Jack Feuer

Founder - Digital Marketing Works & Partner - DJR Advisors. Digital Marketing, Hotel Distribution, Corporate Development Advisor. Proud Dad.

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

@ElonMuskNews47 15

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Absolutely

[Eyal Yakoby @EYakoby]

BREAKING: The UN itself admits that 87% of its 2,010 food trucks in Gaza between May 19–July 29 were hijacked by armed groups (Hamas). That’s from the UN’s own site (UNOPS).

This isn’t Israeli propaganda. It’s a UN confession. Where’s the media?

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

A four-minute must watch on the @MyronGainesX Hitler-was-right podcast.

[Leaders 𝕏 Junction @LeadersJunction]

Kevin O'Leary shares the most important lesson he learned from Steve Jobs‼️‼️

[Mamdani Watch @MamdaniWatch]

We’re approaching 10,000 followers! Momentum is building for the Mayor but to continue we need YOUR help.

Like, retweet and follow to help the Mayor.

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

Google will keep third-party cookies and skip opt-out option in Chrome - Ad Age https://t.co/v0mVuj7X5r

[Brad Gerstner @altcap]

Navarro nuclear style tariffs is not what people voted for - they will break the US economy NOT make us great again. CEOs support pro business Trump who promised precision guided truly reciprocal, smart tariffs that level the global playing field. 🫡🇺🇸 @MariaBartiromo

[Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital]

Let me clarify something…

I’ve said since the moment these tariffs were announced that this was terrible execution. They are not targeted for national security purposes, and they are also not reciprocal.

When most people vote for someone, they then defend them blindly. In my opinion, you should be even more critical of the officials you vote into power.

I called out Biden nonstop for opening the border and facilitating mass illegal immigration into our country after voting for him. Why? Because it was insanity.

I will do the same with Trump. Bessent originally pushed for targeted tariffs and then the administration spent weeks talking about “reciprocal” tariffs. Trump ended up doing none of that and instead came up with ridiculous numbers for every country based on trade deficits. It’s absurd and it makes no sense.

Me and Druck are on the same page.
Tariffs could serve a purpose with our fiscal situation, but this is reckless policy.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

Skeptics are attempting to discredit my views by making the case that I am conflicted or otherwise vulnerable to tariffs, a market crash or a correction, or that I have somehow positioned our portfolio to benefit from my recommended 90-day pause on the implementation of reciprocal tariffs.

So for the record:

1. Neither I nor Pershing Square have any margin leverage or any other instrument or arrangement which will create liquidity issues for me or the funds we manage if the market crashes. None. We don’t use margin. Never have. Never will.

2. We have substantial cash on hand ready to be deployed from the recent sale of a large investment.

3. We have only one investment, Nike 3-year call options, that is directly affected by the tariffs, a position that represents 1.5% of our portfolio.

4. Unlike other asset managers, our capital base is more than 90% permanent so we are not exposed to redemptions from investors.

5. We own some of the greatest businesses in the world, which have durable growth models and extremely dominant franchises.

6. Our companies are well-capitalized, and to the extent they have debt, they have long-term, laddered maturities.

All of the above said, we don’t short stocks and we have no hedges in place that would protect us from a self-inflicted market crash as we are long only.

We will suffer mark-to-market losses if the market crashes, but we will not be sellers in a declining market.

We will be buyers of great businesses at highly discounted prices which will benefit us and our investors over the long term.

And our companies will likely be buying back their own shares which will increase their per-share, intrinsic values over the long term.

Over the long term, we are exposed to the health of our country and its economy. This is my only investment ‘conflict’ if you want to call it that.

I am one of the most fortunate people in the world for many reasons. With good fortune, I have an enormous responsibility to help our country and our citizens, and we have made substantial progress over the last 76 days. I don’t want to see a lot of progress get thrown out due to an unforced error.

Those that did not vote for @realDonaldTrump want to see him fail and are rooting for a market crash, recession or worse so they can feel righteous in how they cast their vote.

I have a lot of respect for our president and what he has accomplished so far, but I don’t think he is infallible, which is why I am stating loud and clear that I strongly believe launching tariffs on April 9th against the entire world — massively in excess of what we are being charged — is a mistake.

The right answer in my view is a 90-day pause to give the president time to carefully and strategically resolve our historically unfair global trading position.

That’s my view. Feel free to ignore it and unfollow me if you don’t like it or don’t care what I think.

[Shay Boloor @StockSavvyShay]

MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.

Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.

But that’s not what this is.

What you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.

You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.

Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.

That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.

And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.

I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.

What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.

And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.

You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.

This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.

And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.

You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.

With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.

That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.

Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.

But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.

That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones.

So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.

But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.

I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.

It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.

And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate.

Because we don’t need more noise.

We need a plan.

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

Good article: Hotel investors aren’t throwing in the towel. They are waiting for the climate to dry out. https://t.co/OdR7pv4Rfy

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

@CBBonFOX A

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

Jewish girl silences all the pro-Palestinian useful idiots in less than a minute!

[Vivid.🇮🇱 @VividProwess]

Bill Maher:

“Israel is the Jews’ homeland and Jews have always lived there. You can look it up. It’s in this book called the Bible. Calling Jews colonizers is like calling Native Americans colonizers here. It’s ridiculous.”

He’s 100% correct.

[Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath]

🤔

From WSJ:

“When management consulting firm McKinsey declared in 2015 that it had found a link between profits and executive racial and gender diversity, it was a breakthrough. The research was used by investors, lobbyists and regulators to push for more women and minority groups on boards, and to justify investing in companies that appointed them.

Since 2015, the approach has been tested in the fire of the marketplace and failed. Academics have tried to repeat McKinsey’s findings and failed, concluding that there is in fact no link between profitability and executive diversity. And the methodology of McKinsey’s early studies, which helped create the widespread belief that diversity is good for profits, is being questioned.”

https://t.co/ZYyp48Ms5G

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

@StopAntisemites @VanderbiltU So right!!

[Shabbos Kestenbaum @ShabbosK]

To a standing ovation, Senator John Fetterman removed his Harvard Crimson hood during commencement today in outrage over the rampant antisemitism here on campus. This is what true leadership looks like!
🎥 @safier

[Senator Tim Scott @SenatorTimScott]

This should be clear as day, but if you are standing on the side of this man - the leader of a terrorist regime who kills his own people - you are on the wrong side of history.

[Jack Feuer @DigiMktgWorks]

Makes a lot of sense. Learn and understand history.

https://t.co/2LhP1sBPph