Business
The Restaurant That Started Panda Express

This orange chicken has not been waiting for you on the steam table. It has not been bouncing and sweating in the darkness of a clamshell container while you wheel your luggage to the gate.
At Panda Inn, the Pasadena restaurant that started Panda Express, the orange chicken is made to order, strewed with whole dried chiles, scallions and a few threads of orange zest. It arrives craggy and glistening on a blue stoneware plate.
Is it good? Trick question! It is sticky, and it is familiar. It is relentlessly crunchy, with a flatly precise and habit-forming ratio of sweetness to acidity to heat. It is better, though not dramatically different from the one that waits on the steam table — always there, always waiting — but sometimes presentation can be everything.
Orange chicken, all dressed up, reminds me of when my parents set out cloth napkins and silverware while unpacking boxes of takeout, transferring everything to serving plates (yes, even pizza). I used to find this absolutely unhinged, but now I see it as a tender gesture that underscored the luxury of their taking the night off from cooking — they did it so rarely.
When the Cherng family opened Panda Inn in 1973, it was a popular Chinese restaurant that catered to the neighborhood. Early menus from the 1970s and ’80s included a bone-in tangerine-peel chicken, sizzling beef hot plates and a “Chinese Pasta” section of noodle dishes.
It was a nice, sit-down restaurant that also did a bit of takeout and catering. It appealed to local families, but also local developers, who asked the owners to come up with a restaurant concept for the expansion of the Glendale Galleria mall. That restaurant was Panda Express.
Panda Express developed its orange chicken in 1987 and, depending on whom you ask, the dish was either the natural evolution of tangerine-peel chicken or a lightning invention of Andy Kao, a chef for the chain. Either way, it helped to embed a sweet, crowd-pleasing idea of American Chinese cuisine into the global culinary consciousness, now deployed through 2,500 or so fast-food counters.
It also propelled the family’s small business into a privately held empire: Along with Panda Express, the group owns Uncle Tetsu, Hibachi-San and more, and the Cherng family has a net worth of more than $3 billion.
At the end of last year, the company completed a major renovation to the Panda Inn in Pasadena, with a red carpet that leads into a sprawling, glamorous, wood-paneled dining room. The ceilings are high and vaulted. There are lush pots of violet orchids at the host stand and bar.
The vibe would seem clubby if Panda Inn weren’t warm and welcoming, always peppered with shouty families celebrating birthdays and special occasions. On my most recent visit, an impeccably well-dressed man in his 70s enjoyed a multicourse meal on his own, while the two men next to me chatted in Armenian over beers, kung pao chicken and sushi.
Why is sushi on the menu? Because people love sushi, and because honey walnut shrimp was begging to be converted into a sloppy but delightful roll, but also because the restaurant’s founder and first chef, Ming-Tsai Cherng, lived and worked for some years in Yokohama’s Chinatown.
Why Taiwanese popcorn chicken and stone bowls of Taiwanese braised beef on rice? Because in the 1950s, Mr. Cherng worked as a chef at the Grand Hotel in Taipei, Taiwan.
You’re not thinking about all this as you sit down for a big meal at one of the round tables for 12, spinning the lazy susan with glee until the dish you want most is finally in front of you. But Panda Inn in Pasadena isn’t just a place for Panda Express superfans to come and pay their respects; it’s a devoted corporate flagship — a grand, Disneyfied spin through the family’s story that reframes this restaurant as proof of the American dream.
On the newly designed menu, there’s a photo of Ming-Tsai Cherng, born in Yangzhou, wearing a cook’s shirt and tossing food in a wok. Below, in a story about the immigrant family’s journey, Panda Inn describes itself as “a restaurant that embodies the pursuit of a better life for all.”
Such a frictionless story of the American dream seems fanciful if you so much as glance at the news, but it also doesn’t have much to do with why the dining room is consistently packed.
Even though Panda Express was never my go-to, the orange chicken will occasionally stand in for the fried and glazed thing that I genuinely long for, but can never have again: the sweet-and-sour pork at a restaurant called Peking Inn that once existed in suburban London.
For my ninth birthday, I asked my parents to make me that sweet-and-sour pork, along with the sweet corn and chicken egg-drop soup. We had just moved 300 miles away, to France, and I was still angry and depressed about it, but I didn’t know how to say all that.
Instead, I dared them to try and make me happy. I dared them to recreate a dish from my favorite Chinese restaurant (impossible!), one whose vast pleasures and disappointments are still hard-wired into my brain.
Those particulars are different for everyone, but they fill out the story behind Panda Inn’s greatest hits, embedded like core memories. On any given night, there’s an order of orange chicken on nearly every table — a dish that isn’t just tangled up in its own corporate mythologies, but tangled up in our own.

Business
Maps: Where Trump Voter Jobs Will Be Hit by Tariffs

The counties where tariffs could hit jobs, by presidential vote winner
As President Trump imposes tariffs on products from countries around the world, foreign governments are answering back with tariffs of their own.
China has targeted corn farmers and carmakers. Canada has put tariffs on poultry plants and air-conditioning manufacturers, while Europe will hit American steel mills and slaughter houses.
Since Mr. Trump ordered steep levies on some of America’s largest trading partners in February and March, other countries have begun imposing their own tariffs on American exports in an attempt to put pressure on the president to relent.
The retaliatory tariffs have been carefully designed to hit Mr. Trump where it hurts: Nearly 8 million Americans work in industries targeted by the levies and the majority are Trump voters, a New York Times analysis shows.
The figures underscore the dramatic impact that a trade war could have on American workers, potentially causing Mr. Trump’s economic strategy to backfire. Mr. Trump has argued that tariffs will help boost American jobs. But economists say that retaliatory tariffs can cancel out that effect.
Number of jobs affected by each country’s retaliatory tariffs
The countermeasures are aimed at industries that employ roughly 7.75 million people across the United States. The bulk of those — 4.48 million — are in counties that voted for Mr. Trump in the last election, compared with 3.26 million jobs in counties that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a calculation by The Times that included examining retaliatory tariffs on more than 4,000 product categories.
These totals are the number of jobs in industries that foreign countries have targeted with their tariffs — not the number of jobs that will actually be lost because of tariffs, which is likely to be significantly lower. But industries hit by retaliatory tariffs are likely to sell fewer goods on foreign markets, which may mean lower profits and job losses.
The jobs that could be hit by retaliation are especially concentrated in pockets of the upper Midwest, South and Southeast, including many rural parts of the country that are responsible for producing agricultural goods. It also includes areas that produce coal, oil, car parts and other manufactured products.
Robert Maxim, a fellow at the Brookings Metro, a Washington think tank that has done similar analysis, said that other countries had particularly targeted Trump-supporting regions and places where “Trump would like to fashion himself as revitalizing the U.S.” That includes smaller manufacturing communities in states like Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, as well as southern states like Kentucky and Georgia, he said.
The message foreign countries are trying to send, he said, is, “You think you can bully us, well, we can hurt you too. And by the way, we know where it really matters.”
Retaliation may also mean concentrated pain for some industries, like farming. In Mr. Trump’s first term, American farmers – a strong voting bloc for the president – were targeted by China and other governments, which caused U.S. exports of soybeans and other crops to plummet.
Chinese buyers shifted to purchasing more agricultural goods from nations like Argentina and Brazil instead, and U.S. farmers had a difficult time winning back those contracts in subsequent years. Mr. Trump tried to offset those losses by giving farmers more than $20 billion in payments to compensate for the pain of the trade war.
One analysis published last year by economists at M.I.T., the World Bank and elsewhere found that retaliatory tariffs imposed on the United States during Mr. Trump’s first term had a negative effect on U.S. jobs, outweighing any benefit to employment from Mr. Trump’s tariffs on foreign goods or from the subsidies Mr. Trump provided to those hurt by his trade policies.
The net effect on American employment of U.S. tariffs, foreign tariffs and subsidies “was at best a wash, and it may have been mildly negative,” the economists concluded.
Rural parts of the country are once again at risk from retaliation. Agriculture is a major U.S. export and farmers are politically important to Mr. Trump. And rural counties may have one major employer — like a poultry processing plant — that provides a big share of the county’s jobs, compared with urban or suburban areas that are more diversified.
The retaliatory tariffs target industries employing 9.5 percent of people in Wisconsin, 8.5 percent of people in Indiana and 8.4 percent of people in Iowa. The shares are also relatively high in Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky and Kansas.
Share of jobs in targeted industries in each state
Wisconsin Wis. | 9.5% | 298,600 | |
Indiana Ind. | 8.5% | 289,900 | |
Iowa Iowa | 8.4% | 146,500 | |
Arkansas Ark. | 8.2% | 115,800 | |
Alabama Ala. | 8.1% | 186,800 | |
Mississippi Miss. | 8.0% | 101,600 | |
Kentucky Ky. | 7.6% | 167,500 | |
Kansas Kan. | 7.0% | 113,200 | |
Michigan Mich. | 6.8% | 319,300 | |
Tennessee Tenn. | 6.5% | 231,500 |
In an address to Congress earlier this month, Mr. Trump implied that farmers could be hit again, saying there may be “an adjustment period” as he put tariffs in place on foreign products. There may be “a little disturbance,” he said. “We are OK with that. It won’t be much.”
Mr. Trump said he had told farmers in his first term to “‘Just bear with me,’ and they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again,” he said.
Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro, said that many of the counties affected by retaliation were rural, and “hard red territory.” The geography of Mr. Trump’s political support, he said, was “no secret to our trade partners.”
“They’re very cognizant of these industries, the geography of these industries, and how American politics work,” he added.
Methodology
The analysis was based on an analytical technique used by the Brookings Institution to examine the first round of Chinese retaliatory tariffs.
To expand on the analysis, The Times collected the lists of U.S. products targeted for retaliatory tariffs by China, Canada and the European Union as of March 14. In total, the six published lists contain more than 4,000 individual product categories, many of which were targeted by more than one country. The tariffs from China and Canada are currently in force. One set of tariffs from the European Union is scheduled to go into effect April 1, while the other set is preliminary, and is subject to change until its implementation in mid-April.
After collecting the list of products, The Times used a concordance table from the Census Bureau, which provides a way to tie a given product category to the general industry which produces it.
To tally the number of jobs, The Times used data from Lightcast, a labor market analytics company. Lightcast provided The Times with industry-level employment data based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The quarterly census suppresses employment data for industries at the county level to protect the privacy of employers when there are only a handful of establishments. Lightcast uses a proprietary algorithm that draws from a number of related datasets to estimate the employment level for fields that are suppressed in the census.
County election results are from The Associated Press.
Business
Senators Grill Dr. Oz on Medicaid Cuts and Medicare Changes

In a hearing on Friday, senators pressed Dr. Mehmet Oz, the TV celebrity nominated to head Medicare and Medicaid, on Republican-led proposals that would significantly affect the health care coverage for nearly half of all Americans.
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Dr. Oz bantered with senators in a friendly atmosphere, joking about basketball and allegiances to college teams. He largely escaped tough questions from either side of the aisle, displaying his on-air charm as he deflected Democrats’ most pointed concerns about potentially radical changes in health coverage for not only those 65 and older but also for poor children.
Many senators seemed distracted by the fierce debate over the Republicans’ budget deal to avert a government shutdown, and they dashed in and out of Dr. Oz’s hearing. But he is poised to sail through the Senate for confirmation as the next administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency with $1.5 trillion in spending.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, made a big deal of his financial conflicts before the hearing. But at the session, she did not press him on those issues. Instead, she focused on his views about whether private Medicare plans are overcharging the government, an area where she and Dr. Oz seemed to agree on the need to tackle potential fraud and waste.
Throughout the hearing, he displayed a facile knowledge of a variety of relevant agency issues, although he repeatedly reverted to stock answers that he would need to study the topic at hand more.
Several lawmakers, mainly Democrats, tried to force Dr. Oz to express his views on the Trump administration’s goals to cut back on health care costs and agency budgets, but he repeatedly sidestepped those minefields.
“It is our patriotic duty to be healthy,” he told senators. “It costs a lot of money to take care of sick people who are sick because of lifestyle choices.”
This refrain is in line with the Make America Healthy Again movement championed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Dr. Oz’s soon-to-be boss if he is confirmed.
Medicare Advantage and privatization
Introductory remarks from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, held out an initial promise of some challenging questions. He accused Dr. Oz of dodging almost $500,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes in recent years by using a tax exemption related to limited partnerships, something Democrats concluded after reviewing Dr. Oz’s tax returns. But there were no follow up questions on it.
Mr. Wyden also raised the specter that he was going to grill Dr. Oz on his connection to TZ Insurance Solutions, a for-profit company that sells Medicare Advantage plans to older Americans. Dr. Oz has been a relentless promoter of these private plans, which have been criticized by lawmakers and regulators for systemic overbilling and denying patients care, on his show and YouTube channel.
Dr. Oz, 64, is also a registered broker for TZ Insurance in states across the country, according to a recent investigation into his finances by The New York Times. Again, Mr. Wyden flagged the issue and did not follow up.
Despite concerns by Democrats that Dr. Oz would most likely roll back some of the rules meant to rein in the plans, he instead committed to strong oversight. He acknowledged that some of the brokers now selling these plans were “churning policies,” switching people from one plan to another, regardless of whether the change in coverage benefited them.
“Part of this is just recognizing there’s a new sheriff in town,” Dr. Oz said. “We actually have to go after places and areas where we’re not managing the American people’s money well.”
Several times in the hearing, Dr. Oz addressed bipartisan concerns over whether Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid. In response to questions from a fellow physician, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, Dr. Oz mentioned a study suggesting the federal government spends more on the private alternative to Medicare than the government-run program. “It’s upside down,” he said.
“We should examine whether some of the money should be reimbursed to the American people,” Dr. Oz said.
He also expressed interest in solving some of the bipartisan concern over insurers’ use of prior authorization for approving medical procedures by reducing the number of services that would be subject to review.
Republican plans to cut Medicaid
Democrats seemed most frustrated by Dr. Oz’s stance toward Medicaid, the state-federal program that covers 72 million low-income Americans. “All my colleagues want to know, are you going to cut Medicaid?” asked Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington.
But Dr. Oz, who has not spoken much about the program he would also oversee as head of the agency, did not answer directly. He said he did not know the details of the Republican budget discussions, in which lawmakers are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts that could result in people’s loss of coverage as it became more difficult to enroll and states had to shoulder more of the burden.
When questioned by Senator Raphael Warnock, Democrat of Georgia, about Republican efforts to add burdensome monthly paperwork for some people to show they should get benefits, Dr. Oz said he favored the work requirements that Republicans want to limit eligibility. But he agreed with the senator about making sure people who should be eligible for Medicaid were not cut off.
Dr. Oz and his supplement business
There were other subjects senators seemed to veer away from. For instance, Dr. Oz has made tens of millions of dollars over the years promoting dietary supplements, often without any mention of his financial interest. He has been paid by numerous medical and health firms for showcasing their products. Many of those companies would be affected by any decisions he would make as the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and many already benefit from agency funding.
Senator Maggie Hassan, Democrat of New Hampshire, asked him to put a dollar figure on exactly what he has made from promoting supplements on his daytime TV show. He said he was not paid anything. He started to explain that Sony Pictures distributed the show, and that it was the entity paid by these companies (which in turn paid him), but he was cut off. Ultimately, Ms. Hassan was unable to extract anything meaningful from him and moved on.
Patient privacy and the DOGE intrusion
In the hearing, Mr. Wyden pressed Dr. Oz about the access granted to Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to Americans’ private medical information. Mr. Wyden raised concerns about the need to protect people’s privacy given the department’s potential ability to view personal health and medical data. Despite his repeated questions, he said, the Trump administration had so far not addressed those concerns. Surprisingly, Dr. Oz said he had no discussions with the administration about what Mr. Musk’s team was doing as it inspected agency information, but he promised to “address what is going on.”
Measles
The measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico has heightened concerns and leveled significant criticism at the response by Mr. Kennedy and the Trump administration. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, asked Dr. Oz whether he believed the measles vaccine was safe. Dr. Oz said he did, but when the senator followed up by asking whether it was effective, Dr. Oz stepped back and said that judging individual vaccines and their recommendations for use would not be under his purview but under that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“My job, if confirmed, is to make sure we pay for those vaccines,” he said.
Business
China Backs Iran in Nuclear Talks, Slams ‘Threat of Force’ From the West

China and Russia joined Iran on Friday in urging an end to Western sanctions after President Trump called this week for nuclear talks with Tehran, with both countries denouncing the “threat of force.”
After talks in Beijing with the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and Iran to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, the Chinese government said the three countries had agreed that all parties should “abandon sanctions, pressure and threats of force.”
That appeared to be a reference to recent overtures that Mr. Trump has made toward Iran. Mr. Trump said last week that he had sent a letter to the Iranian government seeking to negotiate a deal to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But he warned that the country would have to choose between curbing its fast-expanding program and losing it in a military attack.
The meeting was the latest sign of Beijing’s close alignment with Moscow and Tehran, and of its ambition to become a key arbiter of international disputes. Earlier this week, the three countries held joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman.
China and Russia are taking a very different approach to Iran now than they did a decade ago. In 2015, they insisted on first reaching a deal with Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program before ending sanctions. Russia even took a lot of Iran’s nuclear fuel stockpile as part of that arrangement.
The United States is now pursuing maximum political pressure with a threat of military action. But China and Russia are pursuing a more cooperative and conciliatory approach. This means that major powers are divided on how to approach Iran, which may give Tehran more diplomatic room to maneuver.
“Russia and China are also signaling to other countries that there are alternatives to U.S. global leadership — that Moscow and Beijing are responsible global actors that can address major global challenges like nuclear weapons,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington research group.
The most concerning part of the Iranian program is the production of potential nuclear weapons material that has been enriched to 60 percent purity, which is nearly bomb-grade. It could take a week or so to convert it to the 90 percent purity required for use in bombs that produce large nuclear detonations. Experts believe Iran may now have enough for roughly six weapons.
Russia and China did not present a plan to remove or reduce in purity the Iranian supply of potential nuclear weapons material. Nor did they address Iran’s installation of more advanced centrifuges, which will increase the size of the country’s stockpile of enriched material.
The Iranian government said in late November that it would begin operating the advanced centrifuges to enrich more uranium, which could bring it closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, issued a five-point plan for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. While calling for an end to sanctions on Iran, the plan also urged Iran to “continue to abide by its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.”
Beijing wants to show that “while the United States irresponsibly pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, China will also hold fast to this international commitment and assume the responsibility of leadership,” said Shen Dingli, an international relations scholar in Shanghai.
The message is also one of solidarity with Iran. “Even though the United States exerts extreme pressure, as long as Iran does not give up on its relevant commitments, it will still have friends,” Mr. Shen said. “Iran doesn’t need to worry. In the end, this is a strategic game between China and the United States.”
Iran’s supreme leader last week decried “bullying governments” and seemed to push back on the idea of negotiating with the United States.
China and Russia’s support could help Iran seem less isolated, but Tehran might have concerns, as well.
“The Iranians, for their part, are very wary of Chinese, but especially of Russian involvement in negotiations, as they fear they will be sold out by Moscow as part of a broader U.S.-Russia accord,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group. “They will be looking for support from Russia while resisting any pressure to give in to U.S. demands.”
China has considerable leverage over Iran: Chinese companies purchased over 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports last year, often at deep discounts to world prices, according to Kpler, a Vienna-based company that specializes in tracking Iran’s oil shipments. Most other countries have refrained from buying oil from Iran so as to comply with Western-led sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons.
Sales by Iran’s state oil company to China represent about 6 percent of Iran’s entire economy, or half of government spending in Iran.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington and David Pierson from Beijing.
-
Politics1 week ago
EXCLUSIVE: Elon Musk PAC thanks Trump for 'saving the American Dream' in new million-dollar ad
-
News7 days ago
Gene Hackman Lost His Wife and Caregiver, and Spent 7 Days Alone
-
Politics7 days ago
Republicans demand Trump cut American legal association out of nominee process
-
Politics1 week ago
Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men
-
News7 days ago
States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘Black Bag’ Review: Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender Cozy Up in Steven Soderbergh’s Snazzy Spy Thriller
-
News1 week ago
Who Paid for Trump’s Transition to Power? The Donors Are Still Unknown.
-
News1 week ago
Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids