Burn, Baby, Burn
Plus: Government stake in Intel, inside the DNC, RFK Jr. brings back whole milk, and more...
Patriotism, enforced: "Actions have consequences," writes the official White House X account. "Burn the American flag, disrespect our nation, incite violence: ONE YEAR IN JAIL. No excuses."
"Desecrating [the American flag] is uniquely offensive and provocative," reads the new executive order from President Donald Trump, released yesterday. "It is a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation—the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty, and security. Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot."
The Reason Roundup Newsletter by Liz Wolfe Liz and Reason help you make sense of the day's news every morning.
"Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to 'fighting words' is constitutionally protected," adds the order. "My Administration will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American Flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country, to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority." Essentially, the order says that you cannot just be flag-burning—a protected act of speech—to go to jail; you must also be breaking another law in the process. It's bad, but less extreme than it looks.
President Trump's executive order on flag-burning is replete with qualifiers that strip it of any discernible meaning. "To the fullest extent possible" sounds aggressive, but it actually means "within the bounds permitted by law." pic.twitter.com/IokyJq1LyO
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) August 25, 2025
But it gets trickier for people who aren't full citizens: "The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting within their respective authorities, shall deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States…whenever there has been an appropriate determination that foreign nationals have engaged in American Flag-desecration activity under circumstances that permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to Federal law."
In principle, I think having the expectation that immigrants, no matter where they are in their naturalization process, be on better behavior and show they really want to be a part of this country makes sense; this expectation is shared by most Americans: Follow our laws, respect the whole American project, and maybe you too can become part of it. But it's the Trump administration, and this seems likely to be stretched and warped and used arbitrarily as just another weapon in its arsenal to try to deny immigrants naturalization.
Antonin Scalia, in defense of the right to burn the American flag: "If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king."
The arch conservative justice was part of the 5-4 majority decision in Texas… pic.twitter.com/hDEe2uzIkz
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) August 25, 2025
Look, I am a flag respecter. A flag appreciator. I've long demurred on purchasing an American flag bikini because it doesn't feel respectful enough. (Do flags really belong on boobs?) I love America. I can't stop dunking on the Europoors. I love ice in my water and full-blast A.C. But it's rather king-like and gross to try to force this type of patriotism. Let them enjoy all their rights to the fullest extent possible—including their rights to be gigantic assholes about the flag—and be confident that a little shred of appreciation for America the Beautiful will grow.
Stakes are getting higher: "The U.S. government is likely to take ownership stakes in more companies—just as it did with Intel—toward the goal of building a sovereign wealth fund, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said Monday," reports Axios. "Last week, the government said it would take a nearly 10% position in Intel, in exchange for grants previously awarded to the chipmaker….Hassett, in a CNBC interview Monday morning, referred to that investment as a 'down payment' on the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, something President Trump has said he wanted the country to have."
Who oversees the sovereign wealth fund? What happens to it at the end of Trump's term? What is the purpose of it, exactly? Does this just force the government to keep doing this type of thing? What do Intel's competitors think about this, and how was Intel chosen? Does this feel a bit adjacent to the Chinese Communist Party to anyone else?
There are also lots of outstanding questions about how the company's own decisions will be made. From the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome, writing at The Washington Post:
The most immediate risk is that Intel's decisions will increasingly be driven by political rather than commercial considerations. With the U.S. government as its largest shareholder, Intel will face constant pressure to align corporate decisions with the goals of whatever political party is in power. Will Intel locate or continue facilities—such as its long-delayed "megafab" in Ohio—based on economic efficiency or government priorities? Will it hire and fire based on merit or political connections? Will research and development priorities reflect market demands or bureaucratic preferences? Will standard corporate finance decisions that are routinely (and mistakenly) pilloried in Washington, such as dividends or stock buybacks, suddenly become taboo?
Scenes from New York: I can't stop consuming benchpressgate content.
Zohran not benching 135 isn't a huge deal. I actually served with a few Marines who couldn't do that and we never gave them a hard time. We didn't want them worrying during pregnancy and we knew they'd get strong again after coming back from maternity leave.
— Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) August 25, 2025
QUICK HITS
- Really wild scenes from the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting:
DNC members now watching a polling presentation that says "tough on crime" messaging is less powerful than "serious about safety" messaging. https://t.co/OyMb9qw05f pic.twitter.com/eMpTEd58Z8
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 25, 2025
- "Donald Trump moved to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a dramatic escalation in the president's battle for more control over the US central bank that unnerved investors," reports Bloomberg. "In a letter posted on Truth Social late on Monday, Trump said he had 'sufficient cause' to fire Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed Board in Washington, based on the allegations she made false statements on one or more mortgage loans." ("The Trump administration has accused Cook of committing fraud in 2021 while seeking mortgages on two properties—on a home in Michigan and a condominium in Atlanta—by describing both of them as her primary residence," reports The Washington Post. The properties were acquired prior to her term starting.) Cook's term was not set to expire until 2038, more than a decade from now. "This is a kill shot at Fed independence," Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at Brookings, told Bloomberg.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is helping to bring whole-fat milk (and yogurt and cheese) back to American schools, reversing 45 years of bad guidance—favoring skim-milk products—from the federal government.
- How Democrats abdicated responsibility for law enforcement in D.C., and how Trump might not be making things much better:
