Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

California Republicans on Aug. 25 filed a second legal challenge against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s congressional redistricting plan, which will go before voters as Proposition 50 in November.

The lawsuit argued that the plan violates the state Constitution, which requires that maps be drawn by the politically neutral California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

“This is an issue about good governance in the state of California,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said at a press conference announcing the legal action. “Californians deserve to have the right to choose our legislators.”

Prop. 50, authorized after the California Legislature quickly passed legislation to approve the Nov. 4 ballot measure, will ask voters to accept a temporary overriding of the independent commission.

Newsom and state Democrats say the move is meant to counter efforts in Texas to change maps in Republicans’ favor.

The Texas plan would strengthen Republicans’ position in five congressional districts currently held by Democrats. President Donald Trump voiced support for redistricting in the Lone Star State and other Republican states, such as Florida and Ohio.

Texas Republicans said their redistricting proposal is legally justified and is needed to correct problems with existing districts in response to a letter by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in early July.

The DOJ said that some Texas districts may be “coalition districts” drawn based on racial demographics to form a majority by combining minority groups and thus violate the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

Democrats said the plan to redraw the districts unfairly targets districts led by black and Latino lawmakers and undermines decades of progress under the Voting Rights Act.

Newsom and California Democrats have described their plan as “fighting fire with fire” against Texas Republicans. If approved by voters, it would threaten seats on the U.S. House of Representatives currently held by five California Republicans.

Republicans on Aug. 25 filed an emergency petition before the state’s high court against the California Legislature and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

“The Constitution’s guardrails on redistricting are essential to ensuring that Californians are spared from the political influence and inherent turbulence of perpetual map-drawing in the hands of the Legislature,” the lawsuit read.

California Republicans already filed one lawsuit against Prop. 50, citing rules requiring a 30-day review period for new legislation before lawmakers can act on it. The suit was shot down by the state’s Supreme Court.

The second lawsuit challenges the measure on constitutional grounds.

In 2008, California voters backed the creation of the Citizens Redistricting Commission through an amendment to the state’s constitution, and the independent body is popular among both parties in the state.

A Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab poll found that 64 percent backed the independent commission, and only 36 percent supported returning authority over the process to state legislators.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s main campaign arm, also accused Newsom of violating the California Constitution.

Trump on Monday raised the possibility in comments to reporters that his administration could also bring suit against California’s redistricting push.

In a post on X, Newsom responded in all capital letters, “Bring it.”

Three California Republicans—U.S. Reps. Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Ken Calvert—are particularly endangered by the change, as their districts are on track to be inundated by voters who backed Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

Kiley has criticized both Texas and California’s efforts at mid-decade redistricting. A bill introduced by the congressman would ban mid-decade redistricting entirely.

YouTube took the liberty to make so-called “enhancements” to videos without notifying or seeking permission from creators, according to a report.

Among the creators who had content altered was musician Rick Beato, who told the BBC that he first noticed the changes when he watched his own videos.

“I was like ‘man, my hair looks strange’, Beato recalled. “And the closer I looked it almost seemed like I was wearing makeup.” said Beato, whose channel does deep dives into the music industry and boasts over 5 million subscribers. “I thought, ‘am just I imagining things?’”

BBC reports:

It turns out, he wasn’t. In recent months, YouTube has secretly used artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak people’s videos without letting them know or asking permission. Wrinkles in shirts seem more defined. Skin is sharper in some places and smoother in others. Pay close attention to ears, and you may notice them warp. These changes are small, barely visible without a side-by-side comparison. Yet some disturbed YouTubers say it gives their content a subtle and unwelcome AI-generated feeling.

There’s a larger trend at play. A growing share of reality is pre-processed by AI before it reaches us. Eventually, the question won’t be whether you can tell the difference, but whether it’s eroding our ties to the world around us.

Beato’s colleagues, including fellow music YouTuber Rhett Shul, also noticed that his content had been tweaked by the Google-owned video platform.

“The more I looked at it, the more upset I got,” Shull said. “If I wanted this terrible over-sharpening I would have done it myself. But the bigger thing is it looks AI-generated. I think that deeply misrepresents me and what I do and my voice on the internet. It could potentially erode the trust I have with my audience in a small way. It just bothers me.”

Shull was so furious about the issue that he posted a video on the subject.

In response to the controversy, YouTube came (somewhat) clean in a post on X.

“We’re running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video),” admitted Rene Ritchie, who lead’s YouTube’s editorial and creator liaison division. “YouTube is always working on ways to provide the best video quality and experience possible, and will continue to take creator and viewer feedback into consideration as we iterate and improve on these features.”

No GenAI, no upscaling. We’re running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise, and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video)

YouTube is always… https://t.co/vrojrRGwNw

— YouTube Liaison (@YouTubeInsider) August 20, 2025

Eh, really?

Hi!

Here’s some additional context:https://t.co/6utv6heP0L

— YouTube Liaison (@YouTubeInsider) August 20, 2025

Some researchers fear that this type of technology could have widespread dystopian effects.

“You can make decisions about what you want your phone to do, and whether to turn on certain features. What we have here is a company manipulating content from leading users that is then being distributed to a public audience without the consent of the people who produce the videos,” Samuel Woolley of University of Pittsburgh said. “I think using the term ‘machine learning’ is an attempt to obscure the fact that they used AI because of concerns surrounding the technology. Machine learning is in fact a subfield of artificial intelligence.”

This week saw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky boast for the first time that his military can conduct long-range strikes on Russian territory using weapons made within Ukraine, and this means he doesn’t need to coordinate these attacks with the United States.

His remarks came in response to a Wall Street Journal report claiming that the US has quietly established a process requiring the Pentagon’s prior approval for Ukrainian long-range strikes using American-supplied weapons. This policy has reportedly blocked such strikes for several months, at a moment President Trump is trying to get the sides to the peace table.

An unnamed official cited by the WSJ said that since late spring this internal Pentagon approval process has effectively blocked Ukraine from using the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to hit targets inside Russia.

While speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney earlier this week, Zelensky emphasized that no such restrictions were under discussion and declared that Ukraine uses its own weapons for attacks on Russian territory.

“At the moment, we are using our long-range domestically produced weapons, and we haven’t been discussing such matters with the US lately. There was a time when there were different signals regarding our retaliatory strikes after their (Russian) attacks on our energy system,” Zelensky said.

This followed Zelensky last Thursday unveiling the ‘Flamingo’ cruise missile, reported in The Guardian as follows:

Ukraine’s president announced the huge missile, known as Flamingo, could strike targets as far as 3,000km (1,864 miles) away. “The missile has undergone successful tests. It is currently our most successful missile,” Zelenskyy told reporters. Mass production could begin by February, he added.

This kind of range would bring the Moscow area within striking distance. If Kiev decides to target the Russian capital with cruise missiles – this would likely cause Putin order that Kiev get pounded even harder. 

Throughout well over three years of grinding war, the Russian military has still not directly targeted top-level government buildings in Kiev, or military and intelligence HQs there. That could all soon change.

Business Insider on test-firing video of the Flamingo: I”n the clip, the Flamingo is seen rail-mounted on a canted platform before it is fired. The missile starts climbing upward almost immediately after launch.”

Certainly the White House wants to see some kind of peace deal take effect before things escalate to that point, but neither side appears in the mood for compromise. And given Russia has the clear battlefield momentum, it has little reason to back off Putin’s maximal conditions.

Authored by Victoria Freedman via The Epoch Times,

YouTube said on Monday that several Fox channels could become unavailable on YouTube TV if the two companies do not reach a deal by Aug. 27.

Google-owned YouTube said in a blog post that it is negotiating to renew its deal to carry Fox channels, but said the media company is asking for fees “far higher” than those paid to other partners offering similar content.

“If we are unable to reach a new agreement by 5 PM ET on August 27, 2025, Fox channels, including Fox Sports, Business, and News, would become unavailable on YouTube TV. Content from these channels saved in your library would also become unavailable at this time,” the company said.

The video streaming platform said its priority is to ensure a deal that is fair for both companies, and that does not pass on additional costs to subscribers.

YouTube added that should Fox content become unavailable for an extended period of time, it would provide subscribers with a $10 credit. Users will also be able to watch Fox content by signing up for Fox’s streaming service, Fox One, YouTube said.

YouTube has partnerships with content providers such as Fox, Paramount, and CNN to offer their channels through its subscription-based streaming service, YouTube TV.

Fox Corporation said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times on Tuesday: “While FOX remains committed to reaching a fair agreement with Google’s YouTube TV, we are disappointed that Google continually exploits its outsized influence by proposing terms that are out of step with the marketplace.

“We are alerting FOX viewers who are YouTube TV subscribers that they could lose access to much of their favorite news, sports, entertainment and local station programming unless Google engages in a meaningful way soon.”

The corporation launched the website KeepFox.com to keep viewers updated on the progress of negotiations. On the website, it highlights that YouTube TV customers “could be deprived of some of the fall’s biggest television sporting events,” including NFL and College Football on FOX, if the partnership expires.

Paramount Global Renews Partnership

In February, YouTube TV and Paramount Global—which owns channels including CBS, Comedy Central, MTV, and Nickelodeon—renewed their partnership, after negotiations had earlier stalled.

In a statement provided to The Epoch Times, a Paramount spokesperson said at the time that the company looked forward to extending its “long-standing partnership,” and continuing to give subscribers access to their favorite programming.

“We are pleased to announce a renewed Paramount-Google agreement for the continued carriage of Paramount’s leading portfolio of entertainment, news, and sports networks across YouTube TV’s platform,” the statement said.

Paramount previously cited “one-sided terms” and “non-market demands” as the main reasons for stalled negotiations.

In the past, YouTube TV has faced other contract distribution disagreements, including a two-day blackout in a dispute with Disney in 2021 that revoked subscriber access to channels such as ABC, ESPN, and FX.

Growth of Streaming

According to a February 2024 letter from YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, YouTube TV had over 8 million subscribers. In December 2024, the company raised its monthly subscription price by $10, from $72.99 to $82.99, more than double the original $35-a-month price at its launch in 2017.

According to the latest figures from audience analytics company Nielsen, streaming accounted for nearly half (47.3 percent) of all TV viewing in July.

Nielsen’s The Gage—which is a monthly snapshot of total streaming, cable, and broadcast consumption through a television screen—found that the streaming share was followed by cable (22.2 percent), broadcast (18.4 percent), and other sources (12.1 percent).

In terms of streaming, YouTube Main (excluding YouTube TV) set a platform record in July, with 13.4 percent of the viewership, followed by streaming giant Netflix at 8.8 percent.

The Gage said that YouTube viewing grew by 2 percent with 18- to 24-year-old viewers, itself the largest increase among age demographics (up 8 percent).

The streaming market share has been growing in recent years, with Nielsen reporting in June that streaming had hit a then-record 44.8 percent of total TV usage in May, more than broadcast (20.1 percent) and cable (24.1 percent) combined.

“While the milestone of streaming exceeding traditional TV viewership is almost certainly not permanent, it presumably will be in the near future,” The Gage said.

Authored by Lau Vegys via InternationalMan.com,

[ZH: This was written before Trump fired Fed Governor Cook, potentially further entrenching his appointees on the Fed Board]

Stephen Miran’s appointment to the Federal Reserve isn’t just another personnel move—it’s the placement of Trump’s Reset architect inside the very institution that will help carry out America’s most ambitious economic overhaul in generations.

If you’re still unfamiliar with what Trump’s Reset entails, I strongly recommend checking out Matt Smith’s comprehensive analysis. He’s done the heavy lifting of connecting dots that were only hinted at in Miran’s original white paper.

Without getting into the weeds, Miran, the mastermind behind what’s been dubbed the “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” outlined a comprehensive plan to flip the U.S. dollar’s reserve status from a burden into a bargaining chip. To turn America’s towering debt from an embarrassment into leverage. And to reorient the entire global economic structure in Washington’s favor.

And of course, what makes this especially relevant right now—particularly for anyone with gold exposure—is the timing.

The yellow metal has been on a relentless march higher throughout 2025, setting multiple all-time highs and blasting past $3,400 an ounce just last month. Now, with Miran’s appointment to the Fed, we’re seeing exactly why smart money has been quietly accumulating the yellow metal all year.

But anyone thinking Miran’s appointment is simply about giving Trump another dovish vote for rate cuts is missing the much bigger picture. Gold isn’t just rising because of anticipated rate cuts. It’s been rising because informed investors recognized what Trump’s Reset strategy would eventually require: the systematic weakening of dollar dominance and a potential gold revaluation.

Again, I urge you to check out Matt’s report if you’re unclear on the specifics—he’s laid out the relationships and implications more clearly than anyone I’ve seen attempt it.

The upshot is that Miran’s appointment is simply the latest confirmation that this plan is moving from theory into practice. (And once you see what that implies for both the dollar and gold, it’s easier to understand why $3,400 gold may be only the beginning.)

Miran’s Fed Position Is a Game-Changer

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I can’t stress this enough.

This isn’t just about securing another dovish vote for rate cuts—Trump could have picked any yes-man for that. It’s about placing the architect of America’s monetary reset directly inside the Federal Reserve.

You see, the Fed doesn’t set tariffs, negotiate trade deals, or sign defense pacts—but it does control the single most important lever in Trump’s Reset: the cost and flow of money.

From his position as Fed governor, Miran will have a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), giving him direct influence over interest rates, money supply, and crucially, the Fed’s balance sheet operations. But more importantly, he’ll be positioned to coordinate monetary policy with the broader Reset strategy he designed.

Think about what this means in practical terms—and from Trump’s perspective. The Reset strategy involves coordinated dollar devaluation—but that requires the Fed to be on board. You can’t orchestrate a Plaza Accord (more on it below)-style currency adjustment if your central bank is fighting you every step of the way. With Miran inside the Fed, Trump gets someone who understands both the macroeconomic theory behind dollar devaluation and the practical mechanics of how to execute it through monetary policy.

Note: The U.S. dollar has already weakened more than 10% over the past six months. To put it in perspective, the last time the dollar fell this much early in the year was 1973—right after the U.S. finalized its break from gold and the fiat era fully took hold.

Miran’s appointment also signals something even more significant: the institutional capture of monetary policy. When Jerome Powell’s term expires in May 2026, Fed chairs are typically chosen from among existing governors. By installing Miran now, Trump is positioning his Reset architect to potentially lead the entire Federal Reserve system.

In short, it’s Trump making sure the Fed itself becomes a primary tool for carrying out his Reset. And there’s a very deliberate reason for that.

Trump’s Reset Needs the Fed on Side

Now, I brought up the Plaza Accord above because it’s the closest historical precedent to what we’re calling Trump’s Monetary Reset (or the Mar-a-Lago Accord).

You’ve probably heard of it.

On September 22, 1985, finance ministers from the world’s largest economies gathered at New York’s Plaza Hotel to coordinate a devaluation of the unnaturally strong U.S. dollar.

Naturally, outside the U.S., no one wanted a weaker dollar—it would make their exports pricier for American buyers. But, just like today, Washington applied pressure with tariffs, import surcharges, quotas, and pointed accusations of “unfair trade.”

And guess what? It worked. West Germany and Japan—the economic powerhouses of the day—caved.

But here’s what made the Plaza Accord actually work: the Federal Reserve was fully on board. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker coordinated closely with Treasury Secretary James Baker to ensure monetary policy backed the dollar devaluation strategy. He cut interest rates from roughly 12% to 6% between late 1984 and late 1986, creating the conditions for the dollar to fall. Without that cooperation, the Plaza Accord probably would have been just another piece of paper.

This is exactly why Miran’s appointment is so crucial. Trump learned from Reagan’s playbook—to execute coordinated currency devaluation, you better make sure your central bank is pulling in the same direction. By installing the Reset architect inside the Fed, Trump ensures that monetary policy will align with, rather than undermine, his broader economic strategy.

And what happened to gold in the wake of the Plaza Accord?

It surged. Take a look at the chart below.

After the Plaza Accord in 1985, gold jumped from about $320 per ounce to over $370 between September 1985 and March 1986. That’s in just six months.

Adjusted for today’s prices, that would be like seeing gold leap to roughly $4,000 an ounce.

But here’s the thing… If Trump’s Reset unfolds the way Matt and I believe it will, it won’t just be a repeat of the Plaza Accord—it’ll be that on steroids.

In today’s globalized and overleveraged economy, the ripple effects could be enormous. I wouldn’t be surprised to see gold surge to $5,000–$8,000 per ounce as markets scramble to adapt.

*  *  *

Stephen Miran’s arrival at the Fed isn’t just a policy shift—it’s confirmation that Trump’s Reset strategy is already moving from blueprint to reality. The implications for the dollar, gold, and your personal wealth are enormous. We’ve been tracking the signs of this coming shift for months—the hidden gold run out of London, the quiet buildup of reserves, and now the placement of Trump’s Reset architect inside the Federal Reserve itself. If you’ve been wondering what all this means for your money—and how to prepare before the Reset accelerates—I strongly urge you to read our latest deep-dive: Get Ready for Trump’s Monetary Reset. Inside, you’ll see why central banks are scrambling for gold, how Trump’s team plans to “monetize America’s balance sheet,” and why we believe this could unleash the biggest wealth revaluation in half a century. Most importantly, you’ll learn the practical steps you can take right now to protect your savings—and position yourself to potentially profit. Click here to get the full story before the Reset leaves you behind.

Former national security adviser John Bolton has gone after President Trump, blasting his Ukraine strategy as “incoherent” in an opinion piece published Monday, just a few days after federal agents raided his Maryland home and D.C. office over the handling of classified documents.

“President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is no more coherent today than it was last Friday when his administration executed search warrants against my home and office,” Bolton said in Washington Examiner.

Bolton’s op-ed title went all-in: “Trump’s utterly incoherent Ukraine strategy.” He wrote that “Collapsing in confusion, haste, and the absence of any discernible meeting of the minds among Ukraine, Russia, several European countries, and America, Trump’s negotiations may be in their last throes, along with his Nobel Peace Prize campaign.”

Hoped-for momentum towards an eventual trilateral Putin-Zelensky-Trump summit has indeed been stalled, and Trump said late last week that we could make a major decision if peace isn’t negotiated in two weeks – which likely means more biting sanctions on Russia and its trading partners.

Neither warring side has actually backed off from its position, and Russia has little reason to soften its demands given that it maintains the clear upper-hand on the battlefield. Still, Bolton – as one of the neocon madmen behind the push to invade and overthrow Iraq (and other countries) – is not one to talk about coherent foreign policy.

“The administration has tried to camouflage its disarray behind social media posts, such as Trump comparing his finger-pointing at Russian President Vladimir Putin to then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the famous kitchen debate with Nikita Khrushchev,” Bolton said further in his piece. “Why Trump wants to be compared to the only president who resigned in disgrace is unclear.”

So clearly, Bolton is not backing down or being quiet despite the FBI raid on his home last Friday, which was described as a “court-authorized law enforcement activity.”

The ‘war’ in the op-ed pages has been unleashed, as on Tuesday White House trade adviser Peter Navarro took to The Hill and charged Bolton with “profiteering off of America’s secrets” in relation to his 2020 book, “The Room Where It Happened.”

Navarro’s op-ed said “He was trafficking in Oval Office conversations and national security intelligence that should have stayed secret – either by law or under executive privilege.” 

“That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets,” Navarro wrote, citing a federal judge who at the time said “seems to be out of the barn” – when Trump officials had tried to stop its publication. Back in 2020, Navarro had slammed the memoir as like “revenge porn”.

Bolton has only issued rare praise of Trump when he bombs another country (as he did Iran this summer)…

John Bolton, who Trump denounced in his first term as a “warmonger” when he fired him, heaps praise on Trump for… being a warmonger. pic.twitter.com/HHdiKgUDam

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) June 22, 2025

As for the raid on Bolton’s house, Trump has said that he didn’t personally order it or know about it before-hand, amid accusations that it is politically motivated retribution. The president has, however, said that Bolton “could be a very unpatriotic guy. We’re going to find out.”

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently submitted a federal court brief challenging New York‘s request to restore Trump Administration funding, which was suspended after the state refused to say whether it was still providing public benefits to illegal aliens.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) restricts public benefits to “qualified aliens” exclusively—a category that excludes illegal aliens. PRWORA additionally mandates that states verify they aren’t distributing public benefits to unqualified non-citizens.

Following PRWORA’s passage, then-Attorney General Janet Reno under the Clinton administration issued state waivers exempting them from this verification mandate.

The Trump administration revoked these waivers and currently withholds federal funds from states like New York that decline to verify they aren’t providing public benefits to undocumented immigrants.

FAIR’s legal filing argues the state’s injunction request must be rejected because the federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief.

According to statute, Congress has removed federal court authority to review executive actions where Congress hasn’t established review standards, instead leaving such decisions to executive discretion.

PRWORA grants the Attorney General unreviewable authority to approve or revoke verification requirement waivers.

“For our immigration laws to be enforced effectively, it is essential that the magnet of public benefits be turned off,” declared Dale L. Wilcox, FAIR’s executive director and general counsel.

“Illegal aliens should not receive a pay-off for breaking our laws. Congress understood that very well when it passed PRWORA, and New York’s plea that it be allowed to go on flouting the law is without any legal basis. We hope the court sees that it doesn’t even have jurisdiction to enter an injunction, and denies relief.”

According to Pew Research, there are 825,000 illegal aliens residing in New York. 

The litigation is identified as State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00345 (D.R.I.).

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

The Powell-induced equity rally took a breather yesterday as the S&P500 closed 0.43% lower, the NASDAQ 0.22% lower and the EuroStoxx 50 0.81% lower. Asian equities – perhaps still playing catchup from Powell’s Jackson Hole speech – had traded higher earlier in the day. China’s CSI300 closed up more than 2% and the Hang Seng gained 1.94% with notable lifts in rare-earth stocks after Beijing published new rules to tighten oversight of production and trading of the geopolitically-sensitive minerals. South Korea’s KOSPI gained 1.3% ahead of a Monday (US time) meeting between South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and US President Trump (more on that below).

There are consequential headlines everywhere this morning, but perhaps the most consequential for markets (in the very short term, at least) is Donald Trump’s announcement that he has fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook, effective immediately. Cook was a Biden appointee who had recently come under pressure after being accused of mortgage fraud by FHFA Director Bill Pulte. Trump said in a letter to Cook that there was sufficient reason to believe that she had made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. He also said that in light of Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” he did not have confidence in her integrity and her actions called into question her “competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator”, presenting cause for her firing.

As noted in this Daily yesterday, Trump has been busily working over the Fed to bend it to the MAGA program. That program is winning the competition with China by reshoring production, controlling critical supply chains and scoring strategic wins by pulling allies tighter into the US orbit and forcing them to help isolate challengers to US supremacy. China has been playing much the same game for decades now and continues to do so, as illustrated by the recent tightening on controls of rare earth exports, which the United States can’t supply itself with and needs for defence and technology applications.

The MAGA strategy encapsulates a series of carrots and sticks to coax production back inside US borders. Tariff protection to penalise offshore competition and provide an implicit subsidy to local producers was step one, lower taxes and lower regulation through the One Big Beautiful Bill and DOGE is step two, cheap energy through friendly relations with Saudi Arabia and ‘Drill, Baby, Drill!’ is step three, and cheap capital by getting the Fed into a headlock and forcing it to follow the wishes of the executive is step four. Executing a ‘reverse Nixon’ by improving relations with Russia to split them off from their “no limits” partnership with China would have been a nice to have from the perspective of the administration, but looks increasingly unlikely.

Given that Trump is only six months into his second term and has already executed on most of the major planks of the MAGA economic program, it is clear that the economy is being re-made at an astonishing rate, and the commentariat is clearly struggling to keep up. Long term free market evangelists over at the Financial Times are now describing Trump as the ‘Dirigiste-in chief’, which of course he is. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan is not the Republican Party of Donald Trump. Friedmanite ideas of free markets and low touch government are out and a strong executive hand on the economic tiller is now very much in.

As the FT notes, the examples of this are manifold: the US government’s ‘golden share’ that Trump extracted from Nippon Steel in exchange for approving its purchase of US Steel (Trump has previously said “if you don’t have steel [production], you don’t have a country”), deals to allow Nvidia and AMD to sell chips in China in exchange for the US government receiving 15% of the revenue, the Pentagon becoming the largest shareholder in rare earths producer MP Materials (in an effort to counteract the Chinese export controls noted above) and the US’s 10% stake in chipmaker Intel that was confirmed over the weekend.

The FT quotes the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome comparing these “pretty darn bonkers” deals to Barack Obama’s effective nationalization of US automakers during the Great Recession of 2007-8. The comparison is fitting, but its perhaps worth noting that the Obama strategy managed to save those automakers while also allowing the US government to recover some of the cost by selling its stake in later years. A handy counterfactual might be Australia’s government bailout of Qantas during the Covid pandemic, when $2.7bn of taxpayer money was handed over, gratis, and none of it recovered once the company was back on its feet (because state ownership would have been ideologically intolerable). Which was the better deal for main street?

In many respects, the United States as the world’s pre-eminent Western, liberal democracy is responding to competition from China (not Western, not liberal and not a democracy) by mirroring Chinese economic practises back to China and much of the rest of the world. For the first time in a long time the United States is back in the game of economic planning with a coherent (albeit risky) economic, industrial, financial (for more on that, see RaboResearch’s recent piece on the emerging role of stablecoins here) and military strategy now adopted to achieve foreign policy objectives. Gone are the days of assuming that the market knows best in all applications and will deliver wealth and power if simply left alone to do its work.

These are all trends that have been flagged extensively in this Daily and in the work of RaboResearch’s Global Strategist Michael Every for many years now. None of this is should come as a surprise for the intellectually curious who cared to look, but markets still retain the capacity to be surprised by these sorts of statecraft moves. Many markets currently pricing for perfection –or for the assumed continuation of a single globalized system of prices – in the most imperfect of market conditions run the risk of being mugged sooner or later.

Turning back to President Lee’s visit to the White House, these trends are again evident. Trump continues to engage in a kind of aeroplane diplomacy employed in previous trade agreements by securing commitments from Korean Air to purchase 100 (made in the USA) Boeing jets, while also securing commitments from Hanwha to assist with increasing shipbuilding capacity at its facilities in the US by 8-10x and seeking to take “ownership” of land leased from South Korea to host US military bases.

Notably, within the last 24 hours Trump has similarly applied aeroplane diplomacy to China by saying that China was “intelligently” withholding rare earths from the US, but that the US would retaliate by withholding critical aircraft parts. Trump said that “we have tremendous power over them, and they have some power over us”. “We have much bigger and better cards than they do… If I played those cards, that would destroy China. I’m not going to play those cards.” While relations appear relatively cordial at the moment, the potential for bifurcation clearly remains. “If we want to put 100%, 200% tariffs on, we wouldn’t do any business with China. And you know, it would be OK too, if we had to.”

Following his meeting with Trump, President Lee also said that South Korea would “take on a more leading role in maintaining security on the Korean Peninsula”, beginning by increasing defence spending in much the same fashion that European NATO members were recently forced to do by the United States. Tellingly, when asked whether South Korea could continue to rely on the United States for its security while reaping economic benefits from trade with China (South Korea’s largest trading partner) Lee said “[Korea] can no longer maintain the same approach as in the past… It is no longer possible for Korea to act or make judgements in ways that run counter to the U.S. basic policy direction.”

Australia and New Zealand (and Japan?), who plan to spend less on defence that Korea does now and who also have their security underwritten by the United States while profiting from China as their largest trading partner are now very much on notice

Polymarket, the world’s largest prediction platform, has secured a double-digit million-dollar investment from Donald Trump Jr.’s venture capital fund 1789 Capital, Axios reported Tuesday.

As part of the deal, Trump Jr. will also join Polymarket’s advisory board.

“Polymarket is the largest prediction market in the world, and the U.S. needs access to this important platform,” said Donald Trump Jr.

 “Polymarket cuts through media spin and so-called ‘expert’ opinion by letting people bet on what they actually believe will happen in the world. I am pleased that 1789 Capital is investing in Polymarket and am honored to join the company’s advisory board. I look forward to working with the team to advance its mission of bringing truth and transparency to everyone – including the U.S.”

The investment comes just months after Polymarket was valued at more than $1 billion by Founders Fund and follows the company’s $112 million acquisition of derivatives exchange QCEX, which gave it a CFTC license to operate in the US.

“1789 Capital looks to invest in companies that are entrepreneurial, innovative, and demonstrate great potential for growth. Polymarket meets each of these criteria,” said Omeed Malik, Founder of 1789 Capital.

“Polymarket stands at the intersection of free expression and financial innovation by empowering individuals with real-time truth in a world clouded by noise, and we are proud to support its vision.”

Trump Jr. now stands on both sides of the sector, also serving as a paid strategic advisor to Kalshi, Polymarket’s main rival and a fully regulated US prediction market.

1789, whose portfolio also includes Anduril and SpaceX, views Polymarket as an eventual IPO candidate.

Update (1045ET): President Trump has chimed on the Cracker Barrel bullshit:

Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a mistake based on customer response (the ultimate Poll), and manage the company better than ever before.

They got a Billion Dollars worth of free publicity if they play their cards right. Very tricky to do, but a great opportunity. Have a major News Conference today.

Make Cracker Barrel a WINNER again.

Remember, in just a short period of time I made the United States of America the “HOTTEST” Country anywhere in the World. One year ago, it was “DEAD.” Good luck!

*  *  *

As Steve Watson detailed earlier via Modernity.news, Cracker Barrel’s stock price tumbled by almost 14 percent last week after the company rolled out a new and extremely bland and soulless logo.

Critics accused the company of undergoing a ‘woke’ make over, with the removal of the “Uncle Herschel” logo—a white man sitting on a barrel, a iconic part of the brand since 1977.

The new sterile logo is completely devoid of character and has little link to the nostalgia of the long standing logo.

JUST IN: Cracker Barrel stock nosedives over 14% after they unveiled their new bland logo.

The company decided to ditch its iconic logo as part of its new rebrand, prompting harsh backlash, but CEO Julie Felss Masino is convinced people love the changes.

The company is also… pic.twitter.com/V5eJDJhSJ9

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 21, 2025

The company also announced plans to remodel its restaurants, to do away with the country-store type décor including trinkets, dark wood, and front-porch rocking chairs.

The new restaurants will be brighter and have modern aesthetics, according to Julie Felss Masino, Cracker Barrel’s CEO since late 2023.

Felss claims that Cracker Barel is not abandoning its roots, but is “evolving” in order to cater for modern diners.

The damage was done, however, and the backlash was swift.

WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??! https://t.co/LkYB5N34Qi

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) August 20, 2025

This is what Cracker Barrel looked like before. pic.twitter.com/x0mhpqwr5v

— DeepState Illuminate (@TheDeep_State6) August 21, 2025

pic.twitter.com/hDQydJb7fo

— Mrs B (@attackdogX) August 21, 2025

pic.twitter.com/4TiA09uf3w

— Patriotflyer (@Patriotflyer24) August 21, 2025

Bud Light moment imminent. pic.twitter.com/Cchj06JXPp

— Haikus From Underground (@HaikusFromUnder) August 21, 2025

pic.twitter.com/Jzcviit8M5

— Patriotflyer (@Patriotflyer24) August 21, 2025

It’s all her fault. Another white liberal woman destroyed a company. pic.twitter.com/K4EgLUsJoQ

— Grass💚 (@DewyGrassBlades) August 21, 2025

Preview of upcoming Cracker Barrel ad campaign pic.twitter.com/r35Dst623b

— NO CONTEXT MEME (@ssmb291_) August 21, 2025

Cracker Barel Shares plunged more than 14 percent, a loss of around $200 million in market value. Prices eventually settled at $50.84 per share, a drop of around 13.9%.

Since that time, some value has been salvaged, evening out at about a $143 million loss.

Chief marketing officer Sarah Moore claimed that the changes are what customers want.

Clearly they don’t.

The resulting plunge in market value has forced the company to issue a further statement titled, “A Promise to Our Guests,” walking back the plan to remodel.

“We’re truly grateful for your heartfelt voices. You’ve also shown us that we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be,” Cracker Barrel wrote on Facebook.

The company further asserted that, “The things people love most about our stores aren’t going anywhere: rocking chairs on the porch, a warm fire in the hearth, peg games on the table, unique treasures in our gift shop, and vintage Americana with antiques pulled straight from our warehouse in Lebanon, Tennessee.”

There was an assurance that the “old timer” figure of founder Uncle Herschel will still be seen on menus and in stores. Obviously they’ve realised the change was disastrous, but can’t walk it fully back because they’ve already financed the terrible logo rebrand.

“We know we won’t always get everything right the first time, but we’ll keep testing, learning, and listening to our guests and employees,” the statement said, adding “At the end of the day, our promise is simple: you’ll always find comfort, community, and country hospitality here at Cracker Barrel.”

That old man and his barrel are destined to return to that logo, it’s not if it’s when.

— First Words (@unscriptedmike) August 21, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.