Three co-authors of a federally commissioned analysis told Vox that the Trump administration, with the involvement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other White House officials, decided not to publish the final draft of a major study that found new evidence linking alcohol consumption to cancer and other causes of illness and death.
The analysis, known as the Alcohol Intake and Health Study, was commissioned in early 2022 by the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. According to the researchers, they were informed last month that the administration did not intend to publish the report or its findings, effectively shelving a study that public health experts said could reshape public understanding of alcohol-related risks.
Public health advocates and researchers told Vox the decision capped a three-year effort by the alcohol industry, aided by allies in Congress and later by officials in the Trump White House, to discredit and block publication of the analysis. The campaign began shortly after the study was commissioned and intensified as preliminary findings circulated among scientists and policymakers, according to interviews and documents reviewed by Vox.
The study, as described by its authors, synthesized evidence on the relationship between alcohol intake and a range of health outcomes. It reportedly presented new evidence linking alcohol consumption to increased risks of illness and death, including cancer. Public health experts have long argued that many Americans remain unaware that alcohol is a cause of cancer; researchers and advocacy groups say suppressing the study will slow efforts to educate the public.
"The thing that the alcohol industry fears more than increased taxes is increased knowledge about the risks associated with drinking alcohol, particularly around cancer," said Mike Marshall, chief executive officer of the Alcohol Policy Alliance, who was not involved with the study. "Like the tobacco industry, like the opioid industry, they are working hard to prevent" broader public awareness of those risks.
Researchers involved in the study declined to provide detailed findings to Vox pending formal publication, but said the analysis drew on multiple lines of epidemiological evidence. Federal officials and White House representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the decision not to publish.
Observers say the effort to block publication reflects the alcohol industry's long-standing strategy of sowing doubt about scientific findings that could harm sales. In recent years, industry allies in Congress pressed federal agencies for internal reviews, questioned methodologies, and promoted alternative interpretations of data. Those actions, combined with pressure after the change in administration, culminated in the study being shelved, according to the co-authors and sources familiar with the process.
Public health officials say that clear federal communication about alcohol risks influences everything from clinical guidance to prevention campaigns. A publicly available federal analysis that ties alcohol to cancer and other harms could prompt changes in labeling, public education and clinical screening recommendations, they said. Without formal publication, researchers and clinicians lack an authoritative, consolidated federal assessment to cite.
The controversy underscores tensions that can arise when scientific assessments touch powerful commercial interests. Federal health studies often undergo peer review and interagency scrutiny before release; critics said that political interference in the final publication decision undermines that process and sets a worrying precedent for the treatment of public health evidence.
Supporters of the decision to withhold the study have argued publicly that further review was necessary and that methodological questions remained. Those statements highlighted the complexities of translating epidemiological findings into public policy, where causation, confounding factors and the magnitude of risk are closely examined.
Advocates for transparency said that withholding the analysis deprives clinicians, researchers and the public of a comprehensive federal synthesis on alcohol-related harms. They urged the administration to disclose the study’s findings or allow independent review so that policy discussions can proceed on the basis of full evidence.
The Vox report is the latest example of scrutiny around how political and industry pressures shape federal health communications. For now, the authors of the Alcohol Intake and Health Study and public health advocates say the decision to withhold the report will have immediate implications for public awareness at a time when several health organizations are calling for clearer messaging about the links between alcohol use and cancer.
Vox’s reporting cited interviews with the study’s co-authors and public-health advocates; the White House and HHS have not published the final study or released a timeline for potential publication.
The disagreement over the study’s fate leaves unanswered questions about what the analysis found and how the federal government will interpret the relationship between alcohol consumption and public health going forward. Public health experts said a transparent, evidence-based federal assessment is essential to inform clinicians, policymakers and the public about alcohol-related risks.