Tag: News

• SCOTUS limited federal agencies' regulatory powers with recent rulings. 
• One legal expert said the high court is clearly "hellbent" on dismantling the administrative state.
• Because of the rulings, the regulation of essentially all major industries will be tougher. 

In two separate rulings over 48 hours last week, the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been long attacked by the right — and has stripped out some of the Securities and Exchange Commission's financial-fraud enforcement capabilities.

The conservative majority, in another 6-3 ruling on Monday, made it easier for government regulations to be contested.

"At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent of the court's Monday ruling in the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent to the Friday decision to strike down the legal precedent known as the "Chevron deference" in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, called the Friday ruling "yet another example of the Court's resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary."

Legal experts and regulation advocates told Business Insider they largely agreed, with one law professor saying that the nation's highest court is clearly "hellbent on dismantling the entire regulatory apparatus put in place over the course of the 20th century."

"These rulings make it impossible for the agencies that Congress itself created to respond quickly and efficiently to newly emerging problems," said Robert Hockett, a Cornell University professor of law and finance.

Thanks to the recent SCOTUS rulings, the regulation of essentially all major industries, ranging from environmental protection to finance and public health, will be much tougher and could result in a more overburdened court system.

Before Friday's ruling, if the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, identified an oil company practice that unduly risked an oil spill, it would first issue a cease-and-desist letter. The oil company might then claim that the EPA has the facts wrong or lacks the regulatory authority to address the practice, Hockett said.

Then, according to Hockett, the case would be heard by an administrative court. If the oil company disagreed with that administrative judge's ruling, it could appeal and ultimately land in a court — but wouldn't do so if it couldn't point to an obvious error by the administrative law judge, Hockett said.

Now, under the ruling, the case would go right to a federal court.

"No ALJ [Administrative Law Judge]. Straight to federal court. Court with overloaded docket scheduled hearing to the year 2035. Oil spills everywhere and renders North America uninhabitable in the meantime while we wait," Hockett said, offering an extreme example.

"The upshot of this is that all of the country's largest business firms in all of its major industries will go effectively unregulated or de-facto unregulated because Congress and the courts will not be able to keep up with the pace of change in our economy," said Hockett.

The legal expert likened the matter to a "robber baron's dream."

"These two rulings largely amputate the two most important arms that our regulatory agencies use every day in overseeing our industrial economy," Hockett said, referring to the the Chevron and SEC rulings.

In overturning the Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision, the high court has hamstrung federal agencies' regulatory powers.

The doctrine, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, called for courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous federal laws and statutes. It has been repeatedly used by the federal government in a wide range of cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, wrote that the Chevron doctrine "proved to be fundamentally misguided."

"Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do," Roberts wrote.

The chief justice continued, "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The overturning of the Chevron precedent and Thursday's SEC v. Jarkesy decision both involve cuts in the regulatory powers of federal agencies, "which means reductions in the power of the executive branch of government and an increase in the power of the judicial branch," said Jonathan Siegel, a professor of law at George Washington University.

As a result, over the long term, Siegel said, "It will be more difficult for the government to enforce many statutes, and therefore, there will be more violations."

"Particularly in terms of businesses, they decide what to do based not only on what's legal and what's illegal, but what is the likelihood that they will actually suffer a penalty if they do something illegal," he said.

Siegel explained that the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy has the "potential to affect innumerable agency proceedings."

Up until Thursday, the SEC had two ways of pursuing fraud cases. It could sue in federal court, or it could bring an "administrative proceeding" in its own in-house court, where it appoints its own judges and the cases have no juries.

Roberts wrote in the decision that the latter method violated the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right to a jury trial.

"It's certainly the case that the court and some individual justices even more strongly have expressed distaste for the amount of power administrative agencies have, and several decisions that the court has come down within the last few years have the effect of reducing that power and increasing the power of courts," Siegel said.

Rachel Weintraub, the executive director of the regulation advocacy group Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, said that the common thread between the decisions "is that it is the manifestation of a conservative quest to minimize the role of the federal government."

"The public expects government to do certain things. It expects the government to ensure that roads are safe and toasters don't explode, and that the water coming from our faucet doesn't cause our families harm, and that there are protections in workplaces, and that our marketplaces are fair, and that there will be consequences if entities scam us," Weintraub said.

These factors, said Weintraub, "could be at stake if judges replace agency expertise with their own positions."

In the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court ruled that a six-year statue of limitations in challenging federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act begins "when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action."

"The Supreme Court last week made it all but impossible for federal agencies to accept future Congressional assignments of rule-making authority by overturning its own 40-year-old Chevron decision," said Hockett.

"Today it effectively makes that retroactive, by permitting any newly formed corporation to challenge rules that have been on the books for decades," Hockett said, explaining that before Monday's decision a statute of limitations legislated by Congress "ensured that a rule that had gone unchallenged for six years was settled law."

Now, Hockett said, "every rule, no matter how long it has been in place and no matter how long corporations have been operating with a settled understanding of it, will be up for grabs."

Jesse Panuccio, who served as US acting associate attorney general in the Trump administration, was less alarmed by the recent SCOTUS decisions, saying "agencies still have vast delegations of power."

Panuccio told Business Insider he represents private parties who are in lawsuits against the government, and he believes it's important that there are three branches of government "with interdependent functions."

Panuccio said that he supported the Supreme Court decisions in Loper Bright and Jarkesy and called them "important checks on administrative power."

There is never an "even playing field" between the government and a private party — and having a ruling like this in place is the way to ensure parties are in front of a neutral judge, he said.

"And I think we have gone too far, no matter who the president is, the executive branch wields more power than I think the Constitution really envisions," he said. "And these opinions are important."

• Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis lived all over, from New York apartments to East Coast mansions.
• She said her family's "happiest years" were those spent with President John F. Kennedy in the White House.
• Here are all of the impressive places she lived in and owned in her lifetime.

Throughout her life, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis has lived in grand estates and luxury apartments, including the White House when her husband, President John F. Kennedy, served as president.

She grew up in spacious New York apartments and several-acre estates, and after her marriage, she spent her summers at the famed Kennedy Compound and winters on the family's estate in Palm Beach. Though out of all the impressive properties she has resided in, she said her family's "happiest years" were those spent with her husband in the White House.

Here are all of the impressive places she lived in and owned in her lifetime.

Before she was a Kennedy or an Onassis, Jacqueline Lee Bouvier spent her early years in New York City.

In 1932, the Bouviers moved into an apartment on the sixth and seventh floors of 740 Park Avenue.

The apartment building was developed by her grandfather, James T. Lee. At least for a period, her father couldn't afford to furnish it so Jackie and her sister could roller skate from room to room.

The apartment building later became a home for billionaires and was once considered one of the most iconic apartment buildings in the city.

In 2017, her old apartment sold for $25.25 million.

In the 1940s, Bouvier's mother remarried, and they left New York.

They moved into a Georgian-style mansion called "Merrywood" in McLean, Virginia, in Washington, DC.

The mansion, which was built in 1919, sits on the edge of the Potomac River and covers 23,000 square feet.

Bouvier's mother had married an oil magnate named Hugh D. Auchincloss, who owned the mansion.

At the time, it had nine bedrooms and 13 bathrooms, as well as an extensive garden. 

Bouvier wrote fondly about the house in her diary, saying, "I always love it so at Merrywood — so peaceful … with the river and those great steep hills."

Bouvier spent her summers at her paternal grandfather's East Hampton estate called "Lasata," which means "place of peace," in the native Algonquian language.

The house, which was 8,500 square feet, was built in 1917 and sat on about seven acres.

Earlier this year, the fashion designer, Tom Ford, bought it for $52 million.

She also spent some of her summers at her maternal grandfather's house in East Hampton called "Wildmoor."

The 18th-century home, covering about 5,700 square feet, was a shingle-and-clapboard wooden house with a view of fields, a swamp, and the sea, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In 2021, the house was sold for $6.8 million.

Her next notable property was the Kennedy family's summer home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.

Joseph Kennedy Sr., John F. Kennedy's father, bought a white-shingled cottage in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, for $25,000 — about $450,000 today. The coastal Massachusetts cottage became the Kennedy family's home base for years to come.

Before they were married, Bouvier and John F. Kennedy spent some time together there, which later became known as the "Kennedy Compound."

The Kennedys bought the house in 1928, Town and Country reported.

In 1953, Bouvier became a Kennedy when the couple married in Newport, Rhode Island.

They had the wedding reception at her mother's husband's sprawling estate, known as "Hammersmith Farm," anchored by a grand, 28-room Victorian-era mansion.

The property was last sold in 1999 for just over $8 million.

The estate became a part-time summer home for the Kennedys, along with the Kennedy Compound.

Jackie Kennedy spent summers on the estate during her childhood, and the Kennedys later vacationed there in the summer of 1961.

In 1953, not long after the Kennedys were married, they rented a four-story, four-bedroom house in Georgetown at 3321 Dent Place.

The Kennedys lived there for almost two years.

They enjoyed throwing dinner parties and spending time in its back gardens.

The house is about 3,000 square feet.

Two years later, in 1955, the Kennedys moved to "Hickory Hill," another Georgian-style house.

This one was built in 1815 and had a tennis court, a pool, and 12 fireplaces on a 5.6-acre plot in McLean, Virginia.

They bought it from Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

Two years later, the Kennedys sold it for $250,000 to John's brother, Robert, who would end up raising his own family there.

Jackie didn't want to go back after her daughter was stillborn.

Robert Kennedy was at the house when he heard John had been assassinated, the Baltimore Sun reported. He spent an hour alone, walking around the estate.

In 1956, the Kennedys bought a summer home at 111 Irving Avenue in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, right beside the original Kennedy summer home.

The 4,484-square-foot clapboarded home sat on less than an acre of land and soon became part of the "Kennedy Compound."

They spent $45,948 on the house.

In 1957, the Kennedys bought 3307 N Street, an 18th-century brick row house in Georgetown, for $82,000.

Jackie spent about $18,000 on remodeling it, and she decorated the house with armchairs and good porcelain.

Her husband campaigned and was elected president during their years here, Architectural Digest reported.

Though not officially a property she owned, Jackie lived in the White House with her family during her husband's presidency from 1961 to the end of 1963.

She later described this period as her family's "happiest years," The Daily Beast reported.

During the winters, while they were living in the White House, they vacationed at her father-in-law Joseph Kennedy's Palm Beach estate.

The Palm Beach estate became known as the Kennedys' "winter White House." In 2020, the house sold for $70 million and underwent extensive renovations by the new owner.

In 1963, after her husband was assassinated, Jackie and her children left the White House and moved into an 18th-century home at 3017 N Street in Georgetown.

She paid around $175,000 for the five-bedroom house but only lived there for about a year. It was too public, and she reportedly became overwhelmed with all of the tourists.

In 2017, it was purchased for $5.25 million.

In 1964, Jackie and her children moved back to New York after she discreetly bought a 5,300-square-foot apartment on the 15th floor of 1040 Fifth Avenue for $200,000.

The apartment had five bathrooms, three fireplaces, two terraces, and a library.

It also had a view of Central Park.

Jackie Kennedy owned the apartment until she died in 1994.

It was bought from her estate in 1995 for $9.2 million. 

The buyer said she hadn't done much upkeep, and they ended up gutting the whole apartment.

While she was alive, she began dividing her time between France, Greece, Martha's Vineyard, and New Jersey.

She kept New York as a home base.

She also got married again in 1968 to a Greek shipping magnate named Aristotle Onassis and became Jackie Onassis, or "Jackie O."

In 1974, Onassis purchased a country home — a converted barn on almost 10 acres — for $200,000 in Peapack, New Jersey.

She liked the area for its natural beauty and space for horse riding.

She knew the area well because she had previously rented a farmhouse described by The Times as a "badly made-over barn" in Bernardsville since 1965.

After she bought the property, she painted it yellow with white trim.

After Onassis died, her neighbor and friend, Marjorie McDonnell Walsh, bought the Peapack property for $1.47 million in 1997.

Walsh told The Wall Street Journal they tore the house down.

"It doesn't matter," she said when declining to share details about the new house. "The much more important thing is we both love the property. It's a private valley. It's beautiful."

In 1979, after her second husband died, Jackie decided to build a new house called "Red Gate Farm," on 340 acres of land in Martha's Vineyard.

She only spent a little more than $1 million on the land, and then another $3.1 million on building the house, which was finished in 1981. The main building covers 6,456 square feet.

There's also a four-bedroom guest house, a pool, and a tennis court. The property stretches across a mile of beach.

In 2020, it was put up for sale for $65 million.

Editor's note: This story was first published in September 2023 and has been updated with additional information.

Correction: July 1, 2024 — An earlier version of this story included a photo caption that misidentified a man pictured with Jackie Kennedy Onassis in Paris. The photo has been removed.

• Kevin Costner's "Horizon" was a bust at the box office, making only $11 million in its first weekend.
• Costner invested over $38 million in the movie and paid for its marketing himself. 
• "Yellowstone" fans may not have been enough to help "Horizon" beat out other big draws in theaters.

Kevin Costner is the latest star to be reminded that passion projects don't always yield big box-office returns.

The former "Yellowstone" actor quite literally bet the ranch on "Horizon: An American Saga," mortgaging his property in Santa Barbara and investing $38 million of his own money into the three-hour film, which is intended to be the first in a four-part series about Western expansion before and after the Civil War. (Part two is set for release on August 16.)

But so far, Costner's gambit on the movie he directed, cowrote, and stars in hasn't paid off: "Horizon: An American Saga" brought in only $11 million on a $100 million budget in its opening weekend.

This isn't the first time Costner has had a passion project go sideways. He produced, starred in, and later took over directing duties in 1995's "Waterworld," an ambitious postapocalyptic blockbuster described as "Mad Max" on water. He sank $22 million of his own money into the film, which was then considered one of the most expensive movies ever made. When critics saw it, they also gave it the distinction of being one of the worst movies ever made.

But "Horizon" was supposed to be different. The Oscar-winner had been riding high off the success of his hit TV show, "Yellowstone." Surely its tens of millions of fans would follow Costner to theaters to watch him in another Western, one he directed this time. Right?

At least on opening weekend, that's not what happened. Audiences instead spent their cash on sure things, like sequels or stories from existing IP. "Inside Out 2" led the domestic box office for a third straight weekend and has now grossed over $1 billion worldwide, making it the first movie to do so since last summer's "Barbie." In second was "A Quiet Place: Day One," a prequel in the popular thriller franchise, which took in an impressive $53 million domestically, making it the biggest opening ever for the franchise.

The "Yellowstone" fans weren't enough

Though Costner had been crafting a story about the exploration of the American West for decades, it wasn't until he played John Dutton in "Yellowstone" that "Horizon" finally became a reality. And it was that fandom that Warner Bros. hoped would come to theaters for "Horizon," bringing box-office glory.

The Paramount+ series was the most-watched cable series in 2018 and 2019; it went on to score close to seven million viewers in its broadcast debut on CBS in the fall of 2023. The conventional thinking among box-office trackers was that "Yellowstone" fans would be the core audience to come out to support "Horizon," hopefully leading to a $15 million to $20 million opening.

Despite the film's poor reception from critics at its Cannes Film Festival world premiere and its 40% Rotten Tomatoes score, the thinking was that Costner's core audience would come through despite a few bad reviews (the movie has a 71% audience score, after all).

And they did — sort of. Warner Bros.' weekly box-office report revealed that the top five theaters that were major earners for "Horizon" were in regions of the country where "Yellowstone" is popular and cowboys still roam: Utah (where the "Horizon" franchise was shot), Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

So, while Costner and WB were successful in marketing the movie, it wasn't enough. Though the "Yellowstone" fans are mighty, "Horizon" needed more manpower to compete with established draws like "Inside Out 2" and "A Quiet Place: Day One."

Costner isn't as prominent in the 3-hour movie as marketing would suggest

Even though "Horizon" needed more than just "Yellowstone" die-hards to win at the box office, that core audience may not have been entirely satisfied, either.

Despite being the face of the franchise and its star, Kevin Costner isn't actually in a lot of "Horizon." In fact, he doesn't show up until an hour into the movie and is rarely seen afterward. As Hayes Ellison, a rustler on the run after killing a man, the movie occasionally checks in on how he's doing, but most of it revolves around Native Americans attacking a settlement called Horizon, the soldiers at a nearby Army post, and a wagon train traveling to Horizon.

The movie's lack of Costner is a major flaw. Unlike on TV, where teasing the eventual appearance of a star will draw audiences back for the next episode, it's tougher for movies to take that approach when viewers must wait more than a week — usually months or even years — for the next installment. And even though the next "Horizon" movie comes to theaters in August, who's to say audiences will come back? Especially if they aren't certain their star will be on screen for most of the movie.

Self-financed auteur projects rarely deliver

The shaky start for Costner's passion project could go one of two ways. While there are a few times in film history when a director put their own money into a film and reaped huge rewards (see: George Lucas' "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back," Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"), most of the time, directors who self-finance never see that money back — just ask Orson Welles or Francis Ford Coppola.

It's too soon to say if that will happen to Costner (even "Waterworld" broke even — though it took years), but he is on the hook for the film franchise, and he's likely in deeper than the $38 million price tag that's been previously reported.

According to Variety, Costner and his investors are paying for the "Horizon" marketing, a spend that's around $30 million. Warner Bros. is only taking 8% of the movie's box office grosses. That means if the movie can rebound, the star will take a substantial share of the grosses. If it doesn't, he'll have to deal with the losses.

That could hurt the franchise down the line.

Though "Horizon: Chapter 2" is set for an August 16 release and "Chapter 3" has begun principal photography for a May 2024 release, "Chapter 4" is still only in development. Whether Costner will ultimately be able to complete his four-part saga could very well become a saga of its own.

• It's not a good day for Meta in the EU.
• The European Commission says Meta's "pay or consent" advertising model is in breach of the EU's Digital Markets Act.
• The EU previously said Apple also violated the rule.

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta just got some bad news in the European Union.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, on Monday announced its preliminary findings that Meta's "pay or consent" advertising model is in breach of the bloc's Digital Markets Act.

Meta introduced the model in the EU in 2023 after European regulators had ruled in 2022 that Meta must let users opt out of personalized ads based on their activity on its social platforms. The model requires users to pay a monthly fee to avoid seeing ads on Facebook and Instagram or receive personalized ads to continue using a free version.

On Monday, the EU regulators said: "In the Commission's preliminary view, this binary choice forces users to consent to the combination of their personal data and fails to provide them a less personalised but equivalent version of Meta's social networks," the commission said Monday.

Meta now has the chance to respond in writing to the preliminary findings. The commission will wrap up its investigation within 12 months from when it began on March 25.

If Meta is ultimately found to be non-compliant by the regulator, it could face fines of up to 10% of its global revenue.

A Meta spokesperson said: "Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA. We look forward to further constructive dialogue with the European Commission to bring this investigation to a close."

Last year, Meta also came under regulatory scrutiny in the EU when it was hit with a $1.3 billion fine for transferring Facebook users' data to the US.

Meta isn't the first tech giant to be accused of violating the DMA, which took effect in March.

The European Commission recently informed Apple of its preliminary findings that the company's App Store rules violate the DMA because "they prevent app developers from freely steering consumers to alternative channels for offers and content."

• Democrats think Jill Biden might be the only person who could convince Joe Biden to drop out.
• After Biden's debate performance, some Democrats have been questioning his ability to defeat Trump. 
• But the first lady isn't backing down. And so, neither is the president.

Joe Biden's debate performance last week was, by most accounts, a disaster.

But First Lady Jill Biden — possibly the only person who could convince the president to call it quits — is standing beside him.

Since the president bungled the debate against Trump on Thursday, some top Democrats and Biden loyalists have been questioning Biden's viability as a candidate, with some even calling on him to drop out of the race.

Biden's close personal friend and a columnist for The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, wrote in a Times article the morning after the debate, "Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election."

R.T. Rybak, a former DNC vice chair and former Minneapolis mayor, urged his fellow Democrats to push Biden to step down, in a post on Facebook.

But Politico reported, citing Democrats close to Biden, that the only person who could convince him to step down is the first lady.

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic political consultant, echoed that sentiment, telling The Guardian, "The most logical person to suggest to Biden he not do this for his health and for the good of the country is Jill Biden."

But so far, the first lady is vowing to fight on.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Manhattan on Friday, Jill Biden acknowledged her husband's lackluster debate performance, telling a group of supporters, "As Joe said earlier today, he's not a young man," according to The Washington Post.

"After last night's debate, he said, 'You know, Jill, I don't know what happened. I didn't feel that great,'" Jill Biden continued, according to the Post.

But, she added, "What my husband does know how to do is tell the truth," the outlet reported. "When he gets knocked down, Joe gets back up, and that's what we're doing today."

Jill Biden reiterated this stance to Vogue on Sunday, telling the outlet that the Biden family "will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he's been president."

"We will continue to fight," she added, according to Vogue.

And she's not the only Biden standing firm. During a gathering at Camp David this weekend, other members of Biden's family, including his son Hunter Biden, urged the president to stay his course, according to a report from The New York Times.

Jill Biden and the rest of the family have argued that the president should be defined by his successes in the White House, not by one debate performance.

But even some Biden supporters are arguing that his lackluster debate performance has already sealed his fate as an aging candidate incapable of beating Trump this November.

Unless Jill Biden changes her tune or Joe Biden is offered a dignified way out, it doesn't seem likely that the president will back down. But with the Democratic National Convention — where Biden is expected to get the party's formal nomination — not happening until August, there's still time for a major campaign shake-up.

• Ukraine says it destroyed 59 Russian air defense systems in June 2024.
• It's the second-highest monthly total since the war began, compared to 73 in July 2023.
• Ukraine has upped its attacks on Russian defenses, especially in Crimea, with longer-range strike packages.

Ukraine's defense ministry said Monday that the country's military inflicted substantial damage on Russian air defense systems last month.

Ukraine said that in June 2024, it destroyed 59 systems, one of the highest monthly totals since the war began, second only to 73 in July 2023.

Last month's number is notably a major jump from 35 in May. It comes as Ukraine has prioritized knocking out Russian S-300s and S-400s, especially in Crimea, with longer-range weapons.

Business Insider couldn't independently verify the claim, but experts have documented an increased focus on knocking out enemy air defenses.

Ukraine didn't say where all of these air defense systems were destroyed, but it has intensified its attacks in Crimea over the past month, with the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reporting major strikes against S-300 and S-400 systems. Ukraine has long made striking occupied Crimea a top priority, and experts have previously assessed that Kyiv's goal is to ultimately make the peninsula "untenable" for Russia.

And as Ukraine has continued to target air defenses on the occupied peninsula, Russia has likely been forced to move more of its air defense systems there, increasing their vulnerability to Ukrainian strikes, according to the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington DC-based think tank.

ISW's war analysts have also assessed that "Ukrainian forces may be conducting an organized effort to degrade Russian air defenses, which could enable Ukraine to more effectively leverage manned fixed-wing airpower (namely using F-16 fighter jets) in the long term.

Ukraine has been suspected of using, among some other assets, Western long-range weapons, such as American-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), for these strikes.

The West has long allowed strikes in Crimea, deeming it a valid target for Kyiv's forces, but there have been restrictions on striking into Russia. Some have been eased, but others, such as the US provision that its ATACMS not be used to strike targets within Russian territory, remain in effect.

Without these restrictions, Ukraine could "in principle" replicate its success at taking out Russian air defense systems in Russian territory, ISW has said.

For now, though, the US still won't let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike deep inside Russian territory, which Russia uses as a staging area for its aircraft and other assets.

As ISW suggested in its assessment, Ukraine's targeting of Russian air defenses could also improve the effectiveness of its F-16 fighter jets, the first batch of which will arrive this summer. With fewer defensive systems threatening its aircraft, Ukraine could have more freedom of movement for conducting air operations.

Ukraine is only set to receive a smaller number of F-16s, though, which may require it to be more careful with how it uses them. Still, the aircraft will serve as a boost to its arsenal of aging Soviet aircraft and potentially create new opportunities.

The Supreme Court granted Donald Trump partial immunity from prosecution. It's a huge win for the GOP candidate ahead of November's election.

• A lot of Democratic voters want Joe Biden to drop out after his disastrous debate performance.
• It's a choice between gambling on a new nominee or risking defeat with Biden.
• Here are the biggest arguments for and against Biden dropping out.

Democrats are in a state of panic after President Joe Biden's disastrous debate performance last Thursday, and now, a solid chunk of the party's voters do not believe he should be their nominee.

A CBS/YouGov poll found that 46% of registered Democrats think Biden should step aside. Morning Consult found that number to be 47%. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll put it at 41%.

Sticking with Biden after the debate carries clear risks. His rambling, at times incoherent performance seemed to confirm voters' worst fears about the 81-year-old president's age, and there's a real question as to whether he can ever recover in the polls against former President Donald Trump.

Yet Biden dropping out of the race at this stage is also a huge gamble, one that's fairly unprecedented in recent memory. It's not immediately clear who would replace Biden, and there's the potential for a chaotic nomination fight at the Democratic convention in August.

Here are the most common arguments that people are making for and against Biden dropping out of the race — some of which, inevitably, may contradict each other.

Why Biden should drop out of the race

The debate was his last good shot at turning things around, and he failed. Biden has been consistently polling behind Trump, and the debate represented the best possible shot to reset the narrative of the race, perhaps turning attention to Trump's unpopular stances on issues like abortion and January 6. Instead, it became all about Biden's weak performance, and there's no guarantee that the president won't bomb the September debate as well.

He's losing because of his age, and there are younger alternatives available. Polling has consistently shown that a majority of voters, including Democrats, think Biden's too old to serve. Swapping him out with a younger candidate — perhaps the 59-year-old vice president or a senator or governor in their 40s or 50s — would eliminate that factor from the race entirely while drawing attention to the 78-year-old Trump's own fumbles.

His performance could hurt House and Senate candidates. Within days of the debate, Biden's performance was ricocheting in the Pennsylvania Senate race: GOP candidate Dave McCormick released an ad hammering Democratic Sen. Bob Casey over his past defenses of Biden's ability to do the job. One can easily imagine versions of this ad being used in competitive House and Senate races around the country, potentially costing Democrats control of both chambers.

A contested convention could actually be a boon for the party. While many fear the uncertainty that could come with handing the decision of choosing the nominee over to roughly 4,700 Democratic delegates, it could also work in their favor. As New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein argued in February, a contested convention could "make the Democrats into the most exciting political show on earth" and show off the "murderer's row of political talent" within the party while providing a contrast to a GOP that remains bound to Trump, who remains a deeply unpopular political figure.

Why Biden should stay in the race

This debate may not matter that much. It's early, but polling so far has not shown a dramatic shift in the race since the debate. If that remains the case, it will be because Americans have largely made up their mind about each candidate — they know that Trump's is chaotic, and they know that Biden is old. Plus, the salience of a debate can fade over time.

None of the other options poll much better than Biden: In an email to supporters, the Biden campaign cited a Data for Progress poll finding that other potential Democrats candidate performed similarly to Biden against Trump.

Democratic infighting could hurt the eventual replacement nominee. This is another Biden-world argument: In their email to supporters, they wrote that Biden dropping out would "lead to weeks of chaos, internal foodfighting, and a bunch of candidates who limp into a brutal floor fight at the convention, all while Donald Trump has time to speak to American voters uncontested." While it's not clear that would definitely happen, many may not want to take the risk.

Replacing Biden could be a logistical and financial mess. The Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee have spent months building up a campaign apparatus, both at the national and state level, and they've raised hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. If Vice President Kamala Harris were to replace Biden, it would be somewhat seamless: She could essentially take over that apparatus and the war chest. If Democrats were to go with someone else, it gets much more complicated.

• I compared Sol de Janeiro's $48 Brazilian Bum Bum Cream with Nutrius' $22 dupe sold at Costco.
• Both options improved my skin's texture in record time.
• The Nutrius brand from Costco was budget-friendly and more comfortable for all-day wear.

Sol de Janeiro has built its identity around its famous Brazilian Bum Bum Cream, which claims to firm and tighten skin over time.

Although the brand was founded in 2015, it blew up online in 2023. Cofounder Heela Yang told Glossy in December that 90% of the brand's triple-digit growth came from organic social promotion.

Like many others, my interest was piqued. But one 8-ounce tub of the lotion costs $48, so I wasn't sure if it was a sustainable holy-grail product for my budget.

Luckily, Costco stocks a two-pack of 6-ounce Brazilian body butter creams from the brand Nutrius for $22. It's been dubbed a Bum Bum Cream dupe by some based on similar packaging and shared ingredients — namely cupuaçu butter, coconut oil, acai oil, and guarana extract.

I purchased both to test out just how similar the cheap and expensive products are.

Sol de Janeiro's product exudes luxury.

If I'm going to spend $48 on a lotion, I'm expecting it to deliver. Luckily, I was pleased by the Bum Bum Cream's luxe packaging.

When I opened the tub, the cream smelled nutty and almost vanilla-y — likely from the Brazil nut and coconut oil in its formula.

A little bit of the thick cream goes a long way.

Sol de Janeiro advertises its Brazilian Bum Bum Cream as "fast-absorbing." But after applying a thin layer, it took over 20 minutes for it to fully dry on my skin.

A little definitely goes a long way.

Texture aside, after a couple of days of consistent use across my arms, legs, and torso, I noticed a difference in the smoothness and plumpness of my skin. I was especially pleased with how it helped correct the texture on my upper arms and shoulders.

Bum Bum Cream contains sodium hyaluronate.

To hold in moisture, Bum Bum Cream is made with sodium hyaluronate.

According to Tina Seitz, a licensed medical esthetician and holistic skin specialist, "This is the sodium salt form of hyaluronic acid, a naturally occurring substance in the body. It acts as a sponge helping the skin to hold onto water, being plump and aiding in the elasticity of the skin."

This fact may be directly responsible for the lingering dampness after application. But in theory, the water retention should help even out cellulite and other skin bumps.

I got nearly double the product (and twice as many scents) at Costco.

Nutrius's tubs are only 6 ounces, but that still means I got 12 ounces of lotion for $21.98, including taxes.

The brand offers several different scent options for its body creams. My particular Costco two-pack included the original cream and the Berry Bliss Brazilian body butter.

Just getting two scent options for less than half the price of the luxury product was already a major pro.

The smell of the original (yellow lid) lotion was very light — it almost reminded me of sunscreen. It was definitely less rich and luxe than the Sol de Janeiro jar.

I loved how light the product was.

For the fairest results, I waited 72 hours after my Bum Bum Cream trial before using this lotion on my arms, legs, and torso for a couple of days.

Perhaps because of its less expensive formula, the Nutrius cream didn't feel as thick as its luxury counterpart. But because of this, it was way easier to rub in.

If you hate the texture of putting lotion on (like me), this is probably the jar for you. It also dried on my skin much faster than the Bum Bum Cream.

After a couple of days, I noticed improvements that were very similar to the hydrating and bump-reducing effects of the Bum Bum Cream.

Nutrius has a slightly different ingredient list.

Nutrius' original cream highlights the same main ingredients as Sol de Janeiro: cupuaçu butter, guarana extract, and acai fruit oil. But the Berry Bliss jar swaps the cupuaçu and acai with cocoa butter and vitamin C for a slightly different hydrating cocktail.

"Cocoa butter contains procyanidins, which increase blood flow, improving circulation," Seitz said. "This can ease fluid retention and break up fatty deposits under the skin."

This by no means guarantees cellulite reduction — no product can — but some ingredients have the potential to decrease the appearance of it.

I prefer the dupe to Sol de Janeiro’s original.

As someone who doesn't like to sit in what feels like layers of product all day, I was a big fan of the fast-absorbing Nutrius cream.

I know some people may prefer a rich, thick cream for hydration. But since I saw similar results from both lotions, I'd rather be comfortable (and save some money).

The real Bum Bum Cream is priced at $6 an ounce, but the dupe costs less than $2 an ounce, so it's kind of a no-brainer for me. And if you don't have a Costco membership, Nutrius sells a two-pack on its site for $28, which is still only $2.33 an ounce.

Once my official experiment was over, it was also great to have two different Nutrius formulas and scents to play with. Berry Bliss ended up being my favorite of all three options.

• Social media is having a meltdown over Biden's debate performance.
• Many felt disillusioned by the prospect of either candidate — and their ages.
• Biden was struggling with Gen Z voters, many of whom get news from TikTok, even before the debate.

There was one potential bright side to Biden's horrendous performance at CNN's debate: relatively few people watched it.

But for a critical demographic, they didn't need to watch live.

Polls have shown Biden has glaring issues with critical Gen Z and millennial voters, with their support for him slipping even before the debate.

And those younger voters are turning less and less to television; roughly one-third of Americans aged 18 to 29 consistently get their news from TikTok.

But if Biden had hoped hoping TikTok would react better than panicking Democrats to the debate, he's going to be disappointed.

A study by social intelligence firm CredoIQ analyzed the top 450 TikToks about the debate, which together amassed roughly 483 million views.

The report found that 39% of those videos expressed negative sentiments about Biden alone.

By comparison, only 9.5% of those videos were negative solely about Trump, according to the study. Negative reaction to Biden also outpaced TikTok users who trashed both candidates. Those videos made up about 35% of views.

Overall, TikTok users seem to find the whole event pretty dismal. According to CredoIQ, only 5% of the top posts touted any positive sentiments at all.

Biden's 'memeable' face

While political pundits have largely focused on Biden's bumbling answers, some on TikTok have focused instead on his "memeable face."

One video has nearly 9 million views compiling short clips of Biden looking confused, his mouth open and eyebrows furrowed. In the background, the creator can't help himself from laughing — hard.

Others compared contemporary Biden to his former self. A side-by-side video contrasting Biden's 2012 performance in the vice presidential debate and his performance on Thursday attracted more than 8 million views, with many commenters saying he seemed like a different man.

"I need an Adderall prescription, and it's not for me, it's for fucking Joe Biden," James Charles, a popular influencer, said at the beginning of a video that gleaned 18.7 million views.

Charles trashed Trump in the two-minute rant as well, railing against his federal convictions and calling both candidates "corpses."

But Charles also faced a torrent of criticism over his video when he blamed Biden for the fall of abortion rights and Roe vs. Wade.

And to be fair, Biden did have some defenders, with one creator surmising his performance could have been the result of past health issues or his "speech impediment."

Nihilism all around

Many users mourned America's political trajectory beyond Biden himself, with critics calling out Trump's rampant lies and criminal charges.

One TikTok with nearly 18 million views compares the Obama-Romney 2012 match up to the Trump-Biden disaster.

Obama and Romney's cordial exchange is set against patriotic music, while Trump and Biden's voices are sped-up and higher pitched.

One commenter noted the candidates' ages, writing, "The fact that even today, Obama and Romney are both still younger than Biden or Trump is just sad."

"Give them both a pdf," one creator on X quipped in a post with 4.6 million views, "first one that can rotate it gets to be president."

Despite the dismal reception, there were several moments that stood out — and even inspired levity.

One Instagram post compiled the night's biggest quotables, including Biden jabbing that Trump had the "morals of an alleycat," Trump calling Biden a "very bad Palestinian," and an argument over which candidate could hit the golf ball further.

"My fellow Americans," one commenter concluded, "we are so cooked."