The MAHA assault on junk food is not catching on in Congress, even as President Donald Trump and his legions of supporters use the populist health movement to take shots at the deep-pocketed industry.

In the name of “Make America Healthy Again,” the Trump administration is goading food makers to voluntarily swear off synthetic dyes and forgo marketing to kids. It’s blocking candy and soda from being purchased with federal food assistance in dozens of states, while cutting off SNAP dollars for retailers that don’t stock a wider variety of food than previously required.

But the campaign isn’t resonating on Capitol Hill, where both Republicans and Democrats in recent weeks have continued to side with processed food companies on key votes to rein in the industry — driven by long-entrenched political beliefs and reinforced by a barrage of lobbying cash reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s century-old playbook for controlling policy.

The food and beverage industry has spent a record $113 million in lobbying since Trump returned to office last January, reflecting a more than 30 percent increase from 2024 to 2025.

“They have a stranglehold,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a recent interview of the food industry’s influence over Congress. “I don’t want to be dramatic, but that was the case with the tobacco industry.”

Before the House defeated a farm bill amendment last month that would have blocked SNAP food assistance from being used to buy soda, the Appropriations Committee voted against the release of a federal report on junk food marketing to kids. Meanwhile, neither chamber has taken action on any of the dozens of bills lawmakers have crafted to ban synthetic food colors, overhaul product labeling or encourage schools to serve healthier meals.

“The truth is, the amount of money and political heft that the food industry exerts on our political leaders right now is far more than tobacco — and maybe more than tobacco ever has,” Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor focused on global health, said in an interview. “And while the MAHA movement talks a big game, it doesn’t do much.”

“This is killing our children,” he added, “and Congress should be ashamed of itself.”

Mars and Hershey spent a total of $430,000 on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, with the National Confectioners Association shelling out another quarter-million dollars.

Ahead of the House soda vote last month, the American Beverage Association spent nearly $1 million on lobbying in the first three months of this year, in addition to more than $2 million from Coca-Cola and another $1.8 million from PepsiCo.

Only the Confectioners Association responded to requests for comment, arguing in a statement that SNAP restrictions aren’t needed for candy and chocolate because they make up about 2 percent of SNAP purchases — “significantly less” than other junk food. The group also said that it’s difficult to “create a bright-line definition for candy” that doesn’t also block purchase of granola bars, trail mix and energy bars.

The amendment to ban soda purchases ultimately went down on a 238-186 vote, with 55 Republicans joining 183 Democrats in opposing it.

Trump administration officials were not pleased.

“It is absolutely astounding that anyone with a straight face can say that they are OK using taxpayer dollars to buy sugary drinks to be even more unhealthy, to then go on the government health care program,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Newsmax last week.

Congress also continues to withhold a Federal Trade Commission report on how the food industry markets unhealthy products to children. Lawmakers have used the congressional funding process to stave off the report’s release since 2014, with proponents arguing that it includes outdated nutritional guidance and that the FTC should first reduce “regulatory burdens” and do a cost-benefit analysis.

Wasserman Schultz made an attempt in the Appropriations Committee last month to compel the Trump administration to divulge its research through an amendment to the measure that funds the FTC, the Treasury Department and other agencies. It failed.

As House lawmakers prepare to debate a slew of other government spending bills on the floor in the coming weeks, Wasserman Schultz is now working with Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) — chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus and the appropriations panel that funds USDA — on tweaking the FTC funding measure to secure the release of the research once and for all.

Harris, who for years has tried to get Congress to block SNAP dollars from being used to buy unhealthy food, said in an interview he believes the food industry’s grip on U.S. policy is slipping.

“It’s moving in our direction,” he said. “And I think the food manufacturers — I think they’re realizing that.”

That shift isn’t yet reflected in vote outcomes, however. Ahead of the failed House vote on banning soda purchases with SNAP dollars, opponents argued it would be overly confusing for consumers and grocers if changes were made to the list of foods allowed to be purchased with federal benefits.

While dozens of Republicans voted against that amendment, Democrats were the most vocal about their reasons for opposing new restrictions, arguing the GOP only wants to use nutrition policy to castigate low-income Americans, not help them.

“The people to blame are not poor people,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a leader on food assistance policy in Congress, said in an interview. “The people to blame are the big corporations that are pushing junk food.”

McGovern notes that Republicans enacted $187 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance in the tax-cuts-focused megabill they enacted last summer, while axing nutrition initiatives including programs that gave schools and food banks money to buy food from local farms and ranchers.

At the same time, some advocates contend that the Trump administration, for all its MAHA bluster, isn’t actually interested in imposing restrictions on the industry as it seeks voluntary commitments — not federal mandates — to get rid of synthetic colors and limit the marketing of junk food to kids.

This means food companies are now looking to Congress to preempt the growing labyrinth of state regulations on ingredients, in hopes that lawmakers will create new federal food standards that set a lower bar for labeling additives or banning ultraprocessed food in schools.

Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told lawmakers that while he would support a ban on TV ads for junk food, he would try encouraging industry cooperation first.

That tack could resonate with small-government conservatives, including Harris, who suggested “it’s one thing not to spend federal dollars” on promoting junk food and another to curb advertising by private companies.

But consumer advocates bristle at the suggestion that an antiregulatory approach to junk food is a wise idea and are questioning how big of a stomach even Congress’ self-described MAHA supporters have for taking on powerful business interests.

“They don’t want to go out on a limb for their buddies in the industry,” Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in an interview. “But are they going to actually rock the boat to help reduce food marketing to kids, for example? No, I’d be very surprised.”

President Donald Trump and his deputies have a major sales job ahead of them on Capitol Hill as multiple GOP lawmakers questioned a proposed $1 billion in Secret Service security spending that could be used at least in part for Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project.

The provision, which gives $1 billion to the Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades,” has threatened to overshadow what Republicans wanted to make the main focus of the package — tens of billions of dollars in new immigration enforcement funding. But the White House and many lawmakers argue the funding is necessary after the shooting at last month’s White House Correspondents Dinner.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the funding’s inclusion Monday and predicted that most GOP senators will ultimately vote to support what the Secret Service says it needs.

“They have a job to do, and we want to make sure they’re able to do their job effectively so that we keep the president of the United States safe,” Thune said. “So I think most of our members are — if they are getting briefed on what the money is going to be used for — are probably going to be in a good place.”

Secret Service Director Sean Curran is expected to discuss the request at the Senate GOP’s closed-door lunch Tuesday, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling.

GOP leaders are hoping to have the bill on the Senate floor next week, after votes in the Senate Homeland Security and Budget committees.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has emerged as a pivotal vote, was among several Republicans who said they needed more information, with Tillis telling reporters he was “looking forward to seeing the details this week.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who chairs the Homeland Security panel, said Monday that he does not support the funding’s inclusion in the bill. He cannot act directly to strike it since the Secret Service provision is not in the portion of the bill under his committee, but he said it was a “possibility” it gets stripped out before it hits the floor.

“I’m not sure it’s anything we’ll ever vote on,” Paul said, while declining to say how he would vote if it stays in: “We’ll see if it gets to that.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who could block the funding as a member of the Budget Committee, declined to comment multiple times Monday on the decision to include White House security funding. He previously wanted to expand the scope of the party-line bill, but leaders rejected his push, arguing it needed to be focused solely on immigration enforcement.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is in a difficult reelection campaign, said “I don’t know” if the $1 billion is for the ballroom itself and wanted clarification during Tuesday’s closed-door lunch.

“Obviously, there have been three or four attempts on the president’s life, and that’s extremely serious, and we’re in a heightened era of political violence, but the ballroom itself should be paid for by private donations, as the president had indicated,” Collins said.

To get the ballroom-related language through the full Senate on party lines, as expected, Thune can lose no more than three Republicans, with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie.

Senate Democrats are preparing to argue the provision is an impermissibly narrow “earmark” that doesn’t comply with the strict rules governing the budget reconciliation process, which is how Republicans are aiming to sidestep a Democratic filibuster. Conversations with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough are underway as of Monday, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose the private discussions.

MacDonough’s rulings on the reconciliation process tend to be final, and if she says the provision is in compliance, Senate Democrats are expected to then force a floor vote to strip it out.

Among the Republican senators being closely watched are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Paul, who both opposed a preliminary measure setting out the fiscal blueprint for the immigration enforcement bill. Paul said earlier this year that he would support approving the ballroom through reconciliation but warned he supported putting in only a “nominal” amount of taxpayer money for the project, which Trump has said will be privately financed.

The challenges in the House are no less daunting, with Speaker Mike Johnson working with a razor-thin vote margin. Just getting the budget blueprint approved was a grueling process that culminated in a vote that was left open for more than five hours as Johnson scrambled to resolve unrelated policy fights among Republicans.

Now a growing group of House Republicans is privately complaining to their leaders about the White House security money that can be used on the ballroom, arguing it sends a tone-deaf message as voters struggle with higher gas and grocery prices.

“It’s a bad look. It’s bad timing. It’s bad all around,” another House Republican said.

Some House GOP leaders privately doubt the measure has the votes to pass, according to four people granted anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes discussions, but they’re hoping it gets stripped out in the Senate first.

Trump has said he wants the immigration enforcement funding on his desk by June 1, and House leaders are scrambling to make that happen next week before a planned Memorial Day recess. They have already started discussing the potential need to keep the House in session for at least part of the holiday weekend.

Curran and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin have already started their sales pitch, sending a letter last week to top House and Senate Republicans laying out in broad strokes how the funding would be used.

“The $1 billion in funding included in the reconciliation bill will assist the USSS in delivering critical security upgrades at the White House to minimize threats, including the security components to the East Wing Modernization Project, in addition to other critical missions for the USSS,” they wrote.

Still, some Republicans facing tough midterm campaigns are publicly apprehensive.

“Listen, I want to see the details,” Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said last week. “I want to know exactly what those dollars are going for, what are the security measures put in place … and then how they came to that figure.”

Rep. Jen Kiggans, another vulnerable Virginia House Republican, said she would not be “speculating” on the request. But, she added, “I look forward to getting back to Washington and working through that process.”

Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump ally, said in an interview Monday that he was “not going to make a decision till I know all the facts,” while voicing some support for having a secure location for the president, members of Congress and White House guests to gather.

“All I’ve seen is $1 billion dollars,” he said, adding that he might be convinced if administration officials “walk through why it’s justified.”

Calen Razor contributed to this report.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer is requesting that Jes Staley, a former JPMorgan executive and Barclays CEO, speak with congressional investigators about his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“Due to public reporting, documents released by the Department of Justice, and documents obtained by the Committee, the Committee believes you have information that will assist in its investigation,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said in a letter asking Staley to appear before the panel in July.

Staley’s close relationship with Epstein has long been the subject of scrutiny, including by Manhattan federal prosecutors investigating the web of possible Epstein co-conspirators in the wake of his death, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Staley has been accused of advocating to keep Epstein as a JPMorgan client even after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008. After JPMorgan Chase was in the midst of litigation over claims that it enabled Epstein’s abuse, the bank sued Staley, in part, for “breach of fiduciary duty” over accusations that he acted in service of Epstein and himself over the interests of the financial institution. Through his legal team, Staley accused JPMorgan of using him as a “public relations shield.” A lawyer for Staley in that case did not immediately return a request for comment.

He stepped in 2021 from the top post at Barclays amid renewed scrutiny over his Epstein ties.

Erica Orden contributed to this report.