
Happy Hour in D.C.: ‘I've Never Felt More Patriotic in My Life'
For the 282,000 federal government employees who live in and around Washington, the first weeks of the new Trump administration have been a mix of uncertainty and consternation, as agencies close and job cuts loom. So when the owner of DC9, a local bar and music venue, decided to show his solidarity via rock-bottom prices for a Thursday evening happy hour, a throng of early-career public servants eagerly answered the call.
'My team has been through the mud,' said a young woman who worked in the human resources department of a federal agency and wore a purple T-shirt emblazoned with an uplifting message: 'You Are Enough.' (Like many other attendees, she feared offering any personal details that could make her the victim of professional retribution.) 'Everybody is very nervous.'
In recent days, Elon Musk and his lieutenants have hacked away at the federal bureaucracy, including by offering controversial buyouts to government workers. In the now-infamous 'Fork in the Road' email sent on Jan. 28 at the apparent behest of Mr. Musk's new Department of Government Efficiency, some two million federal agency staffers were urged to take a buyout that would supposedly guarantee anyone who accepted a salary through Sept. 30. The deadline to accept the deal was 11:59 p.m. on Thursday.
Bill Spieler, who has operated DC9 for two decades, was determined to do what he could for the federal work force as the deadline neared. On Monday afternoon, DC9 announced a 'Hold the Line' event to coincide with that deadline. Its social media post appeared to be skeptical of the offer, urging government workers 'to be our eyes and ears on what is happening in this administration.' But any government employee, whether they took Mr. Musk's promised buyout or not, was eligible for '$2 beverages.'
A few hours before the deadline, a federal judge in Massachusetts effectively blocked the deal. In response, the White House extended its buyout deadline until next Monday. But Mr. Spieler's prediction that the last-minute machinations would do little to mitigate the uncertainty or dampen the enthusiasm for cheap beer proved correct.
The memories of Dry January, it seemed, were gone. The months to come may be decidedly less parched, if Thursday was any indication. A young woman in a gray sweater and brown paisley scarf who said she worked at the State Department described a confused and demoralized work force. She sat somberly at a table as the bar began to fill.
At the door, a DC9 employee verified proof of government employment, giving green bands to everyone who passed muster — Mr. Spieler walked around announcing that, earlier in the day, a benefactor had donated $100 for the event. Early birds were thus rewarded with free drinks.
Nearly every attendee appeared to be in their 20s or 30s. Between the tattoos, nose rings and dyed hair, the scene could have easily been in hipster Brooklyn. The bureaucrat of popular imagination, dressed in a flappy suit, was nowhere in sight. Attendees reveled in the chance to show solidarity — and to meet colleagues.
Located on the corner of U Street, once known as 'Black Broadway' for its thriving cultural scene, DC9 recalls Washington's hard-core punk rock renaissance, which offered a challenge to Ronald Reagan's vision of American life during the 1980s.
'We're on the front line now,' Mr. Spieler, 61, said in an interview, adding that his wife had come up with the idea for the happy hour. 'If we want to have a democracy like we were brought up with, I've got to be a soldier.'
None of the people who packed into DC9 seemed remotely interested in taking Mr. Musk's buyout offer. When asked if he had a message for Mr. Musk and his crew, a fashionably bald and bespectacled government worker used an unprintable four-letter word as he urged them to buzz off. He made sure that his emo band T-shirt would not be recognized in any photographs. Defiance was surging, but so was fear. Nobody believed that Thursday's court order was the last gasp.
Among the very, very few attendees to sport a suit and tie was Dan, an administrative employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. He bristled at the depiction of government work as a taxpayer-funded sinecure. 'So many of us easily could have come out of college and done something completely different, making two or three times the amount that we are, but here we are living in one of the most expensive cities in the United States, working for pennies on the dollar to make the country better,' he said, adding that all he wanted was to go back to work, without having to constantly think and talk about his work status.
A young man with slicked-back hair and restrained stubble said he had actually thought of leaving government employ only to be persuaded to stay by all the badgering. 'I've never felt more patriotic in my life than I do right now,' he said.
New resolve seemed to be setting in. Sipping drinks on the DC9 rooftop, two colleagues who worked at the National Archives outpost in College Park, Md., had nothing but youthful enthusiasm for their jobs. Neither one of them knew a single colleague who was taking the buyout. Nor did they quite understand what Mr. Musk was after. 'We don't make money for shareholders,' said one of the archivists, Frances, who had brilliant green hair, shaved temples and large hoop earrings. 'We serve the public.'
Hashtags

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


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
As a Fiduciary, I Know the Tesla Board Needs to Fire Elon Musk
Even before Elon Musk's social media posts recently wiped out $152 billion in value from Tesla in a single day, many public pensions and institutional investors had been growing uneasy about the financial risks of investing in Tesla brought about by the CEO's political activity: with Tesla's annual shareholder meeting expected next month, major Tesla investors have written open letters, penned op-eds, and filed lawsuits expressing their concerns. However, most Tesla investors are misunderstanding the nature of the risk of investing in the company. In May, the $500 million Lehigh County pension fund, which I sit on as an elected financial officer, became the first pension fund in the country to halt all new purchases of Tesla stock in our actively managed funds. We took this step because it reflects a basic fiduciary responsibility: when a stock carries outsized risk, as Tesla's now surely does owing to Musk's political activity, the prudent move is to stop buying that stock and reassess whether it's a wise investment of public employees' money. Elon Musk, wearing two hats, speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2025. Elon Musk, wearing two hats, speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images Rather than pausing new investments or considering divestment, many pension officials and asset managers are instead pressing Tesla's board to get Elon Musk to return to working full-time at the company, as if the core problem is simply that Musk is too distracted. However, this assertion overlooks a far more serious problem: Musk's reputation is so tarnished that Tesla won't be able to thrive as long as he remains the CEO. Musk is the reason that Tesla sales have fallen off a cliff, with profits declining by 71 percent in the first three months of 2025. It is well documented that consumers that are left-of-center politically make up Tesla's core consumer base. Between 2012 and 2023, half of all EV purchases in the U.S. were made in the country's 10 percent most Democratic counties. Now that Musk has alienated this core consumer base, the company's sales and profits have nosedived as a result. There was some hope among investors that the Democratic-voting consumers Tesla lost would be made up for by Republican voters purchasing Teslas. However, in spite of President Donald Trump turning the White House into a Tesla commercial earlier this year, there is little evidence that this has happened. As The Economist reported, "Even Republicans now appear to be spurning his EVs." And this was before Musk called for Trump to be impeached and accused him of being in the Epstein files. What's more, Tesla is a global brand―and if anything, Musk's reputation outside of the U.S. is even more toxic. Last year, Musk attempted to make an intervention in the German election, backing the AfD, a party that has been classified as a far-right extremist party by German spy agencies. The backlash was swift with many in Germany repelled by the image of a wealthy foreigner meddling in their elections. Tesla sales in Germany, the largest car market in Europe, are down 62.2 percent so far this year. Musk is also the reason that Tesla's stock price declined nearly 14 percent on June 5, after he publicly attacked President Trump in an incredible tirade on his social media platform X. After wiping out $152 billion of shareholder value, Musk shared a video in which he said, "I don't care. I'll say what I want to say and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." Even if Musk was to turn away from politics, there is little reason to believe that he is the man to turn around Tesla's fortunes. Whether it's the high profile reports of his problems with drug addiction, his controversial stances on social issues, the fact that he also runs half-a-dozen other companies, or that he doesn't care about losing money, it's clear that Musk is no longer the leader that Tesla needs. Those of us who are invested in Tesla, and especially those of us who are responsible for overseeing workers' hard-earned retirement savings, shouldn't be shy about saying what is already clear: the Tesla board should fire Elon Musk and find a new CEO. Mark Pinsley is Lehigh County controller. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.


Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
‘Constant fear': Illinois mom of 3 pleads with US government to help her evacuate Gaza
For Salsabeel ElHelou, it's difficult to come up with the words to fully describe the 'primitive' living conditions in Gaza for her and her three children. There's no fuel for cooking, she said, and the drinking water is dirty. She spends much of her time desperately searching for flour to make bread because food is so scarce. ElHelou, an American citizen, said she's unsuccessfully pleaded with the U.S. government since the war broke out about a year and a half ago to help her entire family return to downstate Carbondale, the town where she grew up. At one point, she said her name and those of her two youngest children appeared on a Rafah border crossing list from Gaza into Egypt, but not her oldest son. A few months ago, the U.S. Embassy informed ElHelou there was an opportunity for her to exit alone. She stayed in Gaza both times, saying it isn't 'logical, mentally sound or humane' for a mother to leave any of her children behind in a war zone. She is estranged from their father, but nevertheless would still never abandon one of them. 'Simply put, I would continue to live in hell wherever I go if I left one of my children in this war,' ElHelou, 40, told the Tribune over text messages. 'My family's life in Illinois was a fundamental part of my identity before we moved to Gaza, and I have every right to return to my country and my community there.' Attorneys representing ElHelou argued before a judge earlier this month at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse downtown that the U.S. government has a responsibility to evacuate citizens and some members of their families during times of war or natural disaster. The June 3 hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction comes after a group of Palestinian Americans, including three with ties to Illinois, sued the U.S. government last year, alleging the State Department failed to help them or their family members evacuate Gaza and forced them to 'endure prolonged and life-threatening conditions' in violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. The plaintiffs are American citizens, legal permanent residents or their immediate relatives. '(The) hearing is about holding the U.S. government accountable for abandoning its constitutional duty to Americans and endangering American families,' attorney Maria Kari said. 'We are asking the court to act where the executive branch has refused.' Jason Altabet, an attorney for the government, argued that it's difficult to evacuate people from Gaza, more so than other conflicts, because the American government lacks a diplomatic presence in the area. He said, for example, during the chaotic withdrawal of Afghanistan in 2021 the government had military planes to remove citizens and others 'quickly and efficiently.' U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall also noted in court last week that because evacuations require coordination between other countries, such as Jordan and Egypt, certain decisions appear to be outside the control of the U.S. government. A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. Israel's war in Gaza has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its tally. For months, experts have also warned that Palestinians in Gaza are on the brink of famine. The war began with Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which left around 1,200 dead. As soon as the war began, ElHelou said she began making attempts to leave Gaza, where she's lived since 1988. The State Department estimated in late 2023 that around 300 American citizens, permanent legal residents or their parents and young children remained trapped by the fighting. A spokesperson didn't reply to a question on how many remain now. In March 2024, ElHelou learned from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem that she, her youngest son, Ayham, and her daughter, Banan, appeared on a final exit list at the Rafah border. Ayham is now 8, and Banan is 12. Almotasem, her now-16-year-old son, wasn't on the list, however. ElHelou was 'astonished' that she was forced to make what her attorneys described in court documents as a ''Sophie's Choice.'' She and her husband were estranged before the war began. An email ElHelou said she received from the embassy stated that the 'U.S. government does not control whose names appear on the crossing list nor who is permitted to depart Gaza or enter Egypt.' The email also said the State Department will 'continue to advocate for U.S. citizens … to depart Gaza via the Rafah border crossing.' Israeli troops later seized control of that border, and ElHelou said she had limited contact with U.S. officials afterward until March of this year. She received a call and email from the embassy letting her know that there is an opportunity to leave Gaza without her children. ElHelou said she again replied that she couldn't leave them. 'It is unthinkable and inhumane to expect a mother to abandon her children in a war zone,' she said. 'My children have the same right to safety as any American citizen, and they must be evacuated with me.' ElHelou pleaded with the U.S. government to help her family, saying she wants her children to live peacefully, attend school, eat enough food, have friends and sleep without fear of bombings. She also said Almotasem needs proper medical care after his back was torn open from stone blocks during an Israeli airstrike on a nearby home about a year ago. He had trouble breathing after. '(My) children are suffering immensely. They have no educational environment, no health care, no adequate or balanced nutrition, no medication and no entertainment,' she said. 'They live in constant fear as the bombings and shelling continue day and night.' U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth's office indicated they're aware of and monitoring the situation. A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said, 'We don't have anything to share on this.' Altabet, the attorney representing the government, acknowledged at last week's hearing the 'terrible choice' ElHelou had to make. He referenced, however, a statute that requires the secretary of state to develop policies for the evacuation of private U.S. citizens. He said ElHelou is the only plaintiff from the suit who is both a citizen and is still stranded in Gaza, and that because she rejected an evacuation offer, it's a 'self-inflicted injury.' The judge quickly interjected. 'That's a terrible choice to make, and probably one that any mother would make. If I can't leave with my kids, I'm staying, right?' Kendall said. When Marowa Abusharia's phone calls to her husband manage to go through, the conversations usually devolve into a cadence of 'Hello, hello, can you hear me?' due to a shaky internet connection. Abusharia lives with her 20-month-old twin daughters in New Jersey. Her husband, Loai Abusharia, remains in Gaza, where crumbling internet and phone service often prevents him from talking to his wife and children, she said. In fact, her children have never met their father, except on a dark phone screen. 'They don't know the man on the screen, so anybody I talk to right now they think that's Baba,' Abusharia told the Tribune while in Chicago. 'And he is losing hope too, like he's saying, 'I am afraid that I will lose you, that I might die anytime,' and that he's not gonna meet me and the girls.' Abusharia was one of three plaintiffs who testified at the hearing, where she detailed the steps she's taken to try to evacuate her husband. Abusharia said she's called New Jersey politicians, filled out a crisis intake form for assistance from the State Department, emailed government officials and talked to the media, but with no success. Abusharia met her husband, who she described as a 'caring' and a 'respectful' man, through their families. They were engaged for about a year and a half, before marrying in Gaza in 2019, she said. About four years later, she returned to New Jersey to give birth to her twin girls. Her husband planned to join her after an interview for his green card, which was scheduled in Jordan for October 2023, she said. The family's plans were derailed, however, when Loai couldn't leave Gaza due to the war. 'I hoped he would be able to come with me to the hospital for our newborns, but he never made it,' Abusharia said, adding, 'I feel like the government has abandoned us. He could have been here with us for almost two years.' Her husband is now living in what remains of their home, she said, which has no windows or walls. During a recent phone call, he told her he was 'so hungry' and that he'd been surviving on canned food. She wants him to be able to hug their 'beautiful, troublemaker' daughters one day. 'I am still here, and I'm fighting until my last breath,' Abusharia said. 'This (lawsuit) is my last hope.' Another plaintiff, Sahar Harara, said her experience underscores the importance of timely evacuations. Harara testified in court that her parents, Mariam and Mufid Harara, were in Gaza visiting family when the war began. Harara is a U.S. citizen from Dallas, and her parents are green-card holders. Harara's parents were both approved to leave, she testified, but only her mother's name appeared on a final exit list. She said her now-75-year-old mom couldn't leave on her own because of health issues, and chose to remain in Gaza. Last June, while waiting for the chance to leave together, Mufid died in a bombing, she said. She remembers her father as 'very active, very happy and very social.' One of his favorite pastimes was biking, Harara said. She said many of his neighbors knew him personally, and when he biked to the store or mosque he'd frequently stop to chat. Harara said her mother was fortunately evacuated back to the U.S. in May, which made her 'so happy.' But her mom isn't the same person she used to know because of the trauma she experienced, Harara said. Her mom was terrified during a recent thunderstorm, for example, because of the loud sounds. 'When it comes to our situation … no answered phone calls, no answered emails and after that it's 'We're sorry for your loss,'' Harara told the Tribune. 'If (the U.S. government) answered my emails and phone calls at the right time, I (could) have my father with me.'


USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel restrictions by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against "foreign terrorists" and other national security threats. The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from U.S. universities and deport others. In an internal diplomatic cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action. "The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," the cable sent out over the weekend said. The cable was first reported by the Washington Post. More: Travel bans, visa crackdowns and deportations: What to know as Trump bars the door Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was "questionable security" of that country's passport. Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the U.S. visas their citizens were being granted. Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity. The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed. More: 'It's scary': Travelers caught off guard as travel ban rules come into effect "We are constantly reevaluating policies to ensure the safety of Americans and that foreign nationals follow our laws," a senior State Department official said, declining to comment on specific internal deliberations and communications. "The Department of State is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the official said. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - has also been partially restricted. During his first in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. (Reporting by Humeyra PamukEditing by Bill Berkrot)