
How Trump's pick for surgeon general uses her big online following to make money
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Means, 37, has said she recommends products that she has personally vetted and uses herself. She is far from the only online creator who doesn't always follow federal transparency rules that require influencers to disclose when they have a 'material connection' to a product they promote.
Advertisement
Still, legal and ethics experts said those business entanglements raise concerns about conflicting interests for an aspiring surgeon general, a role responsible for giving Americans the best scientific information on how to improve their health.
Advertisement
'I fear that she will be cultivating her next employers and her next sponsors or business partners while in office,' said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, a progressive ethics watchdog monitoring executive branch appointees.
The nomination, which comes amid a whirlwind of Trump administration actions to dismantle the government's public integrity guardrails, also has raised questions about whether Levels, a company Means co-founded that sells subscriptions for devices that continuously monitor users' glucose levels, could benefit from this administration's health guidance and policy.
Though scientists debate whether continuous glucose monitors are beneficial for people without diabetes, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promoted their use as a precursor to making certain weight-loss drugs available to patients.
The aspiring presidential appointee has built her own brand in part by criticizing doctors, scientists and government officials for being 'bought off' or 'corrupt' because of ties to industry.
Means' use of affiliate marketing and other methods of making money from her recommendations for supplements, medical tests and other health and dietary products raise questions about the extent to which she is influenced by a different set of special interests: those of the wellness industry.
A compelling origin story
Means earned her medical degree from Stanford University, but she dropped out of her residency program in Oregon in 2018, and her license to practice is inactive. She has grown her public profile in part with a compelling origin story that seeks to explain why she left her residency and conventional medicine.
'During my training as a surgeon, I saw how broken and exploitative the healthcare system is and left to focus on how to keep people out of the operating room,' she wrote on her website.
Advertisement
Means turned to alternative approaches to address what she has described as widespread metabolic dysfunction driven largely by poor nutrition and an overabundance of ultra-processed foods. She co-founded Levels, a nutrition, sleep and exercise-tracking app that can also give users insights from blood tests and continuous glucose monitors. The company charges $199 per year for an app subscription and an additional $184 per month for glucose monitors.
Means has argued that the medical system is incentivized not to look at the root causes of illness but instead to maintain profits by keeping patients sick and coming back for more prescription drugs and procedures.
'At the highest level of our medical institutions, there are conflicts of interest and corruption that are actually making the science that we're getting not as accurate and not as clean as we'd want it,' she said on Megyn Kelly's podcast last year.
But even as Means decries the influence of money on science and medicine, she has made her own deals with business interests.
During the same Megyn Kelly podcast, Means mentioned a frozen prepared food brand, Daily Harvest. She promoted that brand in a book she published last year. What she didn't mention in either instance: Means had a business relationship with Daily Harvest.
Growing an audience, and selling products
Influencer marketing has expanded beyond the beauty, fashion and travel sectors to 'encompass more and more of our lives,' said Emily Hund, author of 'The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media.'
With more than 825,000 followers on Instagram and a newsletter that she has said reached 200,000 subscribers, Means has a direct line into the social media feeds and inboxes of an audience interested in health, nutrition and wellness.
Advertisement
Affiliate marketing, brand partnerships and similar business arrangements are growing more popular as social media becomes increasingly lucrative for influencers, especially among younger generations. Companies might provide a payment, free or discounted products or other benefits to the influencer in exchange for a post or a mention. But most consumers still don't realize that a personality recommending a product might make money if people click through and buy, said University of Minnesota professor Christopher Terry.
'A lot of people watch those influencers, and they take what those influencers say as gospel,' said Terry, who teaches media advertising and internet law. Even his own students don't understand that influencers might stand to benefit from sales of the products they endorse, he added.
Many companies, including Amazon, have affiliate marketing programs in which people with substantial social media followings can sign up to receive a percentage of sales or some other benefit when someone clicks through and buys a product using a special individualized link or code shared by the influencer.
Means has used such links to promote various products sold on Amazon. Among them are books, including the one she co-wrote, 'Good Energy'; a walking pad; soap; body oil; hair products; cardamom-flavored dental floss; organic jojoba oil; a razor set; reusable kitchen products; sunglasses; a sleep mask; a silk pillowcase; fitness and sleep trackers; protein powder and supplements.
She also has shared links to products sold by other companies that included 'affiliate' or 'partner' coding, indicating she has a business relationship with the companies. The products include an AI-powered sleep system and Daily Harvest, for which she curated a 'metabolic health collection.'
Advertisement
On a 'My Faves' page that was taken down from her website shortly after Trump picked her, Means wrote that some links 'are affiliate links and I make a small percentage if you buy something after clicking them.'
It's not clear how much money Means has earned from her affiliate marketing, partnerships and other agreements. Daily Harvest did not return messages seeking comment, and Means said she could not comment on the record during the confirmation process.
Disclosing conflicts
Means has raised concerns that scientists, regulators and doctors are swayed by the influence of industry, oftentimes pointing to public disclosures of their connections. In January, she told the Kristin Cavallari podcast 'Let's Be Honest' that 'relationships are influential.'
'There's huge money, huge money going to fund scientists from industry,' Means said. 'We know that when industry funds papers, it does skew outcomes.'
In November, on a podcast run by a beauty products brand, Primally Pure, she said it was 'insanity' to have people connected to the processed food industry involved in writing food guidelines, adding, 'We need unbiased people writing our guidelines that aren't getting their mortgage paid by a food company.'
On the same podcast, she acknowledged supplement companies sponsor her newsletter, adding, 'I do understand how it's messy.'
Influencers who endorse or promote products in exchange for payment or something else of value are required by the Federal Trade Commission to make a clear and conspicuous disclosure of any business, family or personal relationship. While Means did provide disclosures about newsletter sponsors, the AP found in other cases Means did not always tell her audience when she had a connection to the companies she promoted. For example, a 'Clean Personal & Home Care Product Recommendations' guide she links to from her website contains two dozen affiliate or partner links and no disclosure that she could profit from any sales.
Advertisement
Means has said she invested in Function Health, which provides subscription-based lab testing for $500 annually. Of the more than a dozen online posts the AP found in which Means mentioned Function Health, more than half did not disclose she had any affiliation with the company.
Means also listed the supplement company Zen Basil as a company for which she was an 'Investor and/or Advisor.' The AP found posts on Instagram, X and on Facebook where Means promoted its products without disclosing the relationship.
Though the 'About' page on her website discloses an affiliation with both companies, that's not enough, experts said. She is required to disclose any material connection she has to a company anytime she promotes it.
Representatives for Function Health did not return messages seeking comment through their website and executives' LinkedIn profiles. Zen Basil's founder, Shakira Niazi, did not answer questions about Means' business relationship with the company or her disclosures of it. She said the two had known each other for about four years and called Means' advice 'transformational,' saying her teachings reversed Niazi's prediabetes and other ailments.
'I am proud to sponsor her newsletter through my company,' Niazi said in an email.
While the disclosure requirements are rarely enforced by the FTC, Means should have been informing her readers of any connections regardless of whether she was violating any laws, said Olivier Sylvain, a Fordham Law School professor who was previously a senior adviser to the FTC chair.
'What you want in a surgeon general, presumably, is someone who you trust to talk about tobacco, about social media, about caffeinated alcoholic beverages, things that present problems in public health,' Sylvain said, adding, 'Should there be any doubt about claims you make about products?'
Potential conflicts pose new ethical questions
Means isn't the first surgeon general nominee whose financial entanglements have raised eyebrows.
Jerome Adams, who served as surgeon general from 2017 to 2021, filed federal disclosure forms that showed he invested in several health technology, insurance and pharmaceutical companies before taking the job — among them Pfizer, Mylan and UnitedHealth Group. He also invested in the food and drink giant Nestle.
He divested those stocks when he was confirmed for the role and pledged that he and his immediate family would not acquire financial interest in certain industries regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Vivek Murthy, who served as surgeon general twice, under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, made more than $2 million in COVID-19-related speaking and consulting fees from Carnival, Netflix, Estee Lauder and Airbnb between holding those positions. He pledged to recuse himself from matters involving those parties for a period of time.
Means has not yet gone through a Senate confirmation hearing and has not yet announced the ethical commitments she will make for the role.
Hund said that as influencer marketing becomes more common, it is raising more ethical questions, such as what past influencers who enter government should do to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
Other administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, have also promoted companies on social media without disclosing their financial ties.
'This is like a learning moment in the evolution of our democracy,' Hund said. 'Is this a runaway train that we just have to get on and ride, or is this something that we want to go differently?'
Swenson reported from New York.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Pushes B.S. About ‘Big Beautiful Bill' as Popularity Craters
President Donald Trump has insisted that Republicans get his so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' to his desk by the Fourth of July. With only days left before the self-imposed deadline, the White House is now scrambling to do damage control around the deeply unpopular legislation produced by Congress. A series of recent polls shows that the bill — which will force millions off of Medicaid, restrict access to food assistance programs, and cost the poorest Americans billions over the next 10 — is underwater with the public. A Washington Post survey recently produced a net favorability rating of -19. Fox News clocked in at -21, a Quinnipiac poll produced a -26 rating, and KFF — formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation — found net favorability to be at -29 points. In the face of this widespread public disapproval and the GOP's inter-party squabbling over the bill, the White House is pushing 'fact checks' insisting that the legislation would not hurt low-income families or the economy at large, and that it is not just a dressed-up tax break for billionaires at the expense of everyone and everything else. In a 'fact check' sheet issued Sunday night by the White House Communication Office, the administration claimed that the legislation would 'put more than $10,000 a year back in the pockets of typical hardworking families,' that the 'OBBB protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it,' and that the suggestion that people will 'literally die' if denied access to health care is 'one of the most egregious deranged attacks from the Left peddling fear over the facts.' The document repeatedly emphasized that American households would be taking home an extra $10,000 in income a year. Huge, right? Unfortunately — but not unexpectedly — the figure is a gross misrepresentation. The figure, which was circulated in several communications released by the White House and touted by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during a briefing earlier this month, is the high end of a projection produced by the Council of Economic Advisers – an internal White House agency. According to a Politifact review, the Council's range of a $7,600-$10,900 increase in annual take-home pay for a family of four was based on uniquely optimistic projections about how much total economic stimulus the 'Big Beautiful Bill' would produce. Where other independent agencies have predicted a maximum GDP increase of around 0.5-2 percent over the next 10 years, the counsel assumed an almost five percent increase over five years and a weighted 2.9-3.5 percent increase over 10 years. The $10,000 figure isn't a tangible change in income based on rewrites to the tax code, but rather a fantastical number carved out of an imaginary GDP boom. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Trump's enshrinement of his 2017 tax cuts, along with the exclusionary reforms being made to programs like Medicaid and SNAP, will cost the lowest-earning tenth of American households about $1,600 a year. 'Federal and state in-kind benefits would decrease household resources by $1.0 trillion,' the CBO wrote. 'Primarily because federal spending on benefits provided through Medicaid and SNAP would be lower. Changes to program benefits that states made in response to changes in federal policy would also reduce household resources.' Meanwhile, the richest Americans would see 'resources would increase, on average, over the projection period by about $12,000,' or even more given to the favorable pro-corporate policies packed into the bill. During Monday's press briefing, Leavitt insisted that 'this bill strengthens Medicaid,' and that rural hospitals were exaggerating the potential fallout of spending cuts to the program. According to the CBO, 11 million Americans could be squeezed out of their health care coverage over changes to Medicaid, bureaucratic red tape, more stringent work requirements, and changes to public insurance marketplaces. According to KFF, 'an estimated 1.5 million fewer people could be covered by Medicaid in rural areas under the reconciliation bill in 2034,' and the resulting drop in Medicaid enrollment could force rural hospitals and clinics — often the only nodes connecting rural Americans to the health care system — to close down. The bill 'protects' Medicaid only in the sense that the program will continue to exist, but it in no way protects the Americans who rely on it for their health. Millions of them will be forced to find care elsewhere if Republicans pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' More from Rolling Stone Senate Republicans Pass Trump's Bill to Strip Health Care From Millions J.D. Vance Dismisses Kicking Millions Off Medicaid: 'Minutiae' Trump Teases Deporting Elon: 'We'll Have to Take a Look' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
J.D. Vance Dismisses Kicking Millions Off Medicaid: ‘Minutiae'
President Donald Trump and the GOP's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' is far from beautiful and deeply unpopular with the public. Battling concerns from voters about increased barriers to accessing programs like Medicaid and food assistance; massive transfers of wealth from less fortunate Americans to corporations and the rich; and the mass deregulation of industries like crypto and AI, Vice President J.D. Vance is attempting a new tactic to persuade the hesitant: ignore all of that and focus on how much money the bill is giving to ICE. 'The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass,' Vance wrote Tuesday on X. 'Everything else — the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy — is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions,' he added. The millions of people who are expected to lose access to their health insurance as a result of the legislation would likely beg to differ. The version of the legislation passed by the House would give Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over $100 billion for the construction of new immigration detention centers, increasing arrest and deportation efforts, militarization of the border and the hiring of new agents. Such a massive windfall for immigration enforcement comes as ICE has blown through its annual budget months before the end of the fiscal year. In May, during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) laid into the reckless spending of the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Kristi Noem. 'You are spending like you don't have a budget. You are on the verge of running out of money for the fiscal year […] You are ignoring the immigration laws of this nation, implementing a brand-new immigration system that you have invented that has little relation to the statutes that you are required — that you are commanded — to follow as spelled out in your oath of office,' Murphy said. 'Your agency acts as if laws don't matter, as if the election gave you some mandate to violate the Constitution and the laws passed by this Congress. It did not give you that mandate.' Through the reconciliation bill and presidential policy, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are looking to give DHS and ICE that mandate. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has demanded that ICE detain at least 3,000 migrants a day. As the reconciliation bill continues to move through the Senate, Trump and Noem traveled to Florida on Tuesday to tour the so-called 'Alligator Alcatraz,' a migrant detention center built in the hostile backwaters of the Florida Everglades. 'We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator,' Trump said ahead of his visit to the center. 'Don't run in a straight line,' Trump said, waving his hand in a zig-zag to demonstrate how a detainee might potentially need to move to escape a half-ton reptile. This kind of callous cruelty is what the administration is focused on, whether it be its treatment of migrants, or dismissing kicking millions off of their health care as insignificant 'minutiae.' More from Rolling Stone White House Pushes B.S. About 'Big Beautiful Bill' as Popularity Craters Dem Senator Whines Amid GOP Push to Gut Medicaid: 'I Just Want to Go Home' Rick Scott Demands More Cuts to Medicaid, Which His Company Allegedly Scammed Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence


San Francisco Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayors, doctor groups sue over Trump's efforts to restrict Obamacare enrollment
WASHINGTON (AP) — New Trump administration rules that give millions of people a shorter timeframe to sign up for the Affordable Care Act's health care coverage are facing a legal challenge from Democratic mayors around the country. The rules, rolled out last month, reverse a Biden-era effort to expand access to the Affordable Care Act's health insurance, commonly called 'Obamacare' or the ACA. The previous Democratic administration expanded the enrollment window for the coverage, which led to record enrollment. The Department of Health and Human Services rolled out a series of new restrictions for Obamacare late last month, just as Congress was weighing a major bill that will decrease enrollment in the health care program that Republican President Donald Trump has scorned for years. As many as 2 million people — nearly 10% — are expected to lose coverage from the health department's new rules. The mayors of Baltimore, Chicago and Columbus, Ohio sued the federal health department on Tuesday over the rules, saying they will result in more uninsured residents and overburden city services. 'Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2025 Rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the purpose of the ACA to extend affordable health coverage to all Americans, and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,' the filing alleges. Two liberal advocacy groups — Doctors for America and Main Street Alliance — joined in on the complaint. The federal health department announced a series of changes late last month to the ACA. It will shorten the enrollment period for the federal marketplace by a month, limiting it to Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 in 2026. Income verification checks will become more stringent and a $5 fee will be tacked on for some people who automatically re-enroll in a free plan. Insurers will also be able to deny coverage to people who have not paid their premiums on past plans. The rules also bar roughly 100,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from signing up for the coverage. HHS said in a statement that the polices 'are temporary measures to immediately tamp down on improper enrollments and the improper flow of federal funds.' The mayors — all Democrats — argue that the polices were introduced without an adequate public comment period on the policies. 'This unlawful rule will force families off their health insurance and raise costs on millions of Americans. This does nothing to help people and instead harms Americans' health and safety across our country,' said Skye Perryman, the president of Democracy Forward, which is representing the coalition of plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not challenge the Trump administration's restriction on immigrants signing up for the coverage. The Biden administration saw gains in Obamacare enrollment as a major success of the Democratic president's term, noting that a record 24 million people signed up for the coverage, thanks to generous tax breaks offered through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But the program has been a target of Trump, who has said it is riddled with problems that make the coverage unaffordable for many without large subsidies. Enrollment in the program dipped during his first term in office.