Dale Jr. Sounds Alarm on Daniel Suárez's NASCAR Future After Team Departure
Dale Earnhardt Jr. has raised serious concerns about Daniel Suárez's NASCAR future after Trackhouse Racing announced a split after the 2025 Cup Series season.
Suárez has secured two Cup Series victories since he joined Trackhouse in 2021. However, the driver and team decided to part ways mutually. A recent statement by Trackhouse owner Justin Marks suggested that Trackhouse and Suárez got to a point where they felt they had to end their professional association. He said:
"Look, Daniel's been a huge part of this company for four and a half years now and when we sat down and mapped out our three-year and our five-year plan and the sponsorships and everything that we're trying to accomplish over the next five years of the company, we just got to a point where we felt like that relationship had beared a lot of fruit for us, but it just was time to move on.
"So, as we grow and as the team grows, obviously, we have to identify different opportunities. Look, Daniel has been a huge part of this company and a great friend of mine. We met last night, me and him in the hotel for an hour down in the lobby and we talked about our time together, everything that we've accomplished together and him and I are in a really good place."
Daniel Suarez, driver of the #99 Freeway Insurance Chevrolet, looks on during practice for the NASCAR Cup Series Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Sonoma Raceway on July 12, 2025 in Sonoma, California.
Daniel Suarez, driver of the #99 Freeway Insurance Chevrolet, looks on during practice for the NASCAR Cup Series Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Sonoma Raceway on July 12, 2025 in Sonoma, California.Marks also admitted that he will help Suárez find the next opportunity. He added:
"It's just this isn't a sport where you do the same thing forever and as we grow, we just felt like it was time to wrap up that relationship and work to try to help him to find the next opportunity, but continue to grow as a company [is] what we're trying to accomplish."
However, Dale Jr. has spoken about the opportunities available for Suárez in the NASCAR Cup Series, revealing a grim picture for the Mexican-American driver. He said on the Dale Jr. Download podcast:
"I don't know, really like what opportunities he's got, right? To stay in Cup.
"What openings are there? Where would he go that would be like a, 'Hell yeah! This is just as good.' A lateral move at least, right? There's nowhere he's going to go. There's nothing, right?
"He may be hopeful, and look, I could be wrong, and something could open up, and somebody might go, 'Yeah, man. We'll take this.'"
Do Suárez and Marks know about a potential opportunity that Dale Jr. is unaware of? There is a possibility, but only time will tell of his next move.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. is losing its biotech edge over China — and that's bad news for the Bay Area
From gene therapies to cancer breakthroughs, California has been the driving force behind America's biotechnology industry. But today, that edge is slipping. A National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report to Congress in April stated that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China in biotechnology innovation, and called for urgent investment and strategic coordination to maintain global leadership. Genentech's founding in 1976 in South San Francisco marked the start of the modern biotech era, and, ever since, California has been at the forefront of countless scientific discoveries and medical innovations. However, recent funding cuts and an overreliance on China for manufacturing pipelines leave our nation vulnerable. As the report urges, the U.S. must prioritize biotechnology at the national level or risk relying on China to use this strategic power for good. In 2011, the Chinese government declared biotechnology a ' strategic emerging industry ' and has since committed billions to secure dominance in areas like synthetic biology, gene editing and biomanufacturing. In 2024 alone, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials, surpassing the United States and accounting for nearly 40% of global trial activity. Despite U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration designed to counter China's economic influence, China's gross domestic product has remained strong, fueling even greater investment in strategic sectors like biotechnology. By contrast, the U.S. continues to lose ground, constrained by outdated regulatory frameworks and a lack of coordinated federal strategy. While China is building a biotech empire with deliberate, state-backed coordination, the U.S. is stuck playing defense with shrinking budgets. U.S. federal support for biomedical research is slipping, with the budget for the National Institutes of Health facing a 40% cut in the coming year. For a region like the Bay Area, home to some of the world's most promising biotech startups and research institutions, these cuts have a direct toll, including the termination of $314 million in funding that was to be used to train the next generation of biomedical and health researchers. Major institutions like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley are now bracing for delayed projects, staffing freezes and reductions in early-career fellowships that are vital to sustaining long-term innovation. On a national level, promising studies have been halted midstream, leaving research gaps in breakthrough treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other major infectious diseases that impact millions of Americans. When U.S. investment in domestic biotech falters, it slows innovation at home and creates an opening for global competitors to step in. China's government is strategically positioning its biotech sector to fill the gap left by stalled American research. Just last month, U.S. pharmaceutical firms signed 14 licensing deals with Chinese biotech companies worth up to $18.3 billion, underscoring our growing dependence on China's rapidly maturing R&D capabilities. This shift carries significant implications for California. It is home to over 16,500 life sciences companies and establishments, more than any other state, according to the California Biotechnology Foundation. The state directly employs more than 466,000 workers and generates more than $414 billion in annual economic output. In 2023, California led the nation in venture capital investment, raising over $34 billion for life science companies. Further, California accounted for 40% of all U.S. life sciences patents filed in 2023, and more bioscience patents are issued to California researchers than to those in any other state. Losing ground to China isn't just an economic risk; it's also a national security threat that could reshape who controls the future of health care. While the U.S. system is built on competition and patient outcomes, China's state-controlled model prioritizes strategic control and global influence. In America, ethical safeguards, transparency and regulatory review shape medical progress. In China, the government's control allows for faster approvals but also looser oversight, creating the risk of untested or misused science. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology warned that China's biotech advances could be weaponized — from battlefield-ready biologics to more nefarious applications. As a scientist working in biotechnology in the Bay Area, I understand that California plays a central role in this global race. From early-stage research in university labs to large-scale manufacturing by leading biotech firms, the state's infrastructure, talent and capital drive America's competitiveness. The Bay Area remains one of the most dense and productive biotech ecosystems in the world, thanks to its concentration of top-tier research institutions, world-class hospitals, a culture of entrepreneurship and the ability to attract the world's best and brightest to its academic and industrial ecosystem. But even here, the warning signs are hard to ignore. Federal NIH cuts have already disrupted major research projects at UC campuses, impacting our ability to attract talented students to our graduate and postdoctoral research programs, while venture capital is increasingly eyeing faster-moving regulatory environments abroad, preferring to license in late-stage assets from China instead of funding early-stage research at home. If Washington fails to prioritize a national biotech strategy, California's innovation engine could slow just as competitors abroad gain momentum. The state's economic future, public health leadership and ability to attract global talent are all at stake. China is no longer a distant biotech challenger and is actively reshaping the industry with its speed, regulatory agility and cost-efficiency, shifting the innovation center of gravity away from the U.S. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has made clear that this is not just a matter of competition, but a strategic threat with long-term consequences for public health and national security. If America is to remain a global leader in biotechnology, we must urgently invest in our domestic research ecosystem and rebuild the infrastructure that has powered decades of discovery or be forced to surrender it to a rival that plays by different rules. Ash Jogalekar is a scientist and science writer based in the Bay Area. He is a scientist in residence at the Oppenheimer Project and works on emerging threats and technology risks in areas like biotechnology and AI.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
What it would take to escape the two-party system
Earlier this month, Elon Musk said he wanted to form a new political party. He'd been teasing the idea ever since clashing with President Donald Trump over his 'big, beautiful bill,' which Musk accused of exploding the deficit. In June, Musk ran a poll on X asking users whether it was 'time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 5 million people responded, and 80 percent voted yes. Then, on July 5, Musk announced he was forming the American Party in hopes of giving voters their 'back [their] freedom.' Those who follow Musk closely, like Bloomberg Businessweek national correspondent Joshua Green, have said Musk's latest project is in line with his pursuit of political power and attention. 'I think he thought he'd essentially bought that by backing Donald Trump to the tune of $300 million in the last election,' Green said previously on Today, Explained. 'And Trump turned on him, ousted him, took away his EV tax credits, didn't cut the deficit, trashed him on social media. And now I think Elon is humiliated and looking for a way to respond and hit back.' Trump has called Musk's third-party proposal 'ridiculous.' And the billionaire appeared to have moved from his third obsession by mid-July — at least on X — posting instead about Europe's fertility rate and running damage control for the antisemitic rants of his AI platform Grok. But regardless of whether he follows through on the 'America Party,' Musk appears to have hit a chord with an American electorate disillusioned by the two-party system. On Today, Explained, co-host Noel King dove into voters' desires, the history of third parties, and possible solutions to the two-party stranglehold with Lee Drutman, senior fellow at the New America think tank and author of Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You are not a big fan of the two-party system. You know, I think it's outlived its usefulness. I think America is a pretty big, diverse country these days, you may have noticed. And to fit everybody into just two parties seems like kind of insanity, and it's clearly not working. Also, it has divided this country into two teams — the red and the blue team — that have learned to absolutely hate each other. It's created these artificial divisions around this zero-sum, winner-take-all electoral politics that is just really breaking down the foundations of democracy in this country. So, I think there was a time when it worked reasonably well for certain reasons, but that time is in the past. You will know that Elon Musk agrees with you. He says he wants to start a third party. He ran one of his polls [on X], and the question was: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' I'm looking at that poll now. Eighty percent of people said yes, 20 percent said no. How does that match up with reality in the US? Well, there are two parts to that question. One is: How many people want a third party? And then two is: How many people want that party to be somewhere in the middle? Now, the first part: How many people want a third party? That 80 percent is a little bit high. There might be some selection bias there, but it is close to polls that I've seen. Generally, about 60 to 70 percent of Americans say there ought to be more than two parties when polled. So, overwhelmingly, Americans say they want more than two parties. Now, is the party that they want a party in the center? That's less clear. I think people's perception of the political center depends on themselves. [Most] people think that they're more reasonable and they're more moderate. But in reality, when you look at the viewpoints of the American electorate, as I've done repeatedly, you see that the support for a genuine center party is limited to maybe 10 to 15 percent. But there is a lot of interest in parties that are maybe not as traditional. Third-party candidates do run for office all the time in the United States, they very rarely win. If so many voters want more options, why don't we have more people in elected office from third parties? Here you're hitting on the core problem, which is that we have a single-winner system of elections. So in a single-winner election, third parties become spoilers and wasted votes, because one of the two major parties is going to win every election. So, voting for a third party is just basically a protest vote, or maybe it could spoil the election. And as a result, most people don't want to do that because they think, well, I want to vote for somebody who at least has a chance of winning. And, more importantly, people who have ambition in politics say, well, I'm not going to waste my time with one of these fringe parties. I want to actually win. So you get minor parties that are mostly cranks and weirdos and people say, well, I'd like to vote for another party, but not that third party. What's the recent history of third-party candidates? Serious third-party candidates at a national level? I have a vague memory of Ross Perot, but I couldn't give you many details. It was the nineties. How serious have third-party candidates been over time? Well, Ross Perot is the most recent third-party candidate to actually get a pretty decent share of the electorate. He got almost 20 percent of the electorate, although he didn't win a single state. A lot of people remember Ralph Nader in 2000, who only got about 3 percent of the vote, but it was a very well placed 3 percent because his votes were more than the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida and a few other states. Before that, you had George Wallace running in 1968 on the American Independent Party as sort of a 'preserve segregation' platform. And then 1912, you have Teddy Roosevelt running as a Bull Moose third-party candidate. [He] was the most successful third-party candidate. Of course, he had already been president. So you've periodically had third-party challenges at a presidential level. At a House and Senate level, you have a few people who run as independents. But people tend to go right for the presidency because that creates a level of visibility if you're trying to build a party. If one thinks that the two-party system is a problem, let's talk about solutions. You advocate for something called proportional representation. Explain what that is and why you think it might be a solution here. Well, proportional representation is the most common system of voting, and it basically, at its simplest level, it means that parties get shares of seats in proportion to what percent of the vote they get. So if a party gets 30 percent of the vote, it gets 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. If it gets 10 percent, it gets 10 percent. Now, there are varieties of proportional representation that we could spend an hour going in the weeds. Tell me the one you like the best. What would work in the US? What I think would work in the US is probably the most commonly used version, which is called open list proportional representation with multi-member districts — which is this idea that rather than having a single district with a single representative, you have a single district with five representatives. The district is larger, and then the parties put forward lists of candidates. You choose the candidate from the party that you like, all the votes for each party get tallied up, and then the seats get allocated in proportion. So if a party gets 40 percent of the votes in that five member district, its top two candidates go to represent the district. If a party gets 20 percent, its top candidate [goes]. So, in theory, you could have five parties representing the same district. 'We've never had this level of dissatisfaction with the two-party system as far back as we've seen polling.' We talk a lot about gerrymandering as a huge problem, and it is. But [if] you move to five member proportional districts, gerrymandering becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter because votes are going to be allocated proportionally no matter what. So, everybody gets to cast a meaningful vote because every seat matters. Every seat is competitive. Every vote matters. Electoral reform is the most powerful tool we have. So, at the end of the day, has Elon Musk done something admirable here [by] making this a topic of conversation in a kind of real way? Yeah. So, I think by raising the issue of the need for a third party, it certainly opens up a conversation about what it would take. I'm not sure Elon's approach is going to be successful. On the other hand, if he's strategic and wants to spoil a few races that will determine control of the House and the Senate by running a spoiler candidate, then, historically, that's actually what has led to a wider conversation about electoral reform. And that's one of the reasons that a lot of countries moved to electoral reform.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Bangladesh signs U.S. wheat-import deal in bid to curb tariff pressure
Bangladesh signed a deal on Sunday to import 700,000 metric tons of wheat annually from the United States over the next five years, in a move aimed at securing tariff relief from the Trump administration amid growing trade tensions, officials said. The agreement — formalized through a memorandum of understanding inked in Dhaka between the Ministry of Food and trade group U.S. Wheat Associates — comes at a critical moment, with Washington set to impose a 35% tariff on Bangladeshi exports from August 1. Officials in Dhaka hope the pact will help narrow Bangladesh's $6 billion trade deficit with the U.S. and pave the way for more-favorable treatment of key export items, particularly garments, which dominate shipments to the United States. Bangladesh's de facto food minister, Ali Imam Majumder, said at the signing ceremony that the agreement would not only ensure a steady supply of high-quality wheat at competitive prices but also strengthen trade ties between the two nations. "This step reflects our willingness to build mutual trust and deepen economic cooperation with the United States," he said. The U.S. tariff hike has rattled Bangladesh's export sector, especially the ready-made garments industry, which fears losing competitiveness in one of its largest markets. The wheat initiative is widely seen as part of a broader diplomatic and trade strategy to soften Washington's stance and open the door for further negotiations. Officials from the Ministry of Commerce said talks are ongoing with U.S. counterparts in an effort to lower the duty, arguing that such high tariffs could significantly undermine Bangladesh's competitiveness in the American market. Bangladesh imports around 7 million metric tons of wheat each year, with the bulk sourced from the Black Sea region due to its lower cost. Smaller volumes of higher-quality wheat, including some from the United States, are also imported for blending.
