THE SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE, Calif. — The scientist traipses to a pond wearing rubber boots but he doesn’t enter the water. Instead, Brad Hollingsworth squats next to its swampy edge and retrieves a recording device the size of a deck of cards. He then opens it up and removes a tiny memory card containing 18 hours of sound.

Back at his office at the San Diego Natural History Museum, the herpetologist — an expert in reptiles and amphibians — uses artificial intelligence to analyze the data on the card. Within three minutes, he knows a host of animals visit the pond — where native red-legged frogs were reintroduced after largely disappearing in Southern California. There were owl hoots, woodpecker pecks, coyote howls and tree frog ribbits. But no croaking from the invasive bullfrog, which has decimated the native red-legged frog population over the past century.

It was another good day in his efforts to increase the population of the red-legged frog and restore an ecosystem spanning the U.S.-Mexico border. The efforts come as the Trump administration builds more walls along the border, raising concerns about the impact on wildlife.

At 2 to 5 inches long, red-legged frogs are the largest native frogs in the West and once were found in abundance up and down the California coast and into Baja California in Mexico.

The species is widely believed to be the star of Mark Twain’s 1865 short story, “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County,” and their crimson hind legs were eaten during the Gold Rush. But as the red-legged frog declined in numbers, the bullfrog — with its even bigger hind legs — was introduced to menus during California’s booming growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports on an international effort to bring back a type of frog.

The red-legged frog population was decimated by the insatiable appetite of the bullfrogs and the disease the non-native species brought in, but also because it lost much of its habitat to drought and human development in the shape of homes, dams and more.

Hollingsworth couldn’t estimate the number of red-legged frogs that remain but said they have disappeared from 95% of their historical range in Southern California.

Robert Fisher of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative Program searched for the frog for decades across 250 miles from Los Angeles to the border. He found just one in 2001 and none after that.

Scientists using DNA from red-legged frogs captured in Southern California before their disappearance discovered they were more genetically similar to the population in Mexico than any still in California.

In 2006, Fisher, Hollingsworth and others visited Baja where they had heard of a small population of red-legged frogs. Anny Peralta, then a student of Hollingsworth at San Diego State University, joined them. They found about 20 frogs, and Peralta was inspired to dedicate her life to their recovery.

Peralta and her husband established the nonprofit Fauna del Noroeste in Ensenada, Mexico, which aims to promote the proper management of natural resources. In 2018, they started building ponds in Mexico to boost the frog population that would later provide eggs to repopulate the species across the border.

But just as they were preparing to relocate the egg masses, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Peralta and the U.S. scientists scrambled to secure permits for the unusual cargo and a pilot to fly the two coolers of eggs closer to the border. The rest of their journey north was by road, after the eggs passed a U.S. border guard inspection.

Over the past five years, Hollingsworth and his team have searched for sounds to prove their efforts to repopulate ponds in Southern California worked.

On Jan. 30, he heard the quiet, distinct grunting of the red-legged frog’s breeding call in an audio flagged by AI.

“It felt like a big burden off my shoulder because we were thinking the project might be failing,” Hollingsworth said. “And then the next couple nights we started hearing more and more and more, and more, and more.”

Over the next two months, two males were heard belting it out on microphone 11 at one of the ponds. In March, right below the microphone, the first egg masse was found, showing they had not only hatched from the eggs brought from Mexico but had gone on to produce their own eggs in the United States.

Conservationists are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence to monitor animals on the brink of extinction, track the breeding of reintroduced species and collect data on the impact of climate change and other threats.

Herpetologists are building on the AI-powered tools already used to analyze datasets of bird sounds, hoping that it might help build audio landscapes to identify amphibians and track their behavior and breeding patterns, said Zachary Principe of The Nature Conservancy, which is working with the museum on the red-legged frog project. The tools could also help scientists analyze tens of thousands of audio files collected at universities, museums and other institutions.

Scientists working to restore the red-legged frog population in Southern California hope to soon be provided with satellite technology that will send audio recordings to their phones in real time, so they can act immediately if any predators — in particular bullfrogs — are detected.

It could also help track the movement of the frogs, which can be difficult to find in the wild, especially because cold-blooded creatures cannot be detected using thermal imagery.

The AI analysis of the pond audio has saved time for Hollingsworth and the others, who previously had to painstakingly listen to countless hours of audio files to detect the calls of the red-legged frog — which resembles the sound of a thumb being rubbed on a balloon — over the cacophony of other animals.

“There’s tree frogs calling, there’s cows mooing, a road nearby with a motorcycle zooming back and forth,” Hollingsworth said of the ponds’ audio landscape. “There’s owls, there’s ducks splashing, just all this noise”

The red-legged frog is the latest species to see success from binational cooperation along the near-2,000-mile border spanning California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Over the years, Mexican gray wolves have returned to their historic range in the southwestern U.S. and in Mexico, while the California Condor now soars over skies from Baja to Northern California.

Based off the latest count, scientists estimate more than 100 adult red-legged frogs are in the Southern California ponds, and tadpoles were spotted at a new site.

The team plans to continue transporting egg masses from Baja, where the population has jumped from 20 to as many as 400 adult frogs, with the hope of building thriving populations on both sides of the border. Already the sites are seeing fewer mosquitos that can carry diseases like dengue and Zika.

A restoration pond in Baja that Peralta’s organization built recently teemed with froglets, their tiny eyes bobbing on its aquatic fern-covered surface. They could, one day, lay eggs for relocation to the U.S.

“They don’t know about borders or visas or passports,” Peralta said of the frogs. “This is just their habitat, and these populations need to reconnect. I think this shows that we can restore this ecosystem.”

The Trump administration’s latest allegations of mortgage fraud have raised questions about a long-standing housing issue known as owner-occupancy mortgage fraud. But that type of fraud can be difficult to prove, experts say.

President Donald Trump announced in a Truth Social post on Monday night that he was removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. He cited allegations made by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that Cook committed mortgage fraud by claiming homes in two different states as her primary residence at the same time.

Cook’s attorney on Tuesday said Cook will file a lawsuit to challenge her removal.

“President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook,” the lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice has also recently targeted Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and New York Attorney General Letitia James with similar mortgage fraud allegations.

Here are the key things to know about owner-occupancy mortgage fraud, according to experts.

The main reason a borrower could be motivated to claim a primary residence on a mortgage application is to get a lower interest rate for that home.

Typically, mortgages for a primary residence have lower interest rates and homeowner’s insurance costs, said Keith Gumbinger, vice president of mortgage website HSH.

Mortgage interest rates are generally 0.5% to 1% higher for investment properties than for primary homes, according to Bankrate. Homeowners also typically pay about 25% more for insurance as a landlord compared with a standard homeowners policy, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Owner-occupied means “you’re going to live there the majority of the time,” Gumbinger said. But there are limited exceptions, including for military service, parents providing housing for a disabled adult child or children providing housing for parents, according to Fannie Mae.

If a homeowner changes primary residences, they need to inform their mortgage lender that the original property is no longer owner-occupied, Gumbinger said.

There are also federal and state tax benefits for primary residences, according to Albert Campo, a certified public accountant and president of Campo Financial Group in Manalapan, New Jersey.

For example, when an owner sells a home and makes a profit, they can take a capital gains exemption worth up to $250,000 for single filers or $500,000 for married couples filing jointly, as long as they meet certain IRS rules, including owner occupancy for two of the past five years.

For tax purposes, a homeowner can have only one primary residence at a time.

When a taxpayer owns more than one home, proving which one is the primary residence is “always based on facts and circumstances,” Campo said. For example, a primary residence is typically where an owner spends most of their time, votes, files their tax returns and receives mail, he said.

A 2023 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that more than 22,000 “fraudulent borrowers” misrepresented their owner-occupancy status, out of 584,499 loans originated from 2005 to 2017. The data was based on a subsample from more than 15 million loans originated during this period.

Typically, the fraudulent borrowers took out larger loans and had higher mortgage default rates, the authors found.

However, this type of fraud may be “difficult to detect until long after the mortgage has been originated,” the authors wrote.

“There is a difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion,” Jonathan Kanter, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a former assistant attorney general, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week when asked about Cook. “In the court of law, this is small ball and very difficult to prove.”

“You’d have to establish not only that she filled out the form incorrectly, but she had the specific intent to deceive, to defraud banks, as opposed to just making a mistake,” he said.

During fiscal year 2024, 38 mortgage fraud offenders were sentenced in the federal system, according to the United States Sentencing Commission’s interactive data analyzer. That number is up slightly from 34 offenders in 2023, but down from 426 offenders in 2015, the earliest date in that tool’s dataset. The U.S. Sentencing Commission data does not break out the types of mortgage fraud.

The Trump administration’s latest allegations of mortgage fraud have raised questions about a long-standing housing issue known as owner-occupancy mortgage fraud. But that type of fraud can be difficult to prove, experts say.

President Donald Trump announced in a Truth Social post on Monday night that he was removing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. He cited allegations made by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that Cook committed mortgage fraud by claiming homes in two different states as her primary residence at the same time.

Cook’s attorney on Tuesday said Cook will file a lawsuit to challenge her removal.

“President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook,” the lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement.

The Justice Department has also recently targeted Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and New York Attorney General Letitia James with similar mortgage fraud allegations.

Here are the key things to know about owner-occupancy mortgage fraud, according to experts.

The main reason a borrower could be motivated to claim a primary residence on a mortgage application is to get a lower interest rate for that home.

Typically, mortgages for a primary residence have lower interest rates and homeowner’s insurance costs, said Keith Gumbinger, vice president of mortgage website HSH.

Mortgage interest rates are generally 0.5% to 1% higher for investment properties than for primary homes, according to Bankrate. Homeowners also typically pay about 25% more for insurance as a landlord compared with a standard homeowners policy, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Owner-occupied means “you’re going to live there the majority of the time,” Gumbinger said. But there are limited exceptions, including for military service, parents providing housing for a disabled adult child or children providing housing for parents, according to Fannie Mae.

If a homeowner changes primary residences, they need to inform their mortgage lender that the original property is no longer owner-occupied, Gumbinger said.

There are also federal and state tax benefits for primary residences, according to Albert Campo, a certified public accountant and president of Campo Financial Group in Manalapan, New Jersey.

For example, when an owner sells a home and makes a profit, they can take a capital gains exemption worth up to $250,000 for single filers or $500,000 for married couples filing jointly, as long as they meet certain IRS rules, including owner occupancy for two of the past five years.

For tax purposes, a homeowner can have only one primary residence at a time.

When a taxpayer owns more than one home, proving which one is the primary residence is “always based on facts and circumstances,” Campo said. For example, a primary residence is typically where an owner spends most of their time, votes, files their tax returns and receives mail, he said.

A 2023 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that more than 22,000 “fraudulent borrowers” misrepresented their owner-occupancy status, out of 584,499 loans originated from 2005 to 2017. The data was based on a subsample from more than 15 million loans originated during this period.

Typically, the fraudulent borrowers took out larger loans and had higher mortgage default rates, the authors found.

However, this type of fraud may be “difficult to detect until long after the mortgage has been originated,” the authors wrote.

“There is a difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion,” Jonathan Kanter, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a former assistant attorney general, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week when asked about Cook. “In the court of law, this is small ball and very difficult to prove.”

“You’d have to establish not only that she filled out the form incorrectly, but she had the specific intent to deceive, to defraud banks, as opposed to just making a mistake,” he said.

During fiscal year 2024, 38 mortgage fraud offenders were sentenced in the federal system, according to the United States Sentencing Commission’s interactive data analyzer. That number is up slightly from 34 offenders in 2023, but down from 426 offenders in 2015, the earliest date in that tool’s dataset. The U.S. Sentencing Commission data does not break out the types of mortgage fraud.

Frontier Airlines is going after customers of Spirit Airlines, whose financial footing has gotten so shaky in recent weeks that it warned earlier this month it might not be able to survive another year without more cash.

Frontier on Tuesday announced 20 routes it plans to start this winter, many of them in major Spirit markets like its base at Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida. Frontier overlaps with Spirit on 35% of its capacity, more than any other airline, according to a Monday note from Deutsche Bank airline analyst Michael Linenberg.

Some of Frontier’s new routes from Fort Lauderdale include flights to Detroit, Houston, Chicago and Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s also rolling out routes from Houston to New Orleans; San Pedro Sula, Honduras; and Guatemala City.

Frontier had tried and failed to merge with its budget airline rival several times since 2022.

“I’m not here to talk about M&A,” Frontier CEO Barry Biffle said in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday when asked whether Frontier would buy Spirit. Biffle said he expects that Frontier would pick up the majority of Spirit’s market share if Spirit collapsed.

Both carriers have struggled from changing customer tastes for more upmarket seats and trips abroad, an oversupply of domestic capacity, and higher labor and other costs. Spirit’s situation has become more dire however, after it emerged from four months of bankruptcy protection in March facing many of the same problems.

Ultra-low-cost airlines are also challenged by larger rivals like United Airlines, American Airline and Delta Air Lines that have rolled out their own no-frills basic economy tickets but also offer customers bigger choices of destinations and other perks onboard like snacks and beverages.

Stock prices of rival airlines surged after Spirit’s warning earlier this month.

Biffle said the carrier wants to become the country’s largest budget airline and has rolled out loyalty matching programs to grab more customers. Frontier’s capacity was slightly smaller than Spirit’s in the second quarter, through the latter had slashed its flying by nearly 24% from a year earlier, while Frontier was down only 2%.

Spirit last week said it drew down the entire $275 million of its revolver and while it reached a two-year extension on its credit card processing agreement with U.S. Bank N.A., it agreed that it would hold back up to $3 million a day from the carrier.

The airline lost $245.8 million in the second quarter. Frontier lost $70 million.

Spirit has been looking for ways to slash costs, including furloughing and demoting hundreds more pilots and cutting unprofitable routes. Hundreds of flight attendants are on unpaid leaves of absence.

Spirit CEO Dave Davis said in an Aug. 12 staff memo after its “going concern” warning that “the team and I are confident that we can build a Spirit that will continue to provide consumers the unmatched value that they have come to expect for many years to come.”

The carrier reached a deal with bondholders who agreed to convert debt to equity in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but it didn’t cut other costs like renegotiating aircraft leases. Leasing firms have been reaching out to rivals in recent weeks to gauge whether competitors would take any of the Airbus planes that are in Spirit’s hands, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked to speak anonymously because the talks were private.

— CNBC’s Phil LeBeau contributed to this report.

Uncle Herschel is returning to the Cracker Barrel chair.

After online outrage by conservatives who accused the country-themed restaurant chain of changing its values or going “woke” when it rolled out a new logo, the company said Tuesday that it was returning to its old branding.

‘We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain,’ Cracker Barrel said on Facebook.

‘At Cracker Barrel, it’s always been — and always will be — about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind of country hospitality that feels like family,’ the company said. ‘As a proud American institution, our 70,000 hardworking employees look forward to welcoming you to our table soon.’

Cracker Barrel, which has restaurants in 43 states, on Aug. 18 announced its new ‘All the More’ campaign and logo change, which removed the old man perched on a chair and the barrel from Cracker Barrel signs.

The new logo did not go over well in some spheres, and on social media, conservative critics accused the restaurant chain of abandoning its traditional values or of being ‘woke.’

President Donald Trump weighed in on the matter earlier Tuesday, writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the company should return to the old logo.

After Cracker Barrel announced the reversal Tuesday, Trump said on the platform: ‘Congratulations ‘Cracker Barrel’ on changing your logo back to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciate it.’ Trump also wished the company good luck.

Taylor Budowich, a deputy White House chief of staff, claimed on X that he’d spoken with people at Cracker Barrel by phone Tuesday about the issue and said, ‘They thanked President Trump for weighing in on the issue of their iconic ‘original’ logo.’

Cracker Barrel did not immediately respond to a request for comment about a White House call.

Shares of Cracker Barrel jumped sharply Tuesday night after it announced the reversal. Since the debut of the new logo on Aug. 18, shares are down nearly 13%.

Cracker Barrel tried to tamp down the controversy Monday by admitting ‘we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be’ and issuing reassurances that its values had not changed.

The change was part of a “strategic transformation” that started in 2024 to revitalize the brand, CNBC reported when the new logo was introduced. The company has said that the initiative included ‘refreshing the brand identity’ and making changes to its menu.

Other companies have been met with right-wing outrage for advertising or other business decisions, including when Bud Light had a branded content partnership with transgender TikToker Dylan Mulvaney.

Cracker Barrel tried to reassure customers Monday that its values have remained the same after it received criticism following a new logo reveal and general brand refresh.

The company promised customers in a statement that while its logo may be different, its values — “hard work, family, and scratch-cooked food made with care’ — are not.

“You’ve shown us that we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be,” the statement read, adding that Cracker Barrel will remain “a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you’re from or where you’re headed.”

Last week, the company unveiled a new logo that no longer features a man leaning against a barrel or the words ‘Old Country Store.’ Instead, it featured the company’s name, in a color scheme that it said was inspired by the chain’s scrambled eggs and biscuits.

The change was part of a ‘strategic transformation’ that aimed to update the chain’s visual elements, spaces, food and retail offerings. The company’s shares are down about 8.5% since the reveal ignited criticism, especially from those in conservative circles.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, amplified a post Wednesday suggesting that the logo change was intended to erase the American traditions aspect of the branding and make it more general and lean into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

On Monday, the chain also shared an update on the man in the original logo, Uncle Herschel, who is said is still featured on menus and road signs and in stores.

‘He’s not going anywhere — he’s family,’ the company said in the statement.

Cracker Barrel said its focuses remain country hospitality and generous portions of food at fair prices. The refresh, it said, was to ensure the restaurant will be there for the next generation.

‘That means showing up on new platforms and in new ways, but always with our heritage at the heart,’ it said.

‘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.’

U.S. taxpayers are now the largest shareholders in Intel. What comes next isn’t so clear.

The Trump administration announced Friday that the government had taken a 10% stake in the California-based computer chipmaker, which has fallen behind rivals Nvidia and AMD in the artificial intelligence race. Over the past five years, Intel’s share price has declined more than 50%.

The administration has not provided any details about when or under what circumstances it would sell the Intel shares — or whether it would sell them at all. Nor did it say whether the United States would benefit from any dividends, although Intel has not paid out any since last year. The administration does not plan to take any board seats and has said it will vote against the company only in “limited” circumstances.

While Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested Friday that national security was a key motivator for taking the stake, President Donald Trump focused Monday more on the prospect of financial gains.

“I will make deals like that for our Country all day long,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I love seeing their stock price go up, making the USA RICHER, AND RICHER. More jobs for America!” he added.

Intel’s shares have climbed about 4% since the transaction was announced. Some experts said that while there is a potential upside to the agreement, it represents another norm-shattering expansion of presidential authority by Trump into the business world — and most likely not the last.

Already, the Trump administration has taken a “golden share” in Japan’s Nippon Steel as part of a deal granting approval to that company’s bid for U.S. Steel and giving the government a say in future Nippon transactions. Last month, the Defense Department announced it had purchased $400 million in rare earth miner MP Materials, making it the company’s largest shareholder. The White House also plans to take a cut of the sales that chipmakers Nvidia and AMD make to China.

Trump told reporters Monday that he hopes to see “many more” deals like Intel’s, adding that nobody “realizes how great it will be.” Kevin Hassett, director of Trump’s National Economic Council, said similar deals could help form the basis of a sovereign wealth fund, an idea that the administration had floated earlier as a way of giving U.S. taxpayers direct stakes in companies but had yet to fully develop.

“At some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries,” Hassett said on CNBC.

The U.S. stake in Intel does not amount to a complete government takeover. While the federal government has assumed total control of private corporations before, such incidents have usually happened during times of crisis — and not with the direct intention of trying to play the markets.

“He’s doing all this in a spooky, controversial way,” said Clyde Wayne Marks, a fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. “Right now there is no crisis.”

President Woodrow Wilson nationalized railroads, as well as the telegraph, telephone, radio and wireless stations, during World War I. Nearly two decades ago, the government bailed out a host of private firms during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

While the bailout involved holding corporate assets on the U.S. government’s books with the goal of returning earnings to taxpayers, there was never any serious intention to own them over the long term. And a Government Accountability Office study concluded in 2023 that the program ultimately came at a net cost of about $31 billion.

The U.S. government has long provided subsidies to private corporations in the form of loans and grants, to varying degrees of success. Two high-profile examples came during the Obama administration, when the Energy Department provided loans to a solar power company called Solyndra and to electric vehicle maker Tesla. Solyndra ultimately went bankrupt, while today Tesla is worth $1.2 trillion on the stock market.

Some have argued that the United States would have benefited from having taken a stake in Tesla. Yet at the time Tesla received the loan, in 2010, beliefs about the free market and the need to limit the government’s role in it prevailed not just among Republicans, but among Democrats, as well, experts say.

“Our system has not typically been built that way — it’s not how free enterprise is typically run,” said Dan Reicher, a former Energy Department official under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. “History has proven that the more free-market approach, making the bottom line the bottom line for the companies running these operations, is a smarter way to go.”

Intel’s fortunes have sagged. Its manufacturing segment lost $3.2 billion in the second quarter, and last month it said it would lay off 15% of its workforce by year’s end while canceling billions in planned investments and delaying the completion date for a $28 billion chip plant near Columbus, Ohio.

In a securities filing Monday, Intel warned investors of the potential risks involved in the U.S. investment, among them that the arrangement may actually limit its ability to secure grants down the road, depending on its future performance. It could also harm international sales and make Intel subject to additional regulations and restrictions, both at home and abroad, it said.

On Monday, Trump was asked whether the Intel investment represented a new way of doing industrial policy.

“Yeah. Sure it is,” Trump said. “I want to try to get as much as I can.”

The Trump administration said Friday that it had taken a 10% stake in Intel, the president’s latest extraordinary move to exert federal government control over private business.

The United States will not seek direct representation on Intel’s board and pledged to vote with the current Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, ‘with limited exceptions,’ according to a joint release from the Trump administration and Intel. The move also comes as the United States vies with China in the race to dominate the artificial intelligence industry.

President Donald Trump announced the deal on his Truth Social platform Friday, praising the company’s CEO just two weeks after he called on the executive to resign over alleged China ties.

‘It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,’ he wrote. ‘I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation.’

While the U.S. held temporary stakes in firms at the center of the 2008-2009 global financial meltdown as part of a bailout, this move is unusual since the economy is not embroiled in a crisis. Congress published a study in 2003 that examined the impact of the federal government taking direct stakes in public companies, concluding that doing so would “not offer a free lunch” and expose taxpayers to “greater risk” alongside the upside potential.

The stake will be paid for through $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded to Intel under the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, plus $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of a program called Secure Enclave. It’s a formerly classified initiative that Congress appropriated funds for in 2024 after lobbying by Intel, Politico reported in 2024.

Including $2.2 billion in CHIPs grants Intel has received so far, the total investment is $11.1 billion, or 9.9%. Intel is valued at about $108 billion on the stock market.

Trump continues to bulldoze through long-held norms regarding government and business, departing from the free-market ethos that has long prevailed in both major U.S. political parties.

This month, Trump persuaded the chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to pay the U.S. government 15% of their revenues from some sales to China in return for securing export licenses there.

While those firms have seen their fortunes rise amid the larger artificial intelligence boom, a windfall from any of them is no sure thing. In the case of California-based Intel, the company has struggled to keep up with rivals in recent years, with its shares down some 60% from the highs seen during the pandemic.

But amid the ongoing artificial intelligence arms race — and the goal of making computer chips a national security priority — Trump officials zeroed in on Intel as a means of leveling up U.S. control over semiconductor production.

Earlier this week, Japan’s SoftBank also announced it would invest $2 billion in Intel to “deepen their commitment to investing in advanced technology and semiconductor innovation in the United States.’

Some Democrats signaled they were on board with the move.

‘U.S. leadership is critical for both our economy and national security,’ U.S. Senator Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said in a statement Friday evening.

‘Taking an equity stake in Intel may or may not be the right approach, but one thing is clear: allowing cutting-edge chips to flow to China without restraint will erode the value of any investment we make here at home. We need a strategy that protects American innovation, strengthens our workforce, and keeps the technologies of the future firmly in American hands.’

From American Eagle to Swatch, brands appear to be making a lot of blunders lately.

When actress Sydney Sweeney’s jeans campaign came out last month, critics lambasted the wordplay of good “jeans” and “genes” as tone deaf with nefarious undertones.

More recently, an advert from Swiss watchmaker Swatch sparked backlash for featuring an Asian model pulling the corners of his eyes, in an offensive gesture.

Colgate-Palmolive’s ad for Sanex shower gel was banned in the U.K. for problematic suggestions about Black and white skin tones. And consumers derided Cracker Barrel’s decision to ditch its overalls-clad character for a more simplistic text-based logo as “sterile,” “soulless,” and “woke.”

Meanwhile, recent product launches from Adidas and Prada have raised allegations of cultural appropriation.

That has reignited the debate about when an ad campaign is effective and when it’s just plain offensive, as companies confront increased consumer scrutiny.

“Each brand had its own blind spot,” David Brier, brand specialist and author of “Brand intervention” and “Rich brand, poor brand” told CNBC via email.

He noted, however, that too many brands are attempting to respond to consumers with an outdated playbook.

“Modern brands are trying to navigate cultural complexity with corporate simplicity. They’re using 1950s boardroom thinking to solve 2025 human problems,” he continued.

“These aren’t sensitivity failures. They’re empathy failures. They viewed culture as something to navigate around rather than understand deeply.”

Some companies have had success in tapping into the zeitgeist — and, in some cases, seizing on other brands’ shortcomings.

Gap, for instance, this week sought to counter backlash against Sweeney’s advertisement with a campaign in which pop group Katseye lead a diverse group of dancers performing in denim against a white backdrop.

Brier said companies should consider how they can genuinely connect with consumers and be representative, rather than simply trying to avoid offense.

“No brand can afford to fake understanding. No brand can ‘committee its way’ to connection. No brand can focus-group its way to authenticity. In 2025, customers can smell the difference from a mile away,” he added.

Nevertheless, ads are meant to spark conversation, and at a time when grabbing and maintaining consumers’ attention — and share of wallet — is increasingly difficult, brands have a fine balance to tread.

“Brands live and die by standing out and grabbing attention. On top of that, iconic and culturally relevant brands want to stand for something and be recognized for it. Those are tough asks,” Jonathan A.J. Wilson, professor of brand strategy and culture at Regent’s University London.

In an age of social media and with ever more divided public opinions, landing one universal message can be difficult, Wilson noted. For as long as that remains the case, some brands may still see value in taking a calculated risk.

“It’s hard to land one universal message, and even if you try and tailor your message to various groups, others are watching,” he said.

“Controversy grabs attention and puts you at the front of people’s minds. It splits crowds and forces people to have a decision when otherwise they probably wouldn’t care. That can lead to disproportionate publicity, which could be converted into sales.”

Summer camp: It’s for munching on s’mores, seizing victory in tug-of-war and making lifelong friends.

For this group of successful businesswomen, though, it’s also about trading tactical advice about managing boards of directors and selling companies. And fighting to get a piece of an investment world dominated by men.

Welcome to Camp Female Founders Fund, a coastal oasis in Montauk, New York, on eastern Long Island, where female business leaders broaden their networks, share their struggles and triumphs and have some fun.