A chilling warning has emerged from a leading public health expert, drawing a disturbing parallel between former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on healthcare and immigration and the dark history of eugenics. But here’s where it gets controversial: Dr. Craig Spencer, an esteemed ER physician and health policy scholar at Brown University, argues that the Trump administration’s focus on who ‘deserves’ healthcare echoes the dangerous policies of 1920s America—policies later adopted by Nazi Germany. This isn’t just a historical footnote; it’s a stark reminder of how language and policy can dehumanize entire groups of people. And this is the part most people miss: the implications of such rhetoric in today’s political climate, particularly during a government shutdown that’s now entering its fourth week due to congressional gridlock over funding, spending cuts, and immigration reforms.
Spencer, whose work with Médecins Sans Frontières and personal battle with Ebola in 2014 made headlines, doesn’t mince words. He highlights how the Trump-era health policy—marked by deep federal cuts and stricter eligibility rules—mirrors the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Back then, pseudoscientific ‘race science’ was used to justify forced sterilizations and restrictive immigration laws, targeting those deemed ‘unfit.’ Today, Spencer argues, the language around who ‘deserves’ healthcare or government aid feels eerily similar. ‘It’s not a stretch to call it a eugenics agenda,’ he told The Daily Beast. ‘People avoid the term because it’s uncomfortable, but the parallels are undeniable.’
Here’s the bold claim: Spencer suggests that the logical endpoint of such policies—though unspoken—is allowing certain people to die. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about human lives. In emergency rooms, where Spencer has worked for 18 years, the reality is starkly different from Washington’s rhetoric. ‘I don’t ask about immigration status or insurance,’ he says. ‘My job is to treat the emergency in front of me.’ And he’s not alone—Spencer asserts he knows no colleague who would withhold life-saving care based on paperwork.
Federal law, specifically the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA), mandates that Medicare-participating hospitals must screen and stabilize anyone who walks through their doors, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Yet, during the shutdown, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dodged questions about whether ERs should treat undocumented patients, pivoting instead to immigration talking points. Speaker Mike Johnson later clarified that Republicans have no plans to change EMTLA, stating, ‘Emergency care is provided without question to anyone who comes in.’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune echoed this, calling it ‘part of the Hippocratic Oath.’
But here’s the counterpoint: While EMTLA remains intact, the broader policy environment—marked by workforce cuts and tighter eligibility rules—raises concerns. As Spencer puts it, ‘In seconds, I have to decide about airway, meds, imaging, surgery—not hunt a federal database.’ The shutdown, he argues, exacerbates these issues, turning political talking points into life-or-death decisions for patients.
So, where does this leave us? Spencer’s vow is clear: ‘We will do right by the patient every single time—documented or undocumented, insured or uninsured, no matter how or whether they can pay.’ But the question remains: Are policies and rhetoric in Washington aligning with this ethical imperative? What do you think? Is Spencer’s comparison to eugenics justified, or is it an overreach? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation that demands your voice.
