The new dietary guidance presented in the United States under the slogan “Make America Healthy Again” has achieved something few nutrition policies manage to do: it has immediately polarized the scientific community.

Let’s start with the inversion of the pyramid. It’s not just a graphic redesign—it’s a symbolic statement. A clear message: the previous paradigm, built on giving carbohydrates the starring role, has failed. Years of rising overweight rates, processed high-carb foods, and unnecessary concentration of calories.

But are we really looking at a nutritional revolution—or a political marketing move with ideological implications?

What changes (and what doesn’t, as much)

Visually, the new pyramid places protein (especially animal-based) at the base and pushes carbohydrates into the background. It emphasizes cutting added sugars and refined flours, and reinforces the “real food” message. So far, nothing shocking.

However, when you read the official text accompanying the pyramid, the shift is not as radical as the image suggests:

• It keeps the 10% limit for saturated fat.
• It recommends whole grains several times a day.
• It insists on fruits and vegetables.
• It warns against ultra-processed foods.

So the “rupture” looks more communicative than scientific, and it creates a problem of visual incoherence—a disconnect between what the illustration implies and what the document actually argues.

The graphic gives prominence to red meat, full-fat dairy, and butter, while the text still limits saturated fat. That mismatch matters: population-wide guidelines live or die by visual clarity. An educational tool that communicates a different message than the text can create more confusion than progress.

The star of the show: protein

The guide proposes 1.2 to 1.6 g/kg/day of protein for the general population.

This opens a useful debate. On the one hand, it’s true that:

• Higher protein intake can improve satiety.
• It helps preserve muscle mass.
• It may offer metabolic benefits in obesity or insulin resistance contexts.

On the other hand:

• Not everyone needs that range.
• It doesn’t emphasize protein quality strongly enough (and that’s crucial).
• Plant protein is underrepresented compared with animal protein.

The risk isn’t “more protein.” The risk is doing it without distinguishing sources, and reinforcing the supermarket narrative that protein must be added to nearly everything.

The return of dairy and animal fat

The recommendation of three dairy servings per day and the prominence of animal fats has been read by some as a “trip back to the 1980s.”

This is where the most delicate suspicion appears: possible conflicts of interest with the U.S. meat and dairy industries, loudly defended by Trump’s circle.

While current evidence does soften the historical demonization of saturated fat, it doesn’t fully clear it either. The consensus remains cautious: limit it—don’t celebrate it.

Where there’s broad agreement

There are points almost everyone aligns on:

• Reduce added sugars.
• Limit ultra-processed foods.
• Prefer whole fruit over juice for fiber.
• Choose minimally processed foods.
• Recognize the negative impact of excess refined carbohydrates.

This corrects an old communication error: treating refined grains and whole grains as if they’re the same “base carb” category.

Still, we need to be more precise about protein types—favoring lean meats and white fish.

Ideology or necessary correction?

It would be simplistic to reduce this guide to pure ideology. But it would also be naïve to ignore its political charge.

What’s interesting is that the new pyramid reflects a real cultural shift:

• Growing distrust of ultra-processed foods.
• Revaluing protein.
• Questioning excess refined carbs.
• Mainstreaming low-carb and paleo approaches.

More than creating the trend, the guide seems to respond to it—and that’s a good thing.

But we still need to grapple with the real questions. This isn’t “good meat vs bad carbs.” The real debate is:

• How do we balance cardiovascular health, metabolic health, and sustainability?
• How do we communicate simple messages without distorting evidence?
• How do we prevent public guidelines from becoming ideological weapons?

Nutrition science isn’t static. It has evolved and will keep evolving. We now know demonizing all fats was a mistake—but making animal protein the next dogma isn’t the answer either.

In conclusion, the new pyramid is not a scientific revolution, but it is a symptom.

A symptom that:

• The refined high-carb paradigm has failed.
• The public needs clearer messaging against ultra-processed food.
• Protein deserves a more prominent role than what was communicated for decades.

But real progress requires:

• Differentiating quality of sources: proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
• Prioritizing plant protein and fish over red meat.
• Keeping prudent limits on saturated fat.
• Aligning image and text coherently.

All of this makes one thing obvious: nutritionists and health professionals are still necessary to explain and demystify concepts that clearly confuse a large part of the population.