Restaurant attendance takes a dive in DC after Trump's police actions
Last Monday, Trump announced he was taking federal control of D.C.'s police department and deploying the National Guard in the city in an effort to fight crime.
Beginning that Monday, seated diners at Washington restaurants due to online reservations started to drop dramatically in comparison to the prior year, dipping 16 percent. On Wednesday, the amount of seated diners at restaurants due to reservations fell 31 percent, slightly recovering to down by 20 percent on Saturday.
WUSA was the first to report on the D.C. OpenTable data.
D.C. residents have expressed their outrage towards the president's recent actions in their city via protests. On Wednesday, federal law enforcement officers were heckled in a relatively busy area in Washington's Northwestern quadrant.
Trump's crime crackdown has also reignited calls for D.C. statehood, with the District also not having its own voting member of Congress.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Sunday that authorities arrested 68 people overnight in D.C.
'Over 300 arrests in D.C. — and counting: Just last night, our federal and DC law enforcement partners made 68 arrests and seized 15 illegal firearms,' Bondi said in a post on the social platform X. 'Homicide suspects, drug traffickers, and more are being charged. I'll continue to stand with you as we make DC safe again!'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday dismissed Trump's recent crackdown on the nation's capitol as a 'stunt.'
'What's happening here in Washington, D.C., 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,' Murphy told NBC News's Kristen Welker on 'Meet the Press.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US government in talks to acquire stake in Intel
The Trump administration is engaged in discussions with Intel regarding a potential investment in the chipmaker, Bloomberg reported citing sources familiar with the matter. Details regarding the size of the proposed investment remain unspecified. However; such a deal could provide essential support for Intel's ambitious factory hub project in Ohio, which the company had previously aimed to establish as the largest chip manufacturing facility globally, although this initiative has faced numerous delays. These negotiations come on the heels of President Donald Trump's recent call for the removal of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, whom he has described as 'highly conflicted' due to concerns over his previous associations with China. The current discussions are said to have originated from a recent meeting between President Trump and Tan. While specifics are still being worked out, one source indicated that the US government would finance the investment. Another source warned that the discussions are still in a preliminary stage and may not result in a formal agreement. In response to the news, Intel's shares rose by as much as 8.9% on 14 August 2025, ultimately closing 7.4% higher at $23.86, giving the company a market capitalisation of approximately $104.4bn, the report added. The stock continued to increase by an additional 4% in after-hours trading. 'Discussion about hypothetical deals should be regarded as speculation unless officially announced by the administration,' Bloomberg quoted White House spokesman Kush Desai as saying. Intel has chosen not to comment on the ongoing discussions. A representative stated that the company is 'deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership' and expressed a willingness to continue working with the Trump administration on shared goals, while refraining from commenting on speculation. An agreement would provide a financial boost to Intel at a time when the company is implementing cost-cutting measures and workforce reductions. It also suggests that Tan is likely to remain in his role as CEO. This situation represents another instance of the Trump administration's direct involvement in a key industry. Previously, the administration reached an agreement to receive a 15% cut of certain semiconductor sales to China and took a so-called golden share in United States Steel Corp. as part of a deal to facilitate its sale to a Japanese competitor. The discussions regarding Intel also reflect a recent announcement from the Defense Department, which disclosed plans to take a $400m preferred equity stake in US rare-earth producer MP Materials Corp., thereby making the Pentagon the largest shareholder in the company. "US government in talks to acquire stake in Intel" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. 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
14 minutes ago
Russian drone strike on Ukraine apartments kills several before Trump-Zelenskyy meet
LONDON -- At least seven people, including two children, were killed by a Russian drone strike in the northeastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on Sunday night, according to local officials. Serhiy Bolvinov, the head of Kharkiv National Police's investigations unit, said in a post to Facebook that five Shahed strike drones hit an apartment building at dawn. "An entire family died in an apartment on the fifth floor," Bolvinov said. Ukraine's air force said Russia launched 140 drones and four missiles in the country overnight into Monday morning, of which 88 drones were shot down or suppressed. Missile and drone impacts were reported across 25 locations in Donetsk, Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa and Kyiv regions, the air force said. The latest attacks come as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prepares to meet President Donald Trump and a host of European leaders at the White House on Monday, where Trump has said he hopes his Ukrainian counterpart will agree to a deal to end Russia's war. Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy's influential chief of staff, wrote on Telegram of the latest round of strikes, "Russia continues to deliberately kill civilians." "That's why [Russian President Vladimir] Putin doesn't want to stop the fire -- he likes to shell peaceful cities and talk about wanting to end the war," Yermak wrote. "We don't see this desire yet." Both sides have continued their long-range strike campaigns throughout Trump's efforts to craft a ceasefire and peace deal to end the conflict, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion of its neighbor in February 2022. Through July, Russia launched a record 6,443 drones and missiles into Ukraine, according to data published by the Ukrainian air force, with a daily average of 201 drones and six missiles. July's monthly total was the highest of the war to date, and around 13% more than were recorded in June. At least 286 people were killed and 1,388 injured in Ukraine in July, making last month the deadliest for Ukrainian civilians since May 2022, according to data published by the United Nations' Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. So far in August, the scale of Russian strikes has diminished. As of Monday, Ukraine's air force had recorded 1,344 drone and 27 missile launches by Russia in August -- an average of around 74 drones and more than one missile per day so far this month. Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, has claimed to have shot down 1,740 Ukrainian drones so far in August, at a daily average of around 96 per day. The Defense Ministry in Moscow said its forces downed at least 24 Ukrainian drones overnight into Monday.
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Marco Rubio Once Filed a Brief Embracing Birthright Citizenship
In a 2016 court filing, Marco Rubio, then a senator running for president, made the case that the Constitution conferred citizenship on essentially all children born in the United States. His argument was a crisp rendition of what was until recently the consensus understanding. But the views he expressed are now in tension with an executive order issued by President Trump in January that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court seems likely to hear a direct challenge to the order's constitutionality in the term that starts in October. The little-noticed court filing helps show how quickly the Republican Party and parts of the mainstream of conservative legal thought have shifted on the issue. It is also a reminder that the question of who is born a citizen may affect eligibility to be president. Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that 'it's absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories,' adding that Mr. Rubio was '100 percent aligned with President Trump's agenda.' Mr. Pigott's statement did not address the arguments in the 2016 brief or how to square them with the executive order. Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University and an expert on citizenship, said in an email that the 2016 filing was a 'powerful, succinct statement of why the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to cover almost all children born in the United States, regardless of parental immigration status.' 'There's no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn't be put to work today against the Trump executive order,' Professor Spiro wrote. Mr. Rubio, now the secretary of state, submitted the brief in response to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas by a fringe presidential candidate, David Librace. Mr. Librace's suit contended that Mr. Rubio was ineligible to be president because he was not, as the Constitution requires, a 'natural born citizen.' Mr. Rubio was born in 1971 to Cuban immigrants who would not become citizens until 1975. Judge Brian S. Miller of the Federal District Court in Little Rock dismissed the suit. 'Although the questions raised by Mr. Librace are interesting, they are questions that he simply does not have standing to bring,' the judge wrote, noting that 'courts have consistently held that voters do not have standing to sue based on the 'birther' argument.' The arguments Mr. Rubio made in his brief were broader than they needed to be to win his case. He addressed, for instance, not only the Constitution's presidential eligibility clause but also the provision of the 14th Amendment on birthright citizenship. He went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that 'persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.' Mr. Trump contends, by contrast, that the children of parents in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are not automatically citizens because they are not, as the 14th amendment requires, 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. The gap between the two positions would not have mattered in Mr. Rubio's circumstances. His parents were lawful residents when he was born, meaning he would have been on the right side of the line Mr. Trump has sought to draw, including in an executive order he issued on his first day in office seeking to curtail birthright citizenship for many children. The order has been tied up in the courts ever since. On the other hand, those distinctions make no sense, Professor Spiro said. 'Particularly weak is the administration's attempt to distinguish among legally present noncitizens,' he said. 'By trying to exclude the children of so-called nonimmigrants — including student visa holders and temporary workers — the administration loses the argument that it's only targeting those who are here in violation of the law.' Mr. Rubio's brief certainly did not draw that line. Instead, he defended birthright citizenship wholesale, saying that the 14th amendment was 'intended to remove any doubt that all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.' The Supreme Court issued a decision in June arising from the executive order, but the justices did not address the directive's constitutionality. Since then, several lower courts have ruled against the order, accepting arguments along the lines of those offered by Mr. Rubio. In July, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order, on grounds nearly identical to those sketched out in 2016 by Mr. Rubio, who is a defendant in the case. Among his official responsibilities are issuing passports and overseeing immigration laws abroad. In a filing this month, the administration vowed to move quickly 'to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the citizenship order' in the term that will start in October. The filing added that the solicitor general, the administration's top appellate lawyer, 'has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the court.' Mr. Rubio's brief was filed in response to a lawsuit that at least bordered on the frivolous, during a grueling and heated presidential campaign. He may have paid little attention to the contours of the arguments made on his behalf. Such a brief was not, in any event, the place to make a major or even a particularly considered statement on birthright citizenship. The general assertions in Mr. Rubio's 2016 brief were wide-ranging and confident, reflecting the conventional wisdom. In the coming months, the nation is likely to learn whether the consensus holds.
