Kennedy’s claims about antidepressants illustrate how easily a sliver of truth can be stretched into a sweeping, and harmful, narrative.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
On August 28, 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested in a Fox & Friends interview that antidepressants (specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs) might have played a role in the recent mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, and more broadly in a perceived rise of violent crime. He claimed that some SSRIs carry black-box warnings that alert users to “homicidal ideation,” and that government agencies were beginning studies into whether psychiatric drugs could be contributing to violence.
For millions of Americans who rely on antidepressants, those words landed like a gut punch. Nearly 1 in 8 adults in the United States take SSRIs or similar medications to manage depression, anxiety, or other mental health conditions, according to CDC data. These drugs don’t just improve mood; for many, they mean the difference between being able to work, care for their families, and even survive. One Minnesota mother, interviewed by NPR after Kennedy’s comments, described her SSRI prescription as “the lifeline that kept me alive when nothing else did.”
Mental-health experts warn that Kennedy’s framing is dangerously misleading. There is no credible evidence linking SSRIs to mass shootings or homicidal behavior. What the data does show is a more nuanced picture: SSRIs can increase the risk of suicidal thoughts in adolescents and young adults, which is why the FDA requires a black-box warning. But that is very different from fueling outward violence. “All the data suggest SSRIs are not the problem,” says Columbia psychiatrist Ragy R. Girgis. “We’re conflating separate risks in ways that don’t serve patients or public safety.”
It’s true that Kennedy has also voiced support for psychedelic-assisted therapies in treating depression and trauma, a field where early studies show promise under careful clinical control. But when his more sensational claims about antidepressants make headlines, they risk deterring people from proven treatments, feeding stigma, and shifting focus away from deeper drivers of violence like firearm access and systemic mental health gaps. This article examines Kennedy’s rhetoric, the science behind SSRIs, and the very real dangers of misinformation when lives are on the line.
What Kennedy Is Saying
Kennedy has made antidepressants one of his favorite villains in explaining America’s epidemic of violence. In recent interviews and public appearances, he has argued that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, have played a central role in the rise of school shootings and violent crime. After the tragic shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Kennedy suggested that the suspect’s use of antidepressants could not be ruled out, and he went further: “These drugs,” he claimed, “have black-box warnings for homicidal ideation.”
The rhetoric has gone beyond isolated speculation. Earlier this year, Kennedy asserted that SSRIs are as addictive and destructive as heroin, a claim flatly contradicted by decades of pharmacological data and clinical experience. “SSRIs are the new opioids,” he told one interviewer, “handed out like candy to kids and leaving a trail of wreckage behind.” By equating a class of non-addictive psychiatric medications with one of the most dangerous and dependence-producing substances on Earth, Kennedy blurred the line between legitimate questions about overprescribing and outright misinformation.
He has also pushed a narrative that the advent of Prozac in the late 1980s coincided with the beginning of mass school shootings in the United States. While the timeline is convenient, experts caution that it is a classic case of correlation being mistaken for causation. Social scientists point to multiple overlapping factors, from the rise of semi-automatic weapons to social alienation and insufficient access to mental health services, as far more plausible explanations than a single drug class.
At the same time, Kennedy sometimes tempers his broadside attacks with nods toward alternative therapies. He has spoken favorably of psychedelic-assisted treatments for depression and trauma, suggesting that the federal government should expand research in this area. “There’s real science happening with psychedelics that could revolutionize mental health,” he said in a PBS NewsHour interview, urging more institutional support for clinical trials. Here, he touched on an area of genuine scientific promise, though one still in its early stages, with strict controls and unresolved safety questions.
The problem, critics argue, is that by mixing genuine potential in one corner of mental health research with sweeping, evidence-free attacks on antidepressants, Kennedy muddies the public conversation. Lawmakers including Representatives Andrea Salinas, Becca Balint, and Adam Smith have publicly demanded that he retract his claims, warning that they “spread harmful stigma about people living with depression and anxiety” and undermine confidence in safe, FDA-approved medications.
Kennedy’s comments, then, are not merely offhand remarks. They represent a sustained narrative: that SSRIs are dangerous, potentially violent-inducing substances, overprescribed to children, and part of a pharmaceutical system run amok. The persistence of these claims (despite strong rebuttals from psychiatrists, researchers, and policymakers) makes it essential to examine what the science actually says.
The Scientific Literature: What the Evidence Actually Shows
Overview
To understand why Kennedy’s claims have alarmed experts, it helps to look closely at what the research on SSRIs actually demonstrates. Antidepressants are not miracle drugs, nor are they free of risk. But decades of clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and regulatory reviews paint a far more nuanced picture than the one Kennedy presents.
Efficacy and Safety
SSRIs such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and escitalopram (Lexapro) remain among the most widely prescribed treatments for depression and anxiety worldwide. For many patients, they are life-changing. A major review published in The Lancet analyzed over 500 randomized controlled trials and concluded that antidepressants, including SSRIs, were more effective than placebo in treating moderate to severe depression, particularly when combined with therapy. While not universally effective, some people respond poorly or not at all, they are considered a frontline treatment by medical guidelines in the U.S. and Europe.
Risks and Side Effects
Like all medications, SSRIs carry risks. The most notable is the black-box warning issued by the FDA, highlighting that in children, adolescents, and young adults, SSRIs may increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, especially in the first weeks of treatment (FDA). Importantly, this warning applies to suicidality, the risk of self-harm, not homicidal ideation. Other side effects include gastrointestinal distress, sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and, rarely, serotonin syndrome when combined with other medications.
SSRIs and Violence
When it comes to outward aggression or homicide, the evidence is weak at best. A widely cited study in PLOS Medicine examined over 850,000 individuals in Sweden and found only small associations between SSRI use and violent crime in certain younger age groups, with no significant link in adults over 25. Researchers emphasized that these associations could be explained by the underlying psychiatric conditions (depression, anxiety, or substance abuse) rather than the medications themselves. In fact, for many patients, treatment with SSRIs reduces irritability and impulsivity, lowering the risk of violence.
Misinterpretations
Experts stress that conflating suicidality risks in teens with generalized “homicidal ideation” is a serious distortion. “There is a danger in suggesting that antidepressants make people violent,” says Dr. Ragy Girgis of Columbia University. “The overwhelming evidence shows they help the vast majority of patients, and untreated depression itself is a far stronger predictor of harm.”
Broader Context
Depression and anxiety disorders are themselves linked to increased risks of self-harm and, in some cases, violence when untreated. By addressing these conditions, SSRIs often stabilize patients, reducing those risks. A 2022 systematic review in Frontiers in Psychiatry noted that while antidepressants require careful monitoring, especially in youth, the benefits outweigh the risks for most patients when prescribed appropriately.
Summary
The evidence, then, is not that SSRIs are harmless, but that they are valuable, carefully regulated tools in modern psychiatry. The science does not support Kennedy’s assertion that they are fueling mass shootings or widespread violence. Instead, the real dangers come from miscommunication, stigma, and inadequate access to proper monitoring and support.
How Kennedy’s Claims Contradict or Misrepresent Science
Overview
When Kennedy warns that antidepressants carry “homicidal ideation” risks or compares SSRIs to heroin, he is not simply offering a controversial opinion; he is distorting the scientific record in ways that mislead the public.
Overgeneralization
Kennedy often takes isolated warnings or rare case studies and applies them as if they describe the entire class of drugs. The FDA’s black-box warning on SSRIs, for example, does not reference homicidal behavior. It cautions about an increased risk of suicidal thoughts in children, adolescents, and young adults, a critical distinction that Kennedy elides (FDA). By turning suicide warnings into homicide warnings, he shifts the meaning of the data to fit a pre-existing narrative about violence.
False Equivalencies
Comparing SSRIs to heroin is not just scientifically inaccurate; it is inflammatory. Heroin is a highly addictive opioid that can produce severe withdrawal and rapid dependence. SSRIs, by contrast, are not considered addictive, though abrupt discontinuation can cause withdrawal-like symptoms such as dizziness, irritability, or flu-like effects. Equating the two erases those distinctions and risks convincing patients that they are taking something as dangerous as an illicit narcotic.
Correlation Mistaken for Causation
Kennedy frequently points to the timing of Prozac’s release in the late 1980s and the rise of school shootings in the 1990s as proof of a causal link. But experts say this is classic pseudoscience. Social violence is shaped by multiple forces — firearm availability, social alienation, untreated trauma, cultural shifts, and no credible study has found SSRIs to be a primary driver. As epidemiologists often remind, “correlation is not causation.”
Cherry-Picking Anecdotes
Instead of relying on systematic data, Kennedy frequently cites individual stories of violent offenders who were taking antidepressants. But psychiatrists stress that millions of people take SSRIs without committing violence, meaning anecdotal connections prove little. In fact, untreated depression is far more closely associated with both self-harm and, in rare cases, aggression toward others (Frontiers in Psychiatry).
Fueling Stigma
Perhaps the most harmful misrepresentation is cultural rather than scientific. By tying antidepressants to violence, Kennedy reinforces old stigmas that people who seek mental health treatment are dangerous or unstable. Mental health advocates warn that such rhetoric discourages patients from starting or continuing treatment with potentially deadly consequences. As Representatives Salinas, Balint, and Smith noted in their joint statement, Kennedy’s comments “spread harmful stigma about people living with depression and anxiety” and undermine trust in safe, FDA-approved medications.
Summary
By overstating risks, mislabeling warnings, and drawing false equivalencies, Kennedy’s narrative strays far from the evidence base. The danger lies not only in inaccuracy but in how these distortions ripple outward, shaping public perception, policy debates, and even individual decisions about life-saving treatment.
Potential Harms of Misinformation
Overview
The danger in Kennedy’s claims about antidepressants is not abstract. When a public official with a powerful platform makes sweeping statements about SSRIs causing violence, the ripple effects can directly shape how people view treatment, whether they continue medication, and how society responds to mental illness.
Discouraging Treatment
One of the most immediate risks is that individuals who benefit from antidepressants may stop taking them out of fear. Studies show that abrupt discontinuation can cause withdrawal-like symptoms and, more critically, a rebound of depressive or anxious symptoms that can heighten the risk of suicide. For a person already struggling, hearing a national leader suggest their medication could make them homicidal may be enough to trigger a dangerous decision to quit without medical guidance.
Fueling Stigma
Kennedy’s rhetoric also reinforces the long-standing stigma that people living with mental illness are violent. Decades of research show the opposite: individuals with depression or anxiety are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (American Psychiatric Association). By linking antidepressants to mass shootings, Kennedy not only stigmatizes medication use but also deepens harmful stereotypes that isolate patients and discourage them from seeking care.
Policy Consequences
Misinformation can also shape public policy in damaging ways. If lawmakers begin to take Kennedy’s narrative seriously, scarce resources could be diverted into “investigating” SSRIs instead of addressing well-documented drivers of violence such as firearm access, social inequity, and gaps in mental health services. Representatives Salinas, Balint, and Smith have warned that Kennedy’s comments risk undermining national mental health policy and “send a chilling message to those who rely on these medications to survive.”
Misplaced Blame
By focusing on SSRIs as a supposed cause of mass shootings, Kennedy distracts from the far more established risk factors. Public health experts repeatedly emphasize that firearm availability, untreated trauma, and social alienation are stronger predictors of violent incidents. Linking violence to antidepressants not only scapegoats patients but also diverts attention from the systemic solutions that could actually save lives.
The cumulative harm, then, is twofold: individuals may be deterred from seeking life-saving treatment, and society may be misled into chasing false causes while ignoring real ones. In this way, Kennedy’s claims are not just misinformed; they are dangerous.
What Kennedy Gets Right, Some Plausible Areas
Overview
Critics can acknowledge that Kennedy occasionally touches ground that is supported by emerging evidence. The problem is not that every idea he raises is meritless. The problem is how quickly valid nuances are stretched into sweeping claims that the science does not support.
Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy Shows Real Promise in Controlled Settings
Clinical trials suggest that psilocybin, given in a structured environment with trained clinicians, can relieve depressive symptoms for some patients who have not benefited from standard treatments. A phase 2 study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported sustained improvement after a single supervised dose in treatment-resistant depression, while also underscoring the need for careful screening and monitoring. A randomized trial in JAMA found that a single psilocybin session produced greater short-term reductions in depression scores than an active placebo, again within a rigorous clinical protocol. Another randomized trial has reported benefits for stressed clinicians, though with small samples and short follow-up that call for replication.
At the same time, a head-to-head randomized trial comparing psilocybin with the SSRI escitalopram did not find a significant difference in primary outcomes at six weeks, which reminds us that psychedelics are not a magic bullet and that comparisons depend on patient selection, dosing, and endpoints.
Microdosing Is Not the Same as Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy
Kennedy sometimes praises microdosing as a general solution. Evidence here is mixed and often limited by expectancy effects. A large self-blinding community study found that reported benefits of microdosing could be explained by placebo. Reviews since then continue to describe an unsettled evidence base that needs more rigorous, preregistered trials. In short, high-dose, clinic-based psychedelic therapy is where data are accumulating. DIY microdosing remains largely unproven.
Concerns about Careful Prescribing and Monitoring Are Valid
It is reasonable to insist that antidepressants, especially for children, adolescents, and young adults, be prescribed with close follow-up. That is exactly what major guidelines and the FDA already require. The FDA black-box warning highlights a small increased risk of suicidal thoughts in younger populations early in treatment, which is why clinicians and families are urged to monitor closely. Contemporary practice guidelines recommend early review after starting medication, attention to tolerability, and shared decision-making about therapy, medication, or both. Recent population research even suggests that SSRI treatment does not increase suicidal behavior and may reduce risk when depression is adequately treated, reinforcing the value of appropriate monitoring rather than alarm.
Bottom Line
Kennedy is on solid ground when he says that psychedelic therapies deserve continued study within strict clinical frameworks. He is also right that antidepressants should be prescribed thoughtfully with follow-up, which is already standard practice. Where he goes wrong is in leaping from those points to claims that SSRIs cause mass violence or are equivalent to heroin. The first set of statements reflects cautious science. The second set does not.
How to Evaluate This Kind of Claim Responsibly
Overview
Public claims about medicines should be tested the way epidemiologists test any suspected link between an exposure and an outcome. The goal is to separate a frightening story from a causal relationship that holds up under scrutiny.
Start with Basic Epidemiology
Epidemiology looks for patterns in the distribution of health events and then tests potential determinants with appropriate study designs. Association is the starting point, not the finish line. Even strong associations can fail when confounding factors are addressed. CDC’s teaching texts and self-study modules are a good primer on this logic.
Use the “Bradford Hill” Lens, Carefully
Hill’s classic viewpoints ask whether the evidence shows strength, consistency, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility and more. They are not a checklist that proves causation, but a set of questions that help rule out coincidences or confounding explanations. In practice, most real-world links never satisfy every viewpoint.
Prioritize the Right Study Designs
Randomized trials answer different questions than observational cohorts. For antidepressants, large meta-analyses of randomized trials show that, on average, these drugs are more effective than placebo for adults with major depression, especially when paired with therapy. That is strong evidence of benefit, but it does not tell us everything about rare harms. For harms like violence, very large observational datasets are needed and must address confounding by the underlying illness.
Read the Warning Labels Accurately
The FDA’s boxed warning for antidepressants focuses on an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children, adolescents, and young adults early in treatment. It does not warn of “homicidal ideation.” Accurate reading matters because misstatements can change patient behavior.
Separate Suicidality from Outward Violence
Population studies looking for links between SSRI use and violent crime have found, at most, small associations in some younger groups and no significant association in adults, with the authors noting that results may reflect the risks carried by untreated illness rather than medication effects. This is why clinicians emphasize monitoring at start and dose changes, not blanket fear.
Watch out for Ecological Fallacies and Timelines
A national trend line that shows two things rising over the same period does not establish cause. Hill’s “temporality” asks whether exposure precedes outcome for the individual, not just whether two curves move together. CDC’s materials and standard epidemiology texts caution against mistaking parallel trends for causal proof.
Look at Absolute Risk, Not Only Relative Risk
A relative increase can sound large, while the absolute risk remains small. With antidepressants, the black-box warning reflects a small absolute increase in suicidal thinking in specific age bands and time windows. Communicating both the numerator and denominator helps patients and families make informed decisions with their clinicians.
Consider Base Rates and Competing Explanations
Untreated depression and anxiety raise the risk of self-harm, and in a minority of cases, irritability or agitation. When treatment works, those risks usually fall. Large-scale reviews and professional guidance emphasize careful monitoring rather than avoidance of effective therapy.
Anchor Claims to Export Consensus, Not Anecdotes
Professional organizations and subject-matter experts consistently warn against linking mental illness or its treatment to violence in the public mind. Most people with mental illness are not violent, and they are more often victims than perpetrators. Policy and media narratives should reflect this, not reinforce stigma.
Recommendations: Building a Responsible Public Response
Overview
If the past few months have shown anything, it is how quickly a single high-profile comment can ricochet through the public conversation about mental health. Preventing harm from misinformation requires coordinated action across multiple fronts: media, policymakers, clinicians, and the public.
Media: Context before Headlines
News outlets covering Kennedy’s remarks should resist framing them as shocking revelations without immediately pairing them with evidence-based context. Mental health experts caution that sensational coverage can amplify fear more than fact. The American Psychiatric Association has long urged journalists to avoid simplistic links between psychiatric treatment and violence, warning that doing so reinforces stigma (APA). Responsible reporting means giving equal or greater weight to scientific consensus.
Policymakers: Base Decisions on Peer-Reviewed Science
Elected officials face pressure to “do something” after shootings or other tragedies. But chasing unproven links wastes resources that could address root causes: access to firearms, underfunded mental health systems, and social inequities. Legislators calling for Kennedy to retract his statements emphasized that undermining confidence in antidepressants only harms those who rely on them daily.
Clinicians: Communicate Risk Clearly
Doctors and therapists are on the front lines. The FDA requires that patients, especially children and young adults, be closely monitored in the first weeks of antidepressant treatment. Clear communication of both benefits and risks, including small increases in suicidal thoughts in certain groups, helps patients and families make informed choices. Shared decision-making improves adherence and prevents abrupt, unsafe discontinuation (FDA).
Public: Improve Health Literacy
Families and individuals can play their part by understanding what antidepressants do and what they do not do. Depression itself, when untreated, increases risks of both self-harm and harm from external factors like substance abuse or violence exposure. Medication is one of several tools (alongside therapy, social support, and lifestyle change) that can stabilize lives. Educational campaigns and community programs can help dismantle stigma and build resilience (Frontiers in Psychiatry).
Summary
The overarching recommendation is simple: let science, not speculation, guide public conversation. Antidepressants are not risk-free, but exaggerating those risks into a narrative of widespread violence endangers lives and undermines progress in mental health treatment.
Case Studies and Examples
Overview
Abstract debate over SSRIs and violence often obscures what the data and history actually reveal. Looking at specific examples helps clarify where science stands and how misinformation has previously distorted the conversation.
Study 329 and the Paroxetine Controversy
Perhaps the most famous cautionary tale in psychiatric research is Study 329, a 2001 trial of the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) in adolescents. The original publication suggested the drug was effective and well tolerated. But later reanalyses found that paroxetine did not outperform placebo and was associated with higher rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (BMJ). This case became a textbook example of why transparent data and rigorous oversight are essential. It also shows how legitimate risks, suicidality in young people, differ from claims that antidepressants drive outward violence.
Swedish Registry Study on SSRIs and Violent Crime
A 2015 study using Sweden’s national crime and prescription registers examined more than 850,000 individuals prescribed SSRIs. Researchers found a small increase in violent crime convictions among patients aged 15–24, but no association in older adults. Importantly, the authors stressed that confounding factors, such as severity of underlying mental illness and socioeconomic stressors, likely explained the associations. For most patients, SSRIs reduced symptoms that could otherwise drive risk.
FDA Black-Box Warning and Its Misinterpretation
After the FDA issued black-box warnings in 2004 about suicidality in children and adolescents taking SSRIs, prescriptions for young people dropped sharply. Subsequent research found that during the same period, suicide rates among adolescents actually rose (NEJM). Many experts now believe that fear of antidepressants led to under-treatment of depression, which in turn contributed to preventable deaths. The episode underscores the dangers of exaggerating risks without communicating benefits.
Violence and Mental Illness in Public Perception
Surveys consistently show that Americans tend to overestimate the link between mental illness and violence. In reality, people with psychiatric conditions are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (APA). This misperception has been fueled in part by media coverage that sensationalizes rare cases where psychiatric drugs were involved, while ignoring the millions of people who take SSRIs without incident.\
Summary
Together, these examples illustrate a pattern: legitimate concerns about monitoring and transparency exist, but the broad claim that SSRIs fuel mass shootings or widespread violence collapses under scrutiny. Where problems have emerged, they usually involve either misuse of data or failures in communication, not the inherent pharmacology of the drugs themselves.
Conclusion
Kennedy’s claims about antidepressants illustrate how easily a sliver of truth can be stretched into a sweeping, and harmful, narrative. It is accurate that SSRIs carry side effects, that they require careful monitoring in young people, and that alternative treatments like psychedelic-assisted therapy are beginning to show promise in tightly controlled trials. But it is profoundly inaccurate to leap from these facts to the assertion that SSRIs are fueling mass shootings or that they are equivalent to heroin.
The scientific consensus is clear: SSRIs help millions of people manage depression, anxiety, and trauma. They are not risk-free, but their risks are well defined, monitored, and outweighed by their benefits for most patients. The evidence linking them to outward violence is weak, inconsistent, and more likely explained by the severity of underlying illness and social factors than by the drugs themselves. Untreated depression, on the other hand, is a well-established risk for self-harm and suffering.
What is at stake is more than scientific accuracy; it is human lives. When a national figure suggests that antidepressants might turn patients into killers, the result is not simply controversy. It is people doubting their prescriptions, families delaying treatment for their children, and policymakers wasting energy chasing a phantom cause while ignoring the real drivers of violence: firearm availability, systemic inequities, and inadequate mental health infrastructure.
In the end, Kennedy’s comments reveal less about antidepressants than they do about the dangers of misinformation in the public square. To conflate suicidal risk warnings with homicidal behavior, or to equate SSRIs with heroin, is to erode trust in science and medicine at a time when mental health care is desperately needed. The responsible path forward is not to demonize antidepressants but to continue refining how they are prescribed, monitored, and integrated with therapy while advancing research into new treatments, including psychedelics, under rigorous safeguards. Only then can we build a mental health system that is both honest about risk and faithful to the evidence.
Originally published by Brewminate, 09.24.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
