Trump administration ‘ignored’ alcohol study, Vincent says

A former U.S. public health analyst says the Trump administration left out findings from an Alcohol Intake and Health Study in the latest Dietary Guidelines update released in January—despite backing from an independent scientific review panel. Robert Vincent,

By the time the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans arrived in January, the message many public health experts had been working toward had already been quietly pushed out.

A study published this week in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that just one alcoholic drink a day can raise a person’s risk of premature death. The research was commissioned during the Biden administration to help inform the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. But in those latest guidelines—released in January—the Trump administration did not include the study’s findings. according to Robert Vincent. a former federal public health analyst who helped get the study off the ground.

Vincent argues the change matters because the guidance now recommends that Americans drink less, without supporting the science with the kind of clear risk statement the new study points to. “Instead, the study suggests that no amount of alcohol appears to be safe,” Vincent says.

Vincent’s remarks land at a sensitive moment for the policy process itself. He was fired from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) after nearly two decades in April 2025. in a wave of cuts to federal employees made by the Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency. At SAMHSA. Vincent served as associate administrator for prevention and treatment policy and staff chair for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).

In an editorial accompanying the new study. Vincent alleged that the Trump administration deliberately omitted the research from the new guidelines. favoring instead studies such as one from the National Academies of Sciences. Engineering. and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024 that found that moderate drinking was linked to reduced risk of all-cause mortality.

The Health and Human Services Department rejected the idea that the study was sidelined. In a statement, the department’s press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said that “Any characterization that the study was sidelined is inaccurate. HHS and [the U.S. Department of Agriculture] reviewed the study alongside the broader body of available scientific evidence and followed the established process for developing the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Ultimately, the Dietary Guidelines were based on the best available scientific research. One thing is clear: the evidence on alcohol and health has been remarkably consistent over time.”.

The interview Vincent gave centered on how the study began, how it was built, and why he thinks it came under pressure as it neared completion—pressure that, he says, intensified as the new administration took over.

Beginning in 2021, Vincent says he was associate administrator for alcohol prevention and treatment policy. In that role, he also served as staff chair for ICCPUD. Over several years. he describes repeated discussions about adult drinking habits and rising harms linked to alcohol use. alongside colleagues across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. and other research agencies producing and reviewing related evidence.

In his account. the decision to commission the study grew from those conversations and from a specific request: the Biden administration asked ICCPUD to provide supporting research to inform the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. “Out of those conversations, we commissioned the Alcohol Intake and Health Study,” Vincent says.

He describes the structure of the work as deliberately layered. The ICCPUD staff representatives and he established two groups to guide it: a federal technical review subcommittee and an independent scientific review panel made up of outside experts. The researchers who conducted the study came from that independent panel. and the work being published. he says. is the product of that independent scientific review.

Vincent says ICCPUD principals approved moving forward in April 2022. After that. the scientific review panel began developing the study. and the methodology was published for public comment in the Federal Register. He says his role was to work closely with the technical review subcommittee. the federal review body. and that as independent scientists developed the work. they presented it for discussion and scrutiny. “We went back and forth on the approach. the strengths of the evidence and the scientific merits to ensure the final product reflected the strongest possible science. ” he says.

As the draft report neared its final form and coordination began with the Dietary Guidelines group. Vincent says the pressure changed shape. “As we approached the final report and began coordinating with the Dietary Guidelines group. pushback from the alcohol industry intensified. ” he says. adding that the draft report remains available on the SAMHSA website.

Vincent says the pushback became personal as well. In his telling, people tied to the industry—along with others around it—told him at one point, “You should just kill this thing,” and he responded, “Why would we do that?”

He says the pressure also came from inside the agency. “That pressure was coming from inside the agency, too. There were people internally who thought we should shut it down,” Vincent says. He says he even heard the message directly from the Department of Health and Human Services. including from people on the prevention side: “You need to kill this thing.”.

He points to 2024 as a ramp-up period. He says in 2024 some members of Congress wrote an open letter criticizing the study. He says the criticisms included that the study wasn’t being conducted in accordance with federal law and that SAMHSA was “duplicating” or even “undermining” a separate congressionally mandated NASEM study on alcohol.

Vincent says it was not one letter or a single congressional inquiry. He describes “several” followed by FOIA requests and eventually subpoenas. “That was when the pressure became unmistakable,” he says. Around that time. he says he began to feel himself being edged out—“in terms of my role. my access and the extent to which I was allowed to stay involved.”.

In explaining the agency structure. Vincent says ICCPUD is an interagency coordinating committee established under the STOP Act (Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act). He says it is chaired by the assistant secretary for mental health and substance abuse on behalf of the secretary of health and human Services—rather than being a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) body convened to issue outside advisory opinions. He says the committee’s role is to help guide federal policy and program development on underage drinking. coordinate across agencies. and provide science and information to support federal decision-making.

He also says the study’s process was built to be visible: a federal technical review subcommittee. an independent scientific review panel. a published methodology open to public comment. and then a draft report opened for public comment as well. He argues that visibility is part of why it became a target.

The independent scientific review panel submitted the report in early March 2025. Vincent says that after that, the report was essentially ignored by the new administration.

The consequences, he says, are not abstract. “It’s sad because we’re just not communicating good science or making sure people have the ability to make an informed choice. ” he says. He adds that he is not anti-alcohol and that “science should be good science.” If the information came from any other industry. he says. it would simply be put out for the public.

Vincent also questions whether the Trump administration’s posture toward the study was different from earlier governments. He says when Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. first came in. he was “somewhat optimistic. ” thinking the focus on health might mean the work would be taken seriously. “That didn’t turn out to be the case,” he says.

He describes how the new Dietary Guidelines released in January changed course. He says the previous recommendations included quantitative limits on drinking. He says the new guidance instead advises that people drink less.

For Vincent, the shift is both too simple and too vague. “The upside is that ‘less is better’ is a simple, clear message—and as a sound bite, it works. But on its own, it’s not enough,” he says. He says the guidance does not tell people much about individual risk. including in cases like diabetes. genetic predisposition for diabetes. or an elevated cancer risk. “And it still stops short of saying plainly what the evidence increasingly shows: there isn’t really a safe level of drinking. Risk begins with the first drink,” he says.

He also contrasts the current approach with decades of guidance that rested on a formula of two drinks a day for men and one for women. saying that framework no longer reflects the best available science. He links the change he sees partly to industry pressure. arguing it has helped the issue remain sidestepped in the rhetoric around health policy.

Vincent’s own departure from federal service is central to the stakes of this fight over what the public should be told. When asked whether he believed the Trump administration targeted him. he says he believes he was targeted “unequivocally” because he was making noise and pressing the question of what the problem was with the study. “It was scientifically solid. We had a top-tier team of scientists working on it,” he says.

He also says he has very little confidence in anything coming out of the administration scientifically or in its work on alcohol policy.

For readers, Vincent’s message is less about one agency fight and more about what happens next. “First. I hope ordinary people actually read it. ” he says. pointing out that most Americans never see dietary guidance in detail. He says even fewer are likely to read a peer-reviewed journal. He hopes physicians, scientific societies, and professional groups take the study seriously and translate it for the public.

But his central hope is about the integrity of the process itself. “More than anything, I hope it prompts a harder look at the industry’s influence and renews the commitment to protecting scientific integrity,” he says.

Vincent does acknowledge a different kind of progress. “Overall. I do think people are drinking less. and I think the multifaceted approach has helped. ” he says. describing years of communication about the harms of alcohol. He says he worries that without that steady drumbeat, people may start to lose ground.

In the weeks leading up to the January release of the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. the fight over the study’s place in public health policy had already been underway. Now that the findings are in print. the dispute has a new sharp edge: whether the country’s most influential health guidance will reflect evidence that. in Vincent’s words. leaves little room for safety after the first drink.

alcohol study Dietary Guidelines for Americans SAMHSA ICCPUD premature death risk Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Robert Vincent HHS USDA NASEM 2024 STOP Act