MAHA diners are fueling a bone marrow boom in D.C.
Why it matters: Trump's first term was all about well steak and fast food — largely divorced from local dining — but MAHA's unprocessed obsession is popularizing whole-animal trends and driving sales on odd-bits.
Zoom in: At Capitol Hill's haute MAGA hangout Butterworth's, chef Bart Hutchins blows through some 500 beef bones a week for best-selling roasted marrow.
It's Steve Bannon's go-to order, Hutchins tells Axios. VIPs like Marco Rubio get it compliments of the kitchen. Nigel Farage and other Brit Breitbart journos are eating it up, too.
Patrons like a Port bone luge to "soak up the beefy, fatty flavor," Hutchins says.
What they're saying: "Before, the audience for offal was Berkeley hippie types who knew about Alice Waters. Now it's right-wing staffers," Hutchins says. "I tell my staff, we're a success if we sell more head cheese than cheeseburgers — and that's happening naturally here."
Hutchins has long pushed offal on reluctant diners. Now, bones mean bank. "It's buzzy. If you describe something with 'collagen,' it's poised to move for a certain economic class."
The big picture: Chefs' whole-animal focus — more sustainable and economical — is compounded by wellness obsessives touting the health and beauty benefits of bone broth and " sipping collagen."
Add in RFK Jr.'s war on seed oils and ultra-processed foods and you have diners going nose-to-tail, fat-to-bone.
Between the lines: Blue Duck Tavern 's roasted bone marrow began as a W. Bush-era obsession. Today, "We can never take it off [menu]. People come in just for that," food and beverage director Jean-Claude Plihon tells Axios.
The West End restaurant sells around 5,500 marrow dishes annually — roughly 210 pounds of bones a week.
Like with other old-is-new-again crazes, traditionalists are caught off guard.
"I had no idea, but I'm glad everyone is into it," Hai Le, the butcher turned chef behind Bloomingdale's new PhoXotic, tells Axios. Le brews intensely flavored bone broths and packs bowls with tendon, shank and marrow.
"I have people coming in asking for pho broth as a daily dose for their skin."
Meanwhile, beef tallow is becoming even more popular — an unlikely combination of beauty trend and right-wing fad touted by MAHA influencers as the anti-seed oil.
"I didn't carry it two years ago, and now we're flying through cases," a rep for Baltimore wholesaler Fells Point Meat tells Axios.
Naturally, tallow is the frying fuel of choice for Georgetown's new club Executive Branch, co-founded by Donald Trump Jr.
The intrigue: The only frozen tallow fry in the U.S. market is Rockville-based Jesse & Ben's. Co-founder Jesse Konig took the popular fries from fast-casual Swizzler in Navy Yard, reengineering them for shoppers with avo oil or grass-fed tallow. They've blown up in a year, and now:
Stock them in 1,500 Whole Foods nationwide.
Use 15,000 pounds of tallow per month.
Run 24-hour production to keep up with demand.
What they're saying: "The movement toward less processed foods is a big part of it," says Konig of the success. "It's top of mind in the culture right now."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership.' Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way,' Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects — including some for clean energy — take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' 'It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. 'And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes,' he said. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Maher: I was wrong that Trump's tariffs would ‘sink the economy'
Bill Maher is acknowledging that the doom and gloom predictions he had about the economy being negatively impacted by President Trump's tariff plan so far haven't panned out. 'I remember I, along with probably most people, were saying at the beginning, by the Fourth of July… the economy was going to be tanked by then,' Maher said in a recent interview on his 'Club Random' podcast with progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen. 'And I was kind of like, well, that seems right to me,' Maher continued. 'But that didn't happen,' the HBO 'Real Time' host said of Trump's trade strategy. 'Now, it could happen tomorrow. I'm just saying — that's reality. So let's work first from the reality of that, not from 'I just hate Donald Trump,' because that's boring and doesn't get us anywhere, and leads you to dishonesty' Maher said. Trump announced 'reciprocal' tariffs on dozens of other countries back in April, before a week later issuing a temporary pause on the hikes for most countries for three months. The 'reciprocal' tariff rate is poised to take effect on August 1. 'The truth is, I don't know what his strategy is,' Maher, a frequent Trump critic, said of the 47th president. 'But look, the stock market is at record highs. I know not everybody lives by the stock market, but I also drive around, I don't see a country in a depression at all,' Maher said with a laugh. 'I see people out there just living their lives. And I would have thought — and I gotta own it — that the cut, that these tariffs were going to f—ing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't,' he said. 'How do we deal with that fact? Because that's the fact,' Maher said.
San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership." Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way," Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,'' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects -- including some for clean energy -- take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' "It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,'' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. "And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes," he said. ___
