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.”