Dickies and mastermind JAPAN Reveal FW25 Collaboration
Two brands known for their enduring toughness and distinct aesthetics are joining forces once again.Dickies, the global workwear icon, andmastermind JAPAN, Masaaki Homma's luxury streetwear label known for its signature skull motif, have confirmed a new collaboration set to drop forFall/Winter 2025. This partnership continues their history of blending rugged utility with high-end, punk-infused design.
mastermind JAPAN, established in 1997, built its reputation on premium 'Made in Japan' craftsmanship, dark hues, and its instantly recognizable skull and crossbones emblem. It has cultivated a cult following by infusing streetwear staples with avant-garde details and a rebellious spirit. Dickies, founded in 1922, is the epitome of durable, functional workwear, with its 874 Work Pant and Eisenhower Jacket becoming adopted symbols across various subcultures.
Previous collaborations have seen mastermind JAPAN reinterpret Dickies' classic silhouettes with their signature flair. Dickies' iconic work pants, jackets, and perhaps even hoodies and t-shirts reimagined with Mastermind's distinctive graphics, premium materials and meticulous detailing are seen in the new collection with an updated co-branded graphic that sees skulls meet stitches. This collaboration is a testament to the enduring appeal of cross-cultural partnerships that honor heritage while pushing contemporary boundaries. It allows fans of both brands to own pieces that blend American authenticity with Japanese punk-luxe precision. The Dickies x mastermind JAPAN FW25 collection is poised to be a highly sought-after release, bridging functionality with a bold, uncompromising style, featuring matching sweat suits, chore jackets, shorts trousers, jerseys and more. The collection is available starting on July 18online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Stakes rise in the Russia-Ukraine war as Trump's deadline for the Kremlin approaches
The coming week could bring an important moment in the war between Russia and Ukraine, as President Trump's deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal approaches — or it could simply melt away. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff was expected in Moscow in the middle of this week, just before Trump's Friday deadline for the Kremlin to stop the killing or face potentially severe economic penalties from Washington. Previous Trump promises, threats and cajoling have failed to yield results., and the stubborn diplomatic stalemate will be hard to clear away. Meanwhile, Ukraine is losing more territory on the front line, although there is no sign of a looming collapse of its defenses. Witkoff was expected to land in the Russian capital on Wednesday or Thursday, according to Trump, following his trip to Israel and Gaza. 'They would like to see (Witkoff),' Trump said Sunday of the Russians. 'They've asked that he meet so we'll see what happens.' Trump, exasperated that Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't heeded his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, a week ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia as well as introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil, including China and India. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that officials are happy to meet with Trump's envoy. 'We are always glad to see Mr. Witkoff in Moscow,' he said. 'We consider (talks with Witkoff) important, substantive and very useful.' Trump said Sunday that Russia has proved to be 'pretty good at avoiding sanctions.' 'They're wily characters,' he said of the Russians. The Kremlin has insisted that international sanctions imposed since its February 2022 invasion of its neighbor have had a limited impact. Ukraine insists the sanctions are taking their toll on Moscow's war machine and wants Western allies to ramp them up. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday urged the United States, Europe and other nations to impose stronger secondary sanctions on Moscow's energy, trade and banking sectors. Trump's comments appeared to signal he doesn't have much hope that sanctions will force Putin's hand. The secondary sanctions also complicate Washington's relations with China and India, who stand accused of helping finance Russia's war effort by buying its oil. Since taking office in January, Trump has found that stopping the war is harder than he perhaps imagined. Senior American officials have warned that the U.S. could walk away from the conflict if peace efforts make no progress. The diplomatic atmosphere has become more heated as Trump's deadline approaches. Putin announced last Friday that Russia's new hypersonic missile, the Oreshnik, has entered service. The Russian leader has hailed its capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds of up to Mach 10 cannot be intercepted. They are so powerful, he said, that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Also, one of Putin's top lieutenants warned that the Ukraine war could nudge Russia and the U.S. into armed conflict. Trump responded to what he called the 'highly provocative statements' by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev by ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines. Putin has repeated the same message throughout the war: He will only accept a settlement on his terms and will keep fighting until they're met. Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line have killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. It has pushed on with that tactic despite Trump's public calls for it to stop over the past three months. On the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, Russia's bigger army has made slow and costly progress. It is carrying out a sustained operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a key logistical hub whose fall could open the way for a deeper drive into Ukraine. Ukraine has developed technology that has allowed it to launch long-range drone attacks deep inside Russia. In its latest strike it hit an oil depot near Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi, starting a major fire.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
If Trump and the GOP keep this up, AOC is going to be president
Say hello to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Say hello to a blue wave in the 2026 midterms. Say hello in 2028 to President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If President Trump and congressional Republicans keep this up, it will only be the start of the progressive takeover. Left-wing populists are already winning over voters by raising hell about the rising price of clothes and groceries due to tariffs. The growing appetite for populist left voices damning the high cost of living made headlines earlier this year in the successful ' Fighting Oligarchy,' tour featuring Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ocasio-Cortez. Poll numbers also make the case that voters are frustrated with Trump's failed promise to deal with inflation. The same angst is evident in declining c o nsumer confidence. And now Scott Bessent, Trump's Treasury secretary, is floating the idea of replacing Social Security with a thousand-dollar gift to American babies. Those 'Trump Savings Accounts' are included in the Republicans' newly passed tax-and-spending plan. Bessent is now suggesting that a one-time payment, far smaller than monthly outlays for current benefits, is all that is needed to replace Social Security. Bessent openly said the 'Trump Savings Accounts' for newborns is 'a backdoor for privatizing Social Security' at an event sponsored by the conservative news outlet Breitbart. Bessent excitedly asked his audience to imagine that the thousand-dollar gift to an infant will grow until 'you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement — then that's a game changer too.' 'A stunning admission,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor. 'Bessent actually slipped and told the truth: Donald Trump and his government want to privatize Social Security.' Schumer identified Bessent's musings as a politically potent message for Democrats going into next year's midterms. Have congressional Republicans forgotten the political pain they suffered when President George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2005? The party lost its majority in the following year's midterms, in part due to public outrage. Bessent's search for a way to end Social Security is a longstanding fixation among Republicans. They see the program as contrary to capitalism, a public welfare program sending the message that government has a role in preventing poverty. Former Republican Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) became a conservative hero for daring to talk about privatizing Social Security. When he ran for vice president on the GOP ticket in 2012, liberal groups famously responded with dramatic depictions in advertising of Republicans 'throwing grandma off a cliff.' Now, with the passage of Trump's budget reconciliation bill, which got congressional Republicans to buy into substantial cuts in Medicaid spending, the Treasury secretary feels free to again openly discuss an idea for eliminating Social Security. This comes at a time when the richest 10 percent of Americans own 90 percent of stock market wealth. 'Calling this a five-alarm fire is an understatement,' stated Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). 'Between Bessent's comments and the harm DOGE has already done to the [Social Security Agency], it's clear Trump was lying all along about protecting Social Security. Like every Republican administration going back multiple generations, Trump and his billionaire cabinet want to privatize Social Security to give their Wall Street buddies a payday.' Let's not forget: During the campaign, Trump pledged to bring down inflation and 'make America wealthy again.' But a recent Fox poll found that 56 percent of Americans gave a negative rating to their family finances, and 67 percent rated Trump's handling of the economy negatively. In the Trump Cabinet, Bessent has company in floating ideas for undermining Social Security. 'What do you think [about] paying no taxes on Social Security … fantastic!' exclaimed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently, with a bright, wide, television grin on Fox News Sunday. Just one problem, Mr. Secretary. The proposal for 'no taxes on Social Security' didn't make it into the final version of the Trump spending bill (it was turned into a temporary deduction for seniors). The truth revealed by his misleading comment is that the Commerce secretary — a billionaire, like the Treasury secretary — is preoccupied with ending Social Security. Earlier this year, Lutnick implied that Americans who complain about missing a Social Security check are likely fraudsters. 'If Social Security didn't send out their checks this month, my 94-year-old mother-in-law wouldn't complain,' he said. 'She'd think something got messed up and she'd get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming and yelling. Anybody who knows payments knows you stop the checks, and whoever screams is the one stealing.' That brutal disrespect for everyone who benefits from safety net protection against poverty is increasingly being heard in public. Earlier this year, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) dismissed a constituent who expressed fear about the tax bill's cuts to health care support provided by Medicaid with a flip comment, replying, 'Well, we all are going to die.' Ernst then doubled down on her callous indifference in a grotesque campaign video filmed in a cemetery, mocking the woman's concern. 'I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth,' Ernst said. 'So, I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well.' Is it any wonder that figures like AOC and Zohran Mamdani are gaining traction?
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Doubles Down on Mathematically Impossible Drug Price Cuts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim of reducing drug prices by amounts that are mathematically impossible. Trump told reporters on Sunday that his administration had cut the price of some prescription drugs by as much as 1,500 percent. "Well, one of the things they're going to be talking about pretty soon are the tremendous drop in drug prices. You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 percent. I don't mean 50 percent. I mean 14-, 1,500 percent," the president said. When asked to clarify the president's remarks, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Newsweek, "It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people." Why It Matters Trump's remarks signal a misunderstanding of how pricing and percentages work, which could undermine public confidence in his ability to tackle problems such as drug pricing. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August 3. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August To Know Reducing the price of a drug by 100 percent would make it free, and a reduction greater than 100 percent suggests pharmaceutical companies would pay their customers to take their prescription drugs. Commenting on Trump's claims, Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek that the numbers were "indeed mathematically impossible." On Friday, the president made similar claims of bringing drug prices down by "1,000 percent, 1,200 percent" in an interview with Newsmax's Rob Finnerty. That came a day after the White House said Trump had written to the heads of 17 pharmaceutical companies outlining steps they needed to take to bring down the prices of drugs sold in the U.S. to match the lowest price paid by a group of other economically advanced countries. According to a fact sheet the White House released on Thursday, Trump's letters said the pharmaceutical manufacturers' proposals for implementing his May executive order—which seeks to achieve "most favored nation" pricing in the United States—had "fallen short." However, it did not mention the percentage reductions the president has discussed in recent days. What People Are Saying Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek: "They are indeed mathematically impossible. If he cut prices 90 percent, the drugs would cost 1/10 as much as before. If 100 percent, then they would cost zero. If cutting 1,000 percent means a thing, then it means that the drug company pays you (a lot) to take the drug." He added: "It's almost as if Trump is making fun of his supporters, seeing what increasingly absurd statements he can get away with." Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek: "This is not a question for an economist, but rather a sixth grader. After all, the Common Core curriculum standard states that students should know how to 'find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g., 30 percent of a quantity means 30/100 times the quantity).'" Wolfers added: "I just checked with my sixth grader (Oliver Wolfers), and he confirmed that he has studied percentages and that the president's math does not make sense 'because then the prices would be negative.' He added, 'Is he an idiot?' before returning to watching YouTube. Oliver's father agrees with Oliver's mathematical analysis and encourages him to use more positive language when engaging with fellow kids." Pau Pujolas, a professor of economics at McMaster University, told Newsweek: "If your grocery bill is $100 and you get a 50 percent reduction in price, you pay $50. If you get a 75 percent reduction, you pay $25. If you get a 99 percent reduction, you pay $1. If you get a 100 percent reduction, you pay $0. You can't get a reduction larger than that ... so 1,200 percent doesn't make sense. "Talking about bad math: Firing Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is way worse than a POTUS not knowing how to operate with basic percentages. Let's not miss the forest for the trees." President Donald Trump said at a Republican dinner in July: "This is something that nobody else can do. We're gonna get the drug prices down—not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60 percent. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable." The White House fact sheet said: "From this point forward, President Trump will only accept from drug manufacturers a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the freeriding by European and other developed nations on American innovations." Journalist James Surowiecki wrote on X in response to Trump's comments on Sunday: "It's not just that the math here is nonsensical. It's that Trump hasn't actually cut drug prices yet at all. He's literally just sent letters to drugmakers telling them to cut prices. Does he know that and is lying? Or is he deluded? We have no idea." What Happens Next Trump and the White House have not clarified what he means when he says drug prices will come down by as much as 1,500 percent. The president's letters to pharmaceutical companies give them a 60-day window to present a viable plan to reduce U.S. drug prices.
