Category: Business Insider

• Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to recognize that he had total legal immunity as president.
• He wants to toss the special counsel Jack Smith's case over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
• The Supreme Court has recognized immunity before — but never in the sweeping fashion Trump requests.

Former President Donald Trump is set to have his highest-stakes legal battle for his highest-stakes criminal case on Thursday.

His lawyers are facing off against the Justice Department, trying to persuade the Supreme Court that Trump should have total immunity from criminal prosecution — even for trying to overturn the results of an election.

The indictment, brought by the special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, DC, federal court, accuses Trump of obstructing Congress by conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The indictment alleges that by facilitating fake electors, pressuring public officials, and directing his supporters to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, where they rioted, Trump attempted to rob Americans of rightful votes.

Trump is asking the Supreme Court to grant him a sweeping immunity mandate as he runs to recapture the presidency. If the court rules his way and he wins again in November, he could push the bounds of presidential criminality.

Former President Richard Nixon famously declared to the journalist David Frost, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition." Trump and his lawyers' views may put that to the test.

Presidents already have some protections. A sitting president cannot be indicted under Justice Department guidelines that date back decades. The Supreme Court also previously extended former presidents' protection from civil lawsuits in a case brought by a former Air Force contractor against Nixon. Trump wants to extend this shield even further if a former president can argue that the action in question fell under the scope of their official duties.

Beyond the presidency's future, the court's decision may have ramifications not only for the election-interference case but "really all four of the criminal cases" Trump faces, as one of his lawyers has said.

Another indictment, in Georgia, over Trump's attempt to overturn his election result there, features an overlapping set of facts. And Smith has brought a different criminal case in Florida, accusing Trump of taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago after he left the presidency and refusing to return them.

Trump won't be at the Supreme Court hearing. He's on trial in New York on yet another set of charges that allege he messed with a different election.

Prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office say Trump violated business record-keeping laws 34 times by disguising hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actor who says she had an affair with him, to keep her quiet ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Todd Blanche, his lead lawyer in the Manhattan trial — who's also Trump's lead counsel in the Mar-a-Lago case and a defense attorney in the DC case — said the Supreme Court hearing "comes back to the multiple different indictments" when he requested that his client be allowed to attend the Supreme Court hearing.

But criminal defendants are required to be in court during their trial proceedings, and the Manhattan judge presiding over the case refused to allow Trump a break to attend oral arguments.

The tabloid executive David Pecker, the first witness at the trial, was on the stand Tuesday.

Trump wants total immunity

In the DC election-interference case, Trump argued that presidential immunity — a doctrine typically understood to provide legal protections to US presidents over the course of their duties — shields him from prosecution.

He also said the cases should be dismissed on double-jeopardy grounds since the US Senate failed to convict him when he was impeached over his election interference.

And while the Supreme Court has previously ruled that presidents can't be immune to criminal proceedings related to the "outer perimeter" of their duties — it forced Trump to comply with a subpoena for the Manhattan criminal case in 2021 — Trump's lawyers now argue he is "categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for any act conceivably within the outer perimeter of his executive responsibility."

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, denied Trump's motion to dismiss the case, ruling that being a former president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass" and that while the prosecution was "unprecedented," so were his alleged crimes.

Trump's lawyers pressed on. In an appeals-court hearing, his lawyers said a president could even order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and come away unscathed as long as Congress was OK with it.

A three-judge appellate court panel backed up Chutkan's decision, writing that Trump "is answerable in court for his conduct."

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the appellate judges wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh whether impeachment counts as double jeopardy with a criminal prosecution and "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from a criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

In a brief to the high court, Smith noted that the US Constitution doesn't give the president any role in certifying elections, much less the power to "defraud the United States in the certification of presidential-election results, obstruct proceedings for doing so, or deprive voters of the effect of their votes."

Trump's lawyers have warned that a decision to allow former presidents to be prosecuted would unleash chaos. The threat of criminal charges from a politically motivated Justice Department "will hang like a millstone around every future President's neck," they argued.

"Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist," Trump's lawyers wrote in one brief.

Lawyers on Smith's team wrote in their own briefs that Trump's arguments were ahistorical. They pointed to the fact that Nixon accepted President Gerald Ford's sweeping pardon, which Ford was reported to view as an admission of guilt. The special prosecutor Leon Jaworski weighed indicting Nixon. The independent prosecutor Robert Ray also came close to charging former President Bill Clinton with lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

"Since Watergate, the Department of Justice has held the view that a former President may face criminal prosecution, and Independent and Special Counsels have operated from that same understanding," Smith's team wrote. "Until petitioner's arguments in this case, so had former Presidents."

Donald Ayer, a former Justice Department official in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said the case was a test for the US as a democracy.

"This may indeed be the most important US Supreme Court case in the history of our country," he told journalists at a panel organized by the Defend Democracy Project. "Because our election this year is not just about who will be president, it's also about whether our country still believes in democracy and has a functioning rule of law."

The Supreme Court is weighing another case over the Justice Department's decision to charge hundreds of January 6 rioters with obstructing "an official proceeding" — one of the four counts Smith brought against Trump.

At a hearing last week, the justices appeared inclined to rule that prosecutors had viewed the statute too broadly, reports said, raising the possibility that Trump could score a win and get that charge dropped even if his case goes to trial.

Trump probably won't go to trial again before the November election

Chutkan originally scheduled the trial to begin at the beginning of March. But, tied up in appeals, it's now unlikely to take place before the November election.

The Supreme Court will probably issue a decision in late April. At that point, Chutkan can resume the pre-trial process. If she continues to follow the previous timeline she'd planned for pre-trial hearings, jury selection probably wouldn't begin until late October at the very earliest. Given Trump's candidacy, it's hard to imagine her insisting that he spend the final days of the election in a courtroom.

If Trump becomes president again, he may try to pardon himself or pressure the Justice Department to withdraw the case.

The Mar-a-Lago case, too, would probably be on the chopping block in a Trump presidency. Neither it nor the Georgia prosecution have trial dates scheduled yet, and they most likely won't be tried before 2025 at the earliest.

Some former government officials who served under Trump have urged the Supreme Court not to grant him immunity. One group of ex-military officials filed a brief arguing that giving presidents "absolute immunity" would allow them to use the armed forces for "criminal ends" and "threaten to inject chaos into military operations." A group of founding-era historians have also filed a brief saying the concept of limitless presidential immunity contradicts what the US Constitution's framers intended.

Mark Meadows, who was Trump's chief of staff when he tried to overturn the 2020 election results and is a codefendant in the Fulton County criminal case in Georgia, also filed a brief with the Supreme Court. He asked that, if the court were to find that Trump could be liable in the case, it ensured that lower-ranking employees such as himself could still have immunity protections.

Norm Eisen, a former White House lawyer in Barack Obama's administration, said the Supreme Court could keep the case moving quickly by deciding only whether Trump deserved immunity in Smith's case — and setting aside more abstract questions about the doctrine.

"Donald Trump has articulated an outrageous, unprecedented, and ahistorical assertion of absolute immunity," he said at the Defend Democracy Project panel. "The Supreme Court need not stray into other questions just because Trump has made it easy for them. They should decide this case."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/8o2Qf3A
via IFTTT

• Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil will increase, according to the head of the UK's armed forces.
• Tony Radakin said Ukraine's ability to conduct deep operations will become a growing feature of the war.
• The US is reportedly unhappy with Ukraine's strikes on targets in Russia.

Ukraine will increase its long-range strikes inside Russian airspace, the UK's military chief said, as the war enters its next stage.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the UK's armed forces, told the Financial Times that "as Ukraine gains more capabilities for the long-range fight . . . its ability to continue deep operations will [increasingly] become a feature" of the war.

Ukraine's strikes on Russian soil have so far included attacks on oil facilities and military targets.

Radakin said such strikes "definitely have an effect."

Radakin's position differs from those of his US counterparts. The Financial Times previously reported that US officials are concerned that Ukraine's strikes on Russian oil facilities could raise oil prices and prompt retaliation, and that it wants Ukraine to ease up on them.

House lawmakers on the weekend passed a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine, after Republicans spent six months blocking it.

Radakin said that new military aid from the West aims to help Ukraine shape the war "in much stronger ways" and that Ukraine is facing a "difficult" fight.

But Radakin told the Financial Times that looking at a "snapshot" of the war hides some longer-term trends that are actually in Ukraine's favor.

He said that these include the new military aid packages from the US and Europe, Ukraine's increasingly successful long-range strikes, and Russia's "total failure" to cut off grain exports via the Black Sea.

"The danger with any snapshot is that it [ignores] where we are now with where we will be in next couple of years," he said.

Radakin also said that people need to stop "feting Russia" and believing that it "somehow has got major advantages."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/IzYl5ZW
via IFTTT

• CEO Jim Farley talked up Ford's plans to build a new range of affordable EVs in an earnings call. 
• It comes after Tesla also promised to accelerate its plans to build cheaper electric vehicles.
• Automakers are scrambling to build more affordable EVs as demand for electric vehicles stalls.

Ford has thrown down a gauntlet to Tesla by touting its upcoming range of cheap electric cars, as both companies grapple with slowing demand for EVs.

CEO Jim Farley confirmed in Ford's Q1 earnings call that the company is working on new affordable EVs that could be priced as low as $25,000 to $30,000, after Elon Musk vowed to accelerate Tesla's affordable EV plans earlier this week.

"Increasingly, our bet will be on our new small affordable platform developed by our team on the West Coast," said Farley.

Farley told investors he believes Ford can build an EV priced between $25,000 to $30,000 that is profitable, describing it as a "huge opportunity" for the company.

He said that the automaker was targeting its affordable EV push at urban and suburban customers, who tend to drive shorter distances and prioritize affordability.

"The more affordable we can make a great product, the more attractive it is to these mainstream EV adopters," Farley added.

Farley's comments suggest Ford is doubling down on producing cheaper EVs, the lack of which is proving to be a major barrier to more people going electric in the US.

The Ford boss has previously hinted that the auto giant is working on next-generation electric vehicles at a lower price point, telling investors in February that Ford had built a "skunkworks team" to "create a low-cost EV platform."

Bloomberg previously reported that the new platform would include a small pickup, a compact SUV, and a potential ride-hailing vehicle, with the first EV set to cost around $25,000 and launch in late 2026.

A profitable $25,000 EV could transform Ford's current electric lineup, with the Detroit automaker losing around $132,000 on every EV it sold in the first three months of 2024 amid a vicious price war between electric vehicle manufacturers.

Many of those manufacturers are pursuing their own affordable EV ambitions as demand for more expensive models has stalled.

Tesla announced on Tuesday that it would accelerate plans to launch "new and more affordable products," after reports that CEO Elon Musk had decided to prioritize a self-driving robotaxi over a long-rumored $25,000 electric car caused concern among investors.

Ford did not immediately respond to a request for comment made outside normal working hours.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/WBEg4ex
via IFTTT

• World leaders are in Ottawa negotiating a treaty to end plastic pollution.
• The US, a major plastic exporter, says its a dealmaker but is under pressure to be more ambitious.
• Plastic production is on the rise globally and could account for 20% of carbon emissions by 2050. 

World leaders are gathering in Ottawa, Ontario, this week to hash out a global treaty to end plastic pollution.

It's a pivotal point in the talks, with countries aiming to strike a deal by the end of the year. The US has positioned itself as a broker between other big oil, gas, and petrochemical exporters — including Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia — and countries that want steep cuts to plastic production.

But critics say the US isn't being ambitious enough.

"We'd like to see clear recognition from the US that the treaty has to confront the production of plastic polymers and resins if it's to be successful," Carroll Muffett, the president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, told Business Insider. "We cannot recycle our way out of the plastics crisis."

Muffett is among a handful of scientists and business and community advocacy groups who told BI they wanted to see a stronger position from the US. The country has a lot of sway as the world's largest exporter of oil and gas, the main ingredients in plastics. The US has also been at the forefront of a massive build-out of new plastics and petrochemical plants over the past decade. The Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit, identified 50 plastic plants built after 2012 and found that at least 20 more would be built or expanded over the next five years.

The trend is global. Plastic production is expected to nearly triple by 2060 unless countries reach a deal to rein it in, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. A treaty could be the most impactful climate action since the Paris agreement because the plastic industry accounts for 5% of global carbon emissions. That could grow to 20% by 2050 if current trends continue, the US Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory said.

"We aim to be an honest broker in this process," Jose Fernandez, the US's lead negotiator and undersecretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment at the State Department, said Wednesday in his opening remarks in Ottawa. "That starts with being honest about our own limitations — which include federal authorities, complex and varying subnational governmental approaches, and the fact that the science is not yet there in developing sustainable alternatives to plastic materials."

The Biden administration wants to finish a deal this year, given that the presidential election is in November, several observers of the negotiations told BI. But it will be difficult to persuade the Senate to ratify a treaty, they said.

In Ottawa, major disagreements remain over how to tackle the more than 350 million metric tons of plastic waste produced globally each year, much of which ends up in landfills and the environment. Only 9% of plastics are recycled.

Hundreds of businesses and countries support cutting plastic production. This could involve phasing out "problematic" plastics that can't be recycled or are harmful to public health and mandating that products be made with more recycled material. Taxing plastic polymers is also being discussed, which could help finance improvements to waste infrastructure in developing countries.

"Shared financial responsibility is something we really want to see," Allison Lin, the global vice president of packaging sustainability at Mars Inc., said. Lin represents the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which includes more than 200 companies. Among them are Walmart, PepsiCo, and L'Oréal.

Lin said the coalition supported a policy called extended producer responsibility, which slaps a fee on companies' packaging to help fund recycling and waste management and has been successful in countries such as Belgium. Plastic makers similarly should bear some of the financial burden, she said.

Stewart Harris, a spokesperson for the International Council of Chemical Association, agreed that plastic makers needed to make greater investments, and he supports EPR and recycled-content mandates. But the industry is opposed to taxes because they would be difficult to implement and it would be hard to ensure money flows into programs tackling plastic pollution, he said.

Plastic makers also oppose setting caps on production, as do countries including Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Harris cited an industry-commissioned report by Oxford Economics that found a cap could increase costs for consumers as well as greenhouse-gas emissions. Plastics require less energy to manufacture and transport compared with some other materials, the report found.

Cutting plastic production would also hit the bottom line of oil majors such as Exxon. The International Energy Agency forecast that by 2050, petrochemical products like plastic would outpace trucks, aviation, and shipping in oil demand.

Neil Nathan, a project scientist at UC Santa Barbara, helped build an artificial-intelligence model of how 11 policies could curb plastic pollution. While many can make a dent in the problem, pollution will go up without production caps, he said.

The model has been shared with US negotiators, Nathan added. He's disappointed the US hasn't included some of the most impactful policies into its position, he said.

"If the US takes a position or is supportive of something, we typically see a snowball effect," he said.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/1MiLT0U
via IFTTT

• Mark Zuckerberg is betting big on AI — no matter the cost. 
• Meta plans to increase spending to invest "aggressively" in "AI research."  
• Investors balked at the costs, sending Meta shares tumbling in after-hours trading.

Not everyone is on board with Mark Zuckerberg's AI enthusiasm.

Meta shares took a post-earnings battering in after-hours trading despite reporting better-than-expected revenues as investors balked at its AI spending plans.

On a conference call with analysts, Zuckerberg said he'd become "more ambitious and optimistic on AI" following the recent release of Meta's Llama 3 model and planned to "invest significantly more over the coming years."

Meta increased its estimate of capital expenses as the company invests "aggressively" in "AI research."

Costs are expected to be about $5 billion more than the original estimate of between $35 billion and $40 billion, largely due to AI investments.

Zuckerberg's attempts to reassure investors that there were "several ways" generative AI could make money appeared to fall on deaf ears as shares tumbled as much as 15% in after-hours trading.

That slide shows that investors' tolerance for huge AI spending without clear revenue gains might be beginning to wane.

Fading AI hype

Big Tech companies have reaped the benefit of investor enthusiasm around AI for the past two years.

Meta, Google, and Microsoft are among those pouring resources into development and rapidly releasing products.

Meta has launched several splashy products, including Llama 3, which outperformed many of its competitors except OpenAI GPT-4. Zuckerberg's also been praised for some of his strategies around Meta's AI development, including the decision to open-source models and stockpile GPUs.

While Meta's AI products, including Llama 3, have been generally well received, the company is not selling any version of its newest AI model, which is largely open source.

But while investors seemed willing to overlook spending concerns at the height of the AI boom in exchange for flashy product promises, the response to Zuckerberg's lavish spending shows this enthusiasm has its limits.

On the call, Zuckerberg warned investors: "Building the leading AI will also be a larger undertaking than the other experiences we've added to our apps, and this is likely going to take several years on the upside once our new AI services reach scale."

Metaverse memories

Meta also has an image problem.

Despite years of investment in AI, the Facebook owner was not seen as an AI leader in the same way as Google, nor has it been able to control the post-ChatGPT narrative as successfully as Microsoft.

Just months before OpenAI first launched ChatGPT in late 2022, Meta suffered an embarrassing setback after releasing its own AI chatbot called BlenderBot. The bot proved to be obsessed with conspiracy theories, prompting users to call it "incompetent."

Meta has since solidified its AI reputation, with later releases praised by developers. Zuckerberg's newest AI model even received a nod of approval from old rival Elon Musk.

However, investors may be wary of Zuckerberg's tendency to jump the gun on a technology he's excited about.

It's not the first time he's announced huge spending for a new passion project — Meta's heavy metaverse spending and subsequent stock slide are unlikely to be far from analysts' minds.

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal working hours.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/7GKkg0j
via IFTTT

• This post originally appeared in the Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

Almost Friday! Flight delays and cancellations stink, but here's some good news: A new regulation requires airlines to process automatic refunds.

In today's big story, we're looking at how millennials have seen their wealth explode over the past few years.

What's on deck:

• Markets: Meet the mom-and-pop investors who got in on Nvidia before the hype.

• Tech: Meta shares tumble despite Mark Zuckerberg laying out plans for AI investments.

• Business: These 20 private-equity firms are making big moves in sports.

But first, we're back!

---

If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.

---

The big story

Millennial money makers

They laughed at our avocado toast. They laughed at our skinny jeans. But who's laughing now?

Millennials, the oft-maligned generation, are a lot better off financially than you might realize. A new report found millennials saw their wealth double from the end of 2019 through 2023, writes BI's Juliana Kaplan.

It's an incredible turnaround for a generation constantly beaten down for making what some deemed to be financially frivolous decisions. Turns out that enjoying the occasional overpriced brunch while writing Harry Potter fanfiction didn't ultimately lead to personal bankruptcy.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am a millennial. Yes, my feelings are still hurt from all your mean tweets.

Perhaps you're unimpressed. Millennials were between the ages of 23 and 38 in 2019, prime earning years. But their wealth grew much faster than how boomers and Gen Xers fared at that age.

Millennials had a few things break their way, though.

First, a strong post-pandemic job market allowed them to amp up their earning power. It also came at the perfect time. Unlike many of their elder colleagues eyeing retirement or with families to consider, millennials were free to job-hop to higher salaries amid the Great Resignation.

But millennials also put that money to work. The market downturn from Covid presented an opportunity for millennials to buy into blue-chip companies at bargain prices.

And thanks to the rise of no-fee trading, they could do it more cost-effectively than previous generations.

But it's not all going swimmingly for millennials.

Millennials' wealth has grown exponentially over the past few years. But so have the important things they need to pay for.

Home prices and mortgage rates have been on the rise. And that's if millennials can even find a home. These days, the housing market is a bit of a ghost town.

That's not the only cost millennials are suffering through with their newfound wealth. Childcare is becoming an incredible burden for young families. Chalk that up as another win for the DINKs.

But millennials' biggest enemy might ultimately be themselves.

A 2023 survey found millennials felt they needed $525,000 a year to be happy. That figure was well above what Gen Z ($128,000), Gen X ($130,000), and boomers ($124,000) wanted.

Call it the result of growing up in the #hustleharder culture. Call it lifestyle creep. Call it the disease of more.

Whatever the case, millennials' wealth can keep growing. It still might not be enough.

---

3 things in markets

1. They liked Nvidia before it was cool. These investors backed Nvidia long before it became an AI icon and stock-market darling. Their gains have paid for everything from cars and vacations to dream homes.

2. Jamie Dimon is still worried about the state of the world. JPMorgan's CEO said consumers are in good shape, even if a recession ultimately hits. But various international conflicts have led to "probably the most complicated and dangerous" geopolitical situation since World War II, he said.

3. Trump Media gets Congress involved in its latest crusade. CEO Devin Nunes filed a letter on Tuesday that urged House Republicans to look into the possibility that the company's stock, which has plummeted over the past month, has been a victim of so-called "naked" short selling.

---

3 things in tech

1. Meta disappoints. The social media giant posted its first-quarter earnings report after Wednesday's opening bell — and its stock tumbled in Thursday's premarket. CEO Mark Zuckerberg laid out a plan to splash the cash on AI investments — but that didn't distract investors from Meta's lackluster revenue forecast.

2. Amazon has suspended new US Green Card applications for foreign workers. According to a leaked memo, the company put the applications on hold for the rest of the year. It could be a sign Amazon is concerned about uncertain labor market conditions.

3. Why is it so hard to prove you're not a robot? Captcha tests have been around for years, but they've become increasingly difficult — and annoying — recently. There's got to be a better way to prove you're actually a human.

---

3 things in business

1. Google, once again, is dictating the future of the online ad industry. Google's latest delay in eliminating cookies, announced Tuesday, has the rest of the industry frustrated. Experts say the delay's outsized effect underscores how powerful Google's influence has become.

2. Private-equity firms are making power plays in sports. As teams embrace outside investors, firms like Apollo, Blackstone, and KKR are funneling money into sports. We rounded up 20 firms moving into the hot space, as well as the leading dealmakers helping investors get a piece of the action.

3. McKinsey's in hot water. The Department of Justice is investigating the consultancy for its past work advising opioid companies about how to boost their sales, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. McKinsey has long been under scrutiny for its work with various drugmakers and has paid nearly $1 billion to all 50 states, Native American tribes, local governments, and other groups to resolve a host of lawsuits without admitting wrongdoing.

---

In other news

• Jefferies CEO sold $65 million in stock to buy a yacht from a client.

• Legal woes pile up for Trump allies: Giuliani, Meadows, and more indicted in Arizona election interference case.

• Sundar Pichai admits the generative AI boom took Google by surprise.

• What if no one wants a cheap Tesla?

• The TikTok divest-or-ban bill is a First Amendment disaster, but it may still stand up in court.

• Now you can put your Botox on Affirm.

• Private equity is getting into the special education business. It's not all going smoothly.

• New data reveals the top ways influencers get brand deals, how long they last, and how many are needed to make a living.

• I was LinkedIn's first head of HR. PIPs don't work — there's a better way to help struggling employees.

• S&P 500 is at risk of crashing 44% — and selling early could pay off, says elite forecaster.

---

What's happening today

• Today's earnings: Alphabet, Microsoft, Snap, and other companies are reporting.

• Today's the first round of the NFL Draft.

• The US Supreme Court hears former President Donald Trump's immunity claim in the 2020 election interference case.

---

The Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco, deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Jordan Parker Erb, editor, in New York. Hallam Bullock, senior editor, in London. George Glover, reporter, in London.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/CFDtWKd
via IFTTT

• Ukraine is intensifying drone attacks on targets deep inside Russia. 
• The strikes are doing serious damage to Russia's oil and gas sector. 
• Bloomberg reported that Russia's oil refining is at an 11 month low. 

Ukraine launched a new wave of long-range drone strikes on oil depots in Russia this week as part of a campaign targeting the Kremlin's critical infrastructure.

Drones sent by Ukraine's security service hit two Rosneft-owned oil depots in Russia's Smolensk region on Wednesday, according to multiple outlets, citing a Ukrainian intelligence source.

A source in the Ukrainian defense sector told the AFP that the depots stored 26,000 cubic meters of fuel.

Metallurgical and pharmaceutical plants in Lipetsk in Russia's southwest were also attacked, according to reports.

"These facilities are — and will remain — absolutely legitimate targets," the source said.

The attacks are part of an intensifying Ukrainian campaign to strike energy infrastructure targets deep within Russia's borders.

Ukraine has managed to strike not just oil depots in western Russia, near Ukraine's border, but also in northern Russia hundreds of miles away.

The attacks have impacted Russia's oil and gas production, the industry that is at the core of its economy and has funded its invasion of Ukraine.

Bloomberg earlier this week reported that Russia's oil refining is at an 11-month low because of flooding and Ukraine's drone campaign. In April, Russia processed 5.22 million barrels of crude oil per day, 10,000 fewer barrels than normal, the report said.

Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil depots are one of the few bright spots in its war in recent months.

It continues to face serious setbacks on the front line, where its troops are suffering ammunition and artillery shortages.

There is some hope, however. The release of a $61 billion US aid bill could see Western military equipment begin to reach Ukraine in the next few days.

According to reports, Ukraine is resisting pressure from its key international ally, the US, to decrease the oil depot attacks amid concern that it could increase oil prices and damage Joe Biden's reelection chances.

The Ukrainian attacks come as Russia steps up its strikes on Ukraine's infrastructure including hitting power stations, ports, and cities.

The Institute for the Study of War, a US think tank, said Tuesday that Ukraine's actions were denting Russia's oil sector but had yet to have a significant impact on global energy markets.

"Future Ukrainian drone strikes may disable and disrupt more of Russia's refining capacity and inflict critical constraints on Russian refining that begin to substantially impact Russia's production of distillate products," the analysts said.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/BPqfWNx
via IFTTT

• Chipotle renamed its barbacoa filling because customers didn't know what it was. 
• It has now been renamed "braised beef barbacoa," its CEO said. 
• Barbacoa is a method of cooking meat that's used in Mexico.

Chipotle's CEO said it had to rename its barbacoa burrito filling because diners weren't sure what it was.

"Many of our guests did not know that barbacoa was braised beef," CEO Brian Niccol told analysts at the company's first-quarter earnings call on Monday. "So we renamed it braised beef barbacoa."

The item, which is labeled on its US menu as "beef barbacoa" and in its ads as "braised beef barbacoa," is available as a filling for burritos, burrito bowls, salad bowls, tacos, and quesadillas.

Chipotle's website describes it as "braised for hours, then shredded." It's flavored with herbs and spices, including black pepper, chipotle chili, cloves, cumin, garlic, and oregano.

Barbacoa is a method of cooking meat that is thought to have originated in the Caribbean but has since evolved in Mexico.

Per Delish, it generally refers to meat slowly cooked over an open fire or in a fire pit. The meat is placed on a grill over a pot filled with a liquid and then covered with a lid — "while the meat roasts, it's steamed and braised by its own juices," Delish writes.

Niccol said Chipotle had been "spotlighting" barbacoa by highlighting it in marketing during the quarter.

"It was Chipotle's best-kept secret and is now growing in popularity," he said. "The campaign was a success, driving incremental transactions and spend, and it was simple for our operations team to execute since it was an existing menu item."

Prices vary by location, but at a Chipotle in Manhattan a beef barbacoa burrito with no extras costs $13.35, compared to $11.60 for chicken.

During Wednesday's call, Niccol also spoke about the success of the chain's Chicken al Pastor, which has returned to the menu for a limited time.

Chipotle execs said last year that it was easy to launch because it's made using its existing adobo chicken and that its popularity meant that the company was having to buy less costly beef.

Chipotle posted a 7% increase in comparable restaurant sales in the first quarter and a 14.1% jump in revenues to $2.7 billion. Niccol said that the chain's Californian restaurants had increased prices by about 6% to 7% to absorb the state's new $20-an-hour minimum wage for fast-food workers.

Is fast food getting too expensive? Email this reporter at gdean@insider.com.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/MlIKVJD
via IFTTT

• A potential TikTok ban in the US has creators worried about where they'll upload their content.
• Instagram is not necessarily an alternative, with some thinking it's "embarrassing."
• Young creators may opt for newer platforms, like Clapper, despite initial mixed reviews.

As a potential US TikTok ban looms, Gen Zers are contemplating what app might take its place.

There are a few contenders in the mix, but it seems for many young people, Instagram isn't among them.

Josie, a Gen Z content creator, said in a recent TikTok that she might be able to handle a ban if posting on Instagram wasn't such a "humiliation ritual."

"The TikTok ban bill was just passed in the House, which is a bummer," she said. But the idea of posting her TikTok content to Instagram Reels in front of everyone she knew in high school wasn't appealing.

"I don't know about that. I'm sorry," she said. "I don't know if I have the gumption to really do that. That's a big ask."

A potential TikTok ban looms

The US Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that could see TikTok removed from app stores. President Joe Biden signed it into law on Wednesday, giving ByteDance nine months to sell its US TikTok assets or face a nationwide ban.

Creators are very unhappy, considering a potential ban hypocritical and an infringement on their freedom of speech.

While the most obvious solution would be for them to start posting their content on Instagram Reels — Instagram's short-form video platform — that's not what will happen, several Zoomers told Business Insider.

Many said they will likely continue to use Instagram for Stories and direct messages, but that it would not replace TikTok when it comes to uploading content and scrolling.

It is hard to make sweeping statements about any generation, especially one that spans the ages of 12 to 27, but a mass exodus of the ones who use TikTok to Meta's photo app is unlikely, they said.

They'd rather take their chances on something new like Clapper or put their energy into YouTube shorts, they said.

"We'd probably splinter off into a million different places, bombarding our friends and followers with 'come follow me here' messages across every social media platform imaginable," Gabrielle Yap, a Gen Z writer, told BI.

"We'd be like digital refugees, lost and a little scared, but you bet we'd rebuild our online communities somewhere, somehow."

Instagram has too many personal ties

Josie doesn't share her full name on TikTok, and she said she has everyone in real life blocked on there, including her friends and her boyfriend.

"So I actually have this nice, cozy little open public diary, and I never really feel like I need to be confronted about it in person," she said.

Young people still use Instagram. It was declared "over" in 2022 but has made something of a comeback. More people downloaded Instagram than TikTok in 2023, and Threads has been an unexpected success. Gen Z and millennials are also both still active on there.

But Gen Zers who spoke with BI said social media platforms all have different purposes, and they doubt Instagram can capture the magic of scrolling on TikTok.

A Pew Research Center survey found YouTube is the biggest social media platform among US teens, with 93% of respondents aged 13-17 saying they used it. TikTok is in second place at 63%, followed by Snapchat with 60%.

Instagram is close behind, with 59% of respondents saying they used it, though over twice as many (17%) said they used TikTok "almost constantly" compared to Instagram (8%).

Generations also use Instagram slightly differently. Filters and Reels remain more popular with millennials than Gen Z, while Zoomers favor stories and DMs, according to a YPulse survey last year.

Instagram posting is 'cringe'

While they may have an account to document their social lives, like millennials have a Facebook page that's gathering dust, Zoomers have found Instagram pretty cringe for a while now.

In 2022, Gen Z writer Hibaq Farah explained in a blog on Nylon why the app gave her generation "the ick."

Instagram is "boring, exhausting, and generally not fun" compared with TikTok, Farah said, which boomed during the pandemic and quickly became her most-used social media platform.

The sentiment is growing. Multiple TikTokers have expressed finding Instagram "embarrassing."

"I hate posting on Instagram now," said Tabitha Mae, a creator who posts storytime videos. In a recent TikTok, she said there had been a "shift" over the past few years where posting on Instagram became "an insanely stressful, nerve-racking process."

"Posting feels icky," she said. "It honestly feels like every time I post, I'm just being judged by everyone I've ever met."

Commenters echoed Mae's thoughts, with some saying they thought Instagram was too "filtered" and that they had deleted the app and felt all the better for it.

Yap told BI she loves "a good curated feed and aesthetic story," but Instagram can feel a little too "polished."

"Like everyone's trying to project this perfect life," she said. "On TikTok, it's all about being raw, funny, and real."

Kat, who was born in 1998 and works in social media, told BI she doesn't think it's likely young people will flood to Instagram.

She said her own feed is "out of whack and not enjoyable anymore."

Getting more people on the app

Instagram's parent company, Meta, this week it would increase spending to turn itself into "the leading AI company in the world," sending its shares down more than 12% in pre-market trading on Thursday.

It's already starting to do this with the upcoming rollout of its Meta AI chatbot on Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp.

It's unclear if such AI tools would convince Gen Z to scroll on Instagram and use it more often. However, Sophie Lund-Yates, from Hargreaves Lansdown, told the BBC that Meta's "substantial investment" in AI has helped it get people to spend time on its platforms.

Where else is there?

Snapchat is also "kinda dead," Kat said, and its curated content feed "is a clickbait hellhole."

"My unpopular opinion is that YouTube Shorts has the next best algorithm to TikTok," she added. "I think if TikTok was banned I would go there. Obviously, it wouldn't be as good."

Jaxson Whittle, an older Gen Z, told BI he holds a different opinion.

"If TikTok is banned, I think I might use it as a reason to get off social media completely," he said, apart from X which he needs to use for work.

However, he said many of his friends are happy to move to Instagram since they are already active users. They use Reels so they don't feel left out of TikTok trends, he said.

"I feel like Instagram is pushing Reels so hard that it's pretty easy to click on something and fall into the infinite scroll," he added.

As for Clapper, the TikTok dupe that was set up as a platform for Gen X and millennials, some younger creators are all for it.

TikToker Cassandra Marie, for example, called Clapper the "new TikTok" and praised the app's growth potential, as well as the nostalgic feel of being like TikTok in its early days.

A handful of creators have been sharing their Clapper handles, hoping to replicate their followings there if TikTok shuts down.

But the reviews have been mixed, with some saying the video quality is bad and the follower growth rate was inconsistent.

Kat is also unconvinced. She said it reminded her of the early days of TikTok circa 2018 "when it was cringe."

"But instead of it being cringe teens and cosplayers, it's giving an older and conservative crowd," she said. "No hate to them, but I don't think it's the move for Gen Z at the moment."

Yap said she's heard whispers of people moving to Discord and Twitch, but these platforms don't have short-form video people can endlessly scroll like TikTok does.

The thought of a TikTok ban is scary, she said, but Gen Zers are "adaptable" and "creative" and will find a way to keep sharing their voices whatever happens.

"The internet is vast, and wherever we land, you better believe it'll be filled with memes, Gen Z humor, and enough sarcasm to fuel the whole nation," she said.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/jBfh4UC
via IFTTT

• A Harvard Business School professor was asked to break down Jeff Bezos' leadership style on a recent podcast.
• The Amazon founder's inventiveness and focus were core to the company's growth, said Professor Sunil Gupta.
• But good leadership also requires empathy, an area where Bezos is seemingly lacking, Gupta said.

Jeff Bezos is one of the world's richest men. Since founding Amazon in 1994, he's led the company from a tiny startup to a global behemoth worth $1.84 trillion.

But what is it about the founder's leadership style that has been so exceptionally successful?

His inventiveness, fearlessness, and focus have all played a key role in Amazon's growth, said Sunil Gupta, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied Bezos for years.

Gupta broke down how Bezos's character has helped Amazon grow on a recent episode of Harvard Business Review's "On Strategy" podcast.

"He gives you enough leeway to try different things, and is willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into things that may or may not succeed in the future," said the Harvard professor.

But with Bezos' vision and flexibility comes his notoriously tough work ethic.

"He's certainly a hard charger," said Gupta on the podcast. "When he hires people, he says, you can work long, hard, or smart. But at Amazon, you can choose two out of three."

While Bezos may be highly competent, the billionaire's lack of empathy is one aspect of his character that stands out to Gupta as a weakness.

"Those characteristics of competence and character make people respect you. What makes people love you is when you show compassion, and at least I haven't seen compassion or empathy that comes out of him," Gupta said on the podcast.

"He certainly comes across as a very hard-charging, driven person, which is probably good for business. But empathy is perhaps lacking right now."

Jeff Bezos was renowned for moving incredibly fast in the early days of Amazon and creating a cutthroat environment for employees.

Minimum 60-hour weeks were the norm and the CEO would famously explode at employees who displeased him, hitting them with snarky comments like, "I'm sorry, did I take my stupid pills today?"

His tough attitude as an employer came from his obsession with putting customers above all else. That meant employee perks and benefits typical at other tech companies were off the table.

Everything was driven by metrics at Amazon, and office employees have complained of punishing performance reviews and a culture where nothing ever feels done or good enough.

Amazon also faced widespread criticism for its treatment of workers during the COVID-19 pandemic after many said they felt unsafe at fulfillment centers due to the lack of health and safety precautions.

In 2021, Bezos stepped down as CEO of Amazon after 27 years at the helm to spend more time on philanthropy and his two other major endeavors: The Washington Post and his rocket company, Blue Origin.

While Amazon's success is undeniable, recent Gallup polls have found that American workers feel disengaged when their leaders fail to create a positive workplace culture or give them a sense of purpose.

"I think some people find it exhilarating to work with these kind of leaders. Some find it very tough," said Gupta.

But ultimately, he added, many people just want to be on the winning team: "Amazon's culture of experimentation and innovation. That is energizing to a lot of people."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/AxcJWMi
via IFTTT