• The US Navy ousted the commander of USS Hershel Williams after the ship ran aground in Africa.
• Capt. Lenard Mitchell was relieved two months after the grounding due to a "loss of confidence."
• Mitchell is the ninth commanding officer to be fired that the Navy has publicly acknowledged.

The Navy has relieved the commanding officer of the expeditionary mobile base ship USS Hershel "Woody" Williams two months after the vessel briefly ran aground outside the African country of Gabon, a Navy statement announced Monday.

Capt. Lenard Mitchell, the commander of the Williams' "Gold" crew, was relieved by Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, the commander of the US 6th Fleet, "due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command."

The Navy's statement added that "the relief occurred as a result of an investigation into the soft grounding" of the Williams near the port of Libreville, Gabon, on May 9 and, "while the investigation is still open, sufficient findings of fact emerged during the investigation to warrant the relief of the commanding officer."

Typically, the Navy is quick to remove a ship's commander after a grounding — usually moving within days or, at most, a week or two.

When the cruiser USS Port Royal ran aground on a shoal off the coast of Honolulu in 2009, the Navy waited around four days — until the ship was free — to relieve its commander.

When the USS Howard suffered a soft grounding near the Indonesian island of Bali on August 10, 2023, the Navy relieved its skipper, Cmdr. Kenji Igawa, just nine days later.

In 2014, the Navy took about two weeks to fire the commander of a frigate — the USS Taylor — that ran aground in the Black Sea.

When Military.com asked Navy officials in the weeks after the Williams' grounding why Mitchell had not been relieved, no one was able to offer an explanation.

The Navy's statement also did not explain why this relief took almost two months.

The Navy said that Mitchell will be temporarily assigned to Commander, Naval Surface Forces Atlantic, while Capt. Michael Concannon will assume the duties of interim commanding officer aboard the Williams.

The Williams is currently deployed to the waters off Africa and "there is no impact to the command's mission or schedule due to the relief," the statement noted.

Mitchell is now the ninth commander to be fired for a "loss of the trust and confidence" that the Navy has publicly acknowledged. A total of 13 commanders have now been relieved this year, though not all for losses of confidence. Navy officials have said that commanders can also be relieved for medical reasons or ask to be relieved themselves.

Navy officials have previously said the sea service relieved 15 commanding officers in 2023 over a loss of confidence.

There are currently around 1,600 commanding officers in the active-duty Navy across all communities.

Since the start of 2024, the Navy has fired three of its commanders over drunken driving incidents. Two were submarine skippers, and one was a SEAL commodore.

In January, the Navy fired Capt. Geoffry Patterson — the commander of the USS Georgia's blue crew — after he was arrested early on January 9 for driving under the influence and improper lane change.

Similarly, Capt. Richard Zaszewski, formerly commodore of Navy Special Warfare Group Eight, was arrested January 19 for driving with a blood alcohol content between 0.15% and 0.2% — though that incident wasn't made public until March.

Finally, Capt. Kurt Balagna, who was the commander of the USS Ohio sub's gold crew, was also arrested in March by Washington state police for driving with a blood alcohol content of around 0.24%.

Two of the nine fired Navy commanders were chaplains assigned to the Coast Guard: Capt. Daniel Mode, the Coast Guard's top chaplain who had served in that position since 2022, and Cmdr. Cristiano DeSousa, the Seventh District chaplain in Miami.

• Donald Trump is entering the home stretch of his vice presidential selection process.
• The Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee next week.
• Trump has a lot of factors to weigh in his decision. 

Former President Donald Trump is expected to name is running mate in less than a week, ending his vice presidential selection process.

According to multiple reports, Trump has likely narrowed his focus to the shortlist of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio. In the end, only Trump knows what will happen.

It's quite possible the former president could turn to someone else on the much larger list of names he once viewed as potential vice presidents.

Trump told Fox News on Monday that President Joe Biden's disastrous debate has factored in slightly into his decision, given the small possibility that Biden could drop out.

Even if he wins in November, Trump will reenter office as a lame duck. It means his apprentice will have the inside track to replace him in 2028 — a fundamentally different reality than the one he faced in 2016.

So, with that in mind, here's Business Insider's final vice presidential power ranking.

Here's where things stand:

1. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio (Previously 2)

Vance has been one of the biggest risers since our initial rankings almost two months ago. It's not hard to see why.

The 39-year-old has pivoted far beyond his "Never Trumper" past. He's now as close to Trump's base as any elected official. He's also reportedly close to Donald Trump Jr. Vance was also the first of Trump's possible vice presidential picks to go to Manhattan to show his support during the former president's historic criminal trial.

Vance hasn't been afraid to push Trump's worldview in a chamber that, unlike the House, is more likely to defy the former president. It's been an extraordinary rise since the Ohioian was sworn in just last year.

His selection would underline the expectation Trump would ensure his second administration is filled with loyalists. But Vance would likely do little to help Trump expand his appeal.

As a former venture capitalist, Vance has ties to the more conservative Silicon Valley leaders who could help buck up Trump's fundraising. Like many on this list, Vance has questioned the results of the 2020 election. He's gone even further recently by suggesting that former Vice President Mike Pence has overplayed the extent to which his life was under threat during the Capitol riot.

2. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota (Previously 4)

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum spent his brief 2024 run paying supporters to donate to his campaign. His campaign's biggest moment was arguably when he injured his leg before a primary debate.

Despite that inauspicious moment and a forgettable primary effort, he's receiving serious consideration. Burgum's newness to the national scene remains his biggest obstacle.

Burgum has gained some key allies while under Trump's reported consideration. The Wall Street Journal Editorial board, often considered the voice of the GOP's establishment, is behind him. So, too, is Kevin O'Leary, the Shark Tank veteran. Other Wall Street types are also intrigued by his possibility.

Then again, Trump tried a Midwestern governor straight out of central casting who was not supposed to outshine him. Unlike Pence, Burgum blazed a path in business before getting into politics. The North Dakotan sold his software company to Microsoft for over $1 billion in 2001. As CNBC pointed out, Burgum could write a massive check to Trump's campaign.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida (Previously 3)

Florida, man. If Rubio represented any other state, he would be atop our list. That's because the biggest hurdle for Rubio isn't likely anything in his past. Instead, he faces very real concerns about residing in the same state as Trump.

As Politifact explained, the Constitution has been interpreted not to allow electors from the same state to vote for a president and vice president who also reside in that state. That means a Trump-Rubio ticket could lose out on Florida's 30 electoral votes, even if they won the state. According to the Bulwark, Rubio would be willing to move, but he might have to make up his mind soon.

Rubio would be the most obvious choice for a Trump pick poised to help the GOP hold the White House in 2028. After all, the Floridian was once proclaimed the future of the Republican Party.

He is not a MAGA-whisper like Vance, but the Floridian found ways other ways work with his former 2016 primary rival while in office. Rubio has also shown he'll shift his views, most notably he was one of the main architects of the bipartisan, sweeping 2013 immigration legislation that would have offered undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

Like many 2016 foes, Rubio is also on record hammering Trump — including his cringey mocking of the future president's hand size (Rubio later apologized for that).

4. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina (Previously 1):

Scott has been on Trump's shortlist from the beginning. He also led the other two editions of our power rankings.

He doesn't have the constitutional questions that Rubio would face. He has been on the national stage longer than Burgum. He could also expand Trump's appeal with a historic candidacy.

Scott behaved like he wanted the job, but it doesn't seem like he made the final cut. In early June, Scott's allied political action committee would spend $14 million targeting voters of color. He has shown fundraising prowess that could be greatly appreciated down the stretch of the general election. It helps that Scott has a relationship with Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who, according to CNBC, is pushing him to get picked.

The 58-year-old would also be a historic choice. He's already the first Black Republican elected from the South since Reconstruction. Some Trump aides have urged the former president to balance out his 2024 ticket by picking a person of color.

That all being said, we've talked up Scott before. And he dropped out before the Iowa caucuses.

5. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York (Previously 5)

Stefanik has clearly staked her ground as a Trump ally. She was the first member of House leadership to have endorsed Trump for his 2024 run. She endeared herself to his political base for her defense of the president during his first impeachment trial. Stefanik garnered national attention recently for grilling college presidents over their handling of antisemitism. She was once more liberal than Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, but her rise in the GOP has coincided with a reinvention as a Trump-aligned Republican.

The New Yorker hails from a state that is never going to back Trump. But scores of studies show that the home-state boosts for vice presidents isn't all it's cracked up to be. Perhaps it's not surprising then that none of the top-tier names on Trump's list hail from a current swing state. Still, Stefanik's selection would be historic. She would be only the fourth woman to share a major party's ticket. Republicans, especially Trump, have struggled with suburban women, but it's not clear that tapping a woman would automatically cure that problem.

Biden may also delight in the selection of a House GOP leader. The president has repeatedly called attention to the drama that has gripped the lower chamber. Voters are likely to care more about the economy than Speaker Mike Johnson's job status, but the level of in-fighting in the GOP is so bad that multiple sitting lawmakers have quit their jobs early.

The rest of the pack

6. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas (Previously 7): Cotton's career is bookended by fights with The New York Times — mostly recently over his 2020 op-ed calling for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell riots in the wake of George Floyd's killing. The GOP senator was a loyal Trump ally, including defending the then-president's push to buy Greenland.

Unlike others on this list, Cotton notably did not vote against certifying the 2020 election. He was also harshly critical of one of Trump's biggest bipartisan achievements, the First Step Act, arguing that criminal justice reform failed to do enough to protect public safety.

7. Former HUD Secretary Ben Carson (Previously 6): Trump still has close feelings for his former Cabinet official. Carson also hails from the key state of Michigan. He's also still an avowed supporter of a national abortion ban, a topic Trump has tried everything in his power to avoid. Former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney thinks Carson will be picked because unlike other vice presidential hopefuls, he doesn't covet the top job.

8. Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida (Previously 8): Like Rubio, Donalds gets docked for the potential home state conundrum. Donalds has risen rapidly in the eyes of many of his House GOP colleagues. He has close relationships with the House conservatives that forced former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's historic ouster and have frustrated Speaker Mike Johnson, but he hasn't participated in either effort to challenge the men directly.

9. Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia (Previously 10): Youngkin skipped out on a late 2024 run to focus on state legislative elections. The Republican was supposed to show how the GOP can talk about abortion in competitive areas. It didn't work out. Still, he has the personal wealth and connections to seriously help a Trump campaign. Plus, per CNBC, Rupert Murdoch likes him.

10. A wild card like Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas: Sanders would offer diversity to a ticket, something some Trump advisors said they wanted when this process started. She also cut a national profile for herself as White House press secretary.

11. Anyone else: Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy are off our list, but either of them are less risky than someone who killed a dog.

12. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (Still last): Noem could have been a contender. But when your top Google results are about dog killing, it's safe to say your chances are pretty much over. The prediction markets seem to think so, too.

• Affirm, a buy-now, pay-later fintech company, went public on the Nasdaq in January 2021.
• Max Levchin, Affirm's CEO and a PayPal alum, shares advice for founders considering going public.
• This article is part of "Road to IPO," a series exploring the public-offering process from prelaunch to postlaunch.

Max Levchin, the founder and CEO of Affirm, always knew he would take his buy-now, pay-later fintech public. What he didn't know was the pandemic, one of the most economically uncertain times in history, would set Affirm's initial public offering into motion.

"We definitely experienced a real moment where we're not yet profitable. We would need to raise money if we wanted to survive through what could be a drought in equity capital markets," Levchin said, referring to the first several months of the pandemic.

As a buffer, Affirm raised private capital in mid-2020, a process Levchin said was "a huge pain" with "a ton of uncertainty."

It might seem like curious timing to take your company public during a pandemic, but that's exactly what Max Levchin did.

As a buy-now, pay-later company, Affirm's business model was built on the promise of repayment as it enabled consumers to finance their online purchases. The pandemic became a boon for Affirm as Americans received stimulus checks and e-commerce boomed. Levchin, wanting to ride that wave, needed more capital to grow the company. The sustained unpredictability in the private markets triggered talks of going public, but Levchin wanted to make sure that doing so was a step in the journey and not an end point.

He had his doubts. "Can we head from the IPO into, 'Go faster and harder and invest even more aggressively into interesting ideas,' or would we just suddenly stall and become a slow-moving, publicly traded sort of paralyzed giant?" Levchin said. Affirm shares were listed on January 13, 2021.

As the pipeline of IPOs starts to build up again, including the anticipated debut of Affirm's buy-now, pay-later rival Klarna, Business Insider spoke with Levchin about Affirm's IPO. He reflected on the decision-making process leading up to the offering, how he'd handled the peaks and valleys of Affirm's share price, and a couple of pieces of advice for founders contemplating going public.

From late nights on Zoom to Nasdaq debut

As a cofounder of the payment juggernaut PayPal, Levchin experienced firsthand the benefits of taking a fintech public.

The process was still "significantly more work than I thought it would be," Levchin said. It wasn't uncommon for Levchin to be on Zoom with his CFO and chief legal officer at 10 p.m. with half-finished glasses of wine, jokingly asking why they did this to themselves, he said.

In the second half of 2020, long days and late nights were spent auditing and cleaning Affirm's books, getting numbers and documents in order. Affirm's small IPO task force also needed to assemble critical documents, including the company's S-1 and a founders' letter. Meanwhile, its chief legal and finance officers needed to vet a long list of bankers who jockeyed to represent Affirm during the frothy, low-interest-rate market at the time.

Affirm landed on three banks as the lead underwriters for the offering. Beyond having long-standing relationships with the companies pre-IPO, Levchin wanted partners who could "speak to our business at least as well as we could," he said.

The hard work seemed to pay off. When Affirm debuted on the Nasdaq, its share price surged as much as 110% above its opening price of $49. Affirm shares climbed to as high as $164.23 in late 2021 but suffered the same stock rout that battered tech companies throughout 2022 and 2023.

A major adjustment to being a public company, Levchin said, is not falling into a "quarterly lifestyle" where milestones, product road maps, and key metrics are divided into four-month sprints.

"You have to have this duality of mind, where being public is about the quarter, but it can't be just about the quarter," Levchin said, referring to the ups and downs of running a public company. If a quarter results in a number you're not proud of, "you can't just hammer yourself over the head with it," Levchin added.

"It's going to get worse if this quarter isn't pretty, but you know you're doing the right thing, and you can see in numbers that it's going to be OK. Don't stress it, and it'll work itself out," he said.

Words of advice

For founders considering going public, Levchin offered some advice.

It's not uncommon to see startups hiring executives such as a president or CFO in anticipation of going public. But that could actually be a sign that you're not ready, Levchin said.

Chemistry is critical to ensuring the IPO team is on the same page regarding what's right and wrong for the business. That's not something that can be "formed and seasoned over the course of an IPO prep," Levchin said.

Levchin also warned against letting the process "consume the company." He kept the team working on Affirm's plans very small because he wanted the day-to-day engine to continue humming along during the intense period.

Since Affirm's CFO and chief legal officer largely spearheaded the IPO process, Levchin said he was left to focus on the company's short- and long-term plans for the capital.

"If you don't deliberately plan for that, you may run the risk of just freezing in place," he said.

• Kamala Harris is working to prove Biden's capability amid growing doubts.
• Biden's weak debate performance raised questions about his ability to win and serve another term.
• One expert argues that if Biden isn't fit for office, Harris has a constitutional duty to remove him.

Vice President Kamala Harris is in a difficult position.

As Joe Biden's number two in command, she must show her unconditional support of the president during a time when elected Democrats and voters alike are questioning his ability to both win and finish a second term.

At the same time, Harris must also prove that she is capable of taking Biden's place if it comes down to it — a possibility she has not acknowledged even though many see her as Biden's most natural successor.

Biden's disastrous debate performance last month sparked mass speculation, both nationally and globally, about his ability to serve a second term. And ever since, Harris has been working overdrive to prove that Biden is still a strong candidate capable of leading the country, and more importantly to the Democratic party, of beating Donald Trump.

"The worst thing a vice president can do at this point is to be anxious to get the president out," Elaine Kamarck, a former aide to Al Gore and electoral politics expert at the Brookings Institution, told The New York Times. "It just totally backfires. My guess is some fairly unsophisticated people are calling up Kamala Harris saying: 'Can I do this? Can I do that?' And if she's smart, she will shut that down tight."

Following Biden's debate against Trump, Harris acknowledged that Biden's performance was not his best.

But, she argued to supporters at a Las Vegas rally the next day, "This race will not be decided by one night in June," the Washington Post reported.

"I see Joe Biden when the cameras are on and when the cameras are off; in the Oval Office, negotiating bipartisan deals," Harris said at the rally, according to The New York Times. "I see him in the Situation Room, keeping our country safe; on the world stage, meeting with foreign leaders who often ask for his advice."

In the days since the debate, Harris has only ratcheted up her efforts to bolster Biden's image. She's on the Biden campaign trail all of this week, meeting with Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander voters in Las Vegas on Tuesday before heading to Dallas on Wednesday and North Carolina on Thursday, according to the Washington Post.

At every possible opportunity, Harris has reiterated her support of Biden and her belief that he can run the country for another four years. If she were to publicly, or even privately, acknowledge that she's ready to take on the presidency in his place, it could be seen as an admission that Biden isn't fit to lead.

"She's in an awkward position," civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton told The New York Times of Harris' dual roles of supporting Biden while also proving her own ability to lead. "But the job of vice president is awkward."

But, there's also a deeper tension underlying Harris's current position, a political science expert told Business Insider.

Lonna Atkeson, a political science professor at Florida State University and director of nonpartisan think tank LeRoy Collins Institute, says that Harris's role supporting Biden's reelection at all costs may conflict with her 25th Amendment duty to determine if he is unfit to hold the position.

Atkeson argued that, under of the 25th Amendment, Harris "has a constitutional duty to be independent of" Biden, and to "help decide whether or not he's capable of completing his term."

"But that is complicated by the fact that she is the vice president and is also running for elective office as the vice president," Atkeson added. "So how does she fill both her constitutional role and her role as supporter of the president during an election campaign?"

Atkeson then explained that Harris' decision to support Biden despite growing doubts about his physical and mental capacity puts her in a compromising position. That's because, Atkeson said, if it were to come out that Biden is not actually fit for office, and that Harris knew all along, then she could be seen as "not fulfilling her constitutional mission."

But while some Republicans like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and House Speaker Mike Johnson believe that Biden should be removed under the 25th Amendment, Democrats — and least of all, Harris — don't appear to be considering that option.

• American Emma Navarro, 23, has been a breakout star at Wimbledon this year.
• She is the daughter of billionaire businessman Ben Navarro.
• Emma Navarro beat Grand Slam champion Coco Gauff to reach the Wimbledon quarterfinal.

Wimbledon, the world's most prestigious Grand Slam tennis tournament, began on July 1.

And while it may be well-known for attracting a number of A-list and billionaire spectators, there's also plenty of wealth on the court, too.

One of Wimbledon's breakout stars is Emma Navarro, the 23-year-old daughter of billionaire businessman Ben Navarro. The American player has had quite the season so far, breaking into the top 20 of the WTA rankings and defeating not one, but two Grand Slam champions — Naomi Osaka and Coco Gauff — during her impressive Wimbledon run.

Although she fell to Jasmine Paolini, 28, in the quarterfinal on Tuesday, the tennis world will see her again soon as she prepares for her first Olympic Games in Paris in just a few weeks.

Here's everything you need to know about the American heiress taking the tennis world by storm.

Emma Navarro was born in New York City and raised in Charleston, South Carolina.

In April, Navarro told Garden & Gun magazine that Charleston is her "favorite city in the world."

"I love to walk around downtown and see the houses and say good morning or good evening to the people," she added.

A few of her favorite hometown spots include Sullivan's Island, Holey City Bagels, Second State Coffee, and Sorelle.

She and her three siblings, older brothers Earl and Owen and younger sister Meggie, were raised in the area by parents Kelly and Ben Navarro.

Her father, Ben Navarro, has an estimated net worth of $1.5 billion, according to Forbes.

Ben Navarro, 61, is the founder and CEO of Sherman Financial Group, which Forbes describes as "a credit card and debt collection empire."

One of the group's main assets is lender Credit One, which some eagle-eyed fans may have noticed is one of the logos on Emma's uniforms at recent tournaments.

Forbes reported that, in addition to banking, Navarro has purchased more than $350 million worth of property in Charleston since 2021.

He's also been an active buyer in the tennis space, with CNN reporting that he purchased the Cincinnati Open tournament for about $300 million in 2022.

Other tennis-related ventures in his portfolio include the South Carolina-based Live To Play Tennis Club and the Volvo Car Open, the largest women's only tennis tournament in North America, per the WTA. (It has since been renamed the Credit One Charleston Open.)

In 2019, the US Tennis Association named the Navarro family South Carolina's tennis family of the year.

He told the Post and Courier at the time, "As a fan, father, and business owner, tennis has brought so much to our family. Junior tennis has provided a place for our children to learn a work ethic, develop friendship through shared struggle, and learn to handle disappointment, defeat, and sometimes even unfairness."

Emma Navarro credits her father with introducing her to tennis and shaping her mindset as an athlete.

In 2021, she told Charleston Magazine that her dad helped her get into tennis.

"He wanted it to be a family sport," she said. "I have two older brothers, and they both played. As soon as I was old enough and strong enough to hold a racquet, I was out there on the court with them."

He's been an important mentor to her ever since.

"My dad has always been in my corner, getting me the coaching and training, whatever I needed," she told Charleston Magazine.

She made sure to give her mom, Kelly Navarro, a shout-out, too, calling her "the behind-the-scenes lady who makes everything happen."

In an April 2024 interview with the Tennis Channel, Emma Navarro credited her dad for her mindset as an athlete, calling him "the smartest guy" she knows.

"He's taught me a bunch about the perspective I want to take into things, especially on-court stuff," she added.

Navarro said she started getting serious about tennis when she was in elementary school.

In an "Alumni Spotlight" interview with Charleston Day School, Navarro said she started taking tennis seriously in fourth grade.

"I would get up around 5:45 a.m. and go play tennis for about an hour before school," she said.

"I would go back out to the courts after school, come home, finish my homework, and get to bed early enough to have a decent night's sleep before I did it all again the next day."

In 2019, Navarro was runner-up in the singles final at the French Open Junior Championships.

Navarro, then 18, lost in the singles final to Canadian Leylah Fernandez 6-3, 6-2.

However, she and partner Chloe Beck defeated Alina Charaeva and Anastasia Tikhonova 6-1, 6-2 in the doubles final, winning the championship.

She made her WTA debut that same year at the Charleston Open.

Navarro attended the University of Virginia and was the 2021 NCAA Singles Champion.

Per the University of Virginia, Navarro was just the second player in program history to win the championship.

Her freshman season was filled with a number of additional accolades, including the ITA National Rookie of the Year and the ACC Freshman of the Year, and she finished the season with a record of 25-1, the best single-season winning percentage in UVA Tennis history, according to the school.

Navarro's sophomore season proved to be successful, too. She was named an ITA Singles All-American as well as an ITA Doubles All-American and was the No. 1 seed in the NCAA Singles Championship, according to UVA.

Her sister, Meggie Navarro, also plays tennis at UVA.

She decided to become a full-time pro in 2022, and won her first WTA title, Hobart International, in January 2024.

Navarro finished 6-1, 4-6, 7-5 against Elise Mertens to win her first WTA singles title.

Since January, Navarro has played in over 10 tournaments around the world, including the Australian Open, the Cymbiotika San Diego Open, and the Trophée Clarins, where she reached the final, and, of course, Wimbledon.

Gauff isn't the first world No. 2 Navarro has beaten.

In March 2024, Navarro defeated Grand Slam champion and then-world No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka in the fourth round of the BNP Paribas Open, commonly known as Indian Wells.

While at Indian Wells, she also won the Eisenhower Cup alongside Ben Shelton.

The Eisenhower Cup is Indian Wells' popular kickoff exhibition in which eight mixed doubles teams compete against each other.

Some of the other pairs in 2024's event included Paula Badosa and Stefanos Tsitsipas, Sloane Stephens and Tommy Paul, Aryna Sabalenka and Taylor Fritz, and Qinwen Zheng and Frances Tiafoe.

Per the WTA, her total 2024 prize money has surpassed $1 million.

Navarro had an impressive showing at Wimbledon, upsetting world No. 2 Coco Gauff to reach her first Grand Slam quarterfinal.

In her post-match interview, Navarro told reporter Annabel Croft that she was "really grateful" to be "on Centre Court at a tournament with so much history and tradition," describing the opportunity as "a real honor."

Navarro also added that she has "a ton of respect" for Gauff and "what she's done at such a young age."

Although her time in London was cut short by Jasmine Paolini in the quarterfinal, Navarro will represent Team USA in just a few short weeks at the Olympics.

Olympic tennis competition begins on July 27 at Roland-Garros Stadium, home of the French Open.

Brackets have yet to be announced.

• At least ten retail brands have said they're closing US stores in 2024, totaling up to 1,330 locations.
• Family Dollar is the largest chain on the list, planning to close at least 600 stores this year.
• Other companies, such as Walmart and TJX,  are closing a few stores while opening many more.

A Business Insider tally of disclosures from nine retail chain brands found as many as 1,330 stores have closed or are set to close across the US in 2024.

The number is down considerably from prior years, including last year, when the collapse of Bed Bath & Beyond contributed to a total of more than 2,800 locations shuttering.

Analysts at UBS think the total number of US retail closures could reach 45,000 over the next five years, led largely by smaller stores going out of business, even as larger firms such as Walmart, Costco, Target, and Home Depot continue to expand.

Topping this year's list is the Dollar Tree-owned Family Dollar, which is set to close at least 600 locations, with more to come as leases expire.

Some companies, including Express and Foxtrot, are in dire financial straits. Others, such as Walmart and TJX, have plans to expand by more stores than they close. Still others, like Foot Locker and Macy's, are shifting their strategies as shopping patterns change.

See the full list below:

Family Dollar: 600 stores

Its parent company, Dollar Tree, said it would close 600 Family Dollar stores in the first half of this year, while an additional 370 locations are set to close in the coming years as leases expire.

CVS: 300 stores

CVS is in the final year of its three-year plan to shutter 900 locations. The company says changing populations and buying patterns led it to reconsider how many stores it needed in certain areas.

Foot Locker: 113 stores

Foot Locker closed 113 locations during the fiscal quarter that ended on February 3. In the same period, the company opened 29 locations and relocated or remodeled 66 others.

Express: 107 stores

Express announced in April that it would close 95 flagship brand stores and all 12 of its UpWest branded locations.

Rite Aid: 77 stores

Rite Aid is closing another 77 locations after closing 150 last year.

Macy's: 50 stores

Macy's said in February that it would close 150 locations over the next three years, starting with 50 in 2024.

Big Lots: 35 to 40 stores

Big Lots disclosed in its quarterly filings in June that it plans to close between 35 and 40 stores this year, after having closed 35 stores in the prior year.

Foxtrot: 33 stores

The boutique convenience store Foxtrot abruptly shuttered its 33 locations in April after it came up $35 million short of its 2023 sales goal, Modern Retail reported.

Walmart: 7 stores

Walmart plans to close seven locations across four states, which it said did not meet financial-performance expectations. The company said earlier this year it planned for a total of 150 new or upsized stores in the next five years, starting with 14 new locations in 2024.

TJX: 3 stores

The off-price retail company TJX closed two T.J. Maxx locations and one Marshalls store earlier this year. Those will be more than offset by the addition of 45 new US locations across the two brands, plus 83 more across the other three brands in the TJX family.

• Some of the cheapest EVs in the US are Tesla models.
• There are also other financial considerations to make if you're considering a purchase, including battery and Tesla charging costs. 
• Tesla changes its pricing frequently for its different models.

Tesla sells some of the cheapest electric vehicles on the market today after CEO Elon Musk spent the past year and a half slashing the prices of his most popular cars.

The constant price cuts kicked off a price war between Tesla and mainstream car brands like Ford and GM. Tesla initially had the upper hand, but cracks began to show in the price cutting strategy after Tesla released disappointing financial results in the first quarter.

Musk's electric car company is finally starting to feel the pinch as lower prices cut into Tesla's bottom line.

Here's a look at where the pricing stands for each of the models. 

What is the cheapest Tesla model?

The Tesla Model 3 is the cheapest model. The starting price for the Tesla Model 3 is around $38,990 for the Rear-Wheel Drive, $47,490 for the Long Range All-Wheel Drive variant, and $54,990 for the Performance All-Wheel Drive variant.

The next cheapest model is the Tesla Model Y. The starting price for the Tesla Model Y is around $44,490 for the Rear-Wheel Drive, $47,990 for the All-Wheel Drive model, and $51,490 for the Performance model. 

Tesla has initiated extensive markdowns on the prices of the Model 3 and Model Y since early 2023, making some cost less than the average new car in the US. That's an important distinction for a new crop of EV shoppers who are more practical and frugal that the wealthy early adopters that first dominated the market.

What is the most expensive Tesla model?

Tesla Model S and the Model X are the most expensive models. The Tesla Model S is around $72,990 for the Long Range variant and $87,990 for the Plaid variant.

The starting price for the Tesla Model X is around $77,990, and $92,990 for the Plaid variant.

The Tesla Roadster is expected to be the most expensive model when it enters production, at a base price of around $200,000.

Do Teslas qualify for a tax credit?

After changes to eligibility requirements went into effect at the start of the year, only some Tesla models are eligible for a $7,500 EV tax credit. As of June, two Model Y variants and two Model 3 variants were eligible while only Long Range version of the Model X can receive the $7,500 credit. 

How long do Teslas last? 

A big concern for prospective EV buyers is if the battery will need replacing. EV battery replacements could cost anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000.

In Tesla's 2021 impact report, it said that the company's battery packs are designed to outlast the vehicle.

"We estimate that a vehicle gets scrapped after approximately 200,000 miles of usage in the U.S. and roughly 150,000 miles in Europe," the report said. 

A warranty also covers Tesla's batteries. Models have slightly different warranties, but they're generally covered for 8 years or between 100,000-150,000 miles (whatever comes first). 

While EVs as a category do have more frequent problems than other vehicles, such as issues with battery packs and charging, Tesla models stand out for their reliability. 

Is Tesla charging free? 

No, Tesla charging isn't free (although the company sometimes offers a limited amount of free Supercharger miles with a vehicle purchase) and the cost varies based on if you charge at home or one of Tesla's proprietary Superchargers. 

At a Supercharger, charging costs vary based on the speed across four tiers and on time — not range or energy added to your vehicle. Charges will also change based on electricity costs. 

On average, a Tesla will charge about 4.5 cents per mile, according to EnergySage estimates, depending on local electricity costs. A full charge on a level-2 charger will run you about $15.52 on average, the site says, though costs vary for each model. 

The cost of charging a Tesla is more than three times cheaper per mile than the cost of fueling a gas-powered car, a savings stat that Tesla often rolls into initial sticker prices on its website. You have to toggle off estimated savings to see the full base prices on Tesla's website.

EnergySage estimates that it costs $614.95 to charge your Tesla per year. In comparison, gas-powered cars cost an average of $1,850.42 to fuel per year.

Tesla Superchargers also charge an "idle fee" if a car remains plugged in after it is fully charged in order to serve more customers efficiently. 

Some Tesla vehicles also include free charging, sometimes added as an incentive when purchasing. Free charging is also available through Tesla's referral program. 

To get the cheapest charging, you'll need to charge at home. If you already have a 240-volt outlet in your garage (equivalent to level 2), you can simply buy a charger and plug it in. Otherwise, an electrician will likely need to install one for you. 

• F-16 fighter jets are about to finally enter combat in Ukraine, where its new operators will have to figure out how best to use them.
• There is a play in which Ukraine could pursue bursts of air superiority to score breakthroughs, experts say.
• The integrated air-ground campaign could give Ukraine what it needs to break through Russian defenses.

Ukraine will soon receive F-16s, combat-proven Western fighter jets able to augment the war-torn country's depleted force of aging Soviet-era aircraft.

A key question is how Ukraine should "optimize the use of the relatively small number of F-16s" it is set to receive and the limited availability of trained pilots, airpower experts say.

Ukraine, they write, could leverage its new fighter jets as part of an integrated air-ground campaign to secure brief, localized air superiority as part of a larger operation to secure breakthroughs in specific areas.

Ret. US Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, now the dean of the Mitchell Institute, and Christopher Bowie, nonresident fellow for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, wrote in a new Mitchell Institute report that "by conducting an integrated air-ground campaign to secure air superiority in the times and places of its choosing, Ukraine can further its military's momentum on the battlefield and begin reversing the territorial gains the Russian army has achieved up to this point."

Air superiority refers to the condition in which one side can conduct operations in pursuit of its objective without prohibitive interference from the enemy.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia have gained widespread or significant air superiority thus far in the war, though Russia appeared to establish temporary, localized control of the skies around Avdiivka in February. That limited support helped the Russian troops overwhelm Ukrainian defenses and capture the war-torn area.

Deptula and Bowie's new report highlights the "absolute necessity of air superiority to achieve a decisive advantage" in the war, noting that without such an advantage, the conflict looks as it does now — a "relative stalemate" resembling World War I trench warfare.

When Ukraine begins receiving F-16 jets from Western partners, it will need to rethink the use of its air force and how to support ground operations.

The effectiveness of Ukraine's new F-16 force will depend heavily on how many jets its receives, the armaments, the type of jet sent, the total number and proficiency of trained pilots, and the maintenance operations for the planes. Survivability and application will factor in as well.

Mixing capabilities for a breakthrough

"The first step," the authors wrote in their report, "is to work with the Ukrainian army to determine, across the entire Ukrainian line of engagement with the Russians, the optimal location (potentially multiple locations) and times to gain air superiority."

Next, the Ukrainian Air Force would need to work with ground forces on a massive deception plan, placing troops on various axes of the battlefield in order to confuse Russia about where the true location of a major attack is.

Such a move could give Ukraine at least some element of surprise, something it largely lacked in its failed 2023 counteroffensive.

Then Ukraine could aim to hinder the Russian response, employing "hundreds, preferably thousands" of drones against a variety of targets, such as energy production and storage, Deptula and Bowie said, further confusing Russian troops and forcing the expenditure of interceptor missiles.

Along with unmanned systems, Ukraine's ground forces could use long-range fires, such as US-provided HIMARS and ATACMS, against Russia's radars, surface-to-air missile systems, and artillery. The air force could support these operations using HARM missiles.

Important to this operation would likely be partner-provided intelligence, which would help Ukraine improve the quality, timing, and effectiveness of the attack. Extensive electronic warfare to jam Russian reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities is also important to further disrupt a response.

As Ukraine's ground began their advance, Ukraine would need to move long-range SAMs to engage and deter Russian fighter jets. This sets up Ukraine's air force to gain air superiority over specific areas, allowing their pilots to strike Russian units, logistics, and transportation networks and deny movements of reinforcements.

All of this requires a truly integrated approach, Deptula and Bowie wrote. While there are a host of potential challenges, such as insufficient resources and training, the results could be promising, giving Ukraine bursts of air superiority in certain areas that can be exploited for breakthroughs in a way that could "lead to a collapse of Russian positions."

Questions have long been raised about how Ukraine could best use its F-16s, with some concern that the jets could be less useful now than they would've been earlier in the war.

The effort to get Ukraine F-16s from NATO members has faced a variety of problems, with some Western leaders hesitant to provide jets due to fears of Russian escalation, but the alliance began to budge on the idea last year.

F-16s, fourth-generation fighters that have been used to fly many different missions over the decades, from air-to-air combat to air defense suppression and destruction, will be a capability upgrade for Ukraine, potentially offering them systems and weapons they didn't previously have and giving them a boost in critical offensive and defensive action.

But the Fighting Falcons, 50-year-old aircraft, are in no way a silver bullet. They'll face a range of challenges in Ukraine, especially Russia's advanced air defense systems.

And there may be other issues as well. Ukraine has also faced issues adapting to Western ways of war, specifically complex, combined arms warfare. That's been a challenge as it's sought to be more in line with NATO's fighting style and embrace the assistance and guidance of its Western supporters, though some of that guidance has at times been inconsistent with the realities of the battlefield in Ukraine.