Congress

Why MAHA isn’t breaking through on Capitol Hill

Published

1 month ago

May 12, 2026

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.”

Congress

Chuck Schumer is ready for redemption

Published

2 hours ago

June 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Chuck Schumer has served as a punching bag for angry Democrats for more than a year — taking flak on everything from his 2026 recruiting to his handling of government funding talks.

But with about five months until the midterm elections, the Senate minority leader is gently starting to punch back — pointing out how some of his bets are paying off as his party moves within striking distance of taking back the majority in November.

“There’s no victory lap to take in June,” he said in an interview in his Capitol office suite.

But he ticked through moves he oversaw in the past year — from leading opposition to GOP safety-net cuts to picking shutdown fights over health care and immigration enforcement funding and orchestrating national intervention in several Senate primaries — that he argued have strengthened Democrats’ hand for the midterms and beyond.

“We made a lot of strategic decisions that got us to this place — it didn’t happen by accident,” Schumer said. “I knew from the beginning that if we recruited strong candidates, found paths to victory, focused on the issues the American people cared about, and forced … the Republicans, to carry Trump’s water, we’d be in much better shape, and that has happened.”

Schumer’s confidence comes after an at times rocky year for the minority leader: His decision to help advance a GOP government funding bill in March 2025 fueled a wave of calls from progressive groups and House Democrats for him to step down as Senate Democratic leader. Criticism crested again after eight members of his caucus broke from Schumer to help reopen most of the government after a record shutdown in November.

Polling has shown eroding favorability and approval ratings for Schumer — even in his home state of New York, where he has been elected to the Senate five times. He’s maintained support among the Senate Democrats who elected him leader, though some have dodged the subject of his future.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), asked by Blue Light News at a recent event in Illinois if he expects Schumer to be leader next year, said that Schumer has a “really hard job” and that Democrats are focused on “making sure that we have a majority, and then we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Murphy is part of a self-described “fight club” of Senate Democrats that has pushed for a more aggressive approach from Schumer and the party organs he controls. Some have broken with Schumer’s favored candidates in key Senate primaries.

But the picture has improved somewhat in recent weeks. In the recent Iowa primary, Schumer got his preferred candidate in state Rep. Josh Turek, even as some progressives backed a more liberal candidate. Polling shows a highly competitive race between Turek and the GOP nominee, Rep. Ashley Hinson.

Schumer had already helped recruit blue-chip Democrats in several key races, including Ohio, Alaska and North Carolina, where he got former Sen. Sherrod Brown, former Rep. Mary Peltola and Gov. Roy Cooper, respectively, to jump in. Texas has come up on the map for Democrats, with state Rep. James Talarico matched up with scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

And then there’s Maine — where Schumer’s backing of Gov. Janet Mills over populist insurgent Graham Platner further fueled grassroots disdain of the leader’s strategy. Mills ran a by-all-accounts lackluster campaign, which she suspended weeks before the primary.

But Schumer’s intervention has been cast in a new light by a series of revelations about Platner’s background, ranging from provocative online posts to a recent allegation that he was physically abusive to a former girlfriend — suggesting that party leaders may have had good reason to go with a known quantity in their latest bid to knock off veteran GOP Sen. Susan Collins.

In the interview Thursday, Schumer deflected questions about Platner, instead saying that Democrats are “going to beat Susan Collins, and we’re going to win Maine and we’re going to take back the Senate.”

He was glad to comment more broadly, however, on the change in Democrats’ political fortunes since early 2025, when Trump had just been sworn in to his second term and voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in Washington began to crescendo.

“The bottom line is, that’s my job — to help strategize the best way to go, and then unify the caucus, and I think that’s what’s happened,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said in an interview that he believed conversations over Schumer’s leadership have changed since that moment after the March 2025 funding fold.

“Chuck by just virtually any objective measure – super successful majority leader in terms of legislation passed. And I think it took us all a while, including him, to [be] like, ‘We’re in the minority now,’” Kaine said. “You have different tools. … But I think he made the mental switch and has really narrowed down and focused on what kind of our case is to the American public.”

While Democrats have momentum, winning back the majority isn’t a sure bet and will require their candidates to run the table in several Trump-won states. Republicans entered the cycle with a structural advantage, having to defend relatively few competitive seats, and GOP senators believe they will still be in power come January.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters recently that he was “very confident” that Republicans “will hang on to and maybe even expand the majority in the United States Senate, which is counter, I know, to sort of the narrative these days.”

But Democrats are feeling increasingly optimistic. Kaine said at the start of 2025, he would have pegged the odds of a Democratic takeover of the Senate at 20 percent. He said he is at “45 percent now, with the arc going in the right direction.”

Democrats have long viewed their path back to the majority in 2026 as running through four states: Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska. Schumer said he believes Democrats now have “other paths,” pointing to Iowa and Texas.

But they also need to hold onto seats in Georgia, where incumbent Jon Ossoff is running a strong campaign, and in Michigan, where the picture is more unsettled and illustrative of the challenges Schumer continues to face.

National party operatives fear an unabashedly progressive candidate, Abdul el-Sayed, could emerge from a messy three-way primary and complicate Democrats’ chances at keeping retiring Sen. Gary Peters’ seat in November.

In what many interpreted as an attempt to winnow the field and box out el-Sayed, Schumer voiced this week what had been a not-very-well-kept secret — he’d prefer Rep. Haley Stevens, telling Punchbowl News “she has the best chance to win.”

But the third leading candidate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow saw an opportunity Thursday — attacking Schumer.

“Michiganders are sick and tired of the party putting their fingers on the scales,” she said in a social media video attacking Stevens and her national backers. “Schumer doesn’t decide — you do.”

Asked if he thought Democrats would keep Michigan no matter who emerged from the primary, Schumer instead said “we’re going to have a strong nominee who is a good fit.” And he defended his approach to recruitment and support in key races.

“We found great candidates,” Schumer said, lobbing a veiled retort at critics of his strategy. “I don’t look for candidates that fit the national Democratic Party profile.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

Congress

Rick Scott lifts holds on Coast Guard promotions

Published

9 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rick Scott said Thursday he had lifted his hold on Coast Guard promotions as he works to resolve a dispute between the service branch and a shipbuilder in his state.

The Florida Republican said in a statement that he cares “deeply about these Coast Guard promotions” and that “though we’re still not done, I’m lifting these holds as all parties have been working together in good faith and are moving towards an amenable agreement that gets ships built and is fair to US taxpayers.”

Scott added that “the process still needs to be better” and that he would “fight to ensure there is more oversight and accountability of the Coast Guard and that we fix the Coast Guard procurement process going forward.”

Scott initially placed the hold in April on the elevation of officers within the service, preventing the Senate from approving promotions via unanimous consent.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in 2025 scrapped plans for two advanced cutters being manufactured at Panama City-based Eastern Shipbuilding Group. The shipyard announced in November it would stop work on the two remaining boats “due to significant financial strain caused by the program’s structure and conditions.”

Scott had been a longtime booster of the partnership between Eastern and the Coast Guard and said in April he had been working with the administration to resolve the dispute but was struggling to get traction.

While the Senate could have held roll-call votes to sidestep Scott’s blockage, service officer promotions are usually noncontroversial and leaders rarely choose to expend valuable and finite floor time to advance them if there is not unanimous consent.

Congress

Senate panel approves Department of War name change

Published

10 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in a statement.

Trump authorized the War Department moniker last year as part of a broader effort to present a more aggressive military to the world. The Pentagon has used it since, as have many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But Congress must sign off for the name change to stick — and votes on both sides of the Capitol make it closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Details of the Armed Services vote, including who pushed for the change, were not immediately public. The committee voted 18-9 to advance the bill Wednesday evening and released initial details of the legislation Thursday.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the rebranding last week in its draft of the annual authorization legislation. The measure was adopted there in a narrow, party-line vote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly praised the decision. “The Department of War will officially be restored soon,” he wrote in a social media post after the House panel’s vote.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a full renaming of the department could cost as much as $125 million. But supporters have argued changing the name would more accurately reflect the focus and strength of the department, sending a message to potential adversaries.

The name change’s inclusion in both the House and Senate panel’s drafts of the authorization bill — which has passed Congress annually for the last six decades — signals that the rebrand has a strong chance of becoming law.