President Donald Trump’s latest move to restrict Chinese investment in strategic areas shows the president may be even more aggressive than ever toward the U.S. rival in his second term.

"Although it will take time for the necessary agency and regulatory actions necessary to implement the policy, Trump 2.0 is taking an even more hawkish approach to China as he did in his first term," Larry Ward, a national security law expert and current partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, told Fox News Digital.

The comments come after Trump signed a memorandum last week that directed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that aims to both promote foreign investment from some countries while restricting investment from adversaries such as China, protecting U.S. national security interests.

"The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) will be used to restrict Chinese investments in strategic U.S. sectors like technology, critical infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, energy, raw materials, and others," reads a fact sheet about the memorandum released by the White House last week. 

TAIWAN DISPATCHES NAVY, AIR FORCE AFTER CHINA LAUNCHES LIVE-FIRE DRILLS WITH NO WARNING

The memorandum, dubbed the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), specifically singles out China for "exploiting our capital and ingenuity to fund and modernize their military, intelligence, and security operations, posing direct threats to United States security with weapons of mass destruction, cyber warfare, and more," according to the White House release.

"Chinese hackers have repeatedly targeted U.S. entities, including recently breaching the Treasury Department’s CFIUS office, the entity responsible for reviewing foreign investments for national security risks," the release adds.

While Trump has in the past imposed tariffs on China, Ward argued that the president’s new policy is a further step in aggressively responding to the threat posed by China.

"This is very different from tariffs. It's different from trade concerns. Foreign investment is an issue that potentially impacts national security," Ward said. 

Ward noted the example of the social media application TikTok, which has famously been at the center of a debate about protecting Americans from potentially being targeted by China. 

TRUMP MUST DUMP 'ONE CHINA' POLICY AND RECOGNIZE 'FREE' TAIWAN, HOUSE REPUBLICANS SAY

"TikTok initially went through the CPA process and was examined on a national security basis, and then the determination was made that there were national security concerns," Ward said.

Ward noted that Chinese investment in certain sectors has faced restrictions for years, but Trump’s move makes clear that such restrictions are likely to expand beyond those that investors have traditionally seen.

"So you look at sectors like semiconductors, the AI space increasingly is a tech sector that has been a general focus," Ward said. "But certainly this policy again puts out in front that, yes, certainly as to those sensitive industry sectors, we we are going to be very stringent when it comes to Chinese investment, but also we're going to expand into other industry sectors that maybe haven't been sort of front and center over the last five, 10 years."

Responding to Trump’s move, the Chinese commerce ministry accused the U.S. of "politicizing" and "weaponizing" economic issues, according to a report from Reuters, adding that it would continue to closely monitor the situation to defend its interests. 

Nevertheless, Ward believes Trump’s memorandum signals that the president is more committed than ever to combating Chinese threats to U.S. security. 

"The biggest thing about this policy is that President Trump is not afraid to say that really the threat here is China," Ward said. "Everybody that sort of works in this space knows that, but it was the elephant in the room, right? People sort of weren't willing to speak about it publicly. And President Trump has really come out and said through this policy, yeah, China's the concern."

President Donald Trump signaled Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might be the next agency on the chopping block as his administration continues to unveil new cuts to the federal government. 

Trump told reporters Wednesday during the first meeting with his Cabinet that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is eyeing cutting 65% of federal employees from the agency. 

"I spoke with Lee Zeldin, and he thinks he’s going to be cutting 65 or so percent of the people from Environmental, and we’re going to speed up the process too at the same time," Trump said. "He had a lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionists, and a lot of people that didn’t exist." 

TRUMP ADMIN TO DIRECT AGENCY HEADS TO PREP FOR ‘LARGE-SCALE REDUCTIONS IN FORCE,' REORGANIZATION BY MARCH 13

Trump also suggested that the Department of Education could also face steep cuts as he renewed calls to move education back to the states. Trump historically has signaled he is considering shuttering the agency entirely through an executive order, although Article II of the Constitution stipulates Congressional approval is required to entirely eliminate a federal agency. 

"We’re cutting down government … we’re bloated, we’re sloppy," Trump said Wednesday. 

The EPA and White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Trump’s remarks come as his administration and the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) led by SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk are seeking to dramatically shrink the size of the federal government and workforce. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought and acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued a memo on Wednesday directing agencies to brace themselves for "large-scale reductions in force" and establish downsizing plans by mid-March. 

Additionally, DOGE has been tasked with eliminating government spending, waste and streamlining efficiency and operations, and Trump said Saturday he wanted to see DOGE take an even more aggressive approach moving forward. 

HERE ARE THE AGENCIES THAT FOLLOWED MUSK'S DOGE PRODUCTIVITY EMAIL VERDICT – AND THE ONES THAT DIDN'T

Musk, who said Wednesday that the U.S. will "go bankrupt" without DOGE cuts, has launched several initiatives to drastically cut the federal workforce. For example, Musk requested all federal workers respond to a personal productivity email — that he described Wednesday as a "pulse check review" — the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) sent out by Monday at 11:59 p.m. listing five things they accomplished the previous week. 

Musk warned that those who failed to comply would lose their jobs. While some agencies instructed their staffers to ignore the email, Musk said Wednesday another email would go out as DOGE seeks to eliminate people who are on the government payroll but don’t exist. 

Likewise, Musk said Wednesday that DOGE is seeking to preserve jobs for everyone who is an essential worker and is performing well, but warned that those who aren’t could lose employment. 

The White House said Tuesday that one million federal workers did comply with Musk's productivity email request and that employees should look to their individual agency for guidance on how to proceed. 

The surveillance company Flock sent the creator of a website that maps its license plate-reading cameras a cease and desist letter demanding that he immediately stop using the name “DeFlock” on his website.

404 Media previously wrote about DeFlock, an open source mapping project created by Will Freeman that tracks the locations of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) from Flock and other companies. DeFlock currently maps more than 16,000 ALPRs around the world, which includes both Flock cameras as well as many created by Motorola. 

Late last month, Flock’s lawyers sent Freeman a letter demanding that he immediately “Cease and desist all use of the name ‘DEFLOCK’ or any variation thereof, remove all instances of ‘DEFLOCK’ from your Website, advertisements, promotional materials, and any other content, and Refrain from adopting any trademarks, trade names, or branding continue to or likely to cause dilution by blurring, dilution by tarnishment, and false advertising with respect to the Flock Marks in the future.” 404 Media has obtained a copy of the letter and uploaded it here.

“It has come to our attention that you are maintaining a website and promoting a project entitled DEFLOCK, which purports to track automated license plate readers across the country, and discusses the alleged dangers of [the surveillance]. While Flock believes in open debate, it takes misuses of its intellectual property seriously,” the letter, written by Sarah M. Katz of the law firm Adelman Matz, says. “While Flock does not object to the free dissemination of truthful information, your use of the Flock Marks as part of your brand DEFLOCK is being wrongfully used to make false statements about Flock and its products and is damaging both its reputation and the goodwill associated with the Flock Marks.”

It is not clear what “false statements” Freeman is making about Flock. The letter says that it should not be called DeFlock because not all of the cameras tracked by DeFlock are Flock cameras (some are Motorola), and says “the website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks, which given that all of the readers are being imputed to Flock, provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products.” On the front page of DeFlock, there is a link to a 404 Media article about a security vulnerability in Motorola ALPRs. A security researcher on YouTube and Freeman previously showed that certain Motorola ALPRs are leaking data online, and 404 Media wrote about that research. The DeFlock site says “BREAKING: Anyone Can Access Motorola ALPR Data” and links to our article, but makes no claims about Flock ALPR security. 

Freeman is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and is not going to change his website, Cara Gagliano, a senior staff attorney at the EFF said in a response to Flock: “The claims alleged in your letter are groundless, and Mr. Freeman will not be complying with your demands,” the EFF’s letter says. “Because there is no legal basis for your demands, my client declines to comply with them.”

The cease-and-desist letter shows that Flock is both aware of the DeFlock website and is threatening Freeman with legal action. Flock’s letter argues that DeFlock is causing the “dilution” of Flock’s trademarks rather than “infringement” of them. This is a crucial distinction, Gagliano said. 

Companies can sue for trademark infringement when they believe that a consumer is likely to confuse the infringing product for the real one; dilution cases only apply to “famous” trademarks and can be pursued when a similar product would undermine or tarnish the brand of the original. Gagliano says in her letter that DeFlock is not diluting the Flock brand because it was specifically made for the noncommercial criticism of the surveillance company.

“Federal anti-dilution law includes express carve-outs for any noncommercial use of a mark and for any use in connection with criticizing or commenting on the mark owner or its products,” Gagliano wrote, adding that a false advertising claim made in Flock’s letter does not apply because DeFlock is a noncommercial website. 

“DeFlock is a grassroots project that aims to ‘shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.’ It pursues that mission by providing information about ALPRs and maintaining an interactive, crowd-sourced map of ALPR installations,” she added. “The name ‘DeFlock’ references the project’s goal of ending ALPR usage and Flock’s status as one of the most widely used ALPR providers.”

Gagliano told 404 Media that Flock’s attempt to go after Freeman and DeFlock on a dilution claim raises serious free speech concerns. “Flock's choice to claim dilution rather than infringement is telling. Infringement requires showing that consumers are likely to be confused by the use; Flock clearly realizes how implausible that is here,” she said. “Dilution is a much more nebulous concept that we think raises serious constitutional questions. It's fortunate that dilution laws typically have enough explicit exceptions for claims to fail in their face in cases like this, but it's still much too broad a doctrine with little to justify it.”

Flock did not respond to a request for comment.

Michelle Trachtenberg has died, according to reports. The actor was 39. The New York Post and ABC reported the news, citing police sources.

According to the Post's sources, Trachtenberg was found dead at One Columbus Place, a luxury high-rise apartment complex near Central Park in Manhattan.

The former child actor was best known for her roles in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Harriet the Spy," and "Gossip Girl."

A representative for Trachtenberg didn't immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

• Donald Trump is threatening publishers again.
• A New York Times editor who's out with a new book says we need to take him seriously.
• A landmark free-speech case could be at risk.

Donald Trump, who is used to suing journalists and media companies about stories he doesn't like, says he's going to do more of it.

In a post published on his Truth Social platform Wednesday, Trump vowed to "sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general," arguing that they make up stories about him and "a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty."

"I'll do it as a service to our Country," Trump continued. "Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!"

Trump is presumably referring to the newest book by author Michael Wolff, who chronicled Trump's first term and is back at it again with "All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America," which is out this week. Trump complained about the book in an earlier Truth Social post this week. I've asked Wolff and the White House for comment.

Complaining about people who say or publish unflattering things about him, threatening to sue them, and actually suing them are nothing new for Trump. And up until recently, it was relatively easy for media companies and journalists to shrug off those threats and threatened suits. Even when Trump did lodge a claim, he rarely won in court.

But in Trump 2.0, it is getting harder to dismiss a Trump rant about the media. Since his election last fall, he has already extracted a settlement from Disney and ABC over a defamation suit he filed last year, and he is in discussions with CBS and Paramount to settle another suit, this one over alleged "election interference" because he didn't like a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. He has lodged a similar lawsuit against Gannett and its Des Moines Register.

How a key free speech ruling could be at risk

And while Trump's threat to create a new law about defamation seems like a reach — in the US, laws are hard to pass, even when the same party controls the White House, the House, and the Senate — the direction he's headed is worth taking very seriously.

That's the underlying message of "Murder the Truth," an upcoming book from New York Times editor David Enrich, which details an ongoing push to tear down the legal underpinnings that support freedom of speech in the US. Enrich is specifically focused on New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court ruling that established the basic framework for defamation law in the US: In short, it should be very hard to successfully sue someone because you don't like what they say.

As Enrich notes in his book, this was both a landmark ruling and a popular one, cherished by free speech advocates across the political spectrum. But that has started to change in recent years.

There are multiple reasons for that, but the main one is Trump himself, Enrich told me on this week's episode of my Channels podcast.

On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump mused about wanting to "open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." Which, again, was easy to dismiss at the time, for multiple reasons. But Trump kept coming back to the idea — and as we're seeing now, he has already had success on the payments front.

Next up: A potential showdown at the Supreme Court, where Justice Clarence Thomas has already said he is eager to revisit NYT v. Sullivan, as has fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch. So it's possible Trump could end up getting his way without passing a new law.

There's been a slew of news about Trump and his allies battling with the press in recent weeks — see his fight with the Associated Press over the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America, and his dustups with the press corps over who gets to ask questions at press conferences, and who gets to participate in the White House press pool.

And those stories unsettle me and other observers. But they're ultimately about access, not about limiting what the press — who, as Elon Musk likes to remind us, is everyone now — actually says, writes, and publishes. Threatening lawsuits, filing lawsuits, and extracting settlements from lawsuits is very much about that. Actually changing the law to make those suits that much more powerful is something that should alarm all of us.

• Netflix's Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson fight and NFL games drove surges in daily signups, data shows.
• These 2024 events were among Netflix's early entries into live sports.
• The new subscription data shows the live sports strategy is paying off for the streaming giant.

Live sports are paying off for Netflix, new subscription data shows.

The company had big spikes in daily signups during major live events last year, according to media-subscription research firm Antenna. These included the Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson fight and NFL games on Christmas Day.

Netflix brought in 1.4 million US signups for the boxing match, while the Christmas games drove 700 million, per a report Antenna published Tuesday.

Alongside live sports, Antenna said Netflix's password-sharing restrictions, which rolled out in the US in 2023, have helped boost signups by limiting the number of people who can use one account.

"It was a good start for Netflix into its foray of live acquisition sports," said Jonathan Carson, Antenna's CEO, in a webinar about the report.

Netflix is pursuing more live sports and events. The streamer kicked off a deal with the WWE this year and landed exclusive US rights to the FIFA Women's World Cup for 2027 and 2031. The company wants more NFL rights, too, content chief Bela Bajaria told the podcast "The Town with Matt Beloni."

Netflix highlighted sports in January as it announced a record 19 million new subscribers. The company called the Paul-Tyson fight the most-streamed sporting event ever and the NFL Christmas Day games the two most streamed NFL games in history.

Carson at Antenna said Netflix's subscriber leap shows an industry giant that has been around for as long as Netflix can still drive better business results with new tools and strategies.

"When Netflix announced that they were getting into these live events, these big moments in time, there was a question as to whether these could drive big surges of acquisition," Carson said. "The results have been pretty impressive."

Users who signed up for live sports weren't as loyal as other Netflix subscribers

Driving signups is half only the battle. Netflix also needs to keep these new customers around.

Antenna found that 79% of the US subscribers who signed up for the Paul vs. Tyson fight stuck around one month later. That's lower than Netflix's overall benchmark of user loyalty, which is 86%, per Antenna.

However, it was still higher than the benchmark for loyalty at other premium subscription streaming services that Antenna tracks. 21% of users who signed up to watch the fight canceled their subscriptions within a month of subscribing. Its competitor set, which includes streamers such as Paramount+ or Hulu, saw 26% of users cancel in a similar timeframe.

Antenna's data also showed other positives for Netflix:

• Netflix was one of five streaming subscriptions that grew gross additions by double digits year over year in 2024. It also captured 15% of gross additions in the category, in line with Hulu and behind Paramount+'s 17%.
• Netflix had the highest retention rate for a standalone service, with 74% of users who subscribed from July to September sticking with the service after three months. Its retention rate was second only to Disney and Warner Bros Discovery's bundle, which had an 80% retention rate during the period.

• I ate at Chili's for the first time after seeing people rave about the food on TikTok.
• I ordered a Triple Dipper appetizer sampler, the Bacon Rancher burger, and a molten chocolate cake.
• I enjoyed most of the food but thought the meal was overpriced.

Growing up in Brooklyn in the early aughts, I didn't have access to many fast-casual chain restaurants. My time was mostly spent in small pizza shops strategically located next to Blockbusters and family-owned diners.

However, I never felt like I was missing out — until 20 years later, when my social media algorithms somehow became a display of Chili's fandom.

Although I'm still not exactly sure how this happened (maybe it was my boyfriend whispering "Take me to Chili's" into my phone when I wasn't looking), the videos of Triple Dippers and Nashville hot mozz pulls succeeded, and I found myself at Chili's for the very first time.

Here's what I thought of my first visit to the chain.

The popularity of Chili's is undeniable.

Chili's is a fast-casual chain restaurant with over 1,600 locations worldwide. Unlike many of the restaurant's competitors, Chili's has recently seen a rise in popularity, especially among young diners.

When I asked my boyfriend — a die-hard Chili's fan — to come with me to try some menu items, he agreed and insisted on driving out to the best Chili's we could find within driving distance.

For me to have the real experience, he said, the Chili's could not be in a strip mall; it had to be a stand-alone structure. So, we made our way to Long Island.

When we got there, I was disappointed by the appetizers.

We knew we had to start with the $17 Triple Dipper, an appetizer sampler that's become so popular that the CEO of Chili's parent company Brinker International said it accounts for 11% of the brand's sales.

Many TikTok users have been loving the Nashville hot mozz, which is Chili's take on a classic mozzarella stick that's tossed in hot sauce. So, we included those in our Triple Dipper, along with boneless wings and Southwestern egg rolls.

Our four-person booth was cozy, and I had a lot of fun ordering in Chili's lingo. However, none of that seemed to matter when the food arrived.

I expected the Nashville hot mozz to be fiery and gooey, but was instantly disappointed. I didn't even experience the TikTok-famous cheese pull. Now, I'm sure this doesn't always happen — but this cheese was nowhere near hot enough to pull. The flavor was good and tangy, but nothing felt hot or Nashville about it.

However, the boneless Buffalo chicken wings were very good. I was impressed with the quality of the chicken and loved the ranch dipping sauce that so many rave about.

Unfortunately, though, the Southwestern egg rolls were another miss for me. Although there was nothing inherently bad about them, they were pretty forgettable.

The entrées were good but felt a bit pricey.

Oddly enough, the item I was least looking forward to trying — the Bacon Rancher burger — was my favorite part of the meal.

I enjoy everything on it (patties, bacon, ranch, American cheese, sautéed onions, and pickles), but I assumed it would be too much together. The combo turned out to be perfect, but the price could have been better.

At $19.50, I couldn't help thinking I could get something just as good at a mom-and-pop joint, which I'd also rather support over a chain.

Other members of our party got Chicken Crisper combos ($15), the star of which are really just bigger versions of the boneless wings. Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the chicken when I tried a bite.

The combos also came with white-cheddar mac and cheese and fries, which felt excessive to me.

I enjoyed the molten chocolate cake.

What could be bad about molten chocolate cake? The $10 dish, topped with vanilla ice cream in a chocolate shell with caramel drizzle, was warm and flavorful — so much so that I couldn't help but push the limits of my lactose intake.

We split the decadent treat four ways, and even that was a struggle after the heavy meal and endless Diet Coke refills we'd enjoyed.

Overall, I didn't think Chili's provided a great value.

To be honest, after trying Chili's for the first time, I didn't get the hype. In my opinion, the quality and value just didn't add up.

For $21 — two dollars more than I spent on a burger at Chili's — I could walk up 10 blocks and have one freshly made at a restaurant that uses quality meat from the butcher next door.

Plus, the Nashville hot mozz taught me not to believe everything I see on TikTok. As I learned the hard way, not all cheese pulls are created equally.

No, Friday didn’t come early and you didn’t get fired. Slack is just going in and out for everyone.

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is not very happy about Apple’s current compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). In a new interview with Bloomberg, he criticizes Apple and calls on EU regulators to bring swift action against the company.

According to a letter seen by 9to5Mac, the Trump Administration is investigating whether the UK may have broken a bilateral agreement when secretly demanding that Apple build a global backdoor into iCloud.