Washington DC restaurants suffer sharp drop in diners since Trump crackdown
Research by Open Table found that restaurant attendance was down every day last week compared with 2024, with the number of diners dipping by 31% on Wednesday, two days after Trump ordered the national guard to patrol Washington.
Trump announced the move on 11 August, claiming that Washington had been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people'. His claims contradicted official statistics which show that violent crime in the capital is at a 30-year low.
Data from Open Table shows that the number of people making online reservations dropped by 16% on Monday compared with the previous year. The number fell by 27% on Tuesday and 31% on Wednesday, as military vehicles and armed troops were deployed to the city.
Metropolitan Washington Summer Restaurant week in 2024 was from 12 to 18 August. The 2025 edition of the event, during which diners are generally offered premium experiences at more affordable prices than usual, began on Monday. The data did not immediately make clear to what extent that may have factored into the year-to-year drop.
On Friday, Democrats introduced a joint resolution to end what they described as 'egregious attacks on DC home rule', stating that Trump was overreaching in his actions in Washington.
The Democratic US congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland issued a statement saying Trump's decision to send the military into the nation's capital was meant to distract the public from the president's 'close friendship' with the late convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Related: Three states to deploy hundreds of national guard troops to Washington DC
Raskin's statement also alluded to broken promises from the Trump administration to fully divulge all files pertaining to the prosecutions of Epstein and his associate, the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
'The only emergency here is a lawless president experiencing a growing public relations emergency because of his … stubborn refusal to release the Epstein file despite his promise to do so,' Raskin's statement said.
Other Democrats echoed the sentiment that Trump's move was an attempt to distract from criticism over Epstein and an economy that was struggling amid the passage of his congressional agenda bill, which included a historic $1tn cut to Medicaid.
'What's happening here in Washington DC is just a stunt. Donald Trump didn't like the fact that the walls were closing in on him, that his own base was questioning why he wouldn't release the Epstein files, why he was protecting very powerful people,' Chris Murphy, the US senator from Connecticut, told NBC on Sunday.
'He didn't want to talk any more about the fact that our healthcare system is about to collapse because of the cuts that they have made, that premiums are going to go up by 75% on Americans. And so true to form, he just decided to create a new news cycle.'
Murphy added: 'He's just trying to distract from the stories he doesn't want Americans to be talking about.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump has pledged to ‘lead a movement to get rid of' voting by mail. Will Utah be a target?
Eva Przybyla, front, and Nicholas Wells process ballots at the Salt Lake County Government Center in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) President Donald Trump this week vowed to 'lead a movement to get rid of' voting by mail ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 'WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,' the president said in a post on Truth Social Monday. Trump, who has long opposed voting by mail, continued to claim, without evidence, that it's fraught with fraud. Utah has been the only red state among eight that have conducted universal by-mail elections, including six Democratic strongholds and one swing state — a fact that some conservatives here have balked at, while others have defended the state's by-mail system as a popular, convenient and safe voting method. After Trump's post, Utah's top election official, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, issued a short statement on social media without addressing the president directly. Utah Legislature approves bill to require voter ID, phase out automatic voting by mail by 2029 'The constitutional right of individual states to choose the manner in which they conduct secure elections is a fundamental strength of our system,' Henderson said. The president, however, asserted that states should do what the federal government wants. 'Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,' Trump said. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' Another high-ranking Republican and member of GOP legislative leadership — Senate Majority Assistant Whip Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork — disagrees. McKell told Utah News Dispatch in an interview Tuesday that, like Henderson said, states have the right to choose how to administer their elections, and that he'd push back on an effort to completely undo voting by mail. 'In Utah, we're in a good place. I think there's strong support for vote by mail. There's also strong support for security,' McKell said. He added that's 'the needle we tried to thread' earlier this year when the 2025 Utah Legislature passed a bill that he sponsored to require voter ID and eventually phase out automatic voting by mail in this state by 2026. The aim of that bill, he said, was to preserve voting by mail as an option for Utah voters while also adding a new layer of security. Even though local polls have shown a vast majority of Utahns remain confident in their elections, Gallup polling shows trust nationally has decreased especially among a faction of Republican voters since 2006 as elections have become more polarized. After Trump lost the 2020 election, he ramped up rhetoric to cast doubt on election security and voting by mail. Asked about Trump's comments this week, McKell reiterated it's a matter of states rights. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'It is a federalism issue,' he said. 'If it's not enumerated in the (U.S.) Constitution, it's reserved for the states. That's article 10. I think states have the right to dictate how they run their elections.' McKell also defended Utah's track record as a state that has used voting by mail for years, starting with optional pilot programs that counties opted into before moving to universal voting by mail. 'In the state of Utah, Republicans have done really well with vote by mail. We elect Republicans,' he said, also noting that Trump in 2024 won the red state handily. 'There's generally broad support for vote by mail, especially among rural voters and elderly voters in Utah.' He added that 'it's OK if there's some tension between the federal government and state government,' but he argued the Constitution clearly reserves elections for states to control and administer. Pressed on how he'd respond to pressure from the Trump administration to get rid of voting by mail, McKell said, 'I would resist a movement that didn't originate in the state,' adding that he responds to his constituents, not the federal government. 'If there's a movement to change vote by mail, it needs to come from — it must come from — the state,' he said. 'It's a state issue. The states need to be in control of their own elections. Right now, I don't feel like there's a reason to eliminate vote by mail. I think we do a good job.' Utah election audit finds no 'significant fraud,' but raises concern over voter roll maintenance Not all Republicans in Utah embrace voting by mail, however, Earlier this year, McKell's bill was the result of a compromise between the House and Senate to more drastically restrict the state's universal vote-by-mail system. Asked whether Trump's comments could further inflame skepticism around the security of voting by mail in Utah, McKell said it's nothing new. 'We saw these comments before, and even going into the last legislative session, there were folks that opposed vote by mail.' But McKell said multiple state audits 'have shown that our elections are safe and secure,' while legislators have also made efforts to continually improve the system where issues have cropped up, like in voter roll maintenance. It remains to be seen whether Trump's comments could fan some Republican lawmakers' appetite to go after voting by mail during their next general session in January, but McKell said typically every year there's a slew of election bills for legislators to sort through. Asked whether he plans to make any tweaks to his 2025 bill, McKell said he's still talking with clerks about any possible changes. 'I feel like we did strike a really appropriate balance, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at ways to make it better,' he said, adding that he doesn't have any specific proposals yet, 'but that could change as we get closer to the legislative session.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
