Elton Slone and his colleagues at the Robert Craig Winery in Napa Valley had gathered for their annual pre-harvest company party last week – complete with copper pot carnitas and grape tacos – when one of his co-workers noticed an alert on her phone. The Pickett fire, a blaze that had started about 10 miles away near the town of Calistoga, was moving toward their vineyards on Howell Mountain.

Knowing that the Glass fire – a 2020 blaze that damaged numerous wineries and spoiled a year’s harvest – had burned along the same path, Slone hoped no fuel remained for this new fire. “But that was not the case,” he said. Within the week, the winery’s Candlestick Vineyard would become “a sacrificial lamb for the town of Angwin” when firefighters lit a controlled burn on their property to control the larger fire.

Vineyards can make excellent fire breaks because they are typically clear of burnable plant matter, and grape vines themselves are moist enough to be nonflammable. But heat damage and smoke can still destroy a crop.

The Robert Craig Winery lost the entire crop of their Candlestick Vineyard, which would have generated $4.5m in revenue. And Slone estimates about 10% of the vines will need to be replanted – a process that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take a decade to see new bottles of wine ready for market. The team will test grapes on another one of their vineyards closer to harvest to see whether the smoke affected them.

The loss comes at the end of the growing season – after Slone’s vineyard had sunk nearly $1m into farming costs – and is made even more devastating because it’s happened before. The memories of the 2020 Glass fire and 2018 Camp fire, which burned farther east but still sent smoke to blanket Napa’s grapevines, are still fresh. “It’s financially a devastating situation,” said Slone.

The still-burning Pickett fire, which began on 21 August in northern Napa county, quickly burned through 6,800 acres (2,750 hectares), making it the San Francisco Bay Area’s largest wildfire this year. Preliminary estimates show that it caused $65m in agricultural losses, largely to wine grape growers, affecting about 1,500 acres (610 hectares) of agricultural land.

Although that damage is significantly less than that wrought by the Glass fire – which burned through 67,000 acres (27,000 hectares) and racked up $3.7bn in losses – the growing threat of wildfires in arid California has still shaken the wine industry.

“Northern California wine country is one of the treasures of the United States,” said Slone. “It’s something that I think all Americans should be concerned about because it’s a uniquely American thing.”

‘Tastes like a campfire’

Along the west coast, wine grape growers have implemented many strategies to prepare for wildfires – with the support of scientists at the US Department of Agriculture and local universities.

Ben Montpetit, chair of the University of California, Davis’s viticulture and enology department, said in an emailed statement that the industry has employed “barrier sprays to reduce smoke uptake, annual testing to establish baseline smoke marker levels in grapes, and small-lot fermentations after smoke events to assess potential wine impact”.

“Researchers are also investigating which grape cultivars are more sensitive or tolerant to smoke exposure,” he added.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in the preparedness realm,” said Natalie Collins, president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, who noted the industry established a smoke exposure taskforce after the losses in 2018 to aid growers after wildfires.

The existence of that taskforce hints at a perennial problem for vineyards: though they can often keep wildfire off their acres, there’s little that can keep smoke at bay. And if smoke sits in an area for too long, it can leave grapes tasting ashy, like a campfire.

“Smoke taint issues are kind of fickle,” said Heather Griffin, a partner at Summit Lake Vineyards and Winery. “It depends on the varietal, depends on your ripeness level and depends on how long the exposure was.”

Griffin’s family’s vineyards were saved from the Pickett fire – “They stopped the fire at the end of our ridge up on Howell Mountain,” she said – but they’ll need to send grapes out for testing before harvest to be sure the smoke didn’t taint it.

Protecting the industry

For the first year ever, crop insurers are offering a new coverage option called the fire insurance protection smoke index endorsement, which would insure vineyards for losses due to smoke exposure.

But some growers say the cost of crop insurance has become unattainable after repeated wildfires.

“Our insurance went up so much after the fires of 2020. It literally went from $40,000 a year for really great coverage for all of our properties and inventory, and now it’s $300,000 a year and covers nothing,” said Slone.

For the 95% of Napa valley’s wineries that are family-owned, that cost can be “catastrophic”, he adds.

The wine industry has historically relied on federal funding to support USDA and university research into wildfire preparedness. Although those levels have remained steady despite widespread federal cuts, eight federal wine grape research scientists – including a smoke exposure specialist – were fired and then rehired early in the Trump administration’s Doge-era cuts.

“We want to make sure that an industry like ours continues to be protected,” said Collins, as “we continue to see the writing on the wall in California that wildfires likely will continue to be an issue here.”

It’s possible that some federal disaster relief funding may work its way to affected vineyards, but Griffin says buying wine from those wineries “helps everybody that’s up here”.

“Shoot them an email and buy some of their wine,” added Slone. “They will be the most appreciative people on the planet earth.”

Donald Trump suffered the biggest defeat yet to his tariff policies on Friday, as a federal appeals court ruled he had overstepped his presidential powers when he enacted punitive financial measures against almost every country in the world.

In a 7-4 ruling, the Washington DC court said that while US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency”, none of those actions allow for the imposition of tariffs or taxes.

It means the ultimate ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs, which were famously based on spurious economic science and rocked the global economy when he announced them in April, will probably be made by the US supreme court.

Here’s what to know.

Which tariffs did the court knock down?

The decision centers on the tariffs Trump introduced on 2 April, on what he called “liberation day”. The tariffs set a 10% baseline on virtually all of the US’s trading partners and so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on countries he argued have unfairly treated the US. Lesotho, a country of 2.3 million people in southern Africa, was hit with a 50% tariff, while Trump also announced a tariff of 10% on a group of uninhabited islands populated by penguins.

The ruling voided all those tariffs, with the judges finding the president’s measures “unbounded in scope, amount and duration”. They said the tariffs “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration used to pass them.

Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress, but Trump claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.

The court ruled: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump invoked the same law in February to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, claiming that the flow of undocumented immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency, and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

Are the tariffs gone now?

No. The court largely upheld a May decision by a federal trade court in New York that ruled Trump’s tariffs were illegal. But Friday’s ruling tossed out a part of that ruling that would have struck down the tariffs immediately.

The court said the ruling would not take effect until 14 October. That allows the Trump administration time to appeal to the majority-conservative US supreme court, which will have the ultimate say on whether Trump has the legal right, as president, to upend US trade policy.

What does this mean for Trump’s trade agenda?

The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it has collected, which would deliver a financial blow to the US treasury.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $159bn by July, more than double what it was at the same point last year. The justice department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward. The president does have alternative laws for imposing import tariffs, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act.

In its decision in May, the trade court said that Trump has more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

How has Trump responded

He’s not happy. Trump spent Friday evening reposting dozens of social media posts that were critical of the court’s decision. In a post on his own social media site, Trump claimed, as he tends to do when judges rule against him, that the decision was made by a “highly partisan appeals court”.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” Trump wrote. He added: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

Trump claimed “tariffs are the best tool to help our workers”, despite their costs being typically borne by everyday Americans. The tariffs have triggered economic and political uncertainty across the world and stoked fears of rising inflation.

It was supposed to be a simple rebrand – or so Cracker Barrel thought.

Earlier this month, the 56-year-old southern restaurant chain known for its country-store charm and nostalgic Americana aesthetic unveiled a new look: a minimalist logo, more modern interiors and a handful of new menu items.

Gone was the familiar image of “Uncle Herschel”, the old man in overalls leaning against a wooden barrel. Also dropped were the words “Old Country Store”. In their place: a pared-down gold background with the words “Cracker Barrel”.

It was the chain’s fifth logo change in its history and part of a broader push to stay relevant and attract young customers amid declining sales.

But what Cracker Barrel likely saw as a routine refresh quickly spiraled into a political storm, and made the company the latest target in the American right’s campaign against so-called “wokeness” in corporate America.

In conservative circles online, the backlash was swift.

“WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??!” Donald Trump Jr posted on X. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo declared: “We must break the Barrel,” adding that “it’s not about this particular restaurant chain – who cares – but about creating massive pressure against companies that are considering any move that might appear to be ‘wokification’”.

“The implicit promise: Go woke, watch your stock price drop 20 percent, which is exactly what is happening now,” Rufo added.

Indeed, within days, Cracker Barrel’s stock slid more than 10%. And soon, the outrage reached the White House.

“Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a mistake based on customer response (the ultimate Poll), and manage the company better than ever before,” Donald Trump wrote on social media on Tuesday morning. “Make Cracker Barrel a WINNER again.”

Later that day, Cracker Barrel reversed course.

“We said we would listen, and we have,” the company said. “Our new logo is going away and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain.”

A senior White House official revealed that Cracker Barrel executives had called the administration on Tuesday, and “thanked President Trump for weighing in on the issue of their iconic ‘original’ logo”.

The official added: “They wanted the President to know that they heard him, along with customer response” and that they would be restoring the old logo.

Trump celebrated the reversal as a win, and by Wednesday, the company’s stock had rebounded more than 8%. On Thursday, Cracker Barrel also reportedly removed a dedicated “Pride page” from its website.

For the rightwing online voices that drove the backlash, the reversal was another example of the influence they now wield in the US and one that has corporate America willing to bow before it in order to preserve its profits and avoid the hostility of the Maga movement.

One conservative influencer called it “a BIG win in the culture war for America”.

For some, it was no surprise that Cracker Barrel’s rebrand became a political flashpoint, as the company has long marketed a vision of “old country” America and has often been associated with conservative values.

“It has this kind of stylized or idealized representation of what I think many would define as the ‘good old days’,” Jarvis Sam, founder of the Rainbow Disruption and professor at Brown University and University of California, Berkeley, said earlier this week. “But for others, its imagery of histories of exclusion, of racial inequity and this romanticization of a time that was not that great, actually – it was not equally safe and nostalgic for everyone.”

Cracker Barrel, which was founded in 1969, has a documented history of sexual and racial discrimination accusations. In 1991, it adopted a policy that employees who failed “to demonstrate normal heterosexual values” would be terminated, which led to the firing of 11 LGBTQ+ employees and sparked protests.

In 2004, the company paid $8.7m to settle claims from more than 40 plaintiffs in 16 states alleging racist treatment of Black customers and discrimination against Black employees.

In recent years, the brand has drawn conservative backlash for making efforts to broaden its appeal and adopt more inclusive policies. It faced backlash in 2022 over adding meatless sausage to its menu and in 2023 for marking Pride Month on social media.

But Cracker Barrel is far from the only company to have found itself at the center of right-wing backlash campaigns over perceived “wokeness” in recent years.

In 2023, Bud Light lost nearly a quarter of its sales after partnering with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. Just weeks later, Target pulled some Pride merchandise after facing backlash and threats to its stores. Chick-fil-A was also attacked for its diversity initiatives, and earlier this year, Trump himself slammed Jaguar Land Rover for what he called “stupid” and “woke” marketing.

“Go woke, go broke,” the White House said this week, referencing a phrase that has, over the years, become a rallying cry among conservative activists opposed to corporate America’s recent efforts to embrace diversity.

Rightwing commentator Rogan O’Handley, better known as DC Draino, who has more than 2 million followers on X, framed Cracker Barrel’s reversal as proof of Maga’s current cultural influence.

“We boycotted Bud Light and made them lose billions for going woke,” Draino said. “We boycotted Target and made them lose billions for going woke. Then we boycotted Cracker Barrel and they brought back the southern gentleman within a week. Maga is the most dominant political movement in our lifetimes. And we’re just getting started.”

Nooshin Warren, a marketing professor at the University of Arizona who studies political and cause-based marketing, said that companies often take their cues from those in power – whether it’s the president, the legislature or the courts.

They do so, Warren said, because they “believe that the power is mirroring the majority in a democratic setting” and thus believe it “mirrors the majority ideology, which is their market”.

In recent years, companies have increasingly sought to align themselves with social values in part as an effort to engage with younger and increasingly socially conscious consumers, and boycotts of companies have emerged on both sides of the political spectrum.

While it is not necessarily new that consumers want brands to be aligned with their values, Warren said, the difference now is the amplification.

“We didn’t have an amplifier and social media has brought that, and because we have that, generally the loudest people are more heard,” Warren said.

She said that the Cracker Barrel controversy, along with broader backlash against brands over their perceived political stances over the years, reflects a wider cultural shift in the US.

“We are a politically charged country right now,” Warren said. “Where almost everything is political, because almost every part of our emotions, household decisions, personal decisions, all has some sort of political value attached to it at this moment.”

On top of that, Warren said, “when we get institutional legitimacy from the top, most popular, most influential people in a country, that will also definitely add to it”.

Since returning to office, the Trump administration has sought to influence corporate behavior, pushing its rightwing policies and perspectives and seeking to suppress or eliminate support for LGBTQ+ rights and diversity.

According to the Wall Street Journal, corporations such as Mastercard, PepsiCo, Citi and others have scaled back their Pride marketing and sponsorships, citing both political pressure from the administration and growing economic uncertainty tied to tariffs.

In the entertainment industry, Variety reported that Discovery, Amazon, Paramount Global and Disney have begun unwinding their DEI initiatives. Walmart and McDonald’s have also recently pared down their diversity-related initiatives.

An April survey by Gravity Research found that nearly 40% of major US brands planned to “reduce Pride-related engagement in 2025” and none reported plans to increase it.

David Reibstein, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said that Cracker Barrel’s logo change “should have been no big thing”.

“Companies rebrand all the time,” he said, adding that he believes it likely “would have gone under the radar if it had not suddenly caught a couple people’s attention and wanted to make it into a political issue”.

Reibstein said that he has never seen a US president “sort of endorsing or condemning companies” in the way that Trump does: “Trump is an influencer, and when Trump says this company better change, if they don’t, he’s got a whole group of followers that are going to start boycotting that product.”

While Reibstein doesn’t believe that Cracker Barrel’s rebrand was politically motivated, he said that once it caught fire online and the president got involved, the company pretty much had “no alternative but to acquiesce”.

Political pressure is also extending beyond companies, and is part of a growing effort by this administration and its allies to reshape not only company behavior but wider US cultural institutions, from the Smithsonian museums to higher education.

“The whole Maga crowd and the followers of Trump have tremendous influence right now,” Reibstein said.