China has quickly stepped up to defend Brazil after President Trump slapped the largest South American economy with 50% tariffs on many goods, which took effect Wednesday.

China is now looking to benefit by expanding access to its market for Brazilian coffee, which one of the products hit hardest by the new trade restrictions, given the US has long ranked as the world’s largest coffee importer.

To underscore it is seizing on this new opportunity, China’s embassy in Brasília shared a video on X that featured major food delivery company Meituan. “And the exchange goes both ways: Brazil is also strengthening its footprint in China with its popular coffee,” the post stated.

China has this week granted export authorization to 183 additional Brazilian coffee companies, with five-year permits – something also announced by the embassy. The drink “is becoming part of everyday life for the Chinese people,” the embassy proclaimed further.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had declared Tuesday, “I will call Xi Jinping, I will call Prime Minister Modi. I won’t call Putin, because he can’t travel now. But I will call many presidents.”

He’s now getting some of the desired initial rebuke against the US out of his powerful BRICS friends. A Wednesday statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Beijing:

“…firmly supports Brazil in safeguarding its national sovereignty and national dignity,” and “opposes unwarranted external interference in Brazil’s internal affairs.”

He emphasized that China backs Brazil in “resisting the bullying imposition of tariff measures” in a strongly-worded message while vowing to intensify cooperation among Global South countries within the BRICS framework.

Wang also in a phone call with a top Lula aid communicated to the Brazilian presidencity that “using tariffs as a weapon to suppress other countries violates the UN Charter, undermines WTO rules, and is both unpopular and unsustainable.”

China has approved 183 Brazilian coffee firms to export their products to the Chinese market, the Embassy of China in Brazil said on X. The measure took effect on July 30 and is valid for five years. @EmbaixadaChina pic.twitter.com/6vbZG58oT0

— Yicai 第一财经 (@yicaichina) August 5, 2025

Trump has in the recent past voiced criticisms of BRICS, and this week Lula has remained defiant while proposing a BRICS meeting to issue a joint response to US tariffs. Lula has stated that Trump is not “the emperor of the world” even if he’s trying to act as such.

The US has accused Lula of carrying out a “witch hunt” against ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, who is currently on trial related to corruption and “coup” activities related to rejection the election results. Brazil meanwhile may be forced to go looking for other close trade partners.

Toyota Motor expects a 1.4 trillion yen ($9.5 billion) hit to operating profit for the fiscal year ending March 2026 due to higher U.S. import tariffs, according to Nikkei Asia.

The automaker revised its net profit forecast downward by 14% to 2.6 trillion yen, citing the new 25% duty imposed on Japanese car imports in April by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Previously, Toyota had only factored in the impact of tariffs for April and May—estimated at 180 billion yen. The company’s net profit for the April–June quarter fell 36.9% year-on-year to ¥841 billion, reflecting both the stronger yen and the increased U.S. tariff rate.

“The [U.S. tariff] has risen to 15% from the previous 2.5%, which obviously has a significant impact,” said Takanori Azuma, Toyota’s chief accounting officer. “And it is a thing we are not able to control. The major challenge is to ensure that our North America business generates solid profits. The result [of a trade deal] remains tough.”

Azuma added that Toyota is exploring countermeasures. “If there is excess production capacity in the U.S., we will make use of it. … We want to refine our operations by considering every possible scenario.”

In June, Toyota raised U.S. prices by an average of $270 on new vehicles built after July 1. “We’ll consider adjusting prices if there is an appropriate timing which is acceptable to our customers,” Azuma said.

Despite the tariff pressure, Toyota’s global sales rose 7% in Q1 to 2.4 million units, including a 12.7% increase in North America and 11.4% in Japan. North America remains Toyota’s largest market, accounting for 33% of total sales.

The U.S. recently agreed to lower tariffs on Japanese cars from 27.5% to 15%, with the new rate expected to take effect in August. Even after the 25% tariff was imposed in April, Toyota continued to increase U.S. exports: 41,573 units in May (+22.9%) and 52,745 units in June (+15.9%).

First-quarter operating profit dropped 10.9% to 1.1 trillion yen, while net sales rose 3.5% to 12 trillion yen. Tariffs alone reduced operating profit by 450 billion yen. Currency fluctuations are expected to further cut profits by 725 billion yen, with rising material costs subtracting another 300 billion yen.

Nikkei writes that Toyota is aiming to offset these hits through increased sales, cost cuts, and growth in parts and financial services. The automaker kept its net sales forecast unchanged at 48.5 trillion yen.

Meanwhile, the company announced plans to build a new manufacturing plant in Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture, with operations starting in the early 2030s. Investment details are still under wraps. “Our top priority is to maintain the production base of 3 million vehicles in Japan,” Azuma said. “This is the foundation of Toyota’s business… We want to work together to protect it, including through measures to stimulate domestic demand.”

Other Japanese automakers are also struggling with the tariff impact. Honda posted a Q1 operating loss of 29.6 billion yen due to U.S. tariffs and weak China sales. Mazda reported a 46 billion yen loss. Both companies are shifting focus to expand U.S. production and reroute exports from Japan.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I previously criticized the California law, called the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, as flagrantly unconstitutional.

Signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the law would have gutted free speech protections for political parodies.

Now, in Kohls v. Bonta, Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez has rebuked the state for a law that he concluded had to be rejected in its entirety as flawed to its core: “No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted. No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.”

An example of the challengers was described by the court:

“Plaintiff Christopher Kohls (aka “Mr. Reagan”) is an individual who creates digital content about political figures. His videos contain demonstrably false information that include sounds or visuals that are significantly edited or digitally generated using artificial intelligence …. Plaintiff’s videos are considered by him to be parody or satire. In response to videos posted by Plaintiff parodying presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other AI generated “deepfakes,” the California legislature enacted AB 2839. AB 2839, according to Plaintiff, would allow any political candidate, election official, the Secretary of State, and everyone who sees his AI-generated videos to sue him for damages and injunctive relief during an election period which runs 120 days before an election to 60 days after an election….”

Social media companies like X Corp. challenged Assembly Bill 2655, which requires certain platforms to remove “materially deceptive content” about political candidates, elections officials, and elected officers.

Challengers argued that federal law gives service providers immunity from suits stemming from content created by a third party. They also argued that the law violated the First Amendment.

Mendez agreed with the companies that the law “punishes [social media companies] for doing something that they’re clearly protected by [the Communications Decency Act] from doing.”

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, representing plaintiffs the Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, argued the required disclaimer under the law constituted compelled speech because it changes what the content creator wants to say: “A disclaimer kills the joke.”

The court agreed:

AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here. As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting videos such as those posted by Plaintiff, no matter how offensive or inappropriate someone may find them. “‘Especially as to political speech, counter speech is the tried and true buffer and elixir,’ not speech restriction.” …

It is a powerful statement in support of free speech. The opinion also further separates this country from the anti-free speech measures coming out of the European Union.

What is interesting is how California pulled out the same old saw used by many in the anti-free speech community in claiming that common law defamation shows that speech can be curtailed. I have previously addressed that flimsy argument, including in my book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. The court wrote:

While Defendants attempt to analogize AB 2839 to a restriction on defamatory statements, the statute itself does not use the word “defamation” and by its own definition, extends beyond the legal standard for defamation to include any false or materially deceptive content that is “reasonably likely” to harm the “reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate.” At face value, AB 2839 does much more than punish potential defamatory statements since the statute does not require actual harm and sanctions any digitally manipulated content that is “reasonably likely” to “harm” the amorphous “electoral prospects” of a candidate or elected official.

Moreover, all “deepfakes” or any content that “falsely appear[s] to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the content depicted in the media” are automatically subject to civil liability because they are categorically encapsulated in the definition of “materially deceptive content” used throughout the statute. Thus, even artificially manipulated content that does not implicate reputational harm but could arguably affect a candidate’s electoral prospects is swept under this statute and subject to civil liability.

The statute also punishes such altered content that depicts an “elections official” or “voting machine, ballot, voting site, or other property or equipment” that is “reasonably likely” to falsely “undermine confidence” in the outcome of an election contest. On top of these provisions lacking any objective metric and being difficult to ascertain, there are many acts that can be “do[ne] or [words that can be] sa[id]” that could harm the “electoral prospects” of a public official or “undermine confidence” in an election

Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful. For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many “harmful” depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all. As Plaintiff persuasively points out, AB 2839 “relies on various subjective terms and awkwardly-phrased mens rea,” which has the effect of implicating vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech.

Defendants further argue that AB 2839 falls into the possible exceptions recognized in U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) for lies that involve “some … legally cognizable harm.” However, the legally cognizable harms Alvarez mentions does not include the “tangible harms to electoral integrity” Defendants claim that AB 2839 penalizes. Instead, the potentially unprotected lies Alvarez cognized were limited to existing causes of action such as “invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation”; “false statements made to Government officials, in communications concerning official matters”; and lies that are “integral to criminal conduct,” a category that might include “falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or … impersonating a Government officer.” 567 U.S. at 719-722 (2012). AB 2839 implicates none of the legally cognizable harms recognized by Alvarez and thereby unconstitutionally suppresses broader areas of false but protected speech.

Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies (said with “actual malice”) about the government are constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court further articulated that “prosecutions for libel on government”­—including civil liability for such libel—”have [no] place in the American system of jurisprudence.” See also Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) (holding that “the Constitution does not tolerate in any form” “prosecutions for libel on government”). These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance….

The law was struck down under the strict scrutiny standard, another expensive loss for California democrats who continue to pass impulse-buy legislation with impunity.

It is only the latest assault on free speech from the left and it is unlikely to be the last.

Fortunately, there remain judges like Mendez who remained tightly tethered to our constitutional values:

In addition to encumbering protected speech, there is a more pressing reason to meet statutes that aim to regulate political speech, like AB 2839 does, with skepticism. To quote Justices Breyer and Alito in Alvarez, “[t]here are broad areas in which any attempt by the state to penalize purportedly false speech would present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech.” In analyzing regulations on speech, “[t]he point is not that there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or that the truth is always impossible to ascertain, but rather that it is perilous to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth” in certain settings.

The political context is one such setting that would be especially “perilous” for the government to be an arbiter of truth in. AB 2839 attempts to sterilize electoral content and would “open[] the door for the state to use its power for political ends.” “Even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate, since it brings about ‘the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.’” When political speech and electoral politics are at issue, the First Amendment has almost unequivocally dictated that Courts allow speech to flourish rather than uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate it.

Well said Judge Mendez and thank you.

Homeless encampments on private property in Seattle are creating costly challenges for landlords, who say they’re being penalized for issues they didn’t cause but are forced to manage, according to KOMO News.

On Capitol Hill, a vacant lot on Melrose Avenue recently became overrun with tents, trash, and illegal activity, prompting numerous complaints from neighbors. “The problems had gone on too long,” residents said, while accusing the property owner of being slow to act.

Eventually, a city inspector issued a notice of violation, giving the owner a deadline to clean and secure the site or face fines of up to $500 per day.

Clean-up crews, hired by the property owner through We Heart Seattle, arrived Wednesday to clear what had become “a hazardous waste site,” according to Andrea Suarez, founder of the outreach group. “It affects the community, it affects the restaurants, and it affects the residents,” she said.

The site was littered with used needles, gas canisters, and makeshift weapons. After Seattle police ordered about a dozen homeless individuals to leave the private lot, Suarez’s team helped many of them connect to services, including drug treatment and medical care.

KOMO News writes that the property owner, through a spokesperson, acknowledged responsibility for the lot’s condition but estimated the cleanup and repairs—fencing, graffiti removal, and trash abatement—would cost an additional $10,000.

“Thousands of dollars to restore a lot, abate the graffiti, abate the trash, and help the homeless,” Suarez said. “It costs thousands of dollars. Where are they supposed to put that kind of money?”

She also called for more flexibility and support from the city. “We need to find a common ground both in helping fund these kinds of cleanups and helping bring outreach to these private vacant lots as well,” Suarez added, “but give these owners a little bit more leeway.”

While fines may be delayed if a property owner shows progress, many struggle to meet city deadlines due to difficulties in securing contractors for fencing and security upgrades.

Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform,

Tariffs are going to Make America Great Again!!!!

Our deficit problems will be cured. The national debt will decline. Our fiscal nightmare is over. Right?

Trump is so excited, he can’t sleep. He’s boasting about the billions in tariff revenues at midnight.

He ain’t wrong. The chart below clearly shows the massive surge in tariff revenue generated by his policies since taking office. The total tariff revenues in the 6 months since he has taken office are $120 billion, versus the $50 billion taken in those same 6 months in the prior year. Based on current trends, Trump’s tariffs could bring in close to $400 billion on an annualized basis. Not too shabby compared to the $100 billion taken in the years prior to his new tariffs.

Trump isn’t bashful about hyping what he believes are outstanding achievements, like quadrupling tariff revenues and forcing those foreign countries to “pay their fair share”.  The numbers don’t lie, but a little perspective on the scale and ultimate impact of these tariffs may be helpful.

The national debt is on course to increase by $1.9 trillion this fiscal year ending 9/30/25. It is up $700 billion since Trump took office. The Big Beautiful Bill didn’t cut one dime from the budget. The national debt will increase by about $2 trillion in the next fiscal year, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. You get the picture. Increased debt until economic collapse.

The national debt will increase by approximately $5.5 billion per day forever, because the spending is on automatic pilot. Trump and your corrupt congress maggots have no intention of cutting any spending. A recession, war, or another fake pandemic would just drive the spending higher. So basically, the $300 billion in added tariff revenue will be frittered away by your government in less than 2 months. And if Trump goes through with his tariff rebate idea, the revenues will evaporate quicker, not that we should mind having the money in our pockets, rather than Nancy Pelosi’s and Chuck Schumer’s.

I know the Trump cheerleaders and social media influencers have been ecstatic that the tariffs have not created the dreaded surge in inflation predicted by the Fed and other economic “experts”. As the chart clearly shows, the tariffs have only been in place for 4 months. Does anyone understand the inflation impact is going to lag the implementation period? Does anyone understand there are only two possibilities regarding these tariffs? – either the corporations buying the goods wholesale eat the increase and decrease their profits or they pass along the price increases to the customers.

In the first case, corporate profits will decline and the stock market (at all-time highs and valuations) will likely decline significantly. In the more likely case, the corporations will pass the price increases to their customers, generating an increase in inflation and further robbing the average household of their spending power. Of course, Trump will instruct his new head of the BLS to fake the CPI number even more than it is already faked, to hide the real inflation caused by his tariffs.

I think a personal anecdote I’ve experienced will show you the devious methods corporations will use to pass these tariffs along. I have been buying a pack of coated paper plates at Wal-Mart for years. The pack contained 70 paper plates. Within the last four months, the pack was reduced to 50 plates, for the same price. They know the average dolt, after years of government schooling, is deficient in math skills, so they would not realize they just experienced a 40% increase in price per plate. This will show up nowhere in the fake BLS numbers. Shrinkflation is just as bad as inflation, but they can hide it and pretend all is well, while maintaining their profits.

Tariffs sounded great on the campaign trail. Foreign countries were clearly taking advantage of the U.S. through unfair trade practices. Trump’s threats and follow through on those threats have forced concessions from dozens of major trading partners. But his threatening rhetoric hasn’t worked on China, Brazil, India or the other BRIC countries, as they maneuver to replace the U.S. ruling economic empire. And now using tariffs/sanctions against Russia, China, and India to force Putin into an unacceptable peace plan with Ukraine/NATO is rhyming with FDR’s oil embargo on Japan in 1941.

The unintended consequences of his actions are yet to be revealed, but ultimately these tariffs should be judged by their overall results, rather than the intentions and narratives surrounding them.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

John Lam, head of China and Hong Kong property research at UBS, has pushed back his recovery timeline in China’s battered real estate sector to the second half of 2026. The delay reflects fading sales momentum and growing stimulus fatigue from the People’s Bank of China, raising doubts about near-term tailwinds for the world’s second-largest economy. 

In March, Lam told clients that home prices across top-tier markets would “turn stable” by early 2026. That forecast has been pushed out to mid-to-late 2026 unless more stimulus measures are rolled out. 

“The sales momentum has become tepid in recent months,” Lam said in an interview, quoted by Bloomberg, adding, “If that continues, a recovery will occur later than expected.”

Last month, Goldman analysts led by Andrew Tilton warned clients that China’s housing market continues to accelerate to the downside (read the note). 

This raised questions about whether Beijing may revive its 2015 stimulus playbook (read the note). 

Related:

• China’s Big Housing Stimulus Rescue Is Wishful Thinking

Bloomberg noted, “Lam is known for downgrading China Evergrande Group at the start of 2021, 11 months before the nation’s most indebted developer defaulted during the housing meltdown,” adding, “He also took a bold stance last year by turning bullish on the sector, even as most of his peers were forecasting a further decline.” 

Here are some of the key points from Lam about China’s delayed property market recovery:

• Sales Slowdown: Home sales by the top 100 developers have declined over 20% for two consecutive months, while new-home prices fell .27% in June, marking the steepest drop in eight months.

• Inventory Rising: Inventory turnover in tier-one cities rose from 14 months in March to 20.7 months in June, signaling soft demand and delayed absorption.

• Stimulus Fatigue: Existing stimulus measures appear to be slowing. The Politburo recently declined to add more property-specific support despite mounting pressure.

The bottom line is that China’s property market downturn will persist through the second half of this year and into early next year. Signs of recovery may begin to emerge at some point in 2026, potentially creating upside scenarios in beaten-down property stocks.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Recently, a large group of black youths began pummeling several white adults in downtown Cincinnati.

The original altercation apparently broke out between a black and white male in he-said/he-said fashion.

But that dispute soon turned into a virtual free-for-all.

Numerous male and female black youths sucker-punched a middle-aged woman and a man. Others continued to kick or body slam the victims, who were sprawled on their backs and seemingly unconscious.

There were many disturbing aspects to the beat-downs.

One, the violence broke out along racial and age fault lines. After the initial one-on-one dispute, groups of black youths swarmed solitary older white bystanders to pound them.

Two, the surrounding assembled group of black youths not only failed to intervene to restrain the bullies. They also recorded the beatings for social media and were heard cheering on the one-sided violence.

Three, there was neither a police presence nor any timely Good Samaritan interventions.

Instead, what ended the attacks was simply the fact that at least two of the targets appeared nearly comatose. So their assailants apparently concluded that their agenda of beating whites into unconsciousness was mostly complete.

Four, oddly few of the usual black spokespeople who habitually comment on interracial violence were to be seen.

During the fake Jussie Smollett attack, self-appointed leaders from Al Sharpton to Kamala Harris immediately issued warnings about so-called systemic white racism that had reared its ugly head to victimize Smollett.

Yet when it was revealed Smollett had concocted the entire charade—and even hired his own assaulters—there were few if any retractions from those once so eager to shout “racist!”

Such demagoguery is a well-known pattern dating back to the days of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, the Duke Lacrosse charade, the Covington kids ruse, the Michael Ford “Hands-up-Don’t Shoot” fabrication, the “pseudo-transformation of George Zimmerman into a ‘white Hispanic,’” or the NASCAR noose fable.

Racialists too often concoct white racist attackers and go silent when the evidence proves fabricated—only to be primed to manipulate the next hoax.

Five, the media and authorities did their best to either hide or play down the violence.

City leaders, the chief of police, and the media variously blamed the mass black-on-white violence on 1) social media, 2) the original one-on-one dispute, 3) alcohol, 4) the lack of civilian intervention to stop the violence, and 5) a festival atmosphere—anything except endemic racial hatred shown toward whites from the crowd of black youths.

Six, had a gang of white toughs beat middle-aged African-Americans senseless, recorded it, and cheered on the violence, there would have been immediate national outrage.

Nor did anyone wish to raise the taboo topic of inordinate black crime rates, disproportionate to respective demographic realities. In rare interracial violent crimes, the asymmetrical ratio of black-on-white versus white-on-black assaults ranges from three to five times greater.

Seven, the quiet of the left-wing media to the reprehensible violence stands in marked contrast with their usual rush-to-judgment racialism in two near-simultaneous incidents.

When a shooter of mixed African-American heritage recently entered a New York City corporate headquarters and executed four innocents, CNN falsely raised the speculation that a “white male” was perhaps responsible—despite the photograph of the suspect, who was as clearly male as he was not white.

Media and municipal officials jumped to explain the violence as due to the killer’s alleged past traumatic brain injury or because of his access to a semi-automatic weapon—or anything other than his hate-filled plan to murder an NFL executive.

Actress and model Sydney Sweeney just cut a jeans commercial in front of a poster that said, “Sydney Sweeney has great genes”—with “genes” crossed out and replaced with “jeans.” The left then exploded, alleging the ad was a supposed Hitlerian reference to white eugenics.

Yet the eugenics movement in America was mostly a product of left-wing progressives, from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to Democrat president Woodrow Wilson.

And the ad’s sponsor, American Eagle, had previously used all sorts of models from all racial backgrounds. All might agree that the ad simply shows both tight, sexy jeans and a naturally attractive wearer—period.

The country is descending into a tribal morass of double standards and racial fixations.

The diversity/equity/inclusion industry, the Defund-the-Police madness, and the perpetual left-wing hunt for “white racism/white privilege/white rage”—from the prior Pentagon hierarchy to the lunatic fringe of Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and Zohran Mamdani—have all legitimized double standards while lowering the bar of the once unacceptable.

When our careerist left-wing elites seek to divide us by race and make it essential, not incidental, to our identities, that tribalist message filters throughout communities.

The ensuing signal is that “payback” violence is okay—on the expectation that there are no consequences for interracial violence—as long as the victim is white and the assaulter is not.

President Trump must have read U.S. Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s letter, sent to Intel’s Board on Wednesday, about the chipmaker’s new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan’s ties to Chinese firms, and a recent criminal case involving his former company, Cadence Design. That’s because Trump just fired off a shocking new Truth Social post moments ago.

“The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. 

The president continued, “There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!” 

In a letter addressed to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary, Cotton raised the question whether Intel’s Board knew about subpoenas issued to Cadence during Tan’s tenure, and whether Tan has fully disclosed or divested from Chinese chip firms linked to the Chinese military or Communist Party.

Writing to “express concern about the security and integrity of Intel’s operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security“, Cotton said in the letter. 

Cotton noted that Tan recently pleaded guilty to illegally transferring sensitive chip design technology to a Chinese military university and semiconductor firm while working at Cadence. 

Cotton also criticized Intel’s decision to hire Tan despite these associations, especially given the company’s nearly $8 billion award under the CHIPS Act and its role in the Secure Enclave program, which requires strict compliance with national security protocols.

Intel shares are down nearly 4% in premarket trading in New York. 

Here’s the full letter from the GOP Senator:

Mr. Frank D. Yeary

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Intel Corporation

2200 Mission College Blvd

Santa Clara, CA 95054

Dear Mr. Yeary:

I write to express concern about the security and integrity of Intel’s operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security. In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO. Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. 

Mr. Tan was most recently the CEO of Cadence Design Systems, a company that makes electronic design automation (EDA) technology, which is a key enabler of advanced chip design. Last week, Cadence pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining licenses. These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure. 

Intel was awarded nearly $8 billion from the CHIPS and Science Act, the largest grant to a single company. Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations. Mr. Tan’s associations raise questions about Intel’s ability to fulfill these obligations. In the interest of transparency and national security, I respectfully request a response to the following questions by August 15, 2025.

1. Was the Board aware of Cadence’s subpoenas before hiring Mr. Tan as CEO? If so, what measures were taken to address concerns about Cadence’s activities under Mr. Tan?
2. Did the Board require Mr. Tan to divest from his positions in semiconductor firms linked to the Chinese Communist Party or the People’s Liberation Army and any other concerning entities in China that could pose a conflict of interest for Intel’s CEO?
3. Given Intel’s contract under the Secure Enclave program, has Mr. Tan disclosed any remaining investments, professional roles, or other ties to Chinese companies to the U.S. government?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely,

Tom Cotton

United States Senator

It seems like the ‘Red Scare’ has begun. 

And this…

The Pentagon took a stake in US rare earth miner MP Materials… when will it do the same with Intel

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 7, 2025

. . . 

Update: Trump just confirmed that Miran will serve on the Board until Jan 31, 2026, as replacement for outgoing governor Kugler.

* * * 

The dollar dumped, and gold and crypto jumped on a bloomberg report that Trump is preparing to nominate Stephen Miran, current Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to serve as a Federal Reserve governor. 

Miran, who has already been confirmed by the Senate before taking over as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors thus speeding up the process, is only expected to serve a term that expires in January, according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. As such the nomination is expected to fill the short-term void in the seat vacated by Governor Kugler.

Trump said Wednesday he would likely nominate a temporary governor to fill the seat, rather than a successor-in-waiting for Jerome Powell, who – let’s face it – can’t wait for his term to be officially over.

The dollar, which was already having a bad session, dumped on the news…

… while gold

… and crypto jumped…

… on expectations that Miran will push for Trump’s dovish agenda. 

Update (1545ET): Confirming the earlier rumors, President Trump signed an executive order easing access to private equity, real estate, cryptocurrency and other alternative assets in 401(k)s.

The order directs the Labor Department to reevaluate guidance around alternative asset investments in retirement plans and clarify the government’s position on fiduciary responsibilities.

Trump also required Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer to work with counterparts at the Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal regulators to determine whether rule changes should be made to assist in the effort. The SEC is asked to facilitate access to alternative assets for participant-directed retirement plans.

This is obviously a major victory for industries looking to tap some of the roughly $12.5 trillion held in those retirement accounts.

BTC and ETH are rallying further on the news…

*  *  *

US President Donald Trump will sign an executive order that could open the door for cryptocurrencies to be included in 401(k) retirement plans, potentially reshaping how Americans invest their savings.

The White House Press Office confirmed to Cointelegraph on Thursday that the order directs the US Labor Department to reevaluate restrictions around alternative assets in defined-contribution plans, including digital assets, private equity and real estate. 

A senior White House official said the order instructs the Secretary of Labor to clarify the department’s stance on alternative assets and provide guidance on fiduciary processes for offering these types of investments in retirement portfolios.

Trump will allow crypto exposure for $12.5 trillion 401(k) market

Once implemented, Cointelegraph’s Ezra Reguerra reports that the order could grant Americans access to digital assets through their 401(k) plans — part of a $12.5 trillion retirement market and a sought-after opportunity for crypto firms aiming to reach more retail investors.

The move would be a significant step forward for the crypto industry, which has long sought broader retail exposure and financial system legitimacy.

Despite institutional investors increasing crypto allocations, everyday savers have been restricted due to fiduciary risk, regulatory uncertainty and volatility concerns. 

The White House official said that Trump’s directive would call for inter-agency coordination with the US Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to explore rule changes that may support the adoption of alternative investments like crypto in retirement products. 

Bitcoin is rallying this morning on the report…

And yesterday saw a reversal of the recent outflows from ETFs…

Trump has final say on the executive order

On July 18, the Financial Times cited anonymous sources saying that the president is eyeing alternative investments like crypto assets for American 401(k) retirement plans.

In a previous statement to Cointelegraph, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that nothing should be deemed official unless it comes from Trump himself.

Desai said Trump is committed to restoring prosperity to everyday Americans and safeguarding their economic future. “No decisions should be deemed official, however, unless they come from President Trump himself,” Desai said. 

During a Bloomberg interview, US SEC Chair Paul Atkins said education on the risks associated with crypto as an investment is crucial.

Atkins said disclosure is key and that people should be made aware of what they are getting into. He added that he’s looking forward to what the president will do. 

Earlier this year, the Labor Department rescinded an earlier guidance for crypto in 401(k) plans. On May 28, the Labor Department revoked a 2022 guidance that urged fiduciaries to be “extremely cautious” when eyeing crypto for 401(k) retirement plans.