UR MAG

The Spaghetti Warehousein downtown Akron, where pasta, pizzas, sandwiches and more are served in nostalgia-filled surroundings inside a former B.F. Goodrich building, is set to close May 17.

The restaurant posted on social media that this is "a goodbye that feels bittersweet, but also a celebration of everything we’ve shared."

Michael Kim, president of Spaghetti Warehouse parent company The One Esca Group, said the main factor in his decision to close the restaurant is declining traffic coming into downtown Akron. .

Kim said the restaurant at 510 S. Main St. – known in its Goodrich days as Building 33 – was taking in $2 million in annual sales prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Last year we didn't even hit a mill," he said. "This year, it hasn't started that well, either. Some of it admittedly has to do with the weather, we've had a brutal winter. But the traffic has gone down so dramatically. The number of University of Akron students is starting to deplete. It's a combination, a lack of events driving people to downtown, fewer students at UA. The decrease in our sales has been quite dramatic. We probably lost half of our clientele."

GPD Group plans to move into Spaghetti Warehouse building

The Spaghetti Warehouse's lease on the buildingis set to expire in 2027. Neighboring GPD Group, an architecture and engineering firm,announced this past Decemberthat it had plans to use the structure for its own operations.

Representatives from GPD Group could not be reached for comment on whether the closure of Spaghetti Warehouse would accelerate its plans. GPD Group has more than 900 employees across 14 offices.

Advertisement

Final week will include lunch, dinner through last day

Kim said he wanted to give customers one final week to come and have a meal at the restaurant, which has been opened in Akron in 1993. The restaurant will offer a reduced menu, serving lunch from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and dinner from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. The restaurant will operate in a "fast casual model," where customers will order at the register, and then sit anywhere they wish in the restaurant and have their food brought out.

Kim said the timetable is designed to provide employees a chance to seek work elsewhere before the restaurant closes.

Kim said it is possible that Spaghetti Warehouse will find another location in the region despite unsuccessful searching so far.

"For about a year, year and a half, when we heard about GPD taking over the building, we started looking around," Kim said. "But we just could not find something we loved. But we are always open to listening."

There are two other Spaghetti Warehouse locations in Ohio, in Toledo and Dayton.

Reporter April Helms can be reached at ahelms@thebeaconjournal.com

This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal:Spaghetti Warehouse closing in Akron, blames decline in customers

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary intends to resign on Tuesday, two sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

His departure was in the works after he clashed publicly with lawmakers, major pharmaceutical companies and President Donald Trump himself. He was scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

FDA vaccine chief Dr. Vinay Prasad to leave agency next month

Makary, who is a surgeon by training, gained notoriety during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing against masks for children and vaccine mandates, and criticizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for citing Israeli data in recommending boosters rather than conducting its own research.

Since taking office in March 2025, the commissioner has focused his efforts on reshaping vaccine policy in the U.S. and transforming American diets.

Makary appeared in a video on X alongside Kennedy when the secretary announced in May 2025 theremoval of the COVID-19 vaccinefrom the CDC's immunization schedule for "healthy children and pregnant women."

"There's no evidence healthy kids need it today and most countries have stopped recommending it for children," Makary said at the time.

Advertisement

Last year, Makary appeared at a news conference announcing the HHS and FDA would be implementing a series of measures tophase out eight artificial food dyesand colorings from America's food supply by the end of 2026.

Makary said at the time that the agencies are looking to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings and to work with the food industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes used in cereal, ice cream, snacks, yogurts and more -- claiming American children "have been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals."

Makary also supported Kennedy'supdated federal dietary guidelinesearlier this year. The guidelines recommended that Americans limit highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates but also advocated for consuming red meat and full-fat dairy, a reversal of past nutrition guidance.

FDA commissioner explains new labeling guidelines for dyes on food packages

"For decades, we've been fed a corrupt food pyramid that has had a myopic focus on demonizing natural healthy saturated fats, telling you not to eat eggs and steak and ignoring a giant blind spot: refined carbohydrates, refined sugars, ultra-processed foods," Makary said. "In this new guidance, we are telling young people, kids, schools, you don't need to tiptoe around fat and dairy. ... You don't need to push low-fat milk to kids."

In early May, Trump criticized Makary for not moving quickly enough to ​approve flavored vape and nicotine products, according to a report fromThe Wall Street Journal.

Trump's advisers informed him that Makary was delaying the president's effort to "save" vaping," a pledge Trump made on social media during his presidential campaign, according to the Journal.

Florida attorney general James Uthmeier believes the NFL did not go far enough after the league made subtle changes to the language in the Rooney Rule. Uthmeier — who in March demanded theleague suspend the Rooney Rule over “discrimination” concerns— issued an investigative subpoena to the league Wednesday claiming the rule still violates Florida law.

Uthmeier announced the subpoena, and released the full letter he sent to the NFL, in a social-media post Wednesday.

In the letter, Uthmeier said he appreciated how quickly the NFL altered the language of the Rooney Rule, but that the league’s changes invite more questions over the rule and its purpose.

The Rooney Rule, which was adopted by the league in 2023, requires teams to “interview at least one or more diverse candidates before making a new hire.” The policy now applies to a number of roles around the league, including head-coaching jobs, general manager positions and other “football executive jobs,” per the league’s website. Teams are now required to interviewtwo minority candidatesfor those roles.

In his initial statement to the NFL, Uthmeier claimed the Rooney Rule violated Florida law by “requiring race-based considerations in hiring.” He also threatened “enforcement actions against the league for race-based discrimination.”

Advertisement

In response, the NFL quietly altered some of the language in the rule. One of those changes involved making it clear that the team has the final say in which candidate gets hired. Another removed the phrase “aims to increase the number of minorities hired” to read “expands the pool of candidates required.”

In his letter Wednesday, Uthmeier called out that edited phrase, saying making hiring decisions based on race violates Florida law.

Uthmeier also called out three other NFL policies which seek to hire, train or mentor women or minority candidates. Uthmeier claimed those policies also violated Florida law, which prohibits employers from considering race or sex when making hiring decisions.

At the end of his letter, Uthmeier circled back to the NFL’s editing of the Rooney Rule. Uthmeier claimed that by editing those passages, the NFL engaged in “deceptive and unfair business practices.” By claiming it wanted to promote diversity hiring but then removing that language from the Rooney Rule when challenged, the NFL deceived consumers, per Uthmeier’s letter.

It’s unclear if or how the NFL respond to Uthmeier’s subpoena. When NFL commissioner Roger Goodell spoke about the issue at the league meetings in late March, he said there wereno plans to drop the rule, per the Associated Press.

"The Rooney Rule has been around a long time," Goodell said at the time. "We've evolved it, changed it. We'll continue to do that."

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would haltPresident Donald Trump'swar with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump's war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,'" Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party's tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate,a war powers resolutionwould have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it doesnot need congressional authorizationfor the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during ahearing on Tuesdaythat the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Advertisement

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday's resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

By Elizabeth Piper

Britain’s Prime Minister Starmer delivers a speech at a Labour Party event in London

LONDON, May 12 (Reuters) - Keir Starmer was once hailed as the leader who would bring pragmatism and stability to Britain after years of political chaos. But the very lack of ideology that propelled him to power has left him fighting for his political survival after less than two years as prime minister.

After guiding the Labour Party into power in 2024 with one of the biggest parliamentary majorities in Britain's modern history, Starmer ‌favoured the art of the possible, rather than setting out a clear vision of a future Britain.

That, more than 20 party insiders said, has left the former human rights lawyer buffeted by competing Labour factions and misunderstood by wary voters, ‌many of whom came to see him as indecisive and lacking charisma.

Now, deeply unpopular among voters for perceived broken promises and policy U-turns, Starmer has hit the worst crisis of his tenure - triggered by the wholesale rejection of Labour in elections last week to local councils in England and to the parliaments in Scotland and Wales.

At ​a cabinet meeting on Tuesday he pledged to fight on, but a growing number of Labour lawmakers have called on him to set a timetable for his departure, saying they cannot enter a national election due in 2029 with him at the helm.

FEAR OF FARAGE

Starmer's government faced a difficult inheritance in July 2024 - high borrowing and weak economic growth, battered public services and a pre-election promise not to hike income tax or VAT that left little fiscal room for manoeuvre.

But almost from the start his policies have too often unravelled, resignations and sackings from his team have followed, leaving the remaining trusted aides around him struggling to help him offer the country a clear narrative of what his government wants to do to "change Britain".

Catherine West, a lawmaker who broke cover at the weekend to try to force others to mount a challenge against the ‌prime minister, said her main motivation was fear that Starmer leading Labour into the next ⁠national election would open the way for Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK to win.

"I would do anything to stop Farage," she told Reuters.

It was never meant to be this way.

After becoming a Labour lawmaker in 2015 at the age of 52, Starmer was elected leader just five years later, inheriting the party after its worst election showing since 1935 under veteran left-winger Jeremy Corbyn.

He used his experience of running ⁠the Crown Prosecution Service, the public agency that advises police and prosecutes criminal cases, to try to modernise the Labour Party, and ultimately make it more electable.

"Everything we offer will be built on a bedrock of economic stability and a plan for growth," his spokesperson said at the time.

Initially it worked. His newly re-fashioned Labour won a large majority in Britain's 650-seat parliament, but analysts were quick to point out that the party's victory was wide but shallow - Labour actually secured one of its lowest vote shares ever and the win was highly dependent on tactical voting.

After years of infighting, Brexit ​battles ​and five prime ministers in eight years, the Conservatives had all but self-destructed.

John Curtice, Britain's best-known pollster, said: "All in all this looks more like an ​election the Conservatives lost than one Labour won."

Advertisement

FRUSTRATION SET IN OVER ACHIEVEMENTS

Starting from a fragile base, Starmer ‌has not been helped by the government's cautious approach to policy and a narrative that Britain's many problems, from lack of housing to anaemic growth, will all take time to fix.

In power, Starmer's government has struggled first to define its policy agenda and then to implement it - growth has continued to sputter, illegal migrants keep arriving, and the creaking health system has thrown up more challenges.

Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, appeared to admit to a parliamentary committee in December that Labour was underprepared for government, explaining that in opposition it had diverted its limited resources to the election campaign.

And several ministers said the situation was worsened by former Conservative administrations leaving what they called a "black hole" in the public finances, due to heavy borrowing to offset the hits from the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Starmer has tried to talk up his government's achievements - improving working conditions, reducing health service waiting lists and overseeing an economic environment in which interest rates could be cut.

But despite several resets, a former aide said Starmer's approach had still failed to offer "a destination" from which ‌voters could understand or make sense of his decisions.

Instead, many voters cannot see beyond gaffes over donations, policy U-turns and the appointment of Labour veteran ​Peter Mandelson as Washington ambassador despite his known connections to the late convicted U.S. sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

BLAME GAME SET IN

The frustration inside his Downing Street office ​has become more palpable, though some aides blame what they call a hostile right-wing media.

He has lost some of his ​closest advisers, including his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney over the Mandelson scandal, and after sacking the top official at the foreign office his relationship with Britain's civil service has soured.

Starmer has done better on ‌the international stage.

On Russia's war against Ukraine, he has been praised by some other European leaders for ​helping to spearhead the "coalition of the willing" of nations ready to ​help in the event of a peace deal. Alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, he has also tried to spearhead talks on reopening the Strait of Hormuz amid the Iran conflict.

Initially there was some success, too, in winning round U.S. President Donald Trump - offering him a second state visit to Britain and praising his efforts to bring peace in Ukraine and an end to other conflicts.

But that was soon replaced by a torrent of jibes against him from the U.S. leader, who said he ​was "no Winston Churchill" after Starmer refused to draw Britain into the war on Iran.

Domestically his tenure ‌has seen a fracturing of Britain's traditional two-party system, with populist insurgents Reform gaining a strong foothold across the nation, while on the left the Greens have also advanced.

While Labour membership numbers have plummeted, Reform's have risen, with ​more than 270,000 people signed up. It was that threat Starmer had hoped would seal support for him, telling his Labour Party in February the battle with Reform was the "fight of our lives".

Three months on, he faces ​a battle just to stay in that fight.

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper, additional reporting by Andrew MacAskill and Alistair Smout; Editing by Alex Richardson)