
DNC trolls Trump on tariffs with free 'TACO' truck parked outside RNC headquarters
FIRST ON FOX – The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Tuesday parked a custom-wrapped food truck in front of the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The rented truck, decked out with images of President Donald Trump, served up a free mouth-watering lunch option to passers-by.
However, in Washington, there is no such thing as a free lunch – and this stunt was no exception. The food truck was a taco truck, and the tacos came with a side of trolling: a policy-themed jab at Trump's tariff record, one the DNC sees as a major vulnerability heading into 2026.
The DNC's renting and customization of the taco truck, as well as its plans to hand out free Trump-branded tacos to passers-by, was previewed exclusively to Fox News Digital. It looks to seize on the acronym TACO, or "Trump Always Chickens Out," to provoke Trump's ire. The phrase was coined by Wall Street analysts when referring to Trump's tariff policies – and more specifically, espousing the view among some that Trump will walk back the steep reciprocal tariffs he announced in April, which are currently playing out in federal courts.
Beyond simply presenting a moral quagmire to hungry RNC employees and other Hill staffers, DNC officials told Fox News that they see the truck as an effective way to draw attention to Trump's tariff policies, which they described as "playing games with working families' livelihoods."
"Trump always chickens out – we're just bringing the tacos to match," DNC Chair Ken Martin told Fox News Digital of the effort.
"Instead of realizing his tariff chaos is wrecking the economy, Trump continues to drag America towards more economic pain, and the rest of the world sees Trump for exactly what he is: a chicken," he added.
They also previewed the customized wrap of the truck, seen below:
The food truck comes as Trump's power to enact sweeping tariffs has come under legal scrutiny. There's also an open question of whether the administration would actually move forward with the harsh import fees.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previously acknowledged that the threat of tariffs could be used as more of a negotiating tactic or opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China, and described Trump's uncertainty in the process to reporters last week as a means of "strategic uncertainty in the negotiations."
As of this writing, three separate federal courts are weighing Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to stand up the harsh import fees. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries.
The administration has appealed two lower court decisions that blocked his use of the law to either enact or threaten to enact the harsh tariffs. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed a lower court order from the U.S. Court of International Trade, allowing Trump's tariff policy to continue, for now, while the court continues to investigate the merits of the case. Two other lower court challenges remain in flux.
In the meantime, however, the moniker TACO has gotten under the president's skin. Last week, Trump blasted a reporter who asked him about the phrase, describing it as a "nasty question."
"Don't ever say what you said," Trump told the reporter. "To me, that's the nastiest question," he said. "I chicken out, oh, I have never heard that," Trump said, noting that lowering the tariffs was part of an ongoing "negotiation" with China.
He continued: "You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number? I said, 'You have to open your whole country.'"
Democrats are using the truck to seize on what they see as a clear sore spot for the president, and a way of tying Trump more directly to any market uncertainty and turmoil that has come as a result of the tariffs.
It comes as the party has struggled to coalesce around a unifying message in the aftermath of the 2024 elections.
The party has been criticized for failing to seize on Elon Musk's departure from his official role in the Trump administration at the end of May, and for focusing its energy on attacking intraparty strategies and DNC board members, rather than going after the RNC more broadly.
The taco truck stunt signals a shift in strategy, as Democrats adopt a more Trump-style approach to political attacks ahead of the 2026 midterms. But some of their efforts have missed the mark.
Earlier this week, conservative commentators took aim at a TikTok posted by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), in which he is filmed eating a taco in an attempt to mock Trump's tariff strategy, with some declaring it "cringeworthy."
DNC officials did not respond to Fox News Digital's questions on whether the party plans to pursue the tariff strategy beyond the taco truck, or if it sees these issues as a way to counter Trump and his allies with red state voters in the midterms and beyond.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Betting site bans individual over heckling incident with Olympic champion sprinter Gabby Thomas
A sports bettor who heckled Olympic champion sprinter Gabby Thomas during a Grand Slam Track event in Philadelphia over the weekend has been banned by the betting site FanDuel Sportsbook. In a statement sent to The Associated Press on Wednesday, FanDuel wrote it 'condemns in the strongest terms abusive behavior directed towards athletes. Threatening or harassing athletes is unacceptable and has no place in sports. This customer is no longer able to wager with FanDuel.' Last weekend, Thomas finished fourth in a 100-meter race won by Melissa Jefferson-Wooden. The bettor wrote in a post on social media that he 'made Gabby lose by heckling her. And it made my parlay win.' He posted a picture of his parlay that had Jefferson-Wooden winning the 100. Thomas, the 200-meter champion at the Paris Games last summer, explained the heckling incident on X. She wrote: 'This grown man followed me around the track as I took pictures and signed autographs for fans (mostly children) shouting personal insults – anybody who enables him online is gross.' Grand Slam Track, a track league launched by Hall of Fame sprinter Michael Johnson this spring, wrote in a statement it was 'conducting a full investigation into the reprehensible behavior captured on video. 'We are working to identify the individual involved and will take appropriate action as necessary. We will implement additional safeguards to help prevent incidents like this in the future. Let us be clear, despicable behavior like this will not be tolerated.' ESPN first reported the bettor had been banned by FanDuel. The Grand Slam Track season wraps up with the fourth and final meet in Los Angeles on June 28-29. The Thomas incident is the latest in a string of stalking and abuse of female athletes. Frida Karlsson, a Swedish cross-country skiing world champion, recently brought her experience with stalking into public view when she went through a trial. A man in his 60s was given a suspended sentence and ordered to pay 40,000 kronor ($4,100) in damages after being convicted of stalking Karlsson for a year and four months, according to Swedish news agency TT. The man, according to the indictment, called Karlsson 207 times, left her voicemails and text messages and approached her, including outside her apartment. In February, police in the United Arab Emirates detained a man who caused British tennis player Emma Raducanu distress by exhibiting ' fixated behavior ' toward her at a tennis tournament. Raducanu had been approached by the man at the Dubai Championships where he left her a note, took her photograph and engaged in behavior that caused her distress, according to the government of Dubai's media office.

Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Check out the latest Donald Trump presidential approval ratings for PA and across US
Despite mass firings within the government, threats of tariffs and struggles to get the 'big, beautiful bill' passed, President Donald Trump's approval ratings have held steady early in his second term. DOGE leader Elon Musk is leaving the White House and Trump is threatening to tariff two high profile American companies — Apple and Mattel — despite questions by the US Court of International Trade about his authority to unilaterally impose tariffs without action by congress. Here's what the recent polls show about Trump's presidential job approval ratings as of the first week of June. According to Rasmussen Reports polling, Trump's approval has improved to a 53% approval rating and 46% that disapprove. The TrafalGarGroup poll from this weekend found that 53.7% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 45.6% disapprove. The Morning Consult tracker poll taken this weekend reported a drop to 46% approval rating and a 51% that disapprove. The Economist/YouGov poll taken this week, shows Trump improving with a 45% favorability versus 53% unfavorable. Americans expressed the most important issue was overwhelmingly focused on inflation/prices, followed by jobs and the economy, health care, immigration and civil rights. In this weekend's Quantus Insights poll, Trump's job approval improved with 48.3% approval versus 47.8% that disapprove and 3.9% that had no opinion. RealClear Polling which encompasses the average of different 15 different pollsters, including all those mentioned above, shows Trump's overall favorability at 47.5% and 49.7% that disapprove. These numbers have improved since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating. According to Civiqs polls, last updated June 2, Trump's approval ratings have dropped about three points in The Keystone State compared to what Pennsylvanians thought of his performance in January. About 53% of Pennsylvanians polled currently disapprove of the president's performance, up from 50% on Jan. 20. Only 43% of the commonwealth gave Trump a thumbs up as of early June, down from 46% six months ago. These polling numbers were also broken down by age, education, gender, race and party. Age: Those between 18-34 were most unfavorable of Trump (60%), while those 50 to 64 were the most favorable (55%). Education: Postgraduate students were most unfavorable toward Trump (68%). Non-college graduates were most favorable (49%). Gender: Men and women are split on Trump, more than half of females (58%) holding an unfavorable view and more than half of males (52%) having a favorable view of the president. Party: Members of the Republican party were 87% favorable of Trump, compared to the Democratic party, who felt just 3% favorable of the president's performance. Independent voters leaned unfavorable (48%). Race: Black voters had the highest unfavorable opinion of Trump (89%), followed by other races at 59%, Hispanic/Latino at 57% and white at 46%. Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10 a.m. This article originally appeared on Donald Trump presidential approval rating today in PA vs. nationally
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion