked

The guidelines fail to acknowledge that increasing meat and full-fat dairy consumption also increases exposure to toxic environmental contaminants.

Most U.S. meat and dairy comes from factory farms that rely on:

• Pesticide-intensive feed

• Routine antibiotics

• Growth-promoting drugs

Animals accumulate dioxins, heavy metals, and pesticide residues in their fatty tissues—compounds that ultimately end up on our plates and in children’s school lunches.

According to the EPA, 90% of human dioxin exposure comes from animal fats. Long-term exposure has been linked to:

• Cancer

• Immune dysfunction

• Type 2 diabetes

• Reproductive and developmental harm

These risks are especially concerning for children—yet they are absent from the conversation.

4. Beans, Lentils, and Peas Are Sidelined

Despite the DGAC’s clear recommendation to prioritize beans, peas, and lentils, these foods remain underemphasized within the protein group.

This is a missed opportunity.

Plant-rich diets centered on legumes, vegetables, and whole grains are consistently associated with:

• Lower chronic disease risk

• Improved metabolic health

• Greater dietary sustainability

Notably, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, China, and others already encourage eating less meat and more plant-based protein in their national dietary guidelines.

The U.S. is moving in the opposite direction.

5. Full-Fat Dairy Is Promoted—Despite Saturated Fat Limits

The guidelines contradict themselves by:

• Recommending limits on saturated fat

• While simultaneously encouraging three servings of full-fat dairy per day, alongside red meat

Even more concerning is the sidelining of fortified soy products, which are nutritionally equivalent to dairy and essential for the millions of Americans who are lactose intolerant or choose not to consume dairy.

This exclusion undermines both inclusivity and nutritional adequacy.

The Bigger Picture

As Friends of the Earth notes, a robust body of research—including findings from the DGAC—clearly shows that plant-rich diets reduce the risk of chronic disease.

When science-based recommendations are ignored, the consequences are not theoretical. They show up as:

• Higher healthcare costs

• Greater disease burden

• Missed opportunities for prevention

Nutrition guidelines should protect public health—not cater to Big Meat and Big Dairy.

If the goal is truly to reduce diet-related disease and the billions spent treating preventable conditions, plant-rich, fiber-forward dietary patterns must be elevated—not sidelined.

Public health, environmental sustainability, and long-term wellbeing depend on it.