TGI Fridays has just 85 restaurants left in the US
TGI Fridays, the bankrupt casual dining chain, has only 85 restaurants left in the United States, according to its website.
It's a sharp decline of the once-iconic restaurant, which had about 270 US locations at the beginning of last year and has only seen its store count rapidly decline since. TGI Fridays' parent company filed for Chapter 11 late last year and had 164 locations open, but it has kept closing locations during the bankruptcy process, with an additional 30 locations shuttering over the past month.
TGI Fridays didn't respond to CNN's request for comment about the closures.
When it filed for bankruptcy in November 2024, the company said in a statement that fallout from the pandemic was the 'primary driver of our financial challenges' and it will use the Chapter 11 process to 'explore strategic alternatives in order to ensure the long-term viability of the brand.'
Since then, the company has sold dozens of restaurants to franchisees, including to Ray Blanchette, the former CEO of the chain, who returned to TGI Fridays in January to lead the beleaguered brand.
Blanchette is planning to reveal a revamped menu next month, with a focus on items that Gen Z love including 'swicy' trends, fusion foods and a bigger emphasis on fresh-grilled steaks. In an interview with Business Insider, he also cited the chain's strong international presence, which has about 400 locations, as a sign that TGI Fridays can still be relevant.
Still, it will be an uphill battle for TGI Fridays in the US, which had about 600 locations at its peak in 2008. Casual dining chains typically cater to lower and middle-income families looking for a sit-down meal, but diners are abandoning these companies as their disposable income shrinks.
That has forced a number of chains to file for bankruptcy in recent years, including Hooters, Bar Louie, Buca di Beppo and On the Border. Plus, sales at Denny's, Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse, Bonefish Grill, Red Robin and Cracker Barrel's are dropping, and they are collectively shuttering hundreds of restaurants.
TGI Fridays got its start in 1965 in Manhattan as a place for singles to meet each other and was one of the first major chains to popularize the 'happy hour' concept. The menu features a wide array of American comfort food staples, including chicken wings, potato skins and hamburgers.
Diners instantly recognize its kitschy interior with Tiffany-style lamps and big red booths, plus a big bar that's usually the focal point of a TGI Fridays. And its service staff wore 'flair,' or pins and other decorative pieces on their uniforms that became a joke on the 1999 film 'Office Space.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fury as Republicans go ‘nuclear' in fight over California car emissions
California has long been one of the nation's preeminent eco-warriors, enacting landmark environmental standards for cars and trucks that go much further than those mandated by the federal government. Vehicles across the country are cleaner, more efficient and electric in greater numbers because of it. But that could all change if Donald Trump and his Republican allies manage to revoke the state's ability to set its own, stricter emissions standards amid a White House crusade to combat climate-friendly policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and updates its own federal standards for all states on smog and emissions from cars and trucks, which the Biden administration made even stricter last year, saying they will save American drivers thousands in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of a vehicle. But for decades, California has been granted the ability to make those rules even stricter to help address some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, which are linked to a host of health effects that disproportionately affect people of color. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to reverse the waivers, in move that prompted fury from Democrats who call it a 'nuclear' option, calling it an unprecedented, and illegal, use of the statute. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have agreed, saying EPA waivers are not subject to the review law. The House approved similar resolutions earlier this month. The resolutions now go to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign them. 'This move will harm public health and deteriorate air quality for millions of children and people across the country,' said senators Alex Padilla, Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. 'This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again,' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Thursday. 'We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.' Kathy Harris, the director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized California's ability to mandate strict emissions standards for cars, trucks and buses had existed for nearly 60 years, noting the state had been granted more than 75 waivers under Republican and Democratic presidents. Among the waivers include rules to increase the share of electric vehicles each year among all new car and truck sales, as well as mandates that auto companies introduce progressively cleaner vehicles. She described the waivers as a 'quadruple win', benefiting public health, air quality, drivers' pockets and the economy as a whole. 'These waivers are not new or novel,' Harris said in an interview. 'California has historically been innovators in systems to help produce cleaner air and stymying California's ability is a direct attack on our ability to limit pollution and health harming pollutants in the air.' She added revoking the waivers would immediately lead to an increase in pollution on the nation's roadways. More than a dozen states follow California's lead on emissions standards, according to the California air resources board. The standards now cover nearly 40% of new light-duty vehicle registrations and more than a quarter of heavy-duty vehicles like trucks across the entire US. Automakers have largely followed California's emissions standards as well so they can continue to sell cars there, as the state equates to the fourth-largest economy on the planet. Newsom upped the ante in the nation's environmental future in 2020, declaring his state would ban the sale of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Eleven states have also joined California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the 2035 deadline, a reality that has spooked major car companies. Joe Biden's administration approved the plan at the end of his term. Trump, however – a vehement opponent to many of the nation's climate efforts – has vowed to see them reversed. 'California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,' Trump said during his campaign last year. 'I will terminate that.' Newsom on Wednesday cast the battle as a nail in the coffin for the American car industry and decades of public health advancements. 'The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean-air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,' he challenged Republicans in a statement. 'Will you side with China or America?' The Senate's decision may have sweeping effects far beyond the state's borders. Harris said she recently pulled up pictures of what air quality looked like in cities around the country in the 1960s before the Clean Air Act, the seminal environmental law that regulates the nation's air quality, was in effect. She described normal levels of smog in California as blanketing the state similar to the apocalyptic clouds of wildfire smoke that have descended during recent fire seasons. The American Lung Association also found last month that Los Angeles remained the country's smoggiest city for the 25th time in 26 years of tracking, despite decades of improvements in air quality. 'I think we have forgotten about what our air used to look like,' Harris said. 'We take it for granted because it's a policy that's been around for so long we don't really recognize those direct benefits. 'There is still a long way to go, we have not succeeded in fully cleaning up our air yet,' she added. 'These types of policies help ensure we are moving in a positive direction.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator Cory Booker says he will not accept any donations from Elon Musk
A leading elected Democrat rejected the idea of taking campaign donations from tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose spectacular fallout with former ally Donald Trump has roiled American politics. Trump on Saturday said Musk will face 'serious consequences' if he moves to support Democratic political candidates in any upcoming elections, following a public rift between the two men over Musk's staunch opposition to the cost of US president's planned piece of landmark domestic legislation. But Cory Booker, a senator for New Jersey, scotched any idea he would take any Musk cash. 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign,' Booker told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. Related: Trump warns Musk of 'very serious consequences' if he backs Democrats But Booker added, referring to the Republicans budget bill that Musk has criticized, 'I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know, sound the alarm, treat this like a Paul Revere moment.' Booker added: 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans.' The senator's comments come as Democrats wrestle with the how to turn the dramatic fallout between Musk and Trump into opportunity. Musk turned his back on the party in 2022 and contributed $270m to Trump's re-election campaign in 2024, providing crucial help in the Republican's eventual victory. As the Trump-Musk feud intensified on Thursday, Musk posted on X: 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.,' clearly referring to any politician who supported Trump's budget bill. Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman, reportedly talked with one of Musk's 'senior confidants' on last week about whether Musk might now want to help the Democrats in the midterm elections next year. 'Having Elon speak out against the irrational tariff policy, against the deficit exploding Trump bill, and the anti-science and anti-immigrant agenda can help check Trump's unconstitutional administration,' Khanna told Semafor. 'I look forward to Elon turning his fire against Maga Republicans instead of Democrats in 2026,' Khanna, who has argued that his party was unwise to alienate Musk, told the outlet. However, leftwing politicians, including Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have publicly pictured Musk as what voters should be against: powerful wealthy billionaires seeking influence through politics. Sanders told CNN's State of the Union Sunday that Musk had 'evolved' into an extremist since he voted for Obama in 2008. 'Over the years he has developed into a rightwing extremist. The issue and drama over what happened last week is that we are living, increasingly, in an oligarchic society. Musk said: 'Hey listen, I spent $270m dollars to get you elected. I bought you the presidency …' 'This is a fight between oligarchs. It's a fight about power among the few, and it's really an embarrassment for those of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law,' Sanders added. Musk said last month that he planned to spend 'a lot less' on political campaigns as he scaled back and ultimately exited his time in government, where Trump had tasked him with massively slashing federal spending and jobs. Related: Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics 'In terms of political spending I'm going to do a lot less in the future,' Musk told a Bloomberg forum in Doha. Asked why, he responded: 'I think I've done enough.' But Musk's opposition to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful' bill budget proposal, calling it an 'disgusting abomination', by definition puts him in relative proximity to Democratic positions on that issue. Booker was asked if agreed with Musk about the planned legislation that Trump has made a centerpiece of his administration. 'I agree that it's going to saddle this country with trillions of dollars of debt, endanger our entire economy … This is a morally wrong bill. And it's definitely, definitely an economically wrong bill as well.' 'This is not about right or left, it's about right or wrong,' he added. 'And I welcome Elon Musk, not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, to get involved right now in a more substantive way and putting pressure on congresspeople and senators to not do this.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA set to claim power-plant emissions ‘not significant' – but study says otherwise
Donald Trump's administration is set to claim planet-heating pollution spewing from US power plants is so globally insignificant it should be spared any sort of climate regulation. But, in fact, the volume of these emissions is stark – if the US power sector were a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reportedly drafted a plan to delete all restrictions on greenhouse gases coming from coal and gas-fired power plants in the US because they 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' and are a tiny and shrinking share of the overall global emissions that are driving the climate crisis. However, a new analysis shows that the emissions from American fossil-fuel plants are prominent on a global scale, having contributed 5% of all planet-heating pollution since 1990. If it were a country, the US power sector would be the sixth largest emitter in the world, eclipsing the annual emissions from all sources in Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Canada, among other nations. 'That seems rather significant to me,' said Jason Schwartz, co-author of the report from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. 'If this administration wants to argue only China has significant emissions they can try to do that, but a court will review that, and under any reasonable interpretation will find that US power plant emissions are significant too.' Fossil fuel-derived electricity is responsible for the second largest source of emissions in the US, behind transportation. No country in history has caused more carbon pollution than America, and while its power sector's emissions have declined somewhat in recent years, largely through a market-based decline in heavily-polluting coal, it remains a major driver of the climate crisis. The cocktail of toxins emitted by power plants have a range of impacts, the NYU analysis points out. A single year of emissions in 2022 will cause 5,300 deaths in the US from air pollution over many decades, along with climate impacts that will result in global damages of $370bn, including $225bn in global health damages and $75bn in lost labor productivity. 'We were surprised when we ran the numbers just how quickly these deaths start tallying up,' said Schwartz. 'All of these harms stack up on top of each other. Climate change will be the most important public health issue this century and we can't just ignore the US power sector's contribution to that public health crisis.' The Trump administration, though, is looking to dismantle a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The move comes as part of a wider deregulatory blitz upon a wide range of rules aimed at protecting clean air and water; on Thursday, the EPA also confirmed a plan to delay the implementation of Clean Air Act protections against methane and other harmful pollutants from fossil fuel production. Removing these protections will prove not only dangerous, but also costly, said Christopher Frey, who was a science advisor to Joe Biden and led a clean air EPA committee under Barack Obama. 'A 'do nothing' policy to rollback greenhouse gas emission standards is not really a policy to do nothing,' said Frey, now an associate dean at North Carolina State University's college of engineering. 'It is a policy to force us to have to do more later to compensate for not taking preventive action sooner. It is a policy to knowingly cause more damage for folks in the not so distant future to contend with.' The power plant plan has endured a tortuous history, having been first put forward by Barack Obama's administration, only to be halted by the first Trump administration and also the supreme court. Joe Biden's administration last year rolled out a more limited version of the plan aimed at satisfying the supreme court's ruling. This version is now targeted for repeal by the Trump administration, expected in the coming weeks ahead of a public comment period and further expected legal challenges. Despite pointing to declining power plant emissions in its justification, the Trump administration has simultaneously attempted to increase these emissions by demanding a revival of the coal industry, boosting oil and gas drilling and axing incentives for cleaner energy. 'President Trump promised to kill the clean power plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,' said Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA. 'In reconsidering the Biden-Harris rule that ran afoul of supreme court case law, we are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.' Trump has long claimed that the US should not engage in international climate talks because its emissions footprint is negligible, noted Judith Enck, who served as an EPA regional administrator under Obama. Meanwhile, his administration has cracked down on states' ability to regulate emissions, she said. 'Apparently there is no level of governance where we can have these regulations,' Enck said. 'It's a completely illogical argument: There's not a lot of emissions so don't worry, but yet it we have to block every attempt to control them at the state, federal, international levels?' Experts have questioned whether pollution needs to be deemed 'significant' in order to be subjected to the Clean Air Act, which has been used to regulate even proportionally small levels of environmental toxins. 'There is absolutely no legal basis for them to propose a pollutant like CO2 has to meet some sort of significance, they are making this up, this is make-believe law,' said Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA's office of air and radiation during Biden's term. 'This is a sort of cheat code to try to neutralize any tool they fear might be used to reduce greenhouse gases.' The climate crisis is a global problem of the shared commons that experts say requires all countries, particularly the largest emitters, to remedy. Goffman said the Trump administration is attempting to reject this basic tenet. 'They are trying to write one of the biggest historical emitters in the world a get-out-of-jail-free card,' he said.
