A subversive attempt to drive a wedge between MAGA influencers and their new MAHA allies was discovered and subsequently rejected like a pathogen from the online GOP body politic. The occasion for the war that wasn’t: a push to ban sugary drinks from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
More than 42 million Americans rely on the $113 billion SNAP program to put food on the table. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly minted Health and Human Services secretary, has pushed for excluding soda from the benefit. Said the Make America Healthy Again leader
before his confirmation, “We shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.”
It is not a new idea, but unlike past efforts, the movement to make soda ineligible for SNAP – just as alcohol and tobacco already are – seemed to be gaining momentum. President Trump has given RFK Jr. his blessing, and Brooke Rollins, his new agriculture secretary, seemed
to endorse the idea when she asked if the public is “OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children.”
Enter a handful of influencers with massive online followings on the right.
Last weekend, in concert, they began posting suspiciously similar criticism of the MAHA soda mandate. They spoke in conservative tones, calling the proposed reform “ridiculous government overreach.” Pointing to the left, the influencers warned the right that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had tried and failed to enforce a version of soda prohibition. They all noted also that Trump has a famous Diet Coke habit.
“A new war on soda has begun targeting purchases made through SNAP,” wrote Ian Miles Cheong. “I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide what people should or shouldn’t eat.” The post from the right-wing political commentator included a picture of the current president enjoying a bottle of Coke on the golf course. It racked up more than
300,000 impressions.
Nick Sortor smelled astroturf. The sudden defense of SNAP for sugary drinks wasn’t coming from the grassroots,
the conservative podcaster alleged. It was the result of a coordinated campaign orchestrated by the public relations firm Influenceable. Online influencers were given a list of talking points, sent stock images of the president drinking soda, and promised as much as $1,000 per pro-soda post. Sortor concluded that the campaign was an “attempt to turn MAGA folks against RFK Jr and MAHA.”
On Capitol Hill, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt reached the same conclusion. She called it “a failed effort,” one “that the American people saw straight through,” telling RCP that ultimately “these distractions ultimately only hurt the most vulnerable among us.”
The youngest Republican woman to be elected to the Senate and a mother to two, Britt introduced the “Healthy SNAP Act” last month to exclude soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and other prepared desserts from purchase with food stamps. Her rationale: “We want to be sure that taxpayer funds produce better health outcomes, not perpetuate chronic health disease.”
Influenceable, the public relations firm, could not be reached for comment. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one of the influencers who participated in the PR blitz confirmed to RealClearPolitics that they had been paid to push talking points. Others were approached but declined to participate.
Out of curiosity, Riley Gaines asked who was putting up the money. “They initially said it was a private donor who was concerned about ‘government overreach,’” the NCAA swimmer-turned-conservative-influencer told RCP, “but I'm not buying that at all.”
Gaines would have been a big fish to land; she has a massive following with more than 1.5 million followers on X. She would have been a strange spokesperson for sugary soda, though; she rose to prominence as a college athlete and has become a prominent advocate for a healthier lifestyle as culture and politics continue to blend. Gaines concluded that it was “sad to see people sell out for really not that much money in the grand scheme of things.”
When the influencer wrote on X that she turned down the “pay-to-post” scheme, the HHS secretary chimed in. “Thank you for your integrity, Riley,”
replied RFK, adding, “It’s troubling that some companies now think they have a right to demand taxpayer money to poison our children.”
A marketing executive who connects influencers with brands told RCP that the pay-to-post scheme demonstrated some of the “dark arts techniques” defining the shadier side of an industry that can feel “like the Wild West.” Promotions are increasingly common in both business and politics, the executive said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It’s like a toolbelt,” they said. “There are newsletter sponsorships, traditional marketing, and now the influencers – every single organization is using them.”
What’s the difference between an honest and a dishonest campaign? Transparency. When done right and when disclosures are made to the public, the executive said, brands can connect with influencers who share the same values.
In this case, online sleuths speculated that the American Beverage Association was pushing the campaign. William Dermody, a spokesman for the ABA,
categorically denied the accusation. His association has rejected the push to make soda ineligible for food stamps, but they have made their arguments out in the open and haven’t funded any pay-to-post schemes.
The ABA argues that soda isn’t driving obesity, citing federal data that shows adult obesity has increased
by 37.4% since 2000 and pointing to industry figures that reflect full-calorie soda sales plummeting by 22.9%. The grocery aisle, meanwhile, has evolved with seltzer water, not soda, becoming ascendant. And the association also says the MAGA faithful don’t want the change anyway. A recent poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling outfit, shows that nearly six out of 10 Trump voters reported that soda and sugary beverages should remain eligible for food stamps. The RFK reform, argued Dermody, would treat “Americans facing hard times like second-class citizens.”
“A lot of folks who the president has vowed to lift up, the forgotten people who he says have been the victims of poor trade policies and poor immigration policies, are probably on SNAP,” the spokesman added. “They are people who supported him and are hoping that he will improve the economy in a way that allows them to get off SNAP and have a real career.”
More than a tempest in an online teapot, market share is at stake, even if one pay-to-post controversy will not determine the entire debate. The domestic soda market was valued north of $315 million in 2022,
according to Grand View Research.
Abandoning a campaign promise to empower Kennedy, meanwhile, comes with its own risk. Trump expanded the GOP coalition during the last election by bringing non-traditional voters into the fold, among them the health-conscious MAHA crowd.
“Right now, these Trump voters – the GOP is just renting them,” longtime Trump pollster John McLaughlin
told RCP of the new additions. Speaking of the disaffected Democrats and traditionally liberal constituencies who pulled the lever for the Republican president, he added that the GOP needed “to make a decision if they’re going to make them permanent.”
Ryan James Girdusky, a political consultant with close ties to Trump World, said the president isn’t likely to let those voters leave the fold. “The Make America Healthy Again Movement is the only part of the Trump coalition that ever convinced him to step back on a previously held belief, which was over vaccines,” he told RCP of the backlash over the COVID jab that caused Trump to suddenly moderate on the issue during the campaign. Excluding soda from SNAP benefits could be similar. Regardless, for now, MAHA and MAGA seem sympatico on soda.
