Author: openjargon

• Donald Trump awaits sentencing, and faces a potential term of zero to four years behind bars.
• Four former NYC judges predict he'll avoid state prison, though one calls "city time" a possibility.
• Probation, community service, and fines are likely alternatives to incarceration for Trump.

The pundits are pondering: what will happen when Donald Trump is sentenced?

Will New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan treat Trump like any other older first offender with non-violent, low-level felonies, and give him a no-jail sentence — an option that moots Secret Service security concerns and blunts further cries of "election interference?"

Or will Merchan factor in all the extra stuff — Trump's courtroom outbursts, his 10 gag violations, his civil judgments for sex assault and billion-dollar fraud, his targeting of the judge's own daughter — and sentence him to less than a year in Rikers or more than a year in state prison?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has not revealed what he'll ask for on July 11, when Trump is scheduled to be sentenced to anywhere from zero to 4 years for each of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Bragg has yet to even tell his own prosecutors, the ones who tried and won the hush-money case, what sentence he'll ask for, according to a source who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Merchan, of course, won't tip his hand until the sentencing itself.

From the judges' mouths

So, Business Insider did the next best thing.

We side-stepped the pundit industrial complex and its army of former prosecutors and think-tankers. We instead asked a few of Merchan's former colleagues on New York City's criminal trial bench, the closest thing to the horse's — or judge's — mouth.

Will Merchan sentence Donald Trump to jail? To prison? What would they have done as judges had Trump's case been theirs?

Four former New York City judges, all reputed to be as tough or tougher than Merchan, shared their answers.

All four said a prison sentence — AKA "state time," meaning a sentence of more than one year in an upstate New York prison — is inappropriate.

Merchan will not sentence Trump to prison, the four agreed.

"He's certainly not going to give him state time — state time is really a lot," said Michael Obus, who was Merchan's supervising judge in Manhattan from 2009 to 2017.

"The prosecution has gotten its pound of flesh just by getting its conviction," agreed Barry Kamins, a former Brooklyn-based state supreme court justice and ex-administrative judge for the city criminal courts.

"We all know who Trump is and what he does," said Charles Solomon, a Manhattan-based state supreme court justice for 33 years before his retirement in 2017.

"But you don't want to give him such a draconian sentence that he becomes a martyr," Solomon said.

"Trump would be re-elected in a landslide if they put him for one day in jail," he added. "Plus, this guy doesn't belong in jail for what he did. Let's face it, enough is enough already."

What about Rikers?

Three out of the four former judges who spoke to BI go even further, predicting that Merchan won't give Trump a jail sentence either, meaning no "city time" — a term of less than one year in New York's notorious Rikers Island.

Merchan could theoretically sentence Trump to as little as a single day in Rikers, said Kamins, now in private practice at Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins.

A 30-day sentence, to be served at Rikers on 15 consecutive weekends, is a more reasonable low-jail option in Merchan's toolbox, noted Solomon.

But Trump shouldn't expect even this sort of short, symbolic jail sentence, said Kamins, Solomon, and a third former Manhattan judge who asked not to be named due to an ongoing connection to the courts.

"This is not a case where jail should even be considered," said that former judge, one of the few Republicans on the Manhattan bench in recent decades.

In sentencing, both aggravating and mitigating factors are weighed, this judge noted.

"You have to consider the impact that a sentence will have on others," the former judge said.

"And in this case that means the impact the sentence will have on the entire nation. A national election is hanging in the balance," where any time spent in jail keeps Trump off the campaign trail, the former judge said.

"If this gets reversed" on appeal, they added, "the damage will already be done, and this judge cannot be oblivious to that."

Appeals would delay jail for years

Only one judge — Obus, the former Manhattan administrative judge — declined to rule out jail altogether, calling it a possibility, though a slight one.

What might tip the scales in favor of jail? Trump's motive.

Prosecutors can be expected to argue at sentencing, as they did in opening statements and closing arguments, that Trump falsified business records as part of a 2016 election-interference scheme with the National Enquirer.

The supermarket tabloid ran fake stories attacking Trump's political opponents — including one doozy that accused Ted Cruz of keeping "five mistresses" — while buying and burying salacious stories that hurt Trump, trial evidence showed.

"This scheme, cooked up by these men at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors in closing arguments.

Merchan will weigh this attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election during sentencing, Obus noted.

"One possibility is some kind of split sentence, say, six months of jail with a concurrent sentence of five years probation," said Obus, a member of the new statewide commission on prosecutorial conduct.

But even in the unlikely event of a low-jail sentence, Trump's appeals would keep him at liberty for years, all four judges said.

"I've kept a client out as long as six years, pursuing appeals," said veteran Manhattan defense lawyer Ron Kuby.

"No one is going to incarcerate a former president of the United States until his appeals are exhausted," said Kuby.

"You cannot plausibly argue that Donald Trump is a risk of flight," Kuby added. "Now, you may wish that he flee," he joked. "But he is not a flight risk."

Merchan has the power to immediately stay any incarceratory sentence himself, Obus noted.

Probation, community service, and a fine are far more likely

Short of jail, Trump can be fined up to $5,000 for each of the 34 records-falsification counts he was found guilty of, Obus said.

Merchan can also order community service, to be monitored by the judge himself or through the city probation department.

"If you're older or handicapped, they won't send you out into the parks to pick up garbage," Solomon said. "They'll have you licking envelopes somewhere," he said.

"Maybe in Trump's case, they'll have him lecture somewhere about how you should not commit crimes," he added. "He could go to Harvard Business School and lecture about the importance of not falsifying business records."

A term of three or five years probation would not be surprising, the former judges said.

"It's basically nothing," Solomon said. "You have to meet with your probation officer initially, and then you have to go to a kiosk every now and then, and log in, to make sure you're OK and still around."

Trump can easily have his probation transferred to Florida — or Washington, DC. — the judges also noted.

"If you go by the statistics for people sentenced for this kind of crime, the most common sentence is probation," said Kamins.

"Judge Merchan, we know, takes white-collar crime very seriously, and he may choose probation — which is the most serious non-jail punishment — only because of his feelings on white-collar crime," Kamins added.

Merchan should say less, not more

It's a historic moment, the first sentencing of a former president. But given what will be an aggressively-fought appeal, Merchan may want to keep his comments brief, and focused on the conviction alone, the former judges said.

Merchan has already punished Trump's ten acts of contempt of court — his gag order violations — by imposing a total $10,000 in fines. Dwelling on these violations as he explains his sentence to Trump could give the defense a basis for challenging the punishment as vindictive and repetitive, the former judges said.

But Trump's history of civil fraud and sex-abuse judgments is fair game for Merchan to mention at sentencing, they said.

Rehashing Trump's spoken and online attacks on the judge, the judge's family, and the criminal justice system is also fair game.

"He looks like an angel, but he's really a devil," Trump said of Merchan during a press conference just one day after his verdict.

But less is more, the former judges said, especially if Merchan wants to limit Trump's ability to appeal the sentence by claiming it was based on the judge's personal and political animus.

"You can go down the list, as a judge, and say he doesn't pay the people he hires, he doesn't do this, he doesn't do that," Solomon said of Merchan's sentencing statement.

"But if you start making a list of how bad he is, and then you give him a light sentence, you look like an idiot," he said.

"Most of the time, the less you say the better," Solomon added. "You speak a couple of sentences. You say, 'I have weighed the facts of the case, and I think the appropriate sentence under the law is as follows.'"

Ultimately, the judges said, Merchan will give it a good deal of thought, and then do what he sees is best.

"I certainly don't know what the right decision is, or what Judge Merchan will do," Obus told BI.

"I just know that he is thoughtful, and wise, and fair. And I'm sure he'll consider the appropriate factors and whatever he does will be the right decision," he said.

"That's how I'm going to find out what the right decision is," he added with a laugh.

• My son could identify the lifecycle of an insect but not denominations of money. 
• Allowing for real life learning has changed how he handles money.
• By starting financial education early, my hope is to set him up for future financial success.

"Momma, look what we did in school today," exclaimed my 5-year-old as he pulled out a worksheet dedicated to the life cycle of a butterfly.

As he explained how a caterpillar formed a chrysalis and then metamorphosed into a butterfly, I had to admit I was impressed.

Behind him, on the kitchen counter, sat a handful of change. Something compelled me to see if he knew the names of the coins.

Holding out a nickel, I asked what it was. He replied, "Money."

Rephrasing my question, I asked what the name of the coin was. He guessed a penny.

While he was learning a wide range of topics in school, money was not one of them. This was a wake-up call to my husband and me to teach him financial literacy at home.

If he can understand the concepts of a chrysalis and metamorphosis, he can learn about money. Since then, we've implemented strategies to help him learn about finances in ways that make sense for our family.

We use real money when shopping

My son likes to play store by setting up a cash register and "selling" items from his room. He used to play with pretend coins, but now we use real money, which allows him to practice counting money, giving change, and understanding how coins and dollars interact.

Going into stores used to be like running through a gauntlet of temptation. Like many children, he'd see something he wanted and immediately ask for it. Thinking I was helping him learn the concept of cost, I would have him read me the price of the item he wanted. He obliged and then asked me to buy it. What was missing was the correlation between the numbers listed and what that meant in the actual currency of money.

Having him bring his money to the store allows him to understand the value of a previously abstract number. When he does make a purchase, he is responsible for completing the transaction rather than us adding it to our tab and paying us back. We want him to have the experience of physically handing over the money rather than just swiping a card.

He still makes poor choices sometimes

As all parents know, using logical reasoning with young children doesn't always yield the results you hope for. After a trying experience at a store where I explained why buying a particular plastic toy wasn't a good idea, I decided to let him learn for himself with his money.

Unsurprisingly, the toy broke within a day. After initially feeling upset, he stated what a waste it was. Now, he is much more deliberate with his purchases if he's spending his money. We're working on him having the same intentionality with ours.

We explained how compound interest works

My son receives money from family members for each birthday and Christmas. Until last year, we put it directly into his investment account. As he gets older, we want him to understand what happens to his money when it is invested.

Using dollar bills and coins, we showed how money makes more money without him having to do any work. He asked how much money would be in his account if he put $10 in it every birthday until he was "old" like me. When I answered hundreds of dollars, his eyes widened in disbelief. He has been aboard the investing train ever since.

If children can start reading in kindergarten, let's trust they can also learn about financial literacy. It will pay dividends.

• Chinese automakers are deploying humanoid robots in their factories. 
• Tesla rival Dongfeng will use a robot created by Chinese firm Ubtech to assemble car parts and perform quality checks.
• Ubtech's "Walker S" robot rivals Optimus, which Elon Musk says could transform the global economy. 

Elon Musk can't stop talking about Optimus, Tesla's humanoid robot— and now his Chinese rivals are turning to equivalent robots as they seek to challenge their US rival.

Car giant Dongfeng Motors appears to be the latest Chinese automaker to explore deploying human-like robots on its production lines after striking a deal with Chinese robotics firm Ubtech Robotics.

An Ubtech spokesperson told Business Insider that the robotic worker, "Walker S," would help liberate human laborers from repetitive tasks on the factory floor.

The deal between Ubtech and Dongfeng subsidiary Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor will see Walker S robots used to inspect seat belts and door locks, perform quality checks, and assemble car axles, they said.

Dongfeng, which produces electric vehicles through its Voyah unit, is the second Chinese car company to have confirmed its using Ubtech's robots to help build its cars.

Robot Revolution

EV maker and Tesla rival Nio has also piloted the use of Ubtech's technology, with the Walker S working as an "intern" assisting with car production.

A video posted on Ubtech's YouTube channel shows the Walker S performing quality checks, testing seat belts, and installing a car's emblem.

A Nio spokesperson confirmed to BI that the company was actively exploring using humanoid robots in the general assembly workshop at its factory in Hefei, China.

Ubtech says the Walker S, which stands 1.7 meters tall and is powered by AI technology from Chinese tech giant Baidu, can perceive its environment in real time and recognize complex objects.

The robotics firm also advertises several other humanoid robots on its website — including a panda-themed robot and the Walker X, which it says is being used at Neom, Saudi Arabia's futuristic desert city.

Optimus competition

Chinese firms are not the only ones experimenting with robotics. Elon Musk has been working on a humanoid robot — known as Optimus — for years.

The Tesla CEO has been extremely bullish on Optimus, which has appeared in videos showing it folding a shirt, picking up an egg, and doing yoga stretches.

In a recent Tesla earnings call, Musk said the AI android had the potential to transform the global economy. He added that Tesla planned to have Optimus "in limited production" doing tasks within factories by the end of the year and wanted to sell it externally by the end of 2025.

Dongfeng did not immediately respond to requests for comment made outside normal working hours.

• Houthi rebels in Yemen launched a solid-fuel missile, the "Palestine," at Eilat, Israel, AP reported.
• The missile resembles Iran's Fattah missile that can reach hypersonic speeds.
• The Houthis claim the missile is "locally made," per the AP, though defense experts are doubtful.

Houthi rebels in Yemen said they had fired a new solid-fuel missile called the "Palestine" at the southern Israeli city of Eilat on Monday.

The missile is believed to be able to fly at hypersonic speeds and resembles one unveiled by Iran earlier this year, the Associated Press reported.

The attack did not result in any damage or injuries, per AP.

Footage released Wednesday appeared to show a missile, which Houthis claimed to be the Palestine, with a warhead painted in the style of the Palestinian keffiyeh scarf, being raised to firing position and then launched.

Pro-Palestinian supporters around the world have taken to wearing the chequered keffiyeh as a sign of solidarity with the embattled people of Gaza. The enclave has been subjected to an eight-month military campaign by Israel that has killed over 36,000 people, according to the Hamas-run health authorities. It was triggered by the October 7 terrorist attacks in southern Israel by Hamas that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

Most Houthi attacks have been targeting ships in the Red Sea corridor with missiles and drones as part of a campaign that aims to put pressure on Israel and the West over the war in Gaza. Strikes by the US and UK have raised the stakes in recent months.

Israel's port city of Eilat sits on the Gulf of Aqaba, whose waters connect to the Red Sea, has been targeted 53 times since October 7, according to according to the US Congressional Research Service, per The Jerusalem Post.

According to the Arms Control Association, a Washington DC-based think tank, solid-fuel missiles "require less maintenance and preparation time" than liquid-fuel missiles because "solid-propellants have the fuel and oxidizer together, whereas liquid-fueled missiles must keep the two separated until right before deployment."

The Houthis claim the missile is "locally made," per the AP, though they are unlikely to be able to construct this level of advanced weapon, defense experts say.

Fabian Hinz, a weapons expert at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, wrote on X that the Palestine missile reassembled the Iranian-developed Fattah 1 and the Kheybarshekan 2, both solid-fuel missiles.

Iran unveiled the Fattah last year. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed the missile could achieve speeds of Mach 15 – 15 times the speed of sound—and had a range of 870 miles.

Missiles that travel more than five times the speed of sound are considered "hypersonic." According to a UK government research briefing, hypersonic missiles' speed, maneuverability, and altitude "may challenge existing missile defenses."

"So far, the ballistic missiles used by the Houthis against Israel appear to all have been less advanced liquid propellant missiles without terminal guidance," Hinz wrote on X.

"While we cannot say for sure what exact version the 'Palestine' corresponds to, we can say with high certainty that it is an advanced and precision-guided IRGC-developed solid propellant missile provided by Iran," the expert said.

• Uber and Lyft drivers often struggle with low or infrequent tips, which many rely on to pay bills.
• Ride-hailing drivers earn below minimum wage in major cities, even with tips, UC Berkeley found.
• Delivery drivers often receive higher or more frequent tips, partly due to American tipping customs.

Chris Yandell, a 35-year-old full-time Uber driver in Oklahoma City, has mixed feelings about his passengers.

He loves interacting with people, he told Business Insider, but it's "a real struggle to pay rent" with his ride-hailing income, and he said few passengers tip. He considers ride-hailing drivers similar to restaurant servers, as both provide a service, but he said many passengers don't see it this way.

"Riders more often than not leave my car in a better mood than when they got in — they do say thank you with a smile on their face and give a 5-star rating," he said. "However, they very rarely leave a tip."

Data suggests drivers for ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft get tips much less frequently than delivery drivers. According to an analysis of over 500,000 US gig drivers provided to BI by Gridwise, a data-analytics company that helps drivers track their earnings, roughly 28% of Uber and Lyft ride-hailing trips get tips, compared to 87% of food-delivery trips and 74% of grocery trips. The analysis was based on US tipping data between January 1 and June 6.

As the pay model for gig driving shifts, poor tipping is one of the main driver frustrations with Uber and Lyft. Some drivers are questioning whether the gig is worth it. After all, many earn below the local minimum wage — and they could be earning more tips by switching to food delivery. Drivers' frustrations have led some to quit their gigs — and others to push for higher guaranteed pay.

Some drivers told BI they increasingly rely on tips, especially when some drivers are growingly reporting rides at or below $3.

Business Insider asked gig economy experts and drivers why food delivery drivers get more generous tips than ride-hailing drivers, what's preventing some people from tipping, and what Uber and Lyft could do to boost customer tips.

Historical tipping norms, inflation, and high ride prices can influence tips

Carla Bevins, an associate professor of business management at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks food delivery drivers are more likely to get tips than ride-hailing drivers because tipping for food-related services has "long been a part of American culture."

"In contrast, rideshare services, though equally valuable, do not have the same historical tipping expectation and are often viewed as more transactional," she told BI via email. For both ride-hailing and food delivery, she said the digital tipping process via phone reduces the social pressure to tip.

Some ride-hailing drivers said they noticed tipping declining throughout the pandemic. Some said inflation may have eaten away at many passengers' wallets, making them less likely to tip, while others said people's appreciation of essential workers through generous tipping has withered away.

Others blamed the companies, noting that passengers may be less likely to leave an additional tip as ride prices increase.

Deborah, who takes multiple Uber or Lyft rides a day, said as fares increase, it's more challenging to dig into her pockets and give generous tips — though she still tips on every ride.

"Some of us are everyday workers and employees living from paycheck to paycheck. We have families and children to feed as well," Deborah said.

Still, the major ride-hailing and food delivery companies argue that tipping is robust and on the rise.

In a statement, Uber told BI that over the last four years, ride-hailing tipping frequency and the average tip size have both roughly doubled — adding that the average ride-hailing tip amount rose nearly 10% over the past six months. For food delivery orders, the average tip amount increased roughly 35% over the past six months, the company said.

Uber said this is because of changes to the app that encourage tipping. This includes allowing passengers to tip during the trip and moving the tip selection prompt above the ratings prompt. For Uber Eats, suggested tip amounts vary based on order size, and customers are reminded of inclement weather to encourage tipping.

In the second half of 2023, Lyft said the median US Lyft driver earned about $31 per hour of engaged time — when they were en route to pick up a passenger or had one in their vehicle. The company said these earnings included a median tip of $2.41 per engaged hour.

A Lyft analysis of passenger tipping published last July found that airport pickups and dropoffs "resulted in twice as many tips as non-airport trips."

DoorDash said 80% of Dashers have other income sources, and 90% spend under 10 hours weekly on delivery. Still, DoorDash said it's encouraging tips through in-app notifications for customers, warning them that their food may take longer to arrive if they refuse to tip. The vast majority of customers tip, DoorDash said, adding that the notification pilot resulted in significantly fewer $0 tips.

"Dashers go above and beyond everyday for their communities, which is why we've made it easier than ever for customers to show their appreciation by leaving a tip at checkout, during delivery, or up to 30 days after delivery — all directly in the DoorDash app," a DoorDash spokesperson told BI.

Uber and Lyft drivers rarely get tips

Steve, who asked to use a pseudonym for fear of professional repercussions, has driven for over five years in Los Angeles and said he's been increasingly reliant on tips. Some days, he waits one or two hours before getting a ride going his direction, so he said tips are helpful to make up for dead periods.

However, tips are few and far between, even when he offers good service and helps passengers with luggage. He suspects one of the reasons for low tipping rates is that years ago, Uber did not encourage tips.

When Uber first started, there was no tipping option. In 2016, Uber's public policy team noted, "we felt it would be better for riders and drivers to know for sure what they would pay or earn on each trip — without the uncertainty of tipping." Uber further wrote tipping was "not included, nor is it expected or required."

Though Uber has added in-app tipping and provided a simpler tipping interface, Steve said many people may still be conditioned to not tip ride-hailing drivers. He added the lack of tips has been "demoralizing," leading him to reject more rides and consider pivoting to another industry.

Erskien Lenier, 66, is about to quit driving for Uber and Lyft and pivot to freelance diet and fitness coaching. The Riverside, California-based driver started almost nine years ago after working long hours in the car industry. While he could make $2,000 to $3,00 a week pre-pandemic, he now struggles to make above $900 a week working similar hours.

He said he's recently received more tips than ever before, sometimes $50 to $60 a day, from starting engaging conversations with passengers about his passions for health and fitness. He said he has more control over receiving tips with Uber X than Uber Eats, where he doesn't interface with the customer.

"I try to set myself with the mindset of I'm out here to have a good time, make some money, make some friends, and get home safe," Lenier said.

However, his tip amounts have fallen with his earnings, and it's not sustainable, especially as he gets older. So far this week, he's made $567.17, only $30.68 of which came from tips.

Tipping isn't so smooth for delivery drivers, either

Alex, a DoorDash driver in Texas, said he only takes orders that will give decent tips. Sometimes, this means refusing to complete a delivery if he predicts he'll get a bad review, which could hurt tips. In the last 30 days, he said his acceptance rate fluctuated between 20% and 30% while maintaining a 4.9 customer rating and 98% completion rate.

He estimates two-thirds of his income comes from tipping, noting that he would not be able to survive on base pay alone. While he gets tips on most rides, he said he's dealt with tip baiting — when people take their tips away after he accepts the orders. He's also seen more $1 tips after DoorDash implemented its notification pilot.

It's taken him a few months to figure out the best strategies for maximizing tips, such as driving later at night when there's less competition and traffic.

How Uber and Lyft can influence driver tips

Erin Hatton, a professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo, told BI via email that ride-hailing companies can "strongly influence tipping practices by setting standard tipping amounts in the app for customers to choose from."

Price hikes can also discourage tipping.

"During surge pricing on Uber, for example, a customer could think twice about adding a tip on top of an already increased fare," Carnegie Mellon's Bevins said.

Bevins said that the perception of gig driver pay, driven by various factors such as media coverage, could impact how much people tip. The more people think they're reliant on tips, the more generous they might be likely to be. She said Uber and Lyft can do more to raise awareness about the impact tips can have on drivers through educational campaigns.

Other recommendations included reminding passengers during checkout that "100% of your tip goes to your driver" and reminding customers to tip immediately after the ride.

For some gig drivers, there's a lot at stake over the future of tipping.

"As for any tipped employee — but particularly those who are not guaranteed a minimum wage, let alone a living wage — tips are a crucial source of income," Hatton said.

Are you a gig driver who is struggling to make ends meet? Reach out to these reporters at nsheidlower@businessinsider.com or jzinkula@businessinsider.com.

• Trump is just over a month away from formally becoming the GOP's presidential nominee. 
• The former president is facing competing pressures to find his new running mate.
• Trump has a lot to choose from when it comes to either former rivals or MAGA allies.

Former President Donald Trump's search for a running mate is nearing the final stretch.

According to multiple reports, Trump's campaign asked North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio to submit paperwork on their backgrounds. Presidential campaigns often ask vice presidential finalists to cooperate with an extensive vetting process.

According to NBC News, which first reported the vetting news, Trump's choice is down to four names at most: the above trio and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina.

Trump previously stoked speculation about his pick by publicly confirming half a dozen names on his list: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Scott, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Trump's team also sent Scott, Donalds, Stefanik, and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson requests for information, but ABC News reported that it's not clear if those asks were as extensive as the ones Burgum, Rubio, and Vance received.

What is clear is that Trump will need to make a decision soon. The Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee on July 15.

History shows that the ultimate selection could be surprising, so it's worth considering an even wider pool of potential names.

Here's a look at the names to watch as Trump continues his quest to retake the White House:

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida

Rubio once viewed as the GOP's future, is reportedly gaining attention as a possible pick.

Rubio, like DeSantis, endured significant taunting and attacks when he opposed Trump during the 2016 primaries. But the pair have moved beyond the "Liddle Marco" jabs.

The Florida senator was a key ally during Trump's presidency, though Rubio did not support overturning the 2020 election results. After the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Rubio delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, arguing that it was "a terrible idea" to continue to raise objections to the results.

Like many on this list, Rubio has given combative answers on whether he would accept the 2024 results.

"'No matter what happens?' No, if it's an unfair election, I think it's going to be contested by each side," Rubio told "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker in late May.

Now a third-term senator, Rubio would also have more experience in federal office than Vice President Kamala Harris did when Biden tapped her to be his running mate.

Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum was virtually unknown nationally before his brief GOP primary run. It's not even clear if his campaign changed that status. Arguably, one of the biggest news days of his campaign was whether he would attend a primary debate after he injured his leg.

But since ending his campaign, Burgum has maintained a ubiquitous presence as a top-level surrogate all over TV. He's now a serious contender to be Trump's running mate.

If he doesn't get picked, Trump has already suggested including Burgum in his potential cabinet.

Burgum also shares the former president's background of parlaying business success into a political career. He sold his software company to Microsoft for $1.1 billion.

Sen. JD Vance of Ohio

Despite having just been elected to the US Senate last year, Vance has repeatedly been floated as a vice-presidential candidate for Trump.

And he's not saying no.

"Certainly if the president asked, I would have to think about it," Vance recently said while stumping for Trump in New Hampshire — though he also said that the "best place for me" is to remain in the US Senate.

A former venture capitalist and the author of the bestselling book "Hillbilly Elegy," Vance was once a "NeverTrumper" and a fierce critic of the former president. But he has since morphed into one of his staunchest acolytes in the Senate, and he's at the vanguard of a movement that seeks to reorient the party more towards the working class.

Vance and some other top VP contenders made it a point to attend Trump's Manhattan criminal trial. Trump later became the first former president to be convicted of a felony.

Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida

Donalds, currently in just his second term, has risen rapidly in Congress. Conservatives opposed to Kevin McCarthy's leadership put the Florida Republican forth as an alternative to the then-longtime House GOP leader. Donalds was later added to the powerful House Steering Committee after he switched his support to McCarthy and McCarthy went on to become speaker.

That wasn't his only major flip. Donalds, who had previously been DeSantis' close ally, endorsed Trump last April, part of a string of Florida Republicans that snubbed their governor to back the former president. Donalds has also been floated as a potential successor to DeSantis, who cannot run for reelection in 2026 due to consecutive term limits.

Donalds was also among the six potential names Ingraham suggested to the former president. Trump responded by saying, "They're all good, they're all solid."

Like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Donalds would also have to deal with potential concerns of sharing the same home state as Trump.

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York

The chairwoman of the House GOP Conference, Stefanik is the highest-ranking official who is seen as a potential Trump pick.

The New York congresswoman, who ascended to her leadership position on the heels of Liz Cheney's ouster, has notably undergone a sharp shift when it comes to Trump, beginning with the 2019 impeachment hearings.

Trump has reportedly described Stefanik as a "killer" and a potential pick in private, and the congresswoman recently said she "would be honored to serve in any capacity in a Trump administration."

Stefanik has raised her national profile by grilling college presidents over their handling of students who have protested the Israel-Hamas war. The New Yorker has drilled into administrators whom she has accused of being too weak in their response to antisemitism.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina

The 58-year-old three-term senator endorsed Trump shortly before the New Hampshire primary. The South Carolinian also largely avoided criticizing Trump in a way that may have foreclosed him being on the ticket.

According to Politico, Scott talks with Trump or texts with the former president nearly every week.

Scott previously stoked speculation that he could be picked by telling the Wall Street Journal that he found his and Trump's contrasting styles "to be very complementary."

It's worth noting that while the former president has a growing list of congressional allies, the Senate has repeatedly been an issue for him.

Former HUD Secretary Ben Carson

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson has remained in Trump's good graces. It likely helps that he's one of the few Trump Cabinet veterans to endorse the former president wholeheartedly.

Former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told Sky News Australia in early June that Carson will likely get tapped.

"The one element I think Ben Carson has that none of the other six people on the list have is I don't think Ben Carson wants to be president; I don't think he wants to run for president," Mulvaney said.

Carson is much more conservative than Trump on a key issue: abortion. Carson has previously said he supports a nationwide abortion ban, a position that Trump has strenuously tried to avoid.

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy

Like some other candidates on this list, Ramaswamy is unlikely to be chosen as Trump's next VP. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who would like to see it.

Ramaswamy was perhaps the only candidate in the race who never dared to issue substantive criticisms of Trump, choosing instead to run as a staunch supporter of the former president who would carry that mantle forward.

He dropped out immediately after coming in 4th in Iowa, endorsing Trump and likely securing himself some sort of future position in MAGA world, if not Trump's actual cabinet.

But while Ramaswamy would be popular with some of Trump's most devoted followers, his penchant for conspiracy theorizing would likely be a liability in a general election.

Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was once the most surprising name under Trump's consideration. The former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate may now have her eyes set on a different Cabinet post.

In early June, Gabbard said during an interview that serving as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense would be one of the ways she could best serve the country under a possible second Trump administration.

Her politics have changed drastically since then. In 2022, she announced that she was formerly leaving the Democratic Party. Over time, the four-term former congresswoman became a fixture on Fox News and at political events. According to The Washington Post, Gabbard has also advised the former president and his team about defense policy.

She was also among the six names Ingraham asked Trump about in terms of potential running mates.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Greene, the fire-breathing conspiracy-minded congresswoman from Georgia, wouldn't exactly be a tent-expanding choice for the former president.

But that hasn't stopped her from talking up her own prospects.

"It's talked about frequently and I know my name is on a list," Greene told The Guardian in August. "But really my biggest focus right now is serving the district that elected me."

A second-term legislator with no major policy accomplishments, Greene wouldn't bring much to the equation when it comes to policy chops or broadening Trump's appeal. In fact, it could damage the ticket, given her extremely poor polling.

Greene has also alienated top party leaders over her push to oust Speaker Mike Johnson. Trump has repeatedly praised Johnson as he tried to navigate Greene's challenge.

Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama

Britt quickly built her profile before delivering the Republican Party's official response to Biden's State of the Union address.

Britt's response was widely panned, including by some Republicans. NBC's "Saturday Night Live" enlisted Scarlett Johansson to impersonate the freshman senator.

At just 42, Britt could become one of the youngest vice presidents in recent memory. Only Dan Quayle, then a US senator from Indiana, would have been slightly younger. Quayle was 41 when he began his vice presidency under President George H.W. Bush.

Britt has made her age and the fact she is a mother of school-age children a key selling point in her political career.

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas

No one on this list knows Trump like Sanders. As his second White House press secretary, Sanders turned her turn at the podium into a governorship. As Arkansas governor, she's pursued an array of conservative policies.

She has endorsed Trump's campaign, but she has hinted that she wouldn't be interested in returning to the White House as vice president.

"Look, I absolutely love the job I have. I think it's one of the best jobs I could ever ask for, and I am honored to serve as governor, and I hope I get to do it for the next seven years," Sanders previously told CBS News.

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota

The second-term South Dakota governor was once, perhaps best known nationally for flouting COVID restrictions during the pandemic. That was until Noem decided to include a story in a forthcoming book about her decision to kill the family's 14-month-old dog after she claimed it proved to be untrainable and overly aggressive.

Since then, the consensus is that Noem has greatly damaged her prospects of becoming Trump's running mate.

Before the dog episode, Noem faced concerns after she posted a bizarre infomercial-esque video touting a dental procedure she received in Texas.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida

Trump and his allies spent over a year ruthlessly attacking DeSantis. It was only toward the end of his disappointing primary that the 45-year-old began to return fire.

DeSantis did endorse Trump immediately after dropping out before New Hampshire, but the question remains if either side would want to repair their political alliance.

There appeared to be a brief peace, but that was thrown into after a top Trump campaign official tore into DeSantis. The public attack was in response to a report that DeSantis privately expressed concern that Trump might resort to "identity politics" when selecting his vice president.

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

Haley offered a limited endorsement of Trump in late May, ending speculation about who she would vote for in November.

"I will be voting for Trump," Haley said at an event after listing off her disagreements with Biden. She added, "Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me and not assume that they're just going to be with him. And I genuinely hope he does that."

Trump, who previously shot down an earlier report that he was considering Haley to be vice president, said Haley is "going to be on our team in some form."

Toward the end of her primary challenge, Haley repeatedly said she's not interested in being anyone's vice president. She praised Trump when she served as his UN ambassador, but was highly critical of him during the GOP primary.

Biden has also shown greater interest in bringing Haley's voters than Trump.

• The "Full House" townhouse in San Francisco is back on the market, now priced at $6.5 million.
• The show's creator, Jeff Franklin, bought and renovated the property before selling it in 2020.
• Only the home's exterior appeared in the sitcom, but it remains a tourist attraction for fans.

The San Francisco house used as the Tanner residence in the beloved sitcom "Full House" is back on the market for $6.5 million.

The early opening credits of the show — which chronicled the hijinks of three men parenting three sisters over eight seasons from 1987 to 1995 — ended with a shot of the Victorian townhouse at 1709 Broderick Street.

In reality, though, the show filmed all of its interior scenes at a studio in Los Angeles. So the memorable living room and kitchen where countless humorous exchanges took place never actually existed inside the house.

That doesn't stop people from showing up and taking pictures.

The "Full House" fandom is still alive — so much so that the show's creator, Jeff Franklin, paid $4 million for the house in 2016 and planned to renovate the interior into a replica of the TV set and allow fans to visit.

However, those plans fell through and he instead renovated the home. The outside looks the same as it did in the '80s, but the red door has been repainted a more neutral black color. The same can't be said about the inside, which was completely updated with upscale 21st-century finishings and furniture.

Franklin sold the house for $5.35 million in 2020. Four years later, those buyers are now sellers, hoping to offload the four-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bathroom townhouse for $6.5 million.

Take a look at the "Full House" house, which remains a pop-culture touchpoint even though it's undergone so many changes.

The "Full House" home made famous by the sitcom listed this week for $6.5 million.

Rachel Swann of The Swann Group listed the four-bedroom home, which last sold in 2020 for $5.35 million.

Jeff Franklin, the show's creator, bought the home in 2016 for $4 million and renovated it before the 2020 sale.

The opening credits of "Full House" actually showed two different neighborhoods.

In the opening credits of the show, the family is seen driving across San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge and picnicking by the famous row of "Painted Ladies" — pastel-colored Victorian townhouses — across from Alamo Square.

The house that the Tanners "lived in" during the show — the one used for exterior shots that's for sale — is actually about a mile north of Alamo Square.

The red door is missing, but the home still looks similar to when it was featured on the show.

The exterior of the home looks slightly updated since the show first aired in 1987, but it retains a neutral-colored facade, a big bay window, brick steps, and a door framed by white columns.

It's still a tourist attraction for many fans of "Full House," and many paid pilgrimages and left flowers after star Bob Saget's sudden death in 2022.

Immediately, the inside takes on a very different vibe than the Tanners' living room.

The inside of the home always looked different than it did on the show because all indoor scenes were filmed using a soundstage.

Franklin's original plan after buying the house was to renovate the 3,737-square-foot home to replicate the set of the show, but those plans fell through.

Unsurprisingly, the kitchen looks way more modern than the woodsy kitchen showed on air.

The house was originally built in 1883, but its most recent renovation happened in 2019 by architect Richard Landry.

The bedrooms definitely aren't stuck in the '80s.

With the lack of wallpaper, posters, and other colorful decorations, this couldn't be one of the girls' rooms.

The home retains a few nods to its place in TV history.

In the backyard garden, there are concrete slabs with handprints and signatures from the original cast.

• Kenya's basic income trial has grown to 20,000 participants in 200 rural villages.
• The program, which began in 2018, provides no-strings-attached cash payments for up to 12 years.
• Researchers found long-term UBI supports economic stability. US leaders are taking note.

Kenya is running one of the world's largest basic income trials.

The country's program has grown to include 20,000 participants in 200 rural villages, and US leaders are taking note. The no-strings-attached cash payment model has been tried over 100 times across America, with participants reporting that basic income allowed them to secure housing, afford food, pay off debt, and support their children.

GiveDirectly — a nonprofit that has helped administer basic income programs around the world — is leading Kenya's pilot, which began in 2018.

Unlike most government assistance, basic income allows individuals and families the freedom to spend money where they need it most, instead of programs like SNAP and Medicaid which have specific spending categories.

Dustin Palmer, US country director for GiveDirectly, said that trusting families with cash is the best method to "help people get on their feet."

"This is a way of thinking about how we support families, children, all sorts of folks in a way that meets them where they are," Palmer previously told Business Insider.

Kenya's program is considered to be universal basic income because families don't have to meet specific income criteria to participate. In guaranteed basic income programs run in the US, participants must have a household income at or below a certain percentage of the federal poverty line. However, about half of Kenya's participants are living below the country's extreme poverty line, per GiveDirectly, which means surviving on less than $33 a month or $400 a year without government assistance.

Participants were sorted into three randomized groups: the first group received $22.50 a month (2,925 KES) for 12 years; the second group received $22.50 a month for two years; and the third group received one $500 lump-sum payment (65,000 KES) at the start of the program. Researchers are also studying a control group of similar villages that did not receive cash.

GiveDirectly plans to survey participants through 2030, when the long-term UBI participants are set to receive their final payment. GiveDirectly researchers are looking to understand the impacts of long vs. short-term UBI support, as families aim to afford basic needs and build sustainable wealth.

Community leaders in the US are noticing the lessons of Kenya's pilot. Michael Tubbs, chair and founder of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, visited Kenya in December 2023. Tubbs' 2019 GBI pilot in Stockton, California, began the wave of cash aid programs in America, and he said Kenya's pilot is a successful model for helping families escape extreme poverty.

"Whether at home or abroad, we need to recognize that dignity is a human right—and a right that poverty directly violates," Tubbs wrote in an essay about the UBI pilot. "But by trusting people to do right by their families and communities — because we know they will — we can ensure that right is secured."

UBI pilot helped families in Kenya meet basic needs and begin building wealth

GiveDirectly's initial report on the Kenya UBI pilot captures participant experiences in their first two years of receiving payments, from 2018 to 2020.

All participants said basic income improved their housing and food security, mental health, and household savings. Participants also reported net growth for village businesses and lessened inequality in their community.

UBI made participants over 6% happier and more satisfied with their lives, per the GiveDirectly report, and lessened household stress by 10% — despite most participants maintaining the same work schedule as they had before the pilot began. Families were also able to buy more nutritious food, invest in more assets, and spend money at local businesses, which likely contributed to an overall 23% increase in average consumption among all participants.

Still, some results vary between specific UBI groups. Families in the lump-sum payment group said they were able to make strong investments, while the families enrolled in the full 12 years of UBI felt more comfortable building savings and taking financial risks.

Families receiving long-term support experienced lower rates of domestic violence and better educational outcomes for their primary school-age children.

For participants enrolled in the two-year group, UBI allowed them to cover basic expenses in the short term, but they weren't able to build savings or lasting wealth.

Kenya's long-term approach to basic income could help more families in America

Although most basic income pilots around the world provide participants with support over a set time period, Kenya's is one of the first to study the impacts of long-term cash aid.

Short-term basic income — which is the most common model used in the US — was the least successful among Kenyan participants, as it didn't allow families to build lasting financial security.

"Policymakers wanting to reduce poverty by creating wealth and independence should rethink using this popular design, as both a long-term UBI and a large lump sum were found to be significantly more transformative," per the results report from GiveDirectly.

With lump sum and long-term basic income, participants were able to both meet their immediate needs and begin building assets and savings for the future. These forms of UBI dramatically improved families' economic outlook, and the researchers said it is the best way to help participants facing extreme poverty.

To be sure, the researchers said more data is needed to fully understand how lump sum or long-term UBI could work in high-income countries. It would be more costly to run longer basic income programs in the US, and it's unclear if the benefits to families would outweigh the costs.

Kenyan participants will complete their next UBI survey in 2025, and the program is set to continue for another six years.

GiveDirectly is trying other basic income programs in Africa. In Kampala, Uganda and Nairobi, Kenya, the nonprofit gave about $1,000 to refugees. And families in Malawi who survived 2023's Cyclone Freddy received a total of $750 over three months beginning in December.

Have you benefited from a guaranteed basic income program? Are you open to sharing how you spent the money? If so, reach out to allisonkelly@businessinsider.com.

• A personality hire is someone who succeeds because of their soft skills.
• AI is thriving on hype (and fear) — and people who are good at creating hype are succeeding.
• Hype men and women and personality hires aren't bad things. In fact, they're necessary.

Of all the world-altering things possible in our new AI era, one decidedly old-fashioned thing is not going anywhere: the personality hire.

A "personality hire" is someone who contributes to a team with soft skills like their dazzling charm. There's a connotation that personality hires might not actually be good at their jobs, that they're just fun to have around the office. But they arguably serve an incredibly important function in the health of an organization.

In the field of AI, it's useful to lightly stretch the definition of "personality hire" to include someone who is really, really good at selling themselves, a product, or simply the idea of AI as this all-powerful entity that will completely change everything about life as we know it, for better or worse (hopefully, for the better if you heed their advice).

They're hype men (or women), you might say. This is because a lot of what's going on with AI right now is hype.

The greatest of all these, of course, is Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. This week, Bloomberg Businessweek reported on Altman's rise within Silicon Valley, starting from founding a mediocre social networking app at age 19 to becoming the head of the most exciting company in tech.

Altman founded Loopt, a pre-smartphone social location app in 2007. He charmed and networked with important tech and venture-capital power players, and was personally tapped to be Paul Graham's successor at Y Combinator at age 29. He was a savvy and successful investor (even still, he has personal investments in more than 400 companies, some of which do business with OpenAI, according to The Wall Street Journal, which has raised some eyebrows about conflict of interest) and convinced deep-pocketed friends Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk (now a frenemy) to fund OpenAI as a nonprofit.

By many accounts, Altman is charismatic, good with people, and even better at getting his way. "Altman's biggest strength is figuring out who can help him the most, then dazzling them," someone who worked with Altman told Bloomberg on the Foundering podcast.

Altman is perhaps the most successful personality hire of all time.

This isn't totally groundbreaking (or even insulting to him). Being a successful CEO or a tech founder requires a certain personality type. This doesn't necessarily mean being fun at cocktail parties: Mark Zuckerberg is a ruthless businessperson but, until recently, seemed to have the charisma of a shingles outbreak. It takes Big Personality Hire Energy to muster the straight-faced ambition to say that you need to raise $7 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars.

Altman's talents as an operator also nearly cost him his job. This past November, when Altman was temporarily fired by the board of OpenAI, it was because some board members found him too smooth an operator and distrusted him. That Altman returned as CEO with a new board speaks to his ability to rally powerful allies like Satya Nadella of Microsoft, although he still has rough waters ahead internally.

And then there's Leopold Aschenbrenner, a newly emerged hypeman of AI doomerism. Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI employee who was reportedly fired for leaking a memo he wrote to the board about safety concerns, published a 165-page manifesto warning about the dangers of unchecked AI. It contains some questionable charts, comparisons to the building of the atomic bomb, and links to a Minecraft video on YouTube.

I don't know if AI will lead to the extinction of the human race or if he's full of smoke. (I sure hope it's not the end of the human race!) Aschenbrenner's warnings have been taken both credulously and skeptically, and I am not in a position to guess how likely it is that we'll soon be in a nuclear war with China over data centers, as he suggests. But there's something about his verbose proclamations that ring to me as hype.

Max Read on Substack has a very astute assessment of the manifesto and how the hyperbole of AI doomerism might be, in some cases, self-serving hype:

What I do know is that the Silicon Valley investor class has become quite contemptuous of Effective Altruism (the school of thought that drove the Future Fund), and highly skeptical and suspicious of the associated focus on existential risk or "x-risk" now that it seems to be a retardant on their ambitions. On the other hand, that same class is quite hawkish on China and bullish on national security businesses and the military-industrial complex. If I were a young and ambitious person whose career so far was largely in "A.I. safety" and other E.A.-associated fields, I might attempt to re-frame my experience and interests as more national-security oriented. And if I were really trying to suck up to reactionary venture capitalists I might also imply that I was unjustly fired over unfair charges of racism by a devious H.R. drone.

While the specifics of this C.V. are credibility-building among Aschenbrenner's target audience (investors and founders in whose companies he'd like to invest, as well as dupes on Twitter who will boost his profile), just as important is the image he fits: Young, prodigious, confident, fast-talking, able to speak fluidly on a range of subjects from geopolitics to epidemiology to chip design. If Aschenbrenner weren't a Zoomer I'd call him a millennial ambition psycho; certainly, he shares with the Ivy League sociopaths of my generation a cloying, manic self-assurance that somehow scans as "genius" to the credulous and the powerful and as "extremely annoying bullshit" to literally anyone else.

And then, tragically, there is the sad tale of the Humane AI Pin. Humane's founders were former Apple employees, incredibly stylish dressers, and produced incredibly cool demo videos that made the product seem amazing. They raised $240 million from investors, including Sam Altman.

When it first started taking preorders, I wrote about how I thought the AI Pin looked awesome and I wanted one — even if I could see how it might be slightly impractical. It was futuristic, fun, and made by really cool and edgy people — the ultimate AI hypesters.

Of course, the AI Pin has been a failure so far. Early reviews were dreadful, sales were far lower than projections, and the company was criticized for launching a half-baked product. This week, they announced a recall on the chargers because there was a danger they could catch on fire. I don't want to laugh (I will not suggest that you just squeeze the AI out of it like Juicero) because I think it's genuinely a huge bummer. I'd love for an ambitious new kind of hardware device to be successful; I'm rooting for that to happen out there in the world because I love cool new gadgets. But this clearly just wasn't it.

At this moment, in June of 2024, everyone knows AI is a "big deal," but most people don't know exactly what that will really mean or look like. This leaves the door wide open for hype purveyors to sell people on its magic and power — or play to their worst fears.

This isn't necessarily bad — hype can be useful just like personality hires in a workplace are useful. And the most beautiful part of all of this? A personality hire is the most human thing — something AI could never replace.

• Precision warfare has been a central tenet of American strategy. 
• But perceptions that precision weapons are effective is a myth, a retired Army officer argues.
• "Accurate strikes do not inherently mean effective," the officer told BI.

America loves smart bombs. Ever since World War II, precision warfare has appealed to what America sees as its strengths: High technology, efficiency and the ability to strike down its enemies with a minimum of harm to innocents.

But that's actually a myth argues Amos Fox, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel. Precision-guided munitions, or PGMs, are no more effective than conventional munitions in limiting collateral damage, and in some cases can make the damage worse.

Fox calls this the "precision paradox." Or, "the incongruence between precision strike theory and the fervent enthusiasm of precision ideologues," he wrote in an essay for the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

Precision warfare is associated today with guided missiles, but the concept dates back to the 1930s, when the US began to embrace high-altitude daylight bombing by heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress. Swayed by Italian airpower theorist Giulio Douhet, American planners were convinced they could cripple an adversary by bombing its factories, without the need for a costly ground war.

This contrasted with Britain's night area-bombing strategy in World War II that targeted entire German cities. Even if factories weren't hit, residential neighborhoods would be destroyed and workers "de-housed," which was expected to collapse the public's morale. In practice, the distinction between precision and area bombardment proved blurry: bombing through cloudy European skies that obscured targets, while under fighter and flak attack and relying on pencil-on-paper navigation plotting and rudimentary bomb sights meant the majority of American bombs failed to hit their target.

PGMs were supposed to solve this problem. Why drop a dozen bombs when a single GPS-guided missile can destroy a bridge or a command post? Fox sees several flaws in modern precision strike theory. For one, "decapitation" strikes intended to defeat an enemy by eliminating its leaders and command posts have not worked. Nor does Fox believe that the precision strike strategy has actually shortened wars.

But most significantly, Fox questions the essence of US precision warfare: the belief that smart bombs spare a need for boots on the ground. "Accurate strikes are not equivalent to effective strikes," he wrote. In other words, a strike can land on the intended area, selected based on intelligence, and yet fail to achieve the goal of, say, killing a militant leader or stopping a factory from making more bombs, hence necessitating follow-on strikes. When PGMs don't accomplish the mission, "then precision-based warfighting requires additional strikes and, likely, a subsequent use of land force activities to offset the shortcomings of precision strikes."

This can actually result in higher civilian casualties than if conventional weapons had been used in the first place because it requires repeated attacks. "If precision strikes are often accurate, but ineffective, and additional strikes or land operations are required to create the effect intended with the initial precision strikes, then precision strategies do not decrease civilian casualties and collateral damage in conflict zones."

Fox points to the extensive use of American PGMs during the ferocious battles of Raqqa and Mosul in 2016-2017. In trying to root out heavily fortified Islamic State positions dug into civilian neighborhoods, many buildings were destroyed and thousands killed. Israel faces a similar situation today as it hunts Hamas in Gaza.

Thus the paradox: an individual PGM may be more accurate than a dumb bomb. But if a PGM fails to knock out a target — whether due to poor intelligence or the pure chance that reigns on battlefields — more guided weapons have to be launched, thus defeating the whole purpose of precision.

"Accurate strikes do not inherently mean effective," Fox told Business Insider. "Therefore, more strikes are required when a strike does not effectively accomplish its intended purpose. Thus, in the aggregate, if a PGM isn't 100 percent effective, it can often result in similar outcomes to ballistic artillery, or other non-precision munition employment."

Fox doesn't believe that smarter bombs will solve the paradox. "Better PGMs isn't really the problem," he said. "PGMs are currently about as accurate as can be. For that matter, although artillery is an area fire weapon, it is still very accurate."

But what about the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, in which massive amounts of PGMs are being employed? In Ukraine, both sides are using massive numbers of guided weapons, at a rate that is depleting stockpiles and factory capacity, yet neither side has managed to achieve decisive results. Israel carried out strikes in Gaza against 29,000 targets in the first four months of the war, often with guided weapons, but that has failed so far to destroy Hamas.

"The lesson is that Hamas is a land force," said Fox. "The inconvenient truth about war is that it still requires a land force to defeat a land force. Precision warfare, which isn't really a thing, augments a land force in defeating another land force. It doesn't replace it."

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.