There’s a food fight on Capitol Hill as lawmakers wrangle over whether taxpayers should continue to fund food stamps being used to purchase junk food. And it appears that Big Sugar is right in the middle of it.

When Donald Trump tapped Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to join his presidential campaign and subsequent cabinet, it also signaled Trump’s endorsement of Kennedy’s agenda to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA).

As most folks know, Kennedy is a big proponent of healthy living and has long been willing to question conventional wisdom on everything from vaccines to seed oils. Indeed, his objections to unnatural food dyes led to the Biden administration, mere days before Trump took office, banning the use of Red No. 3 dye in foods. It was a move that appeared to be an effort to steal Kennedy’s thunder.

However, Red No. 3 is hardly the country’s leading nutritional issue.

As many have noted, the U.S. is in the midst of an obesity crisis. Both adult and, even more concerning, childhood obesity rates are the highest on record. The rate of obesity among adults 20 to 60 years old tops 40%, and childhood obesity hit nearly 20% as of 2020. Over the past 60 years, the percentage of obese Americans has more than tripled.

One of the most obvious culprits for this growth in Americans’ waistlines is a higher rate of sugar consumption. Today, the average American consumes 70 grams of sugar a day, which is 300% above the recommended daily amount. To put it another way, the average American will consume 3,550 pounds of sugar in their lifetime. That’s almost two tons.

How does Americans’ sweet tooth relate to food stamps? Well, the aforementioned HHS Secretary Kennedy wants to prohibit people from purchasing unhealthy foods like soda and candy with funds from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as food stamps.

For Americans whose poverty qualifies them to receive SNAP benefits, taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for these benefits to be used to buy unhealthy junk food. This is especially true since many who qualify for SNAP benefits may also qualify for Medicaid benefits.

How does it make any sense to supplement bad nutritional choices that subsequently increase the risk of bad health problems such as diabetes? This effectively puts taxpayers on the hook for both — we pay for treating health problems and their causes.

Thankfully, a USDA study found that, on average, SNAP recipients spend roughly 5% of their benefits on unhealthy food. However, with food prices rising over the last several years due to Bidenflation, expanding SNAP benefits to cover the increased cost of food is an opportunity for MAHA to limit eligible foods.

This is where objections have come in — and from some surprising sources. Some social media influencers on the Right have weighed in against limiting the foods that SNAP recipients can purchase. For example, a social media account called Clown World, which has some three million followers on X, posted the following message: “The government wants to block soda purchases for Americans on SNAP. Remember when NYC tried this and it completely backfired? President Trump proudly had a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office. This is ridiculous government overreach. Let the people decide for themselves.”

Talk about conflation. New York City sought to limit the size of sodas residents were allowed to purchase with their own money. SNAP benefits are, by definition, not the recipient’s money; they are taxpayer dollars that already come with strings attached.

Another right-wing social media influencer, Ian Miles Cheong, posted a similar message: “A new war on soda has begun, targeting purchases made through SNAP. I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide what people should or shouldn’t eat.” Funny — he certainly had a different opinion four years ago when he posted: “Coca Cola subsidizes food stamps. They want you to become fat and addicted to sugar.” I wonder what changed.

Jenna Ellis, Donald Trump’s former lawyer, tried to spin her objection to limiting SNAP purchases as an infringement on “the autonomy of the consumer to make their own decisions.” She added, “This is another example of government overreach, but also an example why people should strive to not be dependent on government at all.”

The problem is that Ellis gets this all backwards. Sure, the premise that the government should not control how people spend their money is sound. Again, though, SNAP benefits are not their money.

It appears that the source of at least some of this sudden defense of using SNAP benefits to buy junk food is money. Investigative journalist Nick Sortor uncovered an effort by a PR firm that effectively paid these conservative social media influencers to shill for Big Soda.

The last thing that Big Soda wants are limits on people’s ability to purchase their sugary products.

Fortunately, it appears that after Sortor exposed this grift, these conservative influencers have backed off. The notion that those getting SNAP benefits should be required to only use these funds to buy healthy food should be the standard expectation. Anything less is irresponsible.