(The Epoch Times)—When Americans are feeling down, instead of calling a mental health professional, a growing number are reaching for their keyboards. Artificial intelligence chatbots have become confidantes, sounding boards, and even substitutes for therapists. Some say this could have a significant impact on the U.S. mental health crisis.
This shift is unfolding against the backdrop of a substantial mental health burden in the United States. An American Psychiatric Association poll revealed 62 percent of respondents reported high levels of anxiety. Meanwhile, the online mental health care provider Innerwell revealed that more than 61 million U.S. adults reported a mental health condition in 2024.
Almost half of them did not receive any treatment.
So what happens when the 24-hour availability of AI chatbots steps into the treatment void? Well, some care providers say that the outcome will be a mixed bag on its best day.
Others think the habit of turning to AI for mental health support will eventually change the nature of human relationships.
“People are increasingly outsourcing emotional labor—flirting, apologizing, repairing, expressing vulnerability—to AI,” Luis Maimoni, a licensed marriage and family therapist, told The Epoch Times.
Maimoni said AI chatbots can feel supportive, but also take the “human out of human relationships.”
“Some people do form attachments to chatbots, but that’s not the part that worries me most. The bigger issue is population-wide: when enough people stop practicing relationship skills, those skills naturally fade,” he said.
In his experience, Maimoni said turning to AI chatbots for comfort affects couples, families, and kids. He also believes this will eventually take a toll on the next generation.
“If we lose our ability to connect with each other and the world around us, we lose one of the things that makes us most human,” he cautioned.
Maimoni’s concerns are supported by the fast-growing trend of supplementing human interactions with AI in difficult situations. In a survey of more than 1,200 licensed psychologists, researchers at the American Psychological Association found that 39 percent of care providers have discussions with patients who use AI to self-diagnose.
The same study noted that 35 percent of care providers’ patients were using AI as an “additional mental health professional.”
Echo Chamber Effect
On the one hand, professional care providers say AI could offer new ways to reach people who lack access to traditional treatment. However, the technology’s expanding role with nuanced, even intimate conversations with human operators also comes with considerable risks.
“One of the most important distinctions in mental health care is the difference between validation and agreement. As a therapist, I might tell a client that I understand why an experience felt frightening without agreeing that their interpretation of what happened is necessarily accurate,” Dr. Susan Johnston told The Epoch Times.
Johnston is a Florida-based, licensed mental health counselor and the founder of Human AI Dynamics. She said good clinical work often involves “validating the emotion” of a patient while leaving room for reality testing, uncertainty, and other explanations.
She pointed out that, for the moment, most AI chatbots don’t operate with this level of discernment.
“A chatbot can sometimes blur that distinction because maintaining a supportive conversation may result in repeatedly mirroring the user’s interpretation back to them,” she said. “For someone who is already vulnerable, the response can begin to feel like independent confirmation.”
Consequently, if a person is struggling with a mental health condition, they may end up drawing the conclusion “even the AI agrees with me,” according to Johnston.
“Something designed to make a person feel heard can then unintentionally strengthen a belief that might instead need to be questioned or explored more carefully,” she said.
Dr. Michelle Harris, a licensed social worker and doctor of behavioral health, shares this perspective.
“One concern is that prolonged chatbot use can create a kind of closed feedback loop,” Harris told The Epoch Times.
Harris has more than 20 years of experience in mental wellness and is the founder of Anew Health Solutions. She said someone who is already experiencing paranoia, delusional thinking, mania, severe depression, or suicidal thoughts may return to the same fears or beliefs repeatedly. AI could then continue reinforcing that framework instead of recognizing that someone’s mental state is spiraling.
“A clinician is assessing much more than the words someone says. We are considering history, behavior, functioning, risk, changes over time, nonverbal cues, medication, sleep, support systems, and whether a person’s interpretation of reality appears to be changing. A general-purpose chatbot does not have that full clinical picture,” she explained.
Harris added mental health organizations have specifically cautioned that AI tools may engage “unsafely with vulnerable users.”
“If someone says, ‘I believe people are following me and I am terrified,’ I can acknowledge that the fear feels very real and frightening without agreeing that people are actually following them. In mental-health care, compassionate support sometimes has to exist alongside gentle challenge, further assessment, or reality testing,” she said.
A May study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions supports these concerns. The researchers stated clinical observations point to a link between intensive chatbot use and psychiatric destabilization in vulnerable individuals.
“For someone with a vulnerable mind, a delusion or a hallucination is a very real part of their reality and an extremely dangerous part,” Dr. Michael J. Zizmor, founder of Zizmor Mental Health, told The Epoch Times.
Zizmor said the “engagement-validation loop” perpetuated by an AI system may, in some cases, fuel delusions and gaslight a user into believing in something that a human companion would’ve pushed back on.
“The danger is compounded by the bots’ extremely humanlike and available nature, which may lead delusions to be reinforced, grandiose delusions to be magnified, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness to become overwhelming, an unwillingness to take prescribed medications to occur, or to engage in dangerous behaviors,” Zizmor said.
Meanwhile, AI advocates say chatbots could play a telehealth-style support role for those who are struggling with certain mental health conditions. They argue chatbots could be particularly useful given the worsening shortage of healthcare workers in the United States.
As of 2026, around 130 million Americans live in areas with a shortage of mental health professionals.
Some believe AI can help close the gap between supportive care needs and availability amid America’s ongoing shortage of qualified human counselors.
“With these developments, rigorously tested AI chatbots are an underappreciated solution to the shortage of therapists and may help address key challenges in mental health care: access, affordability, and the delivery of consistent, empathetic care,” researchers at the Milbank Memorial Fund stated.
Old Problems, New Approach
Johnston believes a cautious strategy is needed with AI chatbots used for mental health support, but also thinks the technology could be beneficial under the right circumstances.
She believes this matters more than many realize because of the U.S. healthcare system’s longstanding struggles with provider shortages, cost, insurance barriers, and potentially lengthy wait times to see a therapist.
“If AI helps some people cope, seek help earlier, or maintain gains between appointments, there could be a meaningful public-health benefit; if another group becomes more isolated, experiences worsening symptoms, or delays professional care, that could add pressure to an already strained system. At this scale, I don’t think we can evaluate AI only by asking what happens to the average user; we also have to understand what happens to the smaller groups of users who may be particularly vulnerable,” she said.
Harris agreed that mental health support in the United States is a “very real issue” due to workforce shortages, and AI might be helpful on this front.
“AI has tremendous potential as an adjunct,” Harris said. “Someone might use it to organize their thoughts before an appointment, learn basic coping strategies, identify questions to ask a provider, or receive general information while waiting for care. Research involving a purpose-built generative-AI therapeutic chatbot has shown promising symptom improvements, which tells us there may be meaningful opportunities here.”
That said, she clarified there’s a big difference between a clinically developed and studied intervention and using a general-purpose chatbot as a therapist.
Zizmor, Harris, and Johnston firmly agree that AI isn’t creating a national mental health crisis in its own right, but rather throwing a can of gas on the existing one.
From Zizmor’s perspective, he believes AI is an amplifier, not a root cause. He thinks the outcome of the technology’s use in mental health support depends entirely on the circumstances of the person using it. He said AI’s use in this capacity should be regulated “not as an independent replacement for healthcare professionals, but rather as an addition under their supervision.”
Harris concurred. “AI may help bridge certain gaps. But the danger is when the bridge becomes the destination.”
For Johnston, the rise of chatbot popularity as a mental health crutch heralds an opportunity to look at the deeper issue.
“Rather than only asking whether people are becoming too attached to AI, I think we also need to ask what the AI is providing that the person was not getting somewhere else and why that need went unmet,” Johnston said.
“The answer may tell us as much about the weaknesses in America’s existing mental-health system as it does about artificial intelligence.”
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
