A wave of anti-ICE activism that swept through portions of the restaurant industry earlier this year appears to have produced an unintended consequence: many customers simply took their business elsewhere.
In January 2026, a number of restaurant owners across the country chose to publicly oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, particularly the administration’s crackdown on criminal illegal aliens. Some establishments participated in demonstrations, posted anti-ICE messages, or pledged portions of their sales to immigration advocacy organizations.
What many of them discovered, however, was that customers don’t always appreciate being lectured about politics while trying to enjoy a meal.
One of the most visible examples came from Kingston, New York, where Anton Kinloch, owner of the craft cocktail bar Lone Wolf, posted a sign outside his business that read: “We love ICE in drinks. We don’t love ICE in real life. Solidarity always.”
Rather than closing his restaurant as part of a broader protest effort, Kinloch and his wife opted to remain open and donate part of their revenue to a local immigrant advocacy group.
The message quickly generated attention—but not necessarily the kind they were hoping for.
Within hours, the sign was reportedly destroyed and left damaged in the street. According to reports, it appeared to have been run over by a vehicle. The incident highlighted the growing frustration many Americans feel toward businesses that openly take sides in highly divisive political debates.
The backlash didn’t stop there.
After posting messages supporting illegal immigrants and criticizing immigration enforcement efforts, Kinloch reported receiving sharp criticism online. Customers unfollowed the business on social media, left negative comments, and expressed disappointment with the restaurant’s decision to wade into partisan politics.
Other restaurant owners experienced similar reactions.
In New York City, chef Jamie Kenyon of Bottino posted a pro-immigration message and announced plans to donate a percentage of sales to immigration-related causes. According to Kenyon, the response was immediate, with critics flooding the restaurant’s phone lines and social media pages.
Some customers simply made it clear they would no longer patronize the business.
“One less place to visit,” one commenter wrote.
Others questioned why restaurants were choosing to involve themselves in contentious political issues rather than focusing on serving customers.
The controversy wasn’t limited to New York.
In Chicago, a dispute at Pizza Matta gained national attention after co-owner Jason Vincent reportedly refused service to a customer he accused of supporting ICE policies. The disagreement followed months of political arguments on social media and eventually escalated into a confrontation inside the restaurant.
The episode became yet another example of how political polarization is increasingly spilling into everyday life—and into businesses that traditionally sought to welcome customers of all viewpoints.
For many conservatives, the backlash against these restaurants reflects a simple reality: Americans are growing tired of being subjected to political activism everywhere they go.
Whether it’s entertainment, sports, corporate boardrooms, or neighborhood restaurants, many voters believe businesses risk alienating large portions of their customer base when they choose political advocacy over customer service.
President Trump’s immigration enforcement policies remain broadly popular among many Republicans and independent voters who support stronger border security and the removal of criminal illegal aliens from the country.
As a result, businesses that openly oppose those efforts may find themselves learning an expensive lesson.
In today’s economy, consumers have choices—and many are increasingly willing to spend their dollars at establishments that focus on food and service rather than political messaging.
For restaurant owners who decided to turn their businesses into platforms for activism, the public response suggests that strategy may have come with a hefty price tag.
