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, a renowned emergency room 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 subtle yet profound ways in which modern political discourse can mirror the past’s most horrific ideologies.
As the government shutdown drags into its fourth week, the standoff between the White House, Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senate Democrats has exposed deep divides over spending cuts, immigration, and healthcare subsidies. While the White House demands concessions on immigration and spending, Democrats insist on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and reversing recent healthcare cuts. Amid this chaos, Dr. Spencer highlights a troubling pattern: the Trump-era health policy of slashing federal funding and tightening eligibility rules for who ‘deserves’ aid. He warns that this rhetoric—framed as fiscal responsibility—ultimately leads to a chilling conclusion: allowing certain people to die based on arbitrary criteria.
‘It’s not a stretch to call this a eugenics agenda,’ Spencer told The Daily Beast. ‘The U.S. perfected it in the 1920s and 1930s, using pseudoscientific ‘race science’ to justify forced sterilizations and restrictive immigration laws. The Nazis took it further, but the roots were here.’ Spencer emphasizes that while the word ‘eugenics’ feels unsayable today, the policies it represents are very much alive in contemporary debates.
Here’s the controversial part: Spencer argues that the Trump administration’s language on immigration and healthcare access mirrors the 1920s eugenics movement, which sorted people by ‘worthiness’ under the guise of state-sanctioned acceptability. ‘The logical conclusion,’ he says, ‘is letting certain people die—even if no one dares say it aloud.’ This isn’t just about politics; it’s about the moral implications of who we choose to save and who we abandon.
Spencer, who gained national attention in 2014 after surviving Ebola while working with Médecins Sans Frontières, brings a unique perspective to this debate. With 18 years of experience as an emergency physician, he knows firsthand that political rhetoric collapses at the bedside. ‘I’ve never asked a patient about their immigration status or insurance,’ he admits. ‘My job is to treat the emergency in front of me.’ He adds that he doesn’t know a single colleague who would withhold life-saving care over paperwork. Yet, as the shutdown continues and the White House pushes for workforce cuts, emergency rooms become the battleground where political talking points have real-life consequences.
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. When pressed, even Speaker Johnson acknowledged, ‘Emergency care is provided without question to anyone who comes in. That’s a good law.’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune echoed this sentiment, calling it ‘part of the Hippocratic Oath.’
But Spencer remains skeptical. ‘There’s zero way you can tell me to stop resuscitating someone because they’re undocumented,’ he insists. ‘In seconds, I have to decide about airway, meds, imaging, surgery—not hunt a federal database.’ His 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.’
Now, here’s the question that sparks debate: Is the Trump administration’s focus on ‘deserving’ patients a modern iteration of eugenics, or is it a necessary fiscal policy? Spencer’s comparison to Nazism is bold and bound to provoke differing opinions. But it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about how we value human life. As the shutdown grinds on, the stakes couldn’t be higher—not just for healthcare, but for the very principles of equality and compassion that define us as a society. What do you think? Is this a fair comparison, or is it an overreach? Let’s discuss in the comments.
