Why Does the DC Michelin Guide Feel So Stale?

Last week, Michelin announced that the Inn at Little Washington was losing one of its three stars. As it turns out, that was the only big news coming out of the tire company’s dining guide this year. At an awards ceremony in Philadelphia last night, no new stars were awarded in DC. Only Reverie also came off the star list (it closed in October). This is the first year that DC has had a net loss in stars. Michelin claims that its anonymous inspectors revisit every starred restaurant every year, but the list doesn’t read super current. (In fact, some of the reviews are identical or nearly identical to last year-a persistent issue.) I’m not saying all those who have stars don’t deserve them, but I do think the guide is not a very good representation of DC’s dining scene, or even fine-dining scene. Anyone who dines out frequently will notice glaring omissions. Restaurants like Dogon, Moon Rabbit, La’ Shukran, and Lutèce have received tons of local and national acclaim-yet none have a Michelin star. (They are, however, among the confusing category of unrated yet “recommended” restaurants in the Michelin guide.) I have to wonder if they are even being seriously considered for stars. The most current review of Lutèce, for example, includes dishes that have not been on the menu since 2023. Michelin launched a slew of new guides this year: Boston, Philadelphia, Texas, and the entire American South. It seems highly possible that they are devoting more resources to all these other locations and spending less time scouting restaurants in DC. Frankly, there’s less financial incentive for Michelin to focus on DC. After all, this is one of the few jurisdictions that doesn’t have a state or city tourism board paying Michelin to put out a guide. By contrast, Texas is investing $2. 7 million over three years for guides in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. I know, I’m biased. Washingtonian puts out our own list of the 100 Very Best Restaurants, and I believe it’s an all around better guide to the city’s top eating destinations. (We also don’t limit our best restaurants to fine-dining and tasting menus.) I can tell you our food team does revisit every restaurant on that list every year. Also, you know who wrote it, and you can judge it accordingly. I think Michelin benefits enormously from the mystery around its anonymous inspectors. These shadowy critics loom large in the popular imagination as embodiments of discerning taste. The truth is we actually don’t know anything about them, and no matter what specific criteria Michelin puts forward, restaurant criticism is inherently subjective and personal. Would they be so revered if we knew their identities, backgrounds, preferences, and biases? That’s the irony. The very thing that seems to give Michelin its credibility is its lack of transparency. This story first appeared in Washingtonian’s food newsletter, which you can.
https://washingtonian.com/2025/11/19/why-does-the-dc-michelin-guide-feel-so-stale/