How Trump's policies could impact Cleveland tourist attractions
Foreign anti-American sentiments fueled by President Trump's policies have caught the attention of Northeast Ohio tourist attractions.
Why it matters: Cultural institutions like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Cleveland Museum of Art pride themselves on attracting international visitors, but per recent data shows their travel to the U.S. fell off in March.
That is particularly true with tourists from Canada, where Trump's threat of tariffs and insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state has sparked disdain for all things American.
By the numbers: Advance bookings for Canada-U.S. flights in April–September are down over 70% compared to this time last year, per aviation data firm OAG.
Overall foreign arrivals into major U.S. airports tumbled in mid- to late March compared to last year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, suggesting a sudden reluctance to visit the U.S. isn't a purely Canadian phenomenon.
Zoom in: The Cleveland Museum of Art doesn't have data for its recent numbers of foreign visitors, but is keeping a close eye on tourism trends, a spokesperson tells Axios.
Meanwhile, the Rock Hall reports seeing a 30% drop in Canadian visitors during the first three months of 2025 compared to last year.
Roughly 4% of the museum's half a million annual visitors come from the Great White North.
What they're saying:"As the busy summer travel season approaches, we're more excited than ever to welcome visitors from all over the world through our doors," Rock Hall CEO Greg Harris said in a statement.
"Between our new 'SNL' exhibit opening Memorial Day Weekend, and Rock Hall Live summer concert series there is no shortage of things going on here at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame."
Fewer Canadian visitors could also affect Cedar Point in Sandusky, which is close enough to Canada to see it on a clear day.
Cedar Point doesn't release statistics on foreign visitors. Spokesperson Tony Clark told Spectrum News 1 the amusement park is "hopeful Canadians, and roller coaster fans across the globe, will make a visit to Cedar Point this season," which starts in May.
The bottom line: Trump's attempt to re-order the global economy is an ongoing saga that could affect international sentiment and travel to the U.S. long-term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
SALT Caucus, White House zero in on key agreement in Trump megabill
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states and the Trump administration are zeroing in on an agreement for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has been one of the key hangups dogging the party's 'big, beautiful bill.' Multiple sources familiar with the SALT talks told The Hill that the House members and Trump administration officials are closing in on a plan for SALT, but it must be sold to Senate Republicans before being finalized. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who has been the lead Senate GOP negotiator on SALT, told The Hill 'There's a tentative deal between the SALT and White House, but not the Senate [which is] still talking through that.' One source familiar with the SALT talks, however, cautioned against saying there is a 'deal' on the table because Senate Republicans — who have been opposed to increasing the deduction cap — still have to sign off on the terms. 'Having learned my lesson with the House language, the Senate needs to have buy in here so I'm waiting to see what their fingerprints look like,' the source said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has met with SALT Caucus members in recent days, is scheduled to join Senate Republicans at their lunch on Friday, two sources confirmed to The Hill, a gathering that could include discussion regarding SALT. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who did not attend SALT talks at the Treasury Department Thursday afternoon, said he 'heard of a deal' that includes a $40,000 deduction cap — the same number in the House bill — for five years, which would snapback to $10,000 for the next five years 'and then in perpetuity.' LaLota, who has been one of the most vocal SALT Caucus members, said he is opposed to that proposal. 'I'm a hard no on that,' he told reporters, adding that the proposal 'just affirms the very thing I've been against for so long.' It remains unclear if the plan LaLota outlined is the same proposal that the SALT Caucus members and administration are closing in on. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for his part, on Friday sounded bullish on a SALT breakthrough. 'A lot of progress yesterday,' he told reporters. 'I think we'll get that resolved in a manner that everybody can live with. No one will be delighted about it, but that's kind of the way this works around here.' The news of an impending agreement is a significant development in the long-stalled negotiations over SALT, which had been one of the thorniest issues Republicans have had to deal with. The House bill included a $40,000 deduction cap — quadruple the $10,000 in current law — for individuals making $500,000 or less. Senate Republicans, however, enraged House SALT Caucus members by chopping that down, proposing a $10,000 deduction cap. Since then, the two camps have been engaged in fierce negotiations. In recent days, those talks have largely centered on keeping the $40,000 deduction cap from the House bill intact but changing the $500,000 income threshold and indexing for inflation. The administration, on behalf of Senate Republicans, offered the SALT Caucus a plan on Thursday that had a total value of $200 billion, far less than the $344 billion value in the House bill, according to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a key member of the SALT Caucus. Several lawmakers in the group, however, rejected that proposal.
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court, in birthright citizenship case, limits judges' use of nationwide injunctions
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reining in federal judges' ability to issue sweeping orders that have in recent years stymied implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations alike. In a widely anticipated decision stemming from President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the high court said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent. The court said it will let the Trump administration partially enforce the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order was constitutional. "Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The birthright citizenship case The court's ruling came in a trio of emergency appeals by the Trump administration arising out of the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, which says that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of Mr. Trump's policy nationwide while legal challenges brought by 22 states, immigrants' rights groups and seven individuals moved forward. But instead of swiftly deciding whether to grant the Trump administration emergency relief, the Supreme Court held arguments on whether to restrict the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions, which are judicial orders that prevent the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country and against anyone. The court did not consider or rule on the merits of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship plan, and its decision means that the executive order cannot be enforced against the states, organizations and individuals who challenged its legality. The Trump administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy. The dispute over the president's attempt to unwind birthright citizenship has become intertwined with the administration's battle against nationwide injunctions. These sweeping orders have frustrated both Democratic and Republican presidents seeking to implement their agendas among gridlock in Congress, and the fight over them has been simmering for several years. The Congressional Research Service identified 86 nationwide injunctions that were issued during Mr. Trump's first term and 28 granted while former President Joe Biden was in office. As to the president's second term, the Congressional Research Service found 17 nationwide injunctions were issued during the first 100 days, though the Trump administration estimated last month there have been far more — at least 40 of these orders, and most coming from the same five judicial districts. Some of the justices have suggested in past writings that the Supreme Court would have to clarify whether nationwide injunctions are allowed at all, and members on both ideological sides of the bench have been critical of them. But the orders that blocked Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship executive order landed the issue before the Supreme Court earlier this year, though the administration has railed against them in requests to enforce its transgender military ban, fire thousands of federal probationary workers and move forward with mass layoffs of government employees. The president's executive order on birthright citizenship was one of the first that he signed on his first day back in office and is among several directives that seek to target migrants who are in the U.S. The Trump administration's immigration policies have led to high-profile clashes with the courts — namely Mr. Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. While the 14th Amendment has for more than a century been understood to guarantee citizenship to all people born in the U.S., Mr. Trump's order denied birthright citizenship to children born to a mother who is unlawfully present in the U.S. or who is lawfully present on a temporary basis; or whose father is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident. The president's order directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to children born after Feb. 19. More than half-a-dozen lawsuits challenging the measure were filed in courts throughout the country before it took effect, and three federal district courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts each blocked the government from implementing the birthright citizenship order. Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, then refused requests by the Trump administration to partly block the lower court orders. The Justice Department filed emergency appeals of the three decisions with the Supreme Court in mid-March and asked it to limit enforcement of the birthright citizenship order to 28 states and individuals who are not involved in the ongoing cases. The administration said that at a minimum, the Supreme Court should allow agencies to develop and issue public guidance regarding implementation of Mr. Trump's executive order while proceedings continue. Like other requests made to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department took aim at the breadth of the injunctions issued by the district courts, which are nationwide in scope and cover states and individuals who are not involved in the litigation before them. The president and his allies have attacked judges for issuing nationwide injunctions in the slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's policies, and even called for some to be impeached. The Justice Department said in a filing that universal injunctions have reached "epidemic" proportions since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January. "Those injunctions thwart the executive branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. "They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level." But the plaintiffs in the cases challenging the directive urged the Supreme Court to leave the district court orders in place. In a filing with the Supreme Court, officials from 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco called the Trump administration's request "remarkable," as it would allow the government to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship while the legal challenges move forward and render them "deportable on birth and at risk of statelessness. The states argued that the Trump administration seeks to violate binding Supreme Court precedent that recognized birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congo and Rwanda will sign a US-mediated peace deal to end the conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades-long deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, which is due to be signed in Washington on Friday afternoon, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by U.S. President Donald Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union and Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. Peace deal not likely to quickly end the conflict Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it's defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23. But M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group hasn't been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance — known by its French acronym AFC — that includes M23, told The Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with the AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal doesn't concern the rebels. Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo's minerals, a trend analysts say might make it difficult for Rwanda to not be involved in any way in the region. A team of U.N. experts alleged in a December report that "fraudulent extraction, trade and export to Rwanda of (Congo) minerals benefited both AFC/M23 and the Rwandan economy.' Rwanda has denied any involvement in Congo's minerals. The deal is also at the heart of the U.S. government's push to counter China in Africa. Chinese companies have been for many years one of the key players in Congo's minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo. U.S. role in ending the conflict Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese government. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decades-long conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence, but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' ___ Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. Chinedu Asadu, The Associated Press
