Former Attorney General Bill Barr praised Minnesota business leaders on Tuesday for refusing to cave to “activist pressure” to denounce federal law enforcement following anti-ICE protests. 
Reacting to an open letter from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce urging cooperation between federal and state authorities, Barr told The Daily Wire that he was encouraged by the development. 
Barr was the attorney general from 2019 to 2020, when corporations lined up behind the Black Lives Matter movement. 
“I applaud business leaders who did not bow to activist pressure to refuse any cooperation with federal law enforcement,” he said. “Fidelity to the ‘rule of law’ demands all citizens to respect the authority of the federal government to faithfully implement federal law throughout the nation, even in communities where it is unpopular. Without that authority, as George Washington observed, there could be no true national government.”
Barr’s comments come after dozens of business executives signed onto an open letter urging peace and cooperation among local, state, and federal authorities following the deadly shooting of an armed protester by Border Patrol during anti-ICE protests. 
The open letter, signed by executives from major companies including Target and Best Buy, said business leaders were working behind the scenes to facilitate communication between the Trump administration and Minnesota officials. 
“These efforts have included close communication with the Governor, the White House, the Vice President and local mayors. There are ways for us to come together to foster progress,” they wrote on January 25. “With yesterday&#8217;s tragic news, we are calling for an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.”
In recent days, leftist activists have pressured companies like Target to ban Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from its parking lots and stores. 
Conservative commentators noted a stark contrast between how corporations responded in 2020 following George Floyd&#8217;s death and the more cautious, neutral approach many companies are taking amid the current anti-ICE protests. 
“It’s encouraging to see companies choosing restraint at a moment when political pressure from the left is often the loudest and most unhinged voice in the room,” Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild wrote on X. “A business response prioritizing neutrality, safety and their core responsibility to customers and employees = commendable and a stark departure from 2020 escalatory statements from corporate America.”

MixCollage-27-Jan-2026-09-54-AM-1361

Trump’s Former AG Praises Business Leaders For Standing Firm Amid ICE Protests

Business

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Outdoor apparel brand Patagonia is suing a drag queen who sells merchandise under a name very similar to their company name, saying it causes customer confusion.
The lawsuit was filed in a California federal court against an individual named Wyn Wiley, who uses the stage name Pattie Gonia. The company argued that matters were further complicated by the fact that Wiley is also an environmental activist who promotes activities very similar to what the brand does, such as &#8220;motivational speaking services in support of environmental sustainability&#8221; and &#8220;organizing, arranging, and conducting trail and hiking events,&#8221; per <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/patagonia-sues-drag-queen-pattie-gonia-trademark-infringement-2026-01-21/">Reuters</a>.
“We want Pattie to have a long and successful career and make progress on issues that matter – but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property and ability to use our brand to sell products and advocate for the environment,&#8221; Patagonia said in a statement, the outlet noted.
The company stated in the lawsuit that Wiley agreed in 2022 not to use the name on any branded merchandise that may confuse consumers, but claims that promise has since been violated as the drag queen and LGBT activist has sold apparel with phrases like &#8220;Pattie Gonia Hiking Club.&#8221;
Attorneys representing the brand sent an email to Wiley last February, the lawsuit noted. “Patagonia remains supportive of your work but must insist that the Pattie Gonia persona not be commercialized and continue to adhere to the commitments made in 2022,” the email says.
“Unfortunately, these latest product sales force Patagonia’s hand and so I’m asking that you discontinue sales of t-shirts and stickers (or any product) using Pattie Gonia branding or designs substantially similar to Patagonia’s logos,” it said.
Wiley and his business partner said in reply that they “have never and will never reference the brand Patagonia’s logo or brand,” and <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/01/22/us-news/patagonia-sues-drag-queen-pattie-gonia-claiming-irreparable-harm/">claimed</a> there was room for Patagonia and Pattie Gonia to “play in this box.”
Patagonia noted that the lawsuit was filed in response to Wiley trying to trademark “Pattie Gonia.” They are seeking $1 in damages and court orders to prevent Wiley from continuing to use the name.
“While Patagonia seeks only nominal monetary damages, the harm Pattie Gonia has caused and will cause to the Patagonia brand is irreparable and cannot be remedied by money damages or other remedies short of an injunction,” the lawsuit says.
While Patagonia has not had any professional relationship with Wiley, he has worked with other major brands in the past. In 2022, the non-profit organization Audubon Society promoted a video of Pattie Gonia dressed as an elaborate bird while performing an interpretive dance to promote climate change awareness, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/audubon-society-teams-up-with-drag-queen-dressed-like-a-bird-for-climate-change-awareness">reported</a>.
Then in 2023, the outdoor sports gear brand The North Face <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-north-face-debuts-summer-of-pride-with-campy-drag-video-amid-ongoing-bud-light-target-backlash">debuted</a> an over-the-top “Summer of Pride” promotion on social media, which included Wiley performing as Pattie Gonia.

Pattie Gonia

Patagonia Sues Drag Queen ‘Pattie Gonia,’ Says He’s Caused ‘Irreparable Harm’ To Brand

Patagonia Sues Drag Queen 'Pattie Gonia,' Says He's Caused 'Irreparable Harm' To Brand

copyright

Courts

Drag Queens

Lawsuit

U.S.

The following is an edited transcript from &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1894-not-playing-games-trump-launches-investigation-into-minnesota-libs?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.&#8221;
* * *
Michelle Obama went viral yesterday — on Martin Luther King Day of all days — for comments about shopping habits and race.
The viral description making the rounds, however, reads, &#8220;Michelle Obama says she is mindful to try to avoid white-owned brands&#8230;&#8221;
The question is whether what she actually said matches that description.
Let&#8217;s find out. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Michelle Obama says she is mindful to try to avoid white-owned brands and others also should be <a href="https://t.co/5MqY5gaxUv">pic.twitter.com/5MqY5gaxUv</a>
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2013356579802767412?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @EndWokeness/X.com
At a superficial glance, just hearing her words verbatim, you’d probably have to say the viral description isn’t entirely fair. Nowhere does she explicitly say “don’t shop at white-owned brands.” Nowhere does she say “shop at black-owned brands and not white-owned brands.”
And in defense of Michelle Obama — and I don’t generally defend her — that’s not literally what she said.
She said that if she sees a black-owned brand and she likes their stuff, she’ll choose that brand. But she stops herself. She doesn’t say, “and I won’t buy from anyone else.” She doesn’t say, “I only do it because it’s black-owned.”
But here’s the problem: she injects race into the decision. She’s saying, “If I like their stuff, and if it’s black-owned, then I especially want to buy it.” And when she says, “If you have the money to buy Chanel, you have the money to buy everybody,” she very carefully stops short of finishing the sentence. She doesn’t say “black-owned brands.” She says “everybody.”
What she’s doing is trying to privilege the black-owned brand while avoiding the explicit consequence of that choice. She wants to be a racial identitarian when it comes to the positive act of buying — of supporting a business — but she doesn’t want to be a racial identitarian when it comes to the negative act of not shopping somewhere else.
She never says, “Don’t shop at white brands.” Instead, she says you need to shop at black brands, and everybody needs to shop at black brands — but maybe not less at white brands.
It’s a kind of gobbledygook. And that’s why, ultimately, I think the viral description is basically fair, even if it’s not perfectly precise.
It’s like the IQ bell curve meme. At one end, people say she told people not to shop at white stores. In the middle, it’s “she said to shop at black stores but also shop at white stores.” And at the other end, what she’s really saying is: shop less at white stores. Her minor premise is wrong. She says if you have the money to buy Chanel, you have the money to buy everybody.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1894-not-playing-games-trump-launches-investigation-into-minnesota-libs?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
That’s simply not true. Money is a finite resource. Just because you can afford one expensive brand doesn’t mean you have infinite money. And even if you did have infinite money, you have finite closet space. You have a finite number of dresses you’ll wear. A finite number of days in the week. Where are you going to wear all these clothes?
This is the core problem with diversity ideology. If you privilege one thing, you necessarily disadvantage another. 
This is exactly the problem with affirmative action. Everyone says, “Oh, it’s great, we should help out black people.” And yes, for the vast majority of Americans, that sounds good. Who doesn’t want to help?
But affirmative action in practice means something very concrete. There are a finite number of spots at a university. A finite number of jobs. When you give an advantage to black people simply for being black, you are necessarily disadvantageous to someone else — often white people, or Asian people in the case of college admissions. There is discrimination happening. There is an injustice that comes with that, too.
The same logic applies here. When you say, “I’m going to shop at the black brand,” you are necessarily saying that, at the margin — the last dress that fits in your closet — you are not going to shop at the white brand. You are choosing not to go into that shop, not because you dislike the dress, but because of the race of the person who owns it.
That is discrimination on the basis of race. That’s what Michelle Obama is saying — without saying it. She doesn’t want to go all the way, but there is no other conclusion you can reach from her premises.
This ties directly into why people don’t really talk about Martin Luther King Jr. the same way anymore. Part of it is that the modern Left rejects him because he was too conciliatory and too egalitarian. But the other reason is that the practical politics don’t match the rhetoric.
Dr. King famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” 
And yet his successors say that in order to achieve that dream, we need affirmative action, DEI, and diversity ideology. Which, in practice, means judging people — especially white people — by the color of their skin.
Taken to its extreme, it means not shopping at white-owned businesses. And even if you agree with MLK’s premise, you are completely undermining it with these practical consequences.
So no, I don’t begrudge Michelle Obama for shopping at black-owned businesses. That’s fine. But if you’re going to say it, say it with your whole heart. Finish the sentence.
Tell people explicitly: shop at black businesses. Don’t shop at white businesses. Define what counts as ownership — 50% plus one ownership? Board seats? Stakeholders? I don’t know. But say it clearly.
And if you’re not willing to say that, then just buy the dress you like.

2025 Martha’s Vineyard African American Film Festival

Michelle Obama And The Logic Of ‘Mindful’ Shopping

Affirmative Action

Blacks

Clothes

Corporations

Fashion

Michael Knowles

Michelle Obama

Opinion

Credit card interest rates are expected to be ordered to pause at 10% for one year starting January 20, President Donald Trump announced on Friday night.
“Please be informed that we will no longer let the American Public be ‘ripped off’ by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%, and even more, which festered unimpeded during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration. AFFORDABILITY!” he posted to Truth Social.
“Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%. Coincidentally, the January 20th date will coincide with the one year anniversary of the historic and very successful Trump Administration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” the president continued.
Credit cards typically carry an interest rate of 23.79%, according to LendingTree. As of Q3 of 2025, Americans have $1.23 trillion in credit card debt, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Center for Microeconomic Data</a>. Over 80% of Americans have a credit card, according to <a href="https://www.fool.com/money/research/credit-card-ownership-statistics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Motley Fool</a>.
It’s unclear if there will be subsequent legal action against the order. The move is one of several major financial actions the president has taken in recent days. On Wednesday, he announced he would be taking action to prevent “institutional” buyers from purchasing single-family homes, writing on Truth Social that “people live in homes, not corporations.”
“For a very long time, buying and owning a home was considered the pinnacle of the American Dream. It was the reward for working hard, and doing the right thing, but now, because of the Record High Inflation caused by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Congress, that American Dream is increasingly out of reach for far too many people, especially younger Americans,” he stated.
Then on Thursday, he directed a purchase of $200 billion in mortgage bonds in another move intended to tackle the cost of home ownership.
“This will drive Mortgage Rates DOWN, monthly payments DOWN, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable,” he said.
Trump has repeatedly referenced “affordability” in his messaging on economic policy in recent weeks, as the phrase has quickly turned into a marquee campaign trail tenet for the November midterms used by both parties.

San Francisco Reopens Indoor Dining, Gyms As Coronavirus Cases Drop

Credit Card Interest Rates Could Be Capped At 10% For The Year, Trump Says

affordability

credit cards

Economy

Money

Politics

Trump Administration

A rep from Spotify confirmed that they are no longer airing recruitment ads for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the last campaign ended in late 2025.
The update comes after left-wing organizations openly complained about the ads, which were run between songs for ad-supported free subscribers.
“There are currently no ICE ads running on Spotify,” a statement from the music streaming giant <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/spotify-no-longer-running-ice-recruitment-ads-after-us-government-campaign-ends">said</a>, per The Guardian. “The advertisements mentioned were part of a US government recruitment campaign that ran across all major media and platforms.”
Spotify previously addressed criticism of the ads, saying they did not “violate our advertising policies.”
“This advertisement is part of a broad campaign the US government is running across television, streaming, and online channels,” the company shared in a statement last October. “However, users can mark any ad with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to help manage their ads preferences.”
Similar ICE recruitment ads have been running on other popular platforms including Hulu, HBO Max, YouTube, and Pandora since last spring.
The non-profit organization Indivisible Project, best known for organizing the nationwide “No Kings” protests, called for a boycott of Spotify in an <a href="https://indivisible.org/statements/indivisible-announces-campaign-cancel-spotify-streaming-services-over-ice-recruitment">open letter</a> shared in October.
“Spotify is exploiting the work of artists to line their pockets while recruiting for ICE – a secret police force that is terrorizing American communities. Spotify is actively amplifying the Trump regime’s drive to authoritarianism,” the letter said in part.
The organization took credit for Spotify no longer running the ads, writing in an update on Friday that “months of public pressure” resulted in the music streaming service no longer running ICE advertisements.
Some minor musical artists also removed their music from the platform in protest. This includes the Australian psych-rock band King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, the Canadian group Godspeed You! Black Emperor, indie band Deerhoof, and U.S. singer-songwriter Kadhja Bonet, per The Guardian.

Spotify

Spotify Confirms They’re Not Running ICE Recruitment Ads Anymore

Spotify Confirms They're Not Running ICE Recruitment Ads Anymore

advertising

government

Music

Warner Bros. Discovery has formally rejected the hostile takeover bid from Paramount amid their merger deal with Netflix, dubbing the proposed terms “inferior” to the Netflix partnership.
“Your Board negotiated a merger with Netflix that maximizes value while mitigating downside risks, and we unanimously believe the Netflix merger is in your best interest. We are focused on advancing the Netflix merger to deliver its compelling value to you,” the board wrote in a letter to shareholders Wednesday morning, per <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/warner-bros-discovery-rejects-paramount-skydance-ellison-latest-takeover-offer-1236624282/">Variety</a>.
The letter further stated that the Paramount offer “is not more favorable to WBD stockholders than the Netflix Merger and continues to be inadequate,” because of “insufficient value, taking into account price and numerous risks, costs and uncertainties.” 
The decision to reject the bid was said to be unanimous. This was the sixth offer made and rejected by Paramount.
“The Offer is entirely at [Paramount]’s discretion – [Paramount] can reduce the price, impose new conditions, or walk away entirely at any time prior to its acceptance of tendered shares,” Warner Bros. said of the proposal.
Paramount announced their latest bid days after the Netflix deal was announced in December.
“We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers and the movie theater industry,” Paramount Chairman and CEO David Ellison said in a statement at the time, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/paramount-launches-hostile-takeover-bid-for-warner-bros-days-after-netflix-deal-announced?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Paramount+Launches+Hostile+Takeover+Bid+For+Warner+Bros.+Days+After+Netflix+Deal+Announced">reported</a>. 
“We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction.”
President Trump remarked on the Netflix deal in December, saying it “could be a problem” from an antitrust standpoint. The president also mentioned being “involved” in reviewing the deal. The proposed merger has had bipartisan pushback from skeptics who warn it could turn into a “nightmare” for consumers and creatives. 
Many critics also worry that it could destroy the theater industry, as rumors persist that Netflix will push for a shorter theatrical release window for major films. Per <a href="https://www.avclub.com/netflix-warner-bros-17-day-theatrical-amc">reports</a>, the timing could be shortened to as little as 17 days, drastically reducing the industry standard of a 30 to 45-day delay before movies arrive on streaming services.

Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. Rejects ‘Inferior’ Paramount Hostile Takeover Bid, Chooses Netflix

Warner Bros. Rejects 'Inferior' Paramount Hostile Takeover Bid, Chooses Netflix

Entertainment

Hollywood

Netflix

Paramount

Warner Bros

The founder of Origin USA, an apparel brand proudly manufactured in the United States, has an idea about why Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro was seen wearing a blue hoodie made by his company.
The CEO of the Maine-based company posted a video on Sunday describing what happened after footage of Maduro’s perp walk went viral.
“Last night, my phone blew up and I figured I was really the only one that could talk about this because my company, Origin, happens to make this hoodie,” Roberts <a href="https://x.com/originbjj/status/2007980338430284250?s=46">said</a> in a video gaining traction on X. “When my phone blew up last night, I had to figure out if this was AI or not, and I decided very quickly it was not.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Here&#8217;s why Maduro is wearing our hoodie.<a href="https://twitter.com/originpete?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@originpete</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jockowillink?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jockowillink</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ffu9OD7Lt0">pic.twitter.com/Ffu9OD7Lt0</a>
— ORIGIN (@ORIGINBJJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/ORIGINBJJ/status/2007980338430284250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Why is this dude wearing an <a href="https://originusa.com/products/brrr-rtx-hoodie?variant=50903288316182">Origin Patriot Blue hoodie</a>?” Roberts wondered, noting the irony, considering that “this logo here on the shirt Maduro is wearing, this is the wave of freedom.”
Roberts shared the story behind that symbol, recalling how he started Origin in 2012 after watching his local community collapse as jobs were lost to overseas factories.
“I had seen my community gutted over the years and hollowed out, and all the manufacturing jobs sent away, sent overseas, and what that left behind was hopelessness,” the company founder said. Origin’s mission, he added, was “the reclamation of our machines and the reshoring and the restoring of our communities.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Origin operates multiple U.S. locations, including a footwear factory in Maine and a denim factory in North Carolina. It produces the hoodie Maduro was wearing, which Roberts said may have been given to the dictator to compensate for the chilly New York weather.
“I think what I believe happened is he landed in New York and it was very cold outside, and what they did is they put on a hoodie on him,” he continued.
The final irony wasn’t lost on Roberts. “Probably a DEA agent slipped this hoodie on him and said, ‘you’re going to feel the fabric of freedom on American soil,’” he speculated. Whether intentional or not, the image of Maduro wearing a symbol of American manufacturing and freedom in patriot blue will not be forgotten.

Maduro in hoodie

Maduro Pictured In ‘Wave Of Freedom’ Hoodie Made By Company Fighting To Revive The American Dream

America

Freedom

Global Politics

Nicolas Maduro

Venezuela

World

Legendary investor Warren Buffett on Wednesday worked his final day as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, ending a six-decade run at the helm. Buffett stunned Wall Street in May when he announced plans to step down at the end of the year. While he’s relinquishing the CEO title, the 95-year-old is not entering full retirement. 
Berkshire Hathaway’s board unanimously named Vice Chairman Greg Abel, 63, as Buffett’s successor. Abel, who has been with the company since 2000 and oversees its non-insurance operations, will assume the role of CEO on January 1.
In his <a href="https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/nov1025.pdf">final letter</a> to shareholders in November, Buffett voiced strong support for Abel. Buffett also said he plans to retain a significant stake in Berkshire Hathaway until shareholders grow comfortable with Abel’s leadership, adding that the company’s board and his family fully support the transition. He also emphasized that Berkshire would continue to be managed in a way that benefits both shareholders and the country.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Buffett also expressed confidence in Berkshire Hathaway’s long-term stability, telling shareholders that the company faces “less chance of a devastating disaster than any business I know” and has “a more shareholder-conscious management and board than almost any company with which I am familiar.”
He also offered a characteristically steady warning to investors that market volatility is inevitable, regardless of who is in charge. 
“Our stock price will move capriciously, occasionally falling 50% or so as has happened three times in 60 years under present management,&#8221; said Buffett. &#8220;Don’t despair; America will come back and so will Berkshire shares.”
Abel is stepping into enormous shoes. Over Buffett’s tenure, Berkshire Hathaway’s stock climbed from roughly $19 per share to about $750,000, a gain of nearly 4 million percent. Buffett transformed the company from a struggling textile mill into a $1 trillion conglomerate, marking one of the most successful business turnarounds in American history. 
Buffett’s fascination with business <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-95-birthday-berkshire-hathaway-stock-investing-025-8#partnerships-old-and-new-4">began early</a>. He bought his first stock, Cities Service Preferred, at age 11. By 22, he was teaching night classes on investing and managing money for family and friends. In 1956, he launched his firm, Buffett Partnership, which grew from $100,000 to $20 million before he took control of Berkshire Hathaway. He began acquiring shares in 1962 and assumed full leadership in 1965.

Squawk Alley

It’s Warren Buffett’s Last Day On The Job After 60 Years As CEO

Celebrities

CEOs

Editor’s note: This week, we’re reprinting some of our best stories from the past year. In this piece, originally published in June, former college president Greg Salsbury recounts the cost of California’s failed leadership.
* * *
Perhaps it is fitting that legendary Beach Boy and California native son Brian Wilson would pass away in the same year that a New York Times headline would ask, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/us/california-turmoil-resilience.html">“Is the California Dream a Mirage?”</a>
The social, environmental and economic disaster that is California has been mushrooming for decades now, with any improvements in the near term looking about as likely as a working bullet train from the north to the south in that state. The litany of negative facts emerging for the state is accompanied by descriptors such as “worst,” “first,” “record,” “ballooning,” “unsustainable,” “disaster,” and “mismanagement.” These ills are detailed in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-assemblyman-explains-how-state-has-mismanaged-fire-prevention-policies-as-wildfires-rage">myriad</a> <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bad-policy-served-as-kindling-for-californias-wildfires-forest-water-management-social-justice-c5b94a4f?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAif-IufnKaxHOP49zFGTHPZhQuqrXUEi-2TLq3CTiNpkYvlSDqNxFWNzK60iAw%3D&amp;gaa_ts=685d8562&amp;gaa_sig=3-LfR_GHU3tLPG-o-YsVjgoRNU1-opiK9zrnQzURPOZIBNcm7OIKeIV5kTdTHBKbOeKnRJ-BbcIcuJq-0ipu3Q%3D%3D">articles</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/01/11/opinion/catastrophic-wildfires-left-la-in-ashes-due-to-californias-failing-liberal-leadership/">pointing</a> to California’s failed leadership.
Consider the overall economic situation. California went from a state budget surplus of <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/after-100-billion-surplus-california-now-faces-73-billion-budget-deficit">$100b to a deficit of $73b</a> in just three years. This was driven in part from its decision in February of 2020 to escalate spending significantly while it was <a href="https://www.ppic.org/publication/whats-behind-californias-recent-population-decline-and-why-it-matters/">losing jobs</a>, and for the first time since receiving statehood in 1850, population. Between 2010 and 2023, the state saw 9.3 million people leave while only 6.7 million arrived — with a disproportionate number of the “leavers” in the high-income, high-tax-paying category.
California had the distinction of being rated as the very worst state in which to do business by <a href="https://chiefexecutive.net/california-is-the-worst-state-for-business-2014/">Chief Executive</a> magazine — for ten years in a row. Others were more positive with The <a href="https://sbecouncil.org/2019/05/06/new-report-sbe-council-ranks-50-states-according-to-public-policy-and-tax-climates-for-small-business/">Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council</a> seeing them as only the second worst state, and the <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/best-worse-states-entrepreneurs">Cato Institute</a> placing them at 48th out of 50 for entrepreneurs.
<a href="https://californiapolicycenter.org/reports/worsttobest/">The California Policy Center</a> concludes:
<blockquote>“For anyone operating a business in California – small, medium or large – the experiences of the last twenty years have been challenging, and it gets worse every year. California’s regulatory environment, its high taxes and exorbitant fees, and the overall cost of doing business are the toughest in the nation. Many businesses have voted with their feet, moving their operations to more welcoming business environments.” </blockquote>
According to WalletHub.com’s report “<a href="https://wallethub.com/edu/best-places-to-retire/6165">Best &amp; Worst Places to Retire (2025)</a>,” which examined 182 cities across the U.S., four out five of the worst cities in which to retire are in California.
The story is equally daunting in a host of other arenas for the state — education, illegal immigration, water, violent crime, theft, housing, insurance, energy, environment, assorted taxes and fees, cost of living, state employee pensions, healthcare, and more. <a href="https://www.consumeraffairs.com/movers/%23editorial">ConsumerAffairs</a>, a consumer news and advocacy organization, compared all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. across five categories: affordability, economy, education and health, quality of life, and safety. California ranked as the single least desirable state to move to. Their conclusion might have been influenced by seeing that, compared to all other 49 states in the nation, California has the:
<ul>
<li>Highest <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html">poverty rate</a></li>
<li>Highest top marginal <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-income-tax-rates/">state income tax rate</a></li>
<li>Highest <a href="https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-expensive-states-to-buy-a-house/">median home price</a></li>
<li>Highest <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-gas-tax-rates-2024/">gasoline tax</a></li>
<li>Highest number of federal <a href="https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/welfare-recipients-by-state">welfare recipients</a></li>
<li>Highest amount of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-states-blame-most-nearly-400-million-unemployment-fraud">unemployment benefit fraud</a></li>
<li>Highest number of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/">illegal immigrants</a></li>
<li>Highest percentage of <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/map-states-most-high-school-dropouts-1872310">high school dropouts</a></li>
<li>Highest rates of <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/human-trafficking-statistics-by-state">human trafficking</a></li>
<li>Highest <a href="https://247wallst.com/special-report/2024/02/13/this-is-the-state-with-the-most-homeless-people-every-state-ranked/">homeless population</a></li>
<li>Highest level of <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/pension/comparative_view/table/">state pension shortfall</a></li>
<li>Highest level of <a href="https://www.consumeraffairs.com/movers/states-people-are-moving-to-and-from.html">net exodus</a> from the state</li>
<li>Highest <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/630090/states-with-the-average-electricity-price-for-the-residential-sector-in-the-us/">cost for kilowatt hours</a> in the continental U.S.</li>
</ul>
While many folks have wryly referred to California as, “the most expensive weather in the world,” an increasing number of people are rethinking that cost — especially when the weather itself is now regularly accompanied by wildfires, mudslides, and earthquakes.
The <a href="https://hgbr.org/californias-economic-challenges-a-growing-exodus-and-policy-concerns/">Hampton Global Business Review</a> concludes, “The allure of California’s beaches and innovation hubs might not be enough to counteract the growing disenchantment among its residents and business leaders.”
While all of this is more than sobering, contrary to the popular narrative, the untenable situation in which the state now finds itself cannot be blamed solely or even largely on the handful of people who have occupied the top leadership roles or even the few thousand in mid-tier management/political roles for the state. To be sure, many of those people have largely been far worse than feckless; they have been actively counterproductive — perhaps even maleficent. But blaming leadership is like blaming guns for shooting homicides. They could not have performed this disservice without the active support of the California voters.
Time and time again, California voters continue to check the box for more of the same people who continue to inflict damage on them for decades now. But more importantly, they knowingly do so. No objective observer can credibly argue that Californians have been fooled or misled by their leaders or the outrageous decisions they have made, or failed to make.
The great scholar, author, and life-long California resident Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has for years <a href="https://goodreads.com/book/show/28121811-the-decline-and-fall-of-california">detailed</a> the disastrous results of many of these decisions — from eliminating fire-preventing forest management, to not only failing to build appropriate dams but blowing up existing dams and eliminating reservoirs, to promoting unchecked and mass illegal immigration.
There was likely no more clarifying moment of truth on this point than when Governor Gavin Newsom faced a recall. His record was damning. There was the bungled and hypocritical mismanagement of the COVID virus response — complete with vaccine shortages, maskless French Laundry dinners with friends, and arbitrary business closure guidelines, a budget deficit that was more than double his own projection, and most importantly, the ignoring or exacerbation of most of the long list of the aforementioned maladies destroying the state.
Not only did the recall effort fail miserably, with Newsom receiving a convincing approval mandate of 62% of the vote, but he was then solidly re-elected in 2022 with nearly that same margin. California voters, no doubt painfully aware of all of these issues essentially said, “Yes, yes, yes! Give us more of this!”
But suppose for just a moment that Newsom had been recalled, that perhaps he had skewered one of the sacred cows big enough to motivate his ouster. Perhaps he drove a diesel car, or contended that there is something wrong about allowing a 250lb biological male athlete to compete with women, or suggested that maybe the unpunished shoplifting limit should be reduced from $950 to say $500, or publicly stated that illegal immigrants are not entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Who would voters have suggested take his place? It almost certainly would have been another entity not dissimilar to Newsom in any significant way.
All of this is exacerbated by the fact that so many logically thinking, hard-working, patriotic Americans are leaving California if they can. With each passing year, the state is left with an increasingly left-leaning voter base — and they like it that way.  Thus, it is folly to believe that California’s ills can be solved as simply as replacing a few, key incompetent leaders. California’s failed leadership is not nearly as problematic as its failed follower-ship. And that is a far harder nut to crack.
Brian Wilson made a career writing songs about the abundant fun, fun, fun available in the Golden State. Were he with us today, begrudgingly or not, he would have to admit that clearly, daddy took the T-Bird away.
* * *
Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisor member for <a href="https://starrs.us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">STARRS.US</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Newsom best of

Best Of 2025: California Had Fun, Fun, Fun — Until Voters Took The T-Bird Away

California

Gavin Newsom

Immigration

Jobs

Small Businesses

Taxes

Warner Bros Discovery will likely reject Paramount Skydance&#8217;s amended $108.4 billion hostile bid for the storied Hollywood studio despite a personal guarantee from billionaire Larry Ellison backing the media giant&#8217;s offer, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The board has yet to make a final decision, but is expected to meet next week, said the person, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Warner Bros and Paramount declined to comment on the board&#8217;s position, reported earlier by CNBC.
The decision could keep Warner Bros on track to pursue a rival cash-and-stock deal with Netflix despite Paramount&#8217;s attempt to sweeten its offer.
Ellison, whose son David is chairman and CEO of Paramount, personally guaranteed the equity underpinning the bid, hoping to ease doubts that had dogged its earlier proposal.
The company did not increase its $30-per-share all-cash offer, but it raised its regulatory reverse termination fee to match Netflix and extended its tender offer deadline.
Netflix&#8217;s $82.7 billion offer, while lower in headline value, offers a clearer financing structure and fewer execution risks, analysts have said.
Under terms of that agreement, Warner Bros would face a $2.8 billion breakup fee if it walks away from the Netflix deal.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Harris Oakmark, Warner Bros&#8217; fifth largest investor with 96 million shares, said the revised offer wasn&#8217;t &#8220;sufficient,&#8221; and noted that it was not enough to cover the breakup fee.
Paramount has argued its bid would face fewer regulatory obstacles. A combined Paramount-Warner Bros entity would create a studio larger than industry leader Disney and merge two major television operators.
Warner Bros&#8217; board previously urged shareholders to reject Paramount&#8217;s $108.4 billion bid for the entire company, including its cable television assets, citing concerns over financing certainty and the absence of a full guarantee from the Ellison family.
Paramount has argued its offer is more market-proof than Netflix&#8217;s $82.7 billion proposal, whose value has fluctuated with Netflix&#8217;s share price.
Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about further consolidation in the media industry. U.S. President Donald Trump has said he plans to weigh in on the landmark acquisition.
(Reporting by Akash Sriram in Bengaluru; Editing by Dawn Kopecki, Krishna Chandra Eluri, Anil D&#8217;Silva and David Gregorio)

Warner Bros Likely To Reject Paramount’s Latest Hostile Bid, Source Says

Sony Pictures Entertainment announced they will be acquiring majority ownership of the iconic Peanuts IP, including the beloved characters Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and the rest of the gang created by Charles M. Schulz. 
The purchase price was around $457 million for the 41% stake held by WildBrain in Peanuts Holdings LLC, bringing Sony’s total stake to 80%. The Schulz family continues to have a 20% stake, per <a href="https://variety.com/2025/film/news/sony-acquire-peanuts-457-million-deal-1236612363/">Variety</a>.
“Since 2018, SMEJ has been proud to be part of the partnership behind ‘Peanuts,’ an iconic global entertainment brand with a 75-year legacy of delighting audiences worldwide,” Shunsuke Muramatsu, president and group CEO, Sony Music Entertainment (Japan), said in a statement. “With this additional ownership stake, we are thrilled to be able to further elevate the value of the ‘Peanuts’ brand by drawing on the Sony Group’s extensive global network and collective expertise.”
“We are deeply committed to carrying forward the legacy of Charles Schulz and the Schulz family,” he added. “Together with SPE, and backed by WildBrain’s continued partnership, we will continue to embrace new opportunities to ensure that ‘Peanuts’ remains a relevant and beloved presence across generations—reaching new audiences and sharing the timeless charm of the ‘Peanuts’ gang for years ahead.”
Sony said they planned to keep the characters in the spotlight.
“With our combined strengths, we have the unique capability and extraordinary opportunity to protect and shape the future of these beloved characters for generations to come,” Sony Pictures President and CEO Ravi Ahuja said of the acquisition.
Peanuts began as a syndicated daily and Sunday comic strip featuring the misadventures of Charlie Brown and his friends. The comic strip originally ran from 1950 to 2000 and is considered one of the most popular and influential comic strips in history, with 17,897 strips published in all.
Some of the most popular Peanuts projects include the animated holiday specials “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.” In 2015, 20th Century Fox Animation and Blue Sky Studios released “The Peanuts Movie.&#8221;

Snoopy, Lucy, Charlie Brown, & Linus in Peanuts

Sony Pictures To Take Majority Control Of ‘Peanuts’ Franchise

 Sony Pictures To Take Majority Control Of 'Peanuts' Franchise

Cartoon

United States

Kristin Cabot, the woman who went viral over the summer after being caught in an intimate moment with her boss Andrew Byron on the kiss cam at a Coldplay concert, has some harsh words for Gwyneth Paltrow.
The former HR exec gave multiple interviews this week and went over some details about the event and aftermath. Cabot was shocked at the level of public outrage over her alleged infidelity, and seemed especially offended that Paltrow joined in the fray.
&#8220;I was such a fan of her company [Goop], which seemed to be about uplifting women,” Cabot told The Times U.K. “And then she did this. I thought, ‘How dare she after the beating she got for all the conscious uncoupling stuff.’ What a hypocrite.”
Cabot said she got rid of all her Goop products as a form of protest.
The former Astronomer employee was referring to Paltrow’s relationship with her ex-husband, Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, and how she referenced their separation using unique terminology.
Cabot also made other revelations during the interviews, including insisting that it was her first time ever kissing her former boss and claiming that their relationship was never sexual. The New Hampshire native also revealed that her then-husband, Andrew Cabot, was at the infamous concert. He said in a statement that the couple was estranged at the time of the incident.
Both Cabot and Byron left their positions at the tech company in the wake of the scandal.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Paltrow <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/astronomer-hires-gwyneth-paltrow-to-be-temporary-spokesperson-after-kiss-cam-drama">put out a commercial</a> for the company just days after the kiss cam drama blew up on social media. “I’ve been hired on a very temporary basis to speak on behalf of the 300-plus employees at Astronomer,” the &#8220;Avengers: Endgame&#8221; actress said in the video.
“We’ve been thrilled so many people have a newfound interest in data workflow automation,” she went on, poking fun at how the company had gone viral overnight.
Astronomer became a household name after Cabot, the former Chief People Officer for the company, was spotted embracing the CEO. After getting caught on the kiss cam, the two quickly stepped away from each other and out of frame after realizing they were being broadcast to the entire stadium at the July 16 Coldplay show in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
That moment became a pop culture sensation and led to multiple spoofs on social media and at professional sporting events.
Cabot claims she’s been stalked, harassed, doxxed, and has received death threats after the scandal. &#8220;My kids were afraid that I was going to die and they were going to die,&#8221; she <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/style/coldplay-concert-couple-kiss-cam-woman.html">told</a> The New York Times.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Viral Coldplay Kiss Cam Woman Speaks Out, Is Furious With Gwyneth Paltrow

viral video

Menu