Major U.S. soft-drink and snack-food corporations are executing a strategic campaign aimed at undermining efforts led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” (Maha) movement. This coordinated initiative seeks to pit supporters of Donald Trump against those advocating for healthier food policies, according to an investigation by *The Guardian* in collaboration with the environmental watchdog organization Fieldnotes. The primary objective is to thwart legislative efforts aimed at reducing American consumption of soda and ultra-processed foods.
To implement this strategy, these corporations have mobilized a network of pollsters, political strategists, and financiers closely aligned with the national Republican Party. Many of these individuals have taken steps to obscure their connections to one another and to the campaign itself. This effort is bolstered by a coalition of free-market advocates who have previously supported Trump’s deregulatory policies. Among the participants are influential figures from the beverage industry and various media outlets backed by conservative billionaires, including Leonard Leo and Charles Koch.
The campaign is primarily spearheaded by the American Beverage Association, with assistance from the Consumer Brands Association, both of which are significant trade groups in the food industry. The three largest soft-drink companies in the United States—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper—along with major food conglomerates like General Mills and Kraft Heinz, contribute financially to these organizations for influence on policy strategies. In their most recent annual reports, these companies identified the Maha movement as a significant threat to their profitability, particularly after Trump nominated Kennedy for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Lobbying efforts focus on two main proposals supported by Kennedy: a ban on petroleum-based dyes in school foods and restrictions on the use of SNAP benefits for purchasing soft drinks. The beverage industry has conveyed a clear message to conservative lawmakers: oppose the Maha initiatives or face repercussions from the MAGA base. An unsigned memo from the beverage lobby earlier this year warned that supporting such restrictions would betray the promises made to working-class voters who supported Trump.
State-Level Efforts and Industry Influence
While the Maha nutrition initiatives have struggled to gain traction in Washington, D.C., they have found considerable support at the state level. A dozen states have secured waivers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restrict how SNAP benefits can be utilized, with several states enacting laws to regulate food dyes in school meals. In March, Utah State Representative Kristen Chevrier, a Republican who successfully passed legislation related to SNAP and school meals, noted that the industry’s influence is stronger in Washington than in state legislatures.
Chevrier, identifying as “a Maha mom before Maha was a thing,” recounted how lobbyists focused more on potential financial losses than on the health implications for vulnerable populations. She expressed concern about their priorities, stating, “Do you have any idea what this sounds like? That you’re more concerned about the money you’re going to lose than you are about the health of the vulnerable population that you’re serving?”
Documents obtained through public records requests confirm that industry lobbyists employed the MAGA-versus-Maha narrative to impede the proposed nutrition legislation at the state level. Veteran GOP strategists acted as intermediaries, creating a façade of distance between the corporations and their preferred messaging. For instance, during discussions in Arizona regarding the SNAP legislation, soda lobbyist Michael Gardner reached out to lawmakers to argue against the proposed bill, referencing a poll funded by the American Beverage Association that suggested Trump voters favored allowing SNAP recipients to purchase soda.
The American Beverage Association paid nearly $2 million to the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies in 2023, reflecting the industry’s investment in influencing public opinion. Glen Bolger, the firm’s owner, has a history of working with the National Republican Congressional Committee, underscoring the interconnected nature of these lobbying efforts. The lobbying campaign is further supported by Phil Cox’s network, which includes multiple firms known for their political influence and strategic messaging.
Media Strategies and Grassroots Campaigns
The involvement of media outlets that present partisan viewpoints as objective journalism complicates the narrative. One such outlet, the Center Square, is linked to a conservative non-profit organization funded by influential right-wing donors. This outlet published articles that echoed the industry’s concerns, providing lobbyists with material they could leverage to sway lawmakers.
In addition to traditional lobbying, an industry-funded group called Americans for Food and Beverage Choice has been active in running Facebook ads that promote the industry’s polling results across multiple states. Despite its grassroots claims, the organization’s leadership is composed of individuals closely affiliated with the American Beverage Association.
Paid influencers aligned with the MAGA movement have also disseminated pro-soda messages on social media platforms without disclosing their financial ties. Some of these influencers have been instructed to attack the Maha messaging directly, emphasizing the threat of government overreach in regulating consumer choices. For instance, conservative influencer Eric Daugherty tweeted against the Maha initiatives, referencing Trump’s well-known preference for soda.
The public relations firm behind this influencer campaign, Influenceable LLC, has a history of engaging in controversial political messaging. Despite denials from the American Beverage Association regarding their involvement in this campaign, the talking points provided to influencers closely mirror the industry’s positions.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the battle over nutrition policies reflects deeper divides within American society, with significant implications for public health and corporate interests. The ongoing efforts by major beverage companies to influence legislation show how intertwined economic and political strategies can shape policy outcomes in ways that prioritize industry profits over public health.
