Question

Starbucks is closing after supporting Israel in the current war

Comments

While many people are attempting to boycott corporations like Starbucks that support Israel, locations are not closing down because of this effort.

While there are quite a few locations that have closed down over the last couple of years, it's more due to factors such as discouraging union activities.

It's easy to correlate the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict with other events like stores closing down.

Answer 1

Starbucks is not closing after supporting Israel in the current war. It's not closing as a whole, only some certain Starbucks are closing or are closed because they aren't receiving revenue due to the boycotts. It has led to an amount of workers to be laid off in some counties that are taking action. Therefore this title the way it's stated is misleading and is an example of spreading misinformation. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/business/starbucks-layoffs-middle-east.html#:~:text=Since%20the%20Israel%2DHamas%20war,for%20boycotts%20in%20numerous%20regions.

Comments

Love that you used The NY Times for your source in this fact check. Pointing out misinformation and providing a more reasonable explanation is super important.

Answer 2

Starbucks is not closing down for supporting Israel. Starbucks have closed a few locations across the country, but not in correlation to the war. Starbucks actually have closed a few locations illegally and is being asked to reopen them https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/feds-accuse-starbucks-breaking-law-by-closing-stores-discourage-union-organizing/F6YGCRVLGFHM5NTCT5PQFDAZHU/

Comments

I think it's good to mention that there may be completely different reasons as to why Starbucks is closing down, such as union busting, and there's not necessarily a correlation between the war and the shut downs. However, it would be good to find a source that proves there being no correlation between the two. As for your source, it seems pretty reliable for a local news network based on their "about" page. Next time maybe you could add where they're getting their nation-wide information from. Also, does this mean you believe the claim to be false, or simply exaggerated/misleading? I'm curious what you would frame this as.

Answer 3

This headline is very misleading because although Starbucks has closed some stores, and laid off employees due to the boycott, the company has not gone under and there are still tons of Starbucks coffee shops across the globe. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/business/starbucks-middle-east-layoffs/index.html

Comments

You make a really good point! The headline could easily give readers the wrong impression that Starbucks is shutting down completely, when in reality it’s just facing regional challenges and layoffs. I like that you clarified the situation and backed it up with a reliable CNN source. It’s a good reminder of how important it is to read beyond the headline to understand the full context.

Answer 4

This headline is false and misleading as Starbucks has had some closures and has had to lay of employees due to boycotts relating to the war, but the whole company has not had to close due to this. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/business/starbucks-middle-east-layoffs/index.html

Comments

I'm curious what your argument would be if you were to go into further detail on how the war and boycotts have to do with the closures and layoffs. I agree that the above claim is misleading because in reality there are only a few eliminations happening under Starbucks's huge span of business. Seems as though CNN is middle to left leaning on the political bias school, so that's a good source to use for this argument. I wonder about the personal bias about the person who wrote this specific article. You could also add some specific evidence from the article you found.

Answer 5

The company Starbucks is not closing because of this reason. This statement is false and people might boycott starbucks but it wouldn’t that much power to completely shut down a business that’s been running for such a long time.

Comments

Do you have a source?

Answer 6

This claim is not true. It is true that Starbucks is being slightly affected by the boycotts that consumers are holding against it because of its aid to Israel in the war, and some branches may be going out of business. However, the corporation is not completely shutting down as a whole. After looking at the cited source from Time magazine, I cannot find any evidence of your claim. In fact, the article you cited has a statement from the co-founder of Strive Asset Management, Anson Frericks, saying a short boycott won't have much of an impact on the long-term cash flow at all. On the other hand, Brian Niccol, chairman and chief executive officer of Starbucks, released a message on the 25th of September 2025 saying that Starbucks will be eliminating "non-retail" partners and expenses. Some locations will be shut down as well. Nowhere in the statement did Niccol state that the layoffs and closings are because of the war, but according to the New York Times, Starbucks faced "significant impact on traffic and sales in the region" as stated by chief executive Laxman Narasimhan. Overall this claim is ultimately false.

https://about.starbucks.com/press/2025/message-from-brian-an-important-update/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/business/starbucks-layoffs-middle-east.html#:~:text=Since%20the%20Israel%2DHamas%20war,for%20boycotts%20in%20numerous%20regions.

Comments

I think The NY Times article is a very reliable source due to its credibility and I liked how you not only looked at that article but then expanded on it and dove further into what other articles/people had to say about it. One thing I am a bit skeptical of is the possible bias of Brian Niccol. Is it possible he may be under exaggerating the reason why they are eliminating expenses?

Answer 7

Think of this as your investigation log. Answer each question to explain what you discovered and how you got there.

1. What I found was that Starbucks is shutting down around 200 stores due to a one billion dollar reconstruction plan (Forbes.com). This does not necissarily come straight from their stance on the war in Gaza, but the boycotting of Starbucks has seemed to have a substantial financial impact. These stores have been sited as "underperforming", with over 50 being in New York alone. There were other factors sited in an article by Forbes I found, stating that a poll on LinkedIn suggested that 51% of poll respondents shared their aversion to Starbucks coffee was primarily due to the price. As stated in a CNN article, the CEO of Starbucks sent a letter to employees amidst protests of the stores that states '“We see protestors influenced by misrepresentation on social media of what we stand for,” Narasimhan said in a letter to Starbucks employees and customers' (https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/business/starbucks-israel-war-union). The CEO also said "“We saw a negative impact to our business in the Middle East,” he said, adding that “events in the Middle East also had an impact in the U.S., driven by misperceptions about our position.”' (https://time.com/6694986/israel-palestine-bds-boycotts-starbucks-mcdonalds/). Again, though the boycott isn't a direct cause for the store closures, they have a definite effect. Information about this situation does come from reputable sources, such as Forbes and CNN. This is also a recent claim, and the articles come from the past year, as tensions in the Gaza strip have risen. Multiple news sources are covering this idea because it is such a powerhouse of a company in todays economy, that their success is important to many people. The quotes come directly from Starbucks website or Time Magazine, which is reputable. Websites like CNN can oftentimes have a bias, especially in a situation like this where sides are very polarized. The important aspect of this article is that there is a direct effect from the boycotting, but it is not the only effect. The heading does align with this article, it just exagerrates the contents, which is a part of journalism.