Next up on the chopping block was Heinz, the ketchup kingpin and a Pittsburgh native, no less. Heinz, which had been the official ketchup of Primanti Bros. for years, released a carefully worded statement: “Heinz believes in bringing people together, not dividing them. While we have long been proud of our Pittsburgh roots, we must respectfully end our sponsorship with Primanti Bros. in light of recent events.”

For the city of Pittsburgh, this was the equivalent of a local sports team losing its star player. Losing Heinz as a sponsor was more than just a corporate setback—it was a slap in the face to the identity of the city itself. One can only imagine the heartbreak of patrons having to reach for some off-brand ketchup in the future.

Perhaps the most painful loss for Primanti Bros., however, was the decision by Iron City Beer to sever ties with the sandwich chain. The iconic Pittsburgh beer company had been a sponsor for decades, and nothing went better with a Primanti sandwich than a cold Iron City. But even loyalty has its limits, and in the wake of the J.D. Vance incident, Iron City Beer was the third and final sponsor to jump ship.

“We stand for Pittsburgh values—hard work, community, and inclusivity,” Iron City said in a statement. “Given the recent controversy surrounding Primanti Bros., we must regrettably part ways. We hope to continue serving our loyal customers through other local partnerships.”

The phrase “part ways” was particularly stinging for a relationship that had lasted so long. If beer can’t solve your problems, what can?

With three major sponsors gone and the boycott still raging, Primanti Bros. is now in full-blown damage control mode. In a desperate attempt to salvage its brand, the company has released multiple statements claiming that the incident with J.D. Vance was a misunderstanding. In their latest missive, they said, “We’ve always prided ourselves on welcoming patrons from all walks of life, and we regret any confusion that may have occurred during Senator Vance’s visit. We are working to ensure that our staff is prepared for all future campaign stops.”

However, these statements seem to be falling flat, with most people on social media accusing the company of trying to play both sides. “Too little, too late,” wrote one user. “You can’t refuse service to a major political figure and then pretend it was just a mix-up. Own it or lose customers. Looks like they chose the latter.”

And as for their attempt to frame the closure of locations and loss of sponsors as a “temporary setback,” no one’s buying it. “No fries, no ketchup, no beer? Sounds like a permanent problem to me,” one snarky tweet read.