The Milk Mustache Is Back: Trump, RFK Jr., and the Return of White Power Milk

 

By Vasile Stănescu

When the White House posted “Make Whole Milk Great Again” beside an image of Donald Trump, it appeared to be another skirmish in an ongoing debate over dietary guidelines. In fact, it drew on a much older political tradition: the use of animal product consumption as a symbolic marker of whiteness, masculinity, and national belonging.

The phrase “Make Whole Milk Great Again” isn’t coincidental. It echoes the same cultural anxieties that, over a hundred years ago, led white working-class Americans to assert their consumption of animal products as a “privilege of white citizenship” (DuPuis, 2002). Then, as now, economic insecurity and immigration fears converged on the dinner plate.

In the 1920s and 1930s, as Chinese immigration increased, milk became weaponized. The National Dairy Council proclaimed that “people who have achieved” were those who consumed “liberal amounts of milk” (Olsen, 1920). Agricultural histories celebrated “Aryans” as “the heaviest drinkers of milk,” suggesting this “may in part account for the quick and high development of this division of human beings” (Hedrick, 1933). Even Herbert Hoover proclaimed in 1920: “The white race cannot survive without dairy products” (Riverside Daily Press, 1920, p. 2). This wasn’t fringe pseudoscience. It was mainstream dietary racism, positioning animal products, and milk in particular, as proof of white superiority (Freeman, 2013; Stănescu, 2016). Against Chinese immigrants portrayed as “effeminate rice eaters,” the right to consume animal products became defined as a right of white male citizenship. The factory farm system, emerging in the 1920s and 1930s, made meat and dairy ever more available and affordable; if eating animals equaled wealth, then cheaper animal products made people feel richer even as their real wages stagnated. Under “slaughterhouse capitalism”, animals were exploited more so that human workers could steadily be exploited more (Stănescu, 2025).

Milk’s literal whiteness also makes it a perfect vessel for white supremacist ideology: a commodity fetish embodying purity, cleanliness, and racial identity. Film directors understand this iconography. In Get Out, a white woman’s glass of milk reveals her commitment to white supremacy. As Jordan Peele explained, there’s “something kind of horrific about milk” as an image (Yamato, 2017). Like Ivory soap in the colonial era, which McClintock (1995) identified as embodying the “civilizing mission,” milk became a visual representation of the fantasy of racial whiteness itself.

Fast forward to 2017: the alt-right storms an art installation drinking milk, Richard Spencer tweets “I’m very tolerant…lactose tolerant!”, and neo-Nazis type “Heil Milk” across the internet (Freeman, 2017; Nagesh, 2017; Swerdloff, 2017). They’re drawing on contemporary academic research about lactose tolerance and race (research published in venues like The Economist and PBS) to justify the same old supremacist ideology in new scientific clothing (Cook, 2015a, 2015b; Harmon, 2018; Stănescu, 2018).

RFK Jr.’s dietary rhetoric revives these patterns. When economic anxiety rises and demographic change accelerates, we witness the same proxy battle: the reassertion of animal product consumption as a marker of white masculinity and citizenship. The alt-right’s favorite insult, “soy boy,” is simply an updated version of the 19th century’s “effeminate rice eater” (Adams, 1990/2015; Sommer, 2017; Stănescu, 2016).

The milk mustache is back. As economic instability deepens and demographic change accelerates, we can expect to see more performative acts of meat and dairy consumption. Now, as before, these are public rituals designed to assert whiteness, masculinity, and citizenship through the fantasy that animal consumption equals wealth, status, and national belonging. Understanding this history reveals that challenging animal agriculture isn’t only about animals. It’s about dismantling the systems of oppression that harm us all.

 

References

Adams, C. J. (2015). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory (25th anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1990)

Cook, J. (2015a, March 28). No use crying: The ability to digest milk may explain how Europe got rich. The Economisthttps://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/03/28/no-use-crying

Cook, J. (2015b, December 3). Got milk? How lactose tolerance influenced economic development. PBS NewsHourhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/got-milk-lactose-tolerance-influenced-economic-development

DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Nature’s perfect food: How milk became America’s drink. New York University Press.

Freeman, A. (2013). The unbearable whiteness of milk: Food oppression and the USDA. U.C. Irvine Law Review3(4), 1251–1279.

Freeman, A. (2017, August 30). Milk, a symbol of neo-Nazi hate. The Conversationhttp://theconversation.com/milk-a-symbol-of-neo-nazi-hate-83292

Harmon, A. (2018, October 17). Why white supremacists are chugging milk (and why geneticists are alarmed). The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html

Hedrick, U. P. (1933). A history of agriculture in the State of New York. New York State Agricultural Society.

McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. Routledge.

Nagesh, A. (2017, February 21). Secret Nazi code kept hidden by “milk” and “vegan agenda.” Metrohttps://metro.co.uk/2017/02/21/secret-nazi-code-kept-hidden-by-milk-and-vegan-agenda-6463079/

Olsen, H. P. (1920). The milk dealer. The National Journal for the City Milk Trade10(1).

Riverside Daily Press. (1920, February 5). XXXV(31), p. 2. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=RDP19200205.2.97

Sommer, W. (2017). How “soy boy” became the far right’s favorite new insult. Mediumhttps://medium.com/@willsommer/how-soy-boy-became-the-far-rights-favorite-new-insult-e2e988d365c7

Stănescu, V. (2016). The whopper virgins: Hamburgers, gender, and xenophobia. In A. Potts (Ed.), Meat culture (pp. 90–108). Brill.

Stănescu, V. (2018). ‘White power milk’: Milk, dietary racism, and the ‘alt-right.’ Animal Studies Journal7(2), 103–128.

Stănescu, V. (2025, October 6). Slaughterhouse capitalism. Current Affairshttps://www.currentaffairs.org/news/how-industrial-slaughter-became-the-blueprint-for-modern-capitalism

Swerdloff, A. (2017, February 21). Got milk? Neo-Nazi trolls sure as hell do. VICEhttps://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/kbka39/got-milk-neo-nazi-trolls-sure-as-hell-do

Yamato, J. (2017, March 1). Jordan Peele explains Get Out’s creepy milk scene, ponders the recent link between dairy and hate. Los Angeles Timeshttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-get-out-milk-horror-jordan-peele-allison-williams-20170301-story.html

 

How Veganism is and Always Should Be: A Critique of a Practice-based Definition of Veganism

 

By Nathan Poirier

In 2021, political scientist Jan Dutkiewicz and religious studies scholar Jonathan Dickstein wrote an article titled The ‘Ism’ In Veganism: The Case for a Minimal Practice-based Definition arguing that veganism should be restricted to refer to one’s personal habits only. I cited this article in my own article in the second issue of the Student Journal of Vegan Sociology (Poirier, 2023) but only in passing voiced my opposition to it. This post extends that sentiment by pondering this in relation to vegan sociology. As a sociologist, I find such a stripped-down definition of veganism unacceptable on many fronts. 

The assertion that veganism be applied to personal practice only is perhaps most fundamentally problematic due to who wrote the article. Dutkiewicz and Dickstein are both white male academics. While not necessarily problematic in itself, it is when one considers that many vegans of color consistently insist that veganism is much more than a diet, part of a lifestyle that extends to decolonisation, anti-racism, being pro-LGBT+, among other things. My favorite sources for such information are the edited books by Julia Feliz [Brueck] (Feliz Brueck, 2017; Feliz Brueck, 2019; Feliz Brueck and McNeill, 2020). In light of these viewpoints, a direct and self-proclaimed “minimal” definition of veganism becomes highly suspicious. This article was also published after quite a few sources on veganism of color had been published. Considering the number of definitions and takes on veganism Dutkiewicz and Dickstein cover in their article, there is no excuse for shunning these voices. 

In sociology, the positionality of a speaker matters, and the positionalities of those whose voices are being silenced matter too. Dutkiewicz and Dickstein write from privileged positions in addition to their hegemonic identities: both are research professors, jobs that come with cushy benefits, high salaries, considerable time off, and social prestige. Marginalising the already marginalised is not a difficult thing to do when one occupies such a socioeconomic position. But it is bad form, especially from a vegan sociology perspective. 

Anyone who studies veganism knows that the term has always been about more than personal lifestyle choices. Veganism can impact one’s political orientation, relationships and sexuality, consumption behaviors, activism, and much more. Veganism is about not exploiting others. In some sense, it is that simple. By the same token, it is also that complicated. It is not easy to recognise that all oppressions are connected as this is intentionally kept hidden by “the powers that be” and to take the steps to try to resist them altogether through consistent anti-oppression. One has a lot to lose socially in doing so, especially white males. 

Dutkiewicz and Dickstein do not argue for replacing the political and radical thrust of veganism with anything else that might get at the interconnection of oppressions. This is not of particular concern to them. What have they got to lose by reducing the radical thrust of veganism? In fact, taking a conservative stance within academia is typically rewarded. By removing something like activism or wider social awareness from veganism, the authors play it safe and protect their institutional statuses and jobs. 

I haven’t seen anyone make a direct and public critique of this article. Admittedly I was hesitant to write this because it calls attention to what I consider to be an erroneous, racist, and hurtful argument. But I do think veganism must be defended in its radical glory. A minimal practice-based definition made by two white people just seems a little too similar to white people calling for an end of teaching critical race theory (Kaepernick et al., 2023) or movements in animal advocacy spaces towards racist effective altruism. Vegan sociologists should stand behind a consistent anti-oppression definition of veganism and make it clear that a minimal practice-based definition is incorrect. No one should sit back quietly while two highly privileged people publicly and categorically silence vegans of color. 

 

References

Dutkiewicz, J. and Dickstein, J. (2021) ‘The Ism in veganism: The case for a minimal practice-based definition’, Food Ethics, 6(2), pp. 1-19.

Feliz Brueck, J. (2017) Veganism in an Oppressive World: A Vegans of Color Community Project. Sanctuary Publishers.

Feliz Brueck, J. (2019) Veganism of Color: Decentering Whiteness in Human and Nonhuman Liberation. Sanctuary Publishers. 

Feliz Brueck, J. and McNeill, Z. (2020) Queer and trans voices: Achieving liberation through consistent anti-oppression. Sanctuary Publishers.

Kaepernick, C., Kelley, R. D. G., and Taylor, K. (Eds) (2023) Our history has always been contraband: In defense of Black studies. Haymarket Books.

Poirier, N. (2023) ‘Three Sociological Paradoxes of Eating Animals’, Student Journal for Vegan Sociology, 2, pp. 41-52.