Skip to main content

What the Cracker Barrel rage spiral was actually about

New York (CNN) — A revealing detail emerged from Cracker Barrel’s announcement last week that CEO Julie Masino is stepping down: She’s leaving with company-funded security still in place from the public meltdown over Cracker Barrel’s rebrand last year.

Let’s pause there. The CEO of Cracker Barrel — Cracker Barrel, folks — needs extra security because an online mob went after the company for…a logo change.

If there was ever a sign of our rage-filled times, this is it. An executive nobody had heard of became a target of online attacks for the offense of trying to turn around a fading chicken and biscuits restaurant. In our way too online world, a typical corporate rebrand was whipped up into the radical left destroying a “beloved American aesthetic.”

Americans are angry about the economy and politics. But they feel they can’t control these huge forces. So anyone and anything can become a stand-in for their outrage, even if the target didn’t do anything to hurt any of us, like the random woman who got death threats after she was caught on cam with her boss at a Coldplay concert.

Big brands, which are highly sensitive to public pressure, have become an easy target for frustration. It’s quicker to rack up likes on social media griping about a logo than it is to go out and build housing. People go into a frenzy over Cracker Barrel changing its logo, Bud Light’s promotional social media post with a transgender influencer and Target for publicly backtracking on DEI.

Clinging to anything that appears symbolic of larger culture wars serves as a nice distraction from real things going on in America, said Alison Taylor, a clinical associate professor of business and society at NYU’s Stern Business School.

“It gives the public a sense of agency,” she said. “A brand is more likely to respond to stakeholder demands and pressure, more quickly, than a member of Congress.”

Companies stepped into the fray starting in the early 2010s, staking out positions on social issues like climate change, racial inequality and gay rights. Companies supposedly went “woke” by hiring diversity officers, pledging to lower their carbon emissions and supporting Pride parades— even if their commitments were often more performative than substance. (Tractor Supply and John Deere as left-wing crusaders? Really?)

An “anti-woke” contingent on the right rebelled, and companies rolled back their commitments as Trump retook the White House.

Enter Cracker Barrel. The faux outrage was egged on by professional right-wing provocateurs like Robby Starbuck, Benny Johnson and a leading investor in MAGA darling Steak n’ Shake.

The thing is, the very same people so outraged over a logo change had likely forgotten Cracker Barrel existed. The whole reason Masino became CEO in 2023 was because Cracker Barrel desperately needed to attract people under the age of 65. Its aging customer base had stopped eating out or died during the pandemic, and older customers were still hesitant to go back.

Cracker Barrel was getting crushed by rivals like Chili’s and Texas Roadhouse by the time Masino arrived. “We’re just not as relevant as we once were,” she admitted shortly after becoming CEO.

She did what restaurants do when they’re struggling: spruce up dining areas and change the menu. And there were signs the turnaround was working. Cracker Barrel posted five straight quarters of sales growth before it all blew up last August when the company unveiled its logo change.

The company switched to a minimalist logo, scrapping the namesake barrel and the “old-timer” figure —pretty average corporate fare. But none of that mattered.

“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,’” leading conservative activist Christopher Rufo said on X at the time.

What exactly were Cracker Barrel’s “radical left-wing politics” and “DEI regime?”: a Facebook post in support of Pride month and typical employee resource groups, including for the 30% of minorities who make up Cracker Barrel’s workforce.

Within days, Cracker Barrel reversed course, reverting to its “Old Timer” logo and canceling plans to remodel restaurants.

The change is “a BIG win in the culture war for America,” one right-wing activist declared on X.

Masino went on a public apology tour, going on conservative firebrand Glenn Beck’s podcast in November for what the show marketed as a “vulnerable tell-all.”

“I want people to love this place,” Masino said as she held back tears.

Beck leaned over and patted her on the arm.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the number of quarters Cracker Barrel’s comparable sales had grown before its logo change. It posted five straight quarters of growth.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Judge dismisses charges against billionaire Adani, but sharply criticizes DOJ

▶ Watch Video: Todd Blanche to be sworn in as attorney general after narrow Senate confirmation A federal judge on Monday dismissed the criminal fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and several of his co-defendants, after politically appointed leaders in the Justice Department decided to kill the case in May.But in an unusual twist, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis for the Eastern District of New York refused to dismiss two of the counts against five other co-defendants, saying the Justice Department had failed to provide him with a sufficient reason for doing so.In a scathing 47-page ruling, Garaufis took aim at Trent McCotter, the principal associate deputy attorney general, who he said bears sole responsibility for trying to dismiss the case."The irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning," Garaufis wrote. "On the current record, McCotter appears to have eschewed the professional opinions of innumerable officials from various federal offices and replaced them with his singular judgment. The fact that McCotter came to this decision largely in collaboration with defense counsel, and seemingly without input from the FBI and SEC agents who investigated the alleged misconduct, or the attorneys from the Department, SEC, and U.S. Attorney's Office who brought the case, appears to be highly unusual."The high-profile foreign bribery case against Adani was brought at the tail end of former President Joe Biden's tenure, and it managed to survive even after President Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a review into all of their pending foreign bribery cases.But after Adani retained Bob Giuffra and Jamie McDonald of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Justice Department in May moved to dismiss the case entirely.McCotter made the determination after he and other government officials met with McDonald, Giuffra and Andrew DeFilippis of Sullivan & Cromwell, sources previously told CBS News. McDonald has since been nominated by Mr. Trump to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.In one of these meetings at the Justice Department about the Adani case, Giuffra made a presentation that disputed evidence of the alleged bribery scheme, according to sources familiar with the matter and records reviewed by CBS News. One slide touted how one of Adani's companies is "powering India's progress," and another slide said the Trump administration "would not have brought the case."If prosecutors were to drop the charges, Giuffra also said at the meeting, Adani would be willing to invest $10 billion in the American economy, sources told CBS News.Adani is one of the wealthiest people in India, and is widely seen as an ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He leads the Adani Group, a massive conglomerate that owns airports, seaports, power plants and other assets.Adani said in a social media post after the charges against him were dismissed: "I welcome the US court's decision with humility and deep respect for the judicial process. Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering. My deepest gratitude to those who never lost faith in us, in the system and in India's capacity for justice."CBS News has reached out to Adani's lawyer for comment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment beyond the letter McCotter submitted to the court about the case, in which he said he made the decision to dismiss the charges "after conducting numerous meetings with defense counsel" and reviewing "hundreds of pages of materials."Judges have some discretion to review motions to dismiss charges, but it is unusual for them to extensively question the government's rationale for tossing out indictments.The decision to dismiss the Adani case has raised eyebrows and sparked questions from the judge. Two career prosecutors who were involved in the case withdrew from the matter after the motion to dismiss was filed. Additionally, politically appointed officials —  the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and McCotter—  were the only signatories on the motion to dismiss.McCotter initially pushed back when Garaufis first started raising questions about the motion to dismiss the case, prompting the judge to order Adani last month to provide answers to the court on whether there was any sort of quid pro quo arrangement. Adani ultimately told the judge no such arrangement existed.In his ruling Monday, Garaufis said that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) requires the government to "set forth the basis for its motion to dismiss," which should include its reasons and underlying factual basis for doing so."It is evident throughout McCotter's musings on 'judicial inquisitions,' the 'separation of powers,' and 'prosecutorial discretion' that he would like the court to have no role in reviewing this motion," Garaufis wrote."However, the rule's legislative history and relevant case law confirm that rule 48(a) was enacted to ensure the court's limited, but key, role in scrutinizing the government's decision to dismiss charges once a grand jury returns an indictment."He criticized McCotter for failing to provide adequate reasons for dismissing the obstruction and foreign bribery counts, noting he was "unpersuaded" by McCotter's "unsworn statements regarding hypothetical concerns of 'diplomatic strife' and 'waste[d] resources,' or his unsubstantiated claim that 'India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington.'"The judge did accept some of the Justice Department's arguments for dismissing the charges against Adani, saying it was "conceivable that the anti-bribery language used in the financial documents is so generic and vague that it would raise legal risks to the prosecution."But he was angered by McCotter's contention that the case was brought by the Biden-era Justice Department as a name-and-shame exercise."McCotter appears to be accusing officials across four different government offices of bringing a detailed 54-page, 5-count indictment out of spite," he wrote. "However, he has not provided a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the timing of the unsealing of the indictment, or the charging decisions, in this case was politically motivated. McCotter's baseless assertion is unbecoming of his office."He gave the Justice Department an Aug. 31 deadline to advise on its reasons for seeking to dismiss the two counts against the five remaining co-defendants. He also ordered attorneys for the remaining defendants to inform the court that they consent to the dismissal.
Read Next Story