Potential Global Effects of the Rise of the Far Right on Public Health

Abstract

The influence of the far right is growing globally. This calls for a critical examination of its potential public health implications.

Characterized by authoritarianism, injustice, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, divisive rhetoric, and a propensity for violence, the far right often employs denialist arguments against scientific evidence, including opposition to environmental protection policies. We conducted a narrative review of existing evidence to assess the impact of these elements on public health.

The findings suggest that the rise of the far right could have significant negative effects on population health. As a consequence, we advocate that the public health field and society at large must take a deliberate stance in response to this emerging reality. (Am J Public Health. 2025;115(6):873–882. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308016)

In recent years, the far right has gained presence and power in different regions of the world. In Europe, they are currently represented in the governments of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, Finland, Turkey, Italy, and the Netherlands, and in the administration of regional governments in France, Germany, and Spain. In the Americas, the governments of Bolsonaro in Brazil (2019–2022), Milei in Argentina (2023), or Trump in the United States (2017‒2021 and recently again in 2024) came to power under the same wake. Authoritarian forms of government and perspectives continue to exist in other parts of the world as well, such as in Israel, and their ideas and discourses are increasingly present in the media and social networks around the globe.^1–3 In this article, we examine how the rise of these far-right tendencies may affect the health of the global population.

For the purposes of this reflection, the concept of far right is not limited only to those parties that call themselves such but also includes ultraconservative movements, fascist groups, regimes with totalitarian tendencies, and all the discourses that come with them and that are permeating the rest of society.^1,4 These actors may take different forms in each region, although they share a common identity and ideological elements.^1,4 A fundamental one is that they understand that inequalities are intrinsic to human beings and, therefore, should not be corrected. In practice, this means upholding the power privileges of certain elites (e.g., racial, economic, gender) over the rest of society.¹ Among the common elements of the spreading far-right tendencies discussed in this article, the following stand out:

• •the tendency toward authoritarianism,
• •the defense of policies that increase social injustice and inequality related to economic neoliberalism,
• •the discriminatory component of its ideas (racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic),
• •the use of polarizing discourses that fragment social cohesion and generate a sense of fear and rupture,
• •the self-interested denial of scientific evidence for political gain, and
• •the antienvironment agenda, which defends private profit over the protection of the planet’s habitability conditions.

Although these characteristics are not exclusive to the far right and can be found in other ideological spectrums, they do form substantial elements of its identity.

The approach of this article is that public health science, which is by definition a promoter and protector of health and well-being, has a responsibility to position itself and denounce those actions that are negative for the health of the population. These actions include the maintenance of inequalities, the promotion of discrimination, or the maintenance of patriarchy, all of which are related to and promoted by the far right. Furthermore, it is understood that public health must be aligned with the protection and defense of human rights, and it has been argued that the rise of the far right poses a serious risk of regression of these rights.⁵

Therefore, this context of the far-right escalation demands a reflection on its potential impacts on health,⁶ especially following the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided several examples of where far-right health policies might be heading.^7,8 With this essay, we aim to deepen this reflection from a public health perspective, carrying out a narrative review of the scientific literature to point out the impacts that the advance of the far right already has or could have on population health.

THE FAR RIGHT IS AUTHORITARIAN

The discourses of the far right are associated with authoritarian ideas and values that undermine plurality and democratic freedoms.¹ There is evidence that authoritarian governments, compared with democratic ones, have worse population health indicators: a study, using longitudinal data from 168 countries collected between 1960 and 2010, found that, adjusted for gross domestic product, countries with democratic elections have, on average, 11 years longer life expectancy and 62.5% lower infant mortality than those without.⁹ One explanation for this phenomenon is that democratic regimes tend to protect their citizens better, more effectively, and more equitably, as could be seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸

But authoritarianism is not just about the type of government regime but also about the values that underpin it. The far right is associated with authoritarian ideas that can also be defended within democratic regimes, such as the claim of the leader or of “strong” governments, or the valorization and use of law enforcement and “repressive” actions to uphold the law.¹ Moreover, actors with authoritarian ideas are also more likely to support antidemocratic measures to defend their positions.¹⁰ These authoritarian values affect the development and quality of democracy, which is also related to population health indicators. For example, having more representative and pluralistic governments and having more political competition and party alternation in power are factors associated with higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality.^11,12

A recent example of the health risks of authoritarianism is the Hungarian government under Viktor Orbán. His government has been accused of undermining democratic institutions, restricting press freedom, and repressing political opposition.¹³ These authoritarian tendencies may have hampered the ability of health experts and institutions to provide transparent and evidence-based guidance during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the erosion of democratic norms may lead to reduced accountability in health systems, which could result in decisions that prioritize political considerations over public health needs and unequal access to health resources, thereby reinforcing inequities.¹³

THE FAR RIGHT IS UNFAIR

The evidence that epidemiology has provided on health inequities is so compelling that it is now difficult to justify any public health action that does not incorporate an equity perspective.¹⁴ It is recognized that structural social inequalities in the distribution of power, whether by income, race, gender, or any other determinant, create unjust and avoidable health inequities.¹⁴ Far-right parties and movements often ignore this aspect, taking an incomplete scientific view of population health, which can lead them to develop discourses and promote policies that can generate harm to society.¹⁵

Structural factors that determine these inequalities could be governance and policies.¹⁴ In recent decades, the far right has adapted the neoliberal positions supporting free markets, financial deregulation, and the reduction of the capacities of welfare states to provide social protection to their citizens.^4,15 The implementation of these neoliberal policies points to an increase in socioeconomic inequalities.^15,16 In turn, rising income inequalities are associated with poorer outcomes on diverse indicators ranging from general and infant mortality to violent crime, adolescent pregnancy, obesity, social distrust, and depression.¹⁷ There is evidence that indicates that in countries with more right-wing governments, less egalitarian traditions, or less developed welfare states, there is an increase in inequalities, and, consequently, this has a negative impact on population health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, or general health.¹⁶

A circular relationship between the far right and inequalities should be noted¹⁸: its policy proposals promote inequality, and, in turn, the increase in social inequality is associated with an increase in the far-right vote. Therefore, it is in the interests of these actors not only to defend privilege but also to increase disparity, even though this may harm the health of the most privileged.¹⁷

Another strand of neoliberal policies embraced by the far right is cuts in public services. There is evidence that these cuts are harmful to population health, impacting such substantial and robust indicators as overall mortality.¹⁹ In general, these cuts, whether in health or not, affect marginalized groups more, widening the health gap. Bolsonaro’s far-right government in Brazil implemented specific cuts for the indigenous population.²⁰ Trump’s government in the United States has also made specific cuts, targeting those with fewer economic resources, mostly Black people.²¹ Therefore, inequality is promoted in these countries through cuts to the welfare system.

THE FAR RIGHT IS RACIST

A common feature of the far right’s public approach is the xenophobic discourse that dehumanizes and criminalizes foreigners.^1,2 These approaches are also related to the defense of a hierarchical structure of power and privilege based on a supposed race.^1,22 Race is a construct of social classification, determined by perceived physical or ancestral appearance, and has an important effect on health that operates at both the individual and the structural or community level.^22,23 Racism can lead to forms of cultural, ethnic, religious, or place-of-origin discrimination, which also have an impact on health.²³

The effects of racism on health may vary depending on the context and the population affected, although there are common factors in the impacts studied.²² It can act indirectly, affecting other social determinants, such as socioeconomic status, but also directly, as an independent factor.²² At the individual level, experiencing racism can generate negative behavioral, psychological, and physiological responses.²² The experience of racism is associated with poorer health habits, less physical activity, poorer diet, and abuse of tobacco and other toxic substances.²² Racism is a stressor that is also associated with poorer mental health outcomes, with a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and suicide attempts.^22,23 This also affects the biological level, with poorer physical health outcomes and chronic diseases.^22,23 The cumulative effects of racism can lead to metabolic changes, which would explain impacts such as low birth weight, higher infant mortality, cognitive impairment, dementia, and risk of premature death.²²

Racism also operates on population health at the community and structural levels.²² For example, it promotes spatial segregation that leads to inequalities in access to resources and services and exposure to health risks.²² At the collective level, we speak of institutional racism when there are policies or administrative actions that are prejudicial based on the conception of race.²⁴ This is the case with far-right policy proposals, which tend to disadvantage minoritized groups. One example, as mentioned earlier, is the application of cuts in social benefits within the framework of neoliberal policies, which mostly affects populations of certain races or origins. This is a particular form of necropolitics, where it is decided who has the right to live and who does not.^22,25 Another example is border, migration, and asylum policies, which have their most dramatic effect on border deaths but also affect the health and lives of asylum seekers in host countries.²⁵ Far-right groups have an identity element in pushing for the tightening of these policies, insensitive to the impact they have on the future of entire generations.

THE FAR RIGHT IS MISOGYNISTIC

The far right is conservative and traditional in its understanding of the world.¹ Their discourses and attitudes are clearly related to ideas that promote patriarchy (i.e., the maintenance of a hierarchical social structure where men prevail over women) through the preservation of differentiated gender roles.²⁶ In general, the far right spreads messages that deny the scientific and social advances related to gender that feminist theories have contributed, downplaying their value.²⁶ All of this leads them to promote a transnational agenda that denies gender and feminism and, therefore, discriminates against a large part of the population.²⁶

In public health, it has long been well-known that gender inequalities have an impact on health.^14,27 Countries with worse indicators of gender equality (greater wage or care gaps) also have worse health indicators for women than for men.²⁷ Because of gender roles or social norms associated with gender in a patriarchal society, inequities are created in exposure to risks, behavioral differences, and other factors, which determine health inequities between men and women.¹⁴ These inequalities are reproduced in health institutions in the form of implicit biases of professionals, who may provide different care depending on gender because of their own stereotypes, independent of biological factors.²⁸

One of the most serious forms of inequality produced by patriarchy is gender-based violence, as has been recognized by multiple international entities such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Worldwide, 27% of the female population aged 15 to 49 years have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or another man.²⁹ Violence against women has known long-term effects on their health, such as worsening menopausal symptoms and increasing the risk of contracting infectious diseases or developing diabetes, substance abuse, chronic diseases, and pain.³⁰ To deny existing knowledge about the effects of patriarchy is to deny the structural causes of the gender gap in health and to downplay the importance of the global public health problem of gender-based violence.

Another of the issues where the action against gender equality and public health of the far right is exemplified is in their antiabortion policies.^31,32 The public health evidence on the suitability of safe abortion is compelling^31,32: lower maternal and infant mortality, lower cost to the system and families, and lower socioeconomic and community impact on society. In contrast, in countries that have practiced antiabortion policies, the opposite effects have occurred, without reducing the prevalence of abortion.^31,32 According to a 2016 systematic review,³³ the stigma caused by antiabortion discourse on women receiving this benefit also has a negative impact on their health, with increased self-judgment, fear of social judgment, and the need to hide their experience, leading to increased symptoms of psychological distress and social isolation. This stigma is promoted by conservative and ultra‒right-wing discourses that single out women who have abortions.

THE FAR RIGHT IS HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC

In their gender-denialist stance, the far right also discriminates against those who step outside the traditional, patriarchal framework of gender roles.¹ They defend heteronormative masculinity and femininity, as well as a vision of the traditional family that leads them to wield homophobic and transphobic narratives.¹ These forms of discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation also have important health impacts on the population and individuals.³⁴

Societies with policies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are known to have poorer physical and mental health indicators and lower life expectancy in men.³⁴ Because of this discrimination, gay and lesbian youths suffer greater bullying, lower self-esteem and social support, poorer school performance, higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, and higher prevalence of suicide, anxiety, and depression than heteronormative youth.³⁵ Queer people also have higher barriers to accessing the health care system and, therefore, are more likely to self-medicate, with detrimental consequences for their health.³⁶

Furthermore, in countries where discrimination is more prevalent, queer people are more likely to experience an effect known as internalized homophobia and transphobia, which leads them not to accept their sexuality or gender identity.³⁷ This phenomenon is associated with increased mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) and higher rates of suicide, drug use, and eating disorders and has a negative impact on social relationships.³⁷ The homophobic and transphobic loudspeaker that is the discriminatory voices of the far right can increase negative health impacts for these populations.

THE FAR RIGHT IS DIVISIVE

The maintenance of social inequalities defended by the far right is closely related to a detriment to social cohesion, which is, in turn, a fundamental determinant of population health.³⁸ Different conceptualizations of social cohesion converge around the ideas of trust in others or identification with the same common good.³⁸ Those are the elements that the far right tends to break with their discourses. They frequently use confrontational narratives, whose central axis is the logic of “us versus them,” creating social polarization and promoting social discrimination.^1,2,39 They also use fear-based discourses and policies and alarmist rhetoric (e.g., “the country is breaking up”; “there is a cultural invasion”; “decay of institutions”; “increase in crime”) to facilitate support for the discriminatory and authoritarian measures commonly found in their programs.^1,39 These discourses cause a constant sense of fear and tension in the population and severely erode social cohesion, directly affecting population health. The effects described in the literature range from increased stress, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and anger to loss of sleep, temper, or control over certain actions.⁴⁰ These rupturing discourses also serve as a justification and a call for discrimination and violence.^39,41

To disseminate these narratives, far-right groups use digital media and social networks.^39,41 In particular, they relate to the use of fake news, conspiracy theories, and, in general, disinformation, with the intention of boosting their discourse. Conspiracy theories, even if false, can have consequences on real people, such as negative impacts on interpersonal relationships, perceptions of security, or social distancing that can promote violent tendencies.⁴²

An example of this strategy of fragmentation and fear was experienced in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, where far-right-wing groups launched messages that questioned the preventive actions promoted by health institutions. The consequence was to promote resistance to these measures, increasing fear, depression, and fatigue.⁴³ At a time when there was an important need for social cohesion, for everyone to walk together, various sectors of the far right throughout the world promoted disagreement and conflict, calling for division, which in some cases could lead to violence.⁷

THE FAR RIGHT IS VIOLENT

The discriminatory discourses of the far right not only fragment society but also promote hatred and fear of what is different with hyperbolic and radical rhetoric that points to violence as a solution.^39,41 Their more or less veiled calls for violence and their amplification in the media and social networks seem to be related to the increase in aggressions.^2,3,39

Violence spiraling is a public health problem, affecting not only those who suffer from it but also the perpetrators and the whole community.⁴⁴ Apart from the impact of aggression, violence can cause long-term impacts on the brain, the immune response, and the neuroendocrine system, which can lead to increased incidence of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicide, or increased cardiovascular risk and premature death.⁴⁴ Interpersonal violence can also affect the community as a whole: witnesses of violence or members of the same community as those who receive violence are more at risk for depression or intergenerational trauma.⁴⁴

Particularly relevant because of their relation to right-wing extremist discourses are hate crimes—attacks on people for being different in terms of religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.³ These are a worrying and growing reality that is also a public health problem. Examples of this violence on minoritized populations include the assaults on people of Asian origin during the COVID-19 pandemic⁷ and those received by transgender people.⁴⁵ In the latter group, having suffered violence is related to suicide attempts and the consumption of toxic substances.⁴⁵ The far right, with its inflammatory speeches, promotes and even perpetrates these crimes and violent actions,² including terrorist actions associated with these ideas.⁴⁶

THE FAR RIGHT IS ANTISCIENCE

Another common feature of the far right in modern times is the dissemination of an antiscience discourse that triggers resistance and reinterpretations of societal research advancements. This has already been pointed out in the denial of the impact of inequalities on health. However, when it aligns with their interests in political agitation and social division, it can also encompass other equally important health-related issues. For instance, the use of denialist discourses can lead people to alter healthy behaviors or reject advice provided by institutions to improve their health, avoiding evidence-based therapeutic or preventive interventions (such as contraceptives or vaccines).^47,48

Moreover, there was resistance to preventive public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was already evidence linking far-right ideologies to vaccine resistance before the pandemic,⁴⁷ but it became particularly relevant during this time.⁴⁹ There was also resistance toward other preventive measures, such as the use of masks.⁵⁰ Therefore, the far right can not only harm the health of populations but also undermine actions designed to improve it by spreading and legitimizing messages that go against these actions.⁴⁸

THE FAR RIGHT IS ANTIENVIRONMENTAL

In the line of denying advances in scientific knowledge, the far right also promotes skeptical discourses regarding climate change or the acknowledgment of human responsibility for it.⁵¹ There is solid evidence on the causes and consequences of climate change and its negative health effects,⁵² to the extent that it has been identified as the main challenge for public health in the 21st century. Again, these effects are unevenly distributed, exacerbating health inequities.⁵² The far right engages in a transnational climate change denial agenda.⁵¹ This agenda often presents neoliberal approaches, advocates for deregulation, and defends the interests of private entities and large multinational corporations.⁵¹

In addition to the false debate on climate change, other well-known and undeniable phenomena related to the environment and caused by human action have a negative impact on health. An example is air pollution. Its impact on health, especially respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, is well-documented, and it is estimated that more than 4 million premature deaths annually can be attributed to outdoor air pollution.⁵³ Improving air safety would prevent deaths and illnesses, leading to economic savings and increased social productivity.⁵⁴ However, the antienvironmentalist policies promoted by the far right go in the opposite direction: less control of pollutant emissions, discrediting environmental protection institutions, reducing sanctions, and withdrawing from international commitments to reduce air pollution, among others.⁵⁵ These obstructionist actions can, in the most authoritarian regimes where they hold power, lead to persecution and even violence against environmental activists,⁵¹ often linked to indigenous populations, introducing a racial and discriminatory component once again.

Beyond all these actions, the mere legacy of discredit and erosion that the far right wields against environmental protection actions and institutions has a significant and difficult-to-erase impact on society. The messages of the previous Trump administration denying human pollution’s responsibility for climate change (calling it a racist “Chinese hoax”) or claiming that protective measures would cost jobs resonated with the American population, resulting in less support for environmental policies and institutions.⁵⁶ Therefore, it can be concluded that the far right has its own agenda that it defends despite the interests of the planet and the global population.

CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION

The far right, in its many forms and guises, is gaining power in various parts of the world. Its discourses are permeating society and promoting or reinforcing policies that have a negative impact on population health and worsen inequities (Box 1). These impacts are broad, affecting mental, physical, and social health, and are reflected in robust indicators such as mortality. Because of the defense of their privileges in power axes (e.g., wealth, race, gender, sexual orientation), the far right maintains denialist positions against science, environmental issues, and discriminatory practices, ultimately fueling social division and violence (Figure 1). Far-right ideas, movements, parties, and policies represent, therefore, a threat to health. Public health as a discipline and its professionals as a community cannot remain on the sidelines in the face of this reality and must take a clear, critical stance.⁵⁷ The existence of public health based on scientific evidence is necessary to highlight these impacts and advocate actions to neutralize and prevent them.

BOX 1—

Synthesis of Results of Far-Right Impacts on Population Health

Far-Right Is	What They Do	Known Health Impacts
Authoritarian	They hold more authoritarian and less pluralistic and democratic regimes and values.	Authoritarian regimes have worse life expectancy and maternal and infant mortality, adjusted for income. Less pluralistic governments are associated with lower life expectancy and higher maternal and infant mortality.
Unfair	They do not recognize an equity perspective, favor privilege, and promote neoliberal policies that foster inequalities, welfare state cuts, and the disempowerment of marginalized groups.	Neoliberal policies increase health inequalities between and within countries. Greater income inequalities are associated with higher rates of overall and infant mortality, obesity, depression, violent crime, adolescent pregnancy, and social distrust. Governments with less egalitarian traditions are associated with poorer life expectancy, infant mortality, and general health indicators. Cuts in public services are associated with increased overall mortality and have a greater impact on marginalized and minoritized groups.
Racist	They maintain xenophobic and racist discourses and promote the resurgence of necropolitics against migrant and minoritised populations.	The experience of racism is associated with poorer health habits such as less physical activity, poorer diet, and consumption of toxic substances. It is also associated with poorer mental health, depression, anxiety, and self-esteem, and increased suicide attempts. Suffering from racism is associated with poorer physical health indicators, more chronic diseases, lower birth weight, and higher premature mortality, cognitive impairment, and dementia. Racism promotes spatial discrimination that leads to inequities in access to resources and services and exposure to health risks. Necropolitics, such as those related to migration, have a substantial impact on people’s health.
Misogynist	They maintain an antigender and antifeminist agenda that denies the contributions of gender theory, including equality policies. They uphold the privileges of men over women in the distribution of roles. They maintain an antiabortion stance and a denial of gender-based violence.	Gender roles create inequities in health, starting in childhood and continuing into adulthood. Countries with worse equity rates have worse health indicators for women. Structural gender inequalities underpin gender-based violence. Abortions continue to occur, even with antiabortion laws, albeit with poorer safety conditions. Unsafe abortions increase maternal and infant mortality, the cost to the system and families, and the resulting harm from stigma to the women who have them.
LGBTQIA+phobic	They uphold the privileges of normative gender roles and traditional family structures and discriminate against people with diverse gender identities or sexual orientations.	In the most homophobic societies, there are poorer physical and mental health indicators, and men have lower life expectancy. Young gay men suffer higher rates of bullying, poorer self-esteem and academic performance, and higher prevalence of suicide, anxiety, and depression. Queer people have more difficulty accessing the health care system. Where there is discrimination, there is greater internalized homophobia, which is associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide, and increased drug use and eating disorders. Discrimination has a negative impact on social support and difficulties in relating to others.
Divisive	They sustain polarizing discourses, alarmist narratives, and the politics of fear, which fragment social cohesion.	Social cohesion is an important component of population health. Discourses of fear and polarization are associated with increased stress, depression, anxiety, loss of sleep, and worsening physical health. Conspiracy theories can have negative impacts on interpersonal relationships, perceptions of safety, or social distancing. Fake news can alter people’s behavior, creating resistance to public health recommendations.
Violent	They wield inflammatory and dehumanizing narratives that justify and promote certain forms of violence, including terrorism.	Violence is a public health problem that affects those on the receiving end, the perpetrators, and the community. Increased assaults are associated with the spread of far-right discourses. Violence can cause long-term health effects, such as increased depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or suicide, and increased risk of cardiovascular disease or premature death. Suffering more violence is collectively associated with a higher prevalence of depression, lower social cohesion, and higher rates of premature births and intergenerational trauma.
Antiscience	They deny scientific knowledge when it goes against their interests.	Denialist discourses can erode the impact of public health interventions and the prestige of the institutions that promote them.
Antienvironmental	They deny climate change, promoting deregulation and delegitimization of environmental protection policies.	Climate change has serious effects on the health of populations and their inequities. Increased air pollution is closely linked to the rise in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, resulting in millions of deaths per year. The scientific consensus is that pollution and human impact on global warming and the planet’s other biophysical and ecological limits must be regulated.

Note. LGBTQIA+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersexual, or asexual plus.

FIGURE 1—

Explanatory Framework of the Relation Between the Far Right and Negative Health Impacts

Note. Some examples of negative health impacts related to the far right are represented in Box 1.

There are public health interventions designed to reduce some of the effects that far-right policies can have, such as actions to promote equality,²⁷ reduce discrimination⁵⁸ and social inequalities,⁵⁹ and mitigate the impact of climate change.⁶⁰ This palliative approach to impacts is necessary but proves insufficient. There is also a need to identify the root of the problem that generates changes in discourse. The far right must be denounced, not engaged in a sterile dialectical battle of differing opinions. It must be confronted as an infection that spreads. We need health promotion interventions, vaccines, protective networks, monitoring, and treatment of the infected. But the goal, let us not forget, is to eradicate it.

We are not alone in this task. Various sectors and social movements are organizing to confront the values promoted by the far right, a task for the entire society. Public health can add another dimension to this struggle. We have the responsibility to contribute our knowledge and experience to expose policies that will harm the health of the population. These are not times to hide behind a supposed neutrality of science. Scientific knowledge has supported positions in favor of equity, health, social cohesion, the promotion of freedoms, and human rights for years without fear of taking a stand to defend the health of the population.⁵ It is, then, appropriate to denounce those approaches that go against these principles.

If you work for a better public health, be critical against far-right policies; do not whitewash their ideas, movements, and parties; and be proud to be antifascist.