Letters: Sending the military to a big city to police Americans is the wrong call

Sending National Guard troops into a municipality to quell disturbances is not a solution in a free society. National Guard troops are not trained in arrest, search and seizure. They do not know state or local laws; they most certainly are not familiar with Miranda rights.
Back in 1968 as a Chicago cop, I observed firsthand National Guard and Army troops who were deployed to Chicago during the riots in reaction to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and the Democratic National Convention. 'Confusion' is a mild word to describe the chaos.
Sending 700 Marines to Los Angeles may or may not be legal, but I am a Marine veteran, and dealing with our own citizens in a free society was far from the training my fellow Marine warriors and I received.
Demonstrators who cross the line from peaceful to violent no doubt need to be arrested and charged — but only by trained law enforcement officers to ensure due process, which is a right of every citizen in a free country.In Tuesday's Tribune, multiple readers penned letters sharply criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the Los Angeles riots, decrying his deployment of the National Guard. 'Donald Trump is exceeding his authority,' Sally Munn writes. Kevin Coughlin asks: What about Jan. 6, 2021? The administration will lead us into 'a police state,' Harry Hofherr writes.
The Tribune Editorial Board joined in on the hysterics ('MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again,' June 10), warning in its editorial that 'our children are watching.' Jeez, is what the president doing that unconstitutional? That awful? That wrong?
The letter writers' charged language sure would make you think so. But, absent from their arguments is any semblance of law. First, the president does not appear to be exceeding his authority. Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, invoked by Trump, is clear: The president may deploy the guard if there is an invasion, rebellion (or threat of one) or, and most applicable here, when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'
Seeing as the rioters have blocked federal agents from detaining and deporting immigrants in Los Angeles, it would appear the third condition has been met, and a good argument could be made for the second having been met.
California has filed suit against the president for deploying the guard, so these issues will of course have to be litigated in court — as they should be.
Second, propagating Jan. 6 'whataboutism' here is quite rich. The Democrat-led Jan. 6 select committee sharply criticized Trump for not having deployed the guard quickly enough to defend federal property and personnel on that dark day in our nation's history. Now, the president seems to have learned from his mistake and yet gets criticized for quickly deploying the guard to protect federal property and personnel.
Lastly, to say we now live in a 'police state' is obvious hyperbole. The guard has been explicitly ordered to defend federal employees in response to, not in anticipation of, violent riots. National Guard troops are not marching through Los Angeles; they are posted at or near federal property to shield it and the agents inside.
So, to those condemning the president's response to the LA riots, I ask: Is your criticism directed at the person or the policy? There's a big difference.Another senseless waste of tax dollars. With no request from the governor of California, the leader of the world has sent the National Guard and Marines to control a situation that was created by his own government. I suppose he can't send in the Army because those soldiers are otherwise occupied participating in another waste of taxpayer dollars: the parade!
Both of these situations have everything to do with the president's . Too bad he didn't think the insurrection on Jan. 6 was worthy of the National Guard, a situation that truly merited supporting the local police.
But that was also another ego trip for him. is the madness going to stop?Chicago is the perfect location for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to strike next. Surely a Texas or Florida city won't be next.
Chicago has a divided government as the mayor does not control the City Council, and the mayor is unpopular. The mayor should be calming the city now to alleviate some of the protesting.
I would advise Illinois' governor to immediately call up the National Guard upon the first instance of escalated protests before President Donald Trump can.The editorial 'MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again' ignores the serious consequences that unchecked, unlawful entry has on our country. While America has always welcomed legal immigrants, illegal immigration breaks federal law and burdens citizens who follow the rules.
First and foremost, illegal immigration is illegal. By excusing or encouraging it, we undermine our legal system and send a message that laws are optional. This is unfair to the millions around the world who wait years and spend thousands to come here legally. Law-abiding immigrants and U.S. citizens deserve a system that honors order and fairness — not one that rewards disregard for the rules.
Illegal immigration puts pressure on our public services. Schools are overcrowded, teachers are stretched thin and health systems face rising costs. Local emergency rooms and clinics must provide care, but the bill is passed on to the American taxpayer. It's not sustainable, and it's not right.
Crime is another serious concern. Americans should not have to fear that their safety is secondary to political narratives.
Don't ask law-abiding citizens to subsidize illegal entry and its consequences.
We need an immigration system that is lawful, secure and fair. That means enforcing existing laws, securing our borders and streamlining legal immigration — not ignoring our laws in the name of misguided compassion.
Americans are generous, but we also value order, accountability and justice.In the editorial about the events in Los Angeles, the Tribune Editorial Board 'wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division.'
My response is: Does the board remember the 1960s? Consider just 1968. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in April. The ensuing riots all over the country make what is happening in LA look minor. We can still see the effects of those riots in parts of Chicago today.
Two months later, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Then came the Democratic National Convention. I assume the editorial board remembers that.
That was just in the United States. In January 1968, North Korea seized the USS Pueblo and held its crew captive for 11 months. At the end of January, communist forces in Vietnam launched their Tet Offensive. While the offensive was a strategic defeat for the communists, its main casualty was President Lyndon Johnson. There were student protests and riots all over Europe. In August, the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia because it dared to have thoughts of its own.
And then there was the draft.
In other words, while things seem crazy now, we have been through worse. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about what is happening, but we should keep things in perspective. Because we have been there before.I have to agree with all the immigration demonstrators across the country today. The immigrants deserve good jobs and schools and honest government and to live without fear. The problem is they are marching in the wrong place.
The root cause of the problem lies in their home countries. They should be marching in the capital cities of their home countries. Let's focus on the root cause. If everyone who feels so strongly about immigration went to the capital cities where the immigrants are escaping from, it would do much to eliminate the problem.
March in Mexico City, Quito, San Salvador or Guatemala City, where the problems originate.
Let's fix the root cause.I would like to remind my fellow Americans that this country has faced many crises in its short history. There is always someone there to remind us of who and what we represent as a nation and to the world. Such a man was Edward R. Murrow, an American broadcast journalist who lived through the Sen. Joe McCarthy era and stood up against what he knew to be a gross injustice and a violation of our values.
I would like to share one of his many memorable quotes to ponder and then for us to decide as a nation if we wish to stand together for what we know is right and then to act. 'We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.'
What will you do to meet this crossroad?I faithfully read Voice of the People each day. Letters that go straight to the truth are my favorites.
Some letters, however, simply fuel the flames of divisiveness, without revealing a profound truth.
I quickly identify those letters when a I see the words 'posse' and 'minions,' which appeared in two letters on June 6: 'Donald Trump and his posse' and 'Joe Biden and his minions.'
Labeling huge swaths of the American electorate as thoughtless sycophants does nothing to help us achieve equitable solutions for today's issues.
Certain words divide us. Let's drop them from the discussion.I'd like to take a moment to provide a different perspective to a June 6 letter ('Short memories') regarding Joe Biden as president '(throwing) money at anything that moved' during his administration.
Let us remember that Biden inherited an economy that was in a tailspin. To save the U.S. economy and support citizens of our country, Biden used his presidency to benefit the economy, middle class and struggling lower class.
Let us remember that his stimulus plan included individual stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, extended child care tax credits, increased funding for a national vaccine plan, and increased the budget for mortgage assistance as well as emergency assistance for those who were unhoused.
Biden's administration invested billions of dollars in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research to bring the U.S. manufacturing sector in line with worldwide development.
Those were just a few of the positive benefits for U.S. citizens under the Biden presidency. Let us not forget what we once had. If anyone is going to be accused of throwing money, let that money at least be used to support the children and families of the United States.
When Biden left office, he gave his successor one of the healthiest economies in the world, with low unemployment, plus a record high number of jobs created.
It's a national shame that we can no longer say that about our country.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to change the name of the USNS Harvey Milk because Milk's identity as a gay man would compromise the Navy's effort to establish a 'warrior ethos.'
Poor Hegseth seems unaware that in classical Greece, gay men — including pairs of gay lovers — were seen as essential to military unit cohesion and effectiveness.
According to neoconservative historian Victor Davis Hanson's 1994 study 'The Western Way of War,' pairs of gay lovers fought with ferocity. The Sacred Band of Thebes, made up of 150 pairs of gay lovers, shattered the Spartan army at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C., establishing Thebes' independence from Sparta. Four years later, at the Battle of Tegyra, the Sacred Band vanquished another Spartan force three times its size.
One recent account called the Sacred Band of Thebes 'the Special Forces of the classical era.'
It is unsettling that the security of the United States is in the hands of a man with no military experience and no knowledge of military history.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time​ Magazine

7 minutes ago

• Time​ Magazine

Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. What is the Byrd Rule? The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. What's been cut so far? MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. Are the parliamentarian's rulings final, or could they be overturned? The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.

Forbes

7 minutes ago

• Forbes

Why CEOs Should Make AI Their New Leadership Coach

President Donald Trump's tariff policy has sent nearly every company that produces goods scrambling. The race is on to shift sourcing and streamline supply chains in a way that reduces both potential costs and risks. Proxima, part of Bain & Company, recently compiled its detailed Global Sourcing Risk Index which ranks countries according to their risks as sources for goods and manufacturing. The report was developed in partnership with Oxford Economics. This index, unlike many of the quick deliberations conducted in the past months, is not all about the presumed amount of President Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs. Proxima took a much wider view of all risks, including many of those that countries may have faced in the pre-Trump trade-friendly period. They examined geopolitical conflict, climate exposure, compliance and governance, human rights, trade barriers, labor and input price volatility and supplier concentration—all factors that might matter more in the next decade than the numbers displayed on the chart Trump showed at his 'Liberation Day' press conference announcing the new tariffs. While the tariffs-first analysis of supply chain risk tends to put China at the top, Proxima's analysis doesn't even put it in the top five. The largest supply chain risk comes from Mexico, the study found, mainly because of compliance and governance risks, the country's economic reliance on a small number of foreign partners, and risks associated with geopolitical conflict and climate exposure. The other countries in the top five include Turkey, Russia, India and the Philippines. Mexico, the largest trading partner for the U.S., is seen as particularly risky due to its role as a pass-through for Chinese goods into the U.S., and also because of its heavy reliance on the U.S. market. Its geographic location makes it vulnerable to climate change impacts—though the country has shown remarkable resilience here. Rapid increases in Mexico's manufacturing economy, the report says, have also strained the country's infrastructure and energy grid. However, Mexico isn't the only country finding itself at a surprisingly high position on the risk index. The U.S. ranks 13th, which gives it a greater risk profile than Brazil, Malaysia and South Africa. This positioning on the list largely comes from the labor costs here, as well as the nation's involvement in geopolitical conflict and exposure to risks from climate change. AI can do many things in business, but its potential to help enhance your leadership skills is often overlooked. I talked to Jacqueline Carter, a senior partner and North America director at global leadership development firm Potential Project, about how AI can help you out in that area. An excerpt from our conversation appears later in this newsletter. This is the published version of Forbes' CEO newsletter, which offers the latest news for today's and tomorrow's business leaders and decision makers. Click here to get it delivered to your inbox every week. ECONOMIC INDICATORS A general view of the Port of Kharg Island Oil Terminal, off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf and northwest of the Strait of Hormuz. Fatemeh Bahrami/President Trump's Saturday night announcement that the U.S. inserted itself into the current Middle East conflict by bombing three Iranian nuclear sites didn't seem to shake markets in Monday morning trading, as investors stayed in wait-and-see mode. In fact, the Nasdaq, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 were all up less than a percentage point on Monday morning. However, Goldman Sachs warned, oil prices may rise up to 30% and hit multiyear highs if Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz—a vital global shipping lane—in retaliation for the U.S. attacks. At the conclusion of last week's meeting of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee, Chairman Jerome Powell said the looming uncertainty from Trump's tariffs led them to hold baseline interest rates at the 4.25% to 4.5% they've been at since December. This decision was widely anticipated, though Trump continued to bash Powell as a 'stupid person' for not cutting rates. And while Federal Reserve staff downgraded its economic projections—increasing projected unemployment in December to 4.5%, inflation moving up to 3.1%, and decreasing GDP growth to 1.4%—it maintained its projection of two quarter-point rate cuts this year. Consumers are feeling the economic malaise. Retail spending dropped for a second straight month in May, down 0.9% month-over-month, according to Census Bureau figures. Analysts say part of this decline may be due to purchases surging at the beginning of the year as consumers feared the impact of impending tariffs. However, some of it—including a 0.9% decrease in spending at bars and restaurants—likely indicates that consumers are being more cautious. Forbes senior contributor Erik Sherman writes other measures of consumer behavior show attitudes and outlooks are retrenching, with historically high use of credit cards and other forms of revolving credit. FROM THE HEADLINES A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images To the surprise of very few observers of the robotaxi industry—if any—Tesla did not launch its self-driving vehicles in Austin, Texas, over the weekend as anticipated, writes Forbes senior contributor Brad Templeton. What the company did launch was a limited ride service that features a 'safety driver' in the passenger seat, available to take the controls if something goes awry. Tesla's service also has limited hours—6 a.m. to midnight—a restricted service area that avoids downtown Austin and complex intersections and streets, and no service in inclement weather. Templeton writes that the removal of a 'safety driver' is the biggest milestone in robotaxi development. The slower-than-projected rollout puts Tesla at a disadvantage in the robotaxi race—which currently appears to be led by Waymo. But Forbes' Alan Ohnsman writes Amazon's Zoox is the market entrant to watch. Zoox has a custom-designed van-line vehicle loaded with sensors and cameras. It has no steering wheel, pedals or external mirrors, and is designed as a bidirectional vehicle with an identical front and rear. It's electric, with transit-like sliding doors, and will be able to operate for up to 16 hours per day on a single charge. Ohnsman toured Zoox's California factory, where the Amazon subsidiary is producing vehicles, to launch its ride service late this year in Las Vegas. Pilot programs in San Francisco, Austin, Miami, Los Angeles and Atlanta are also planned. BIG DEALS The Los Angeles Lakers celebrate after LeBron James's buzzer-beating tip-in beat the Indiana Pacers at a game in pending major transactions dominated sports talk last week. (Well, until the Oklahoma City Thunder won the team's first-ever NBA championship late Sunday night.) On Wednesday, several sources reported that the Los Angeles Lakers would be sold to Mark Walter, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, for a record valuation of $10 billion. The team is currently owned by the Buss family, which ESPN reports will maintain a 15% share for an unspecified period of time. Walter, who bought the Dodgers in 2012, has owned a share in the Lakers since 2021. Walter, CEO of Guggenheim Partners, has invested heavily in the Dodgers since buying the team, and it's paid off through two World Series titles. Forbes senior contributor David Bloom writes that the sale—which shatters the record NBA franchise price of $6.1 billion, set by last year's purchase of the Boston Celtics by Bill Chisholm—shows the trend of deep-pocketed private equity moving into professional sports ownership, previously dominated by family owners. Bloom writes that the kind of investment someone like Walter can bring could help the NBA powerhouse team remain at the top of the rankings and continue attracting big-name stars both to play for the Lakers and root for them. In Major League Baseball, homebuilding billionaire Patrick Zalupski is leading a group of investors exclusively negotiating to buy the Tampa Bay Rays for $1.7 billion, writes Forbes' Thomas Gallagher. Zalupksi, founder and CEO of publicly traded Dream Finder Homes, says his business has been profitable every year since its founding in 2008. The other investors negotiating to purchase the Rays include Union Home Mortgage CEO Bill Cosgrove and Fast Forward Sports Group founder Ken Babby. TOMORROW'S TRENDS How To Make AI Your New Leadership Coach Potential Project Senior Partner and North America Director Jacqueline Carter. Foto: Søren Svendsen Business leaders are embracing AI tools to help them be more efficient, perform detailed analysis of financials, engage with customers and do research. But what about as a leadership tool? Jacqueline Carter, a senior partner and North America director at global leadership development firm Potential Project, says many are missing this highly effective use of AI tools. She recently co-wrote a book on the topic, 'More Human, How the Power of AI Can Transform the Way You Lead.' I spoke with Carter about how to make AI your new leadership coach. This conversation has been edited for length, clarity and continuity. How can AI be used to help with leadership effectively? Carter: It can save us time. As a leader, time is one of the most valuable commodities. I can more quickly draft an email. It can take notes for me at a meeting so that I don't have to worry about being able to remember what the priorities were. A lot of organizations right now are looking at implementing systems that do what AI does best, which is collect data, collect information and consolidate. That can be really amazing for leaders to be able to step out of management activities and lean more into leadership. The big question is, what are you going to do with that time saved? What we're concerned about is, 'It helped me write this email faster. I'm going to just write more emails.' There's a real opportunity to use that time to be able to have more human connections, and be more present with your people. AI can help with that, too. For a performance review, there's some amazing AI tools. You can say, 'Here's some of the things that I know about [an employee]. Here's what I need to talk to her about. What would be a good way to approach this conversation, because I think it's going to be a little bit challenging.' AI can consolidate that information. But the key thing is to be able to make sure that I'm really focusing on you and having that really personalized experience using the technology, and leveraging it to be able to be more human. We've also seen amazing tools that can identify sentiment analysis, help a leader to be able to understand: I sent out a message about a major communication last week. What's the sentiment in the organization? That's data that we would never be able to have. That's what AI does well, and it can be gold for leaders. The final thing that we see is that it can be a great coach. A lot of leaders that we work with are creating their own AI avatars where they share a lot of personal information about themselves. But then they can have a coach in the pocket. It can be like, 'I'm about to have a conversation with [an employee]. Based on what you know about me, what do you think could be some of the blind spots?' From your perspective, what would the ideal AI-augmented leadership look like? There's three core qualities of effective leadership. The first one is awareness: being aware of what's going on inside and outside. Wisdom: the ability to be able to make good decisions and discern. And finally, the ability to bring compassion to the table: Being able to do hard things, but do them in a human way. There [are] key ways that we can enhance our awareness, our wisdom, our compassion. From an awareness perspective, we know that human beings are amazing at context. Who am I talking to? Why is this important? Do I care? Should I care? Am I tired? Should I not have this conversation if I haven't had enough sleep? This is context. AI is amazing at content. That's a real way to be able to move from my limited awareness to be able to leverage AI, which has amazing content to be able to help me in terms of enhancing my awareness. Content would be, 'Hey, that email that you sent out last week about the organizational change, people don't like it.' That's adding to my awareness. On the wisdom side, human beings are amazing at being curious and asking questions. AI is amazing at giving answers. That interplay, and then questioning the answers is a great way to play with the tool. It actually enhances our ability to make good decisions. If you ask questions like, 'What am I not thinking?' or 'What's a really bad way to go about what I'm about to do?', this is a way to expand our wisdom. On the compassion side, because AI systems are designed to embed human empathy, human intelligence and models of good leadership, we can use those algorithms to be able to bring our human heart to the table. I want to be able to support my team in feeling more connected. Use those algorithms. Those algorithms can really help you to be able to enhance it. The augmented leader of the future—which is really now—is a both/and leader. They look at ways to be able to leverage the technology to be able to support their awareness, wisdom, compassion, and they also double down on being more aware, wise, compassionate. Where would you tell a business leader who has been thinking of using AI to enhance leadership to start? There's two important places to start. We believe that in the age of AI, we need to make sure that we're developing the best of our human capabilities and human qualities. As AI gets more and more advanced, we need to make sure that equally we're being the best versions of ourselves. The starting point should always be your own humility, your own awareness of your limitations, your own ability to be able to set your vision? What kind of a leader do I want to be? Those are kind of the foundational questions that then will enable you to use the tools better. The starting point is around you and your own ability to be able to really know yourself well and [figure out] what are your opportunities? Then start playing around. Start experimenting with the tools, because the tools are fun to play with. Make it an adventure. And really challenge yourself to be creative about how you start to leverage the tools. If you're asking questions and it's giving answers that you think are not very helpful, there's two things that I would say to that. The first is that the AI that you're using today is already the worst AI that you'll ever use. A lot of times when we don't get good answers, it's because we're not asking good questions. If you're asking a simple question—draft an email for me—and you're not providing context [or] saying what you want, the outcomes, how do I want [the recipient] to feel, you are not providing enough context to be able to then get good content. If you get a bad answer, challenge yourself to be able to provide more context, ask better questions, bring more heart to the table. COMINGS + GOINGS Food production giant Hormel Foods will tap Jeffrey Ettinger as its interim chief executive officer, effective July 14. Ettinger worked in the same role from 2005 to 2016, and is currently board chair for the Hormel Foundation. He was selected for a 15-month appointment after a search to replace retiring CEO James Snee. will tap as its interim chief executive officer, effective July 14. Ettinger worked in the same role from 2005 to 2016, and is currently board chair for the Hormel Foundation. He was selected for a 15-month appointment after a search to replace retiring CEO James Snee. Luxury group Kering appointed Luca de Meo as chief executive officer, effective September 15. De Meo joins the company from Renault, and current CEO and son of the founder François-Henri Pinault will continue in his board chair role. appointed as chief executive officer, effective September 15. De Meo joins the company from Renault, and current CEO and son of the founder François-Henri Pinault will continue in his board chair role. Children's entertainment company Spin Master selected Christina Miller as its next chief executive officer, effective July 7. Miller has served on the firm's board for the last five years, and she will succeed Max Rangel. Send us C-suite transition news at forbescsuite@ STRATEGIES + ADVICE The Trump Administration is ramping up its crackdown on immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally or are no longer authorized to work. Here's what employers should know to prepare for potential impacts on your employees and company. Part of what's making work feel burdensome could be carrying the weight of problems that are actually keeping you from advancing. Here are five ways to get beyond doing things the way you've always done them and move toward improving your business. QUIZ The U.S. had the highest number of new millionaires in the world last year, according to the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025. How many Americans earned millionaire status for the first time in an average day? A. 100 B. 500 C. 1,000 D. 1,500 See if you got it right here.

Business Insider

7 minutes ago

• Business Insider

Iran has warned it could retaliate. The US has a lot of firepower ready to respond.

The US military is bracing for possible retribution from the Iranians after American forces, including stealth bomber aircraft and a guided-missile submarine, attacked three of its main nuclear facilities over the weekend. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the country "reserves all options" to defend itself, and an Iranian military spokesperson said the US should expect "consequences," according to state-affiliated media. President Donald Trump warned Tehran that any retaliation would be met with more force than the initial strikes he ordered. Whether Iran pursues retaliation remains to be seen. The bombing mission over the weekend struck at the heart of its nuclear program, making the situation potentially far more escalatory than the killing of a top Iranian general in 2020, which saw Tehran fire ballistic missiles at US forces in the Middle East in response. The US military has a very large force presence in and around the Middle East right now, including land and naval bases that Iran could target in strikes. It also has air defense assets, such as warships and surface-to-air missile systems, that could shield forces from a retaliatory attack. Many of these assets could also be used to carry out a punitive response in the event of Iranian retaliation. At sea A defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss force posture, told Business Insider on Monday that the US Navy has two carrier strike groups in the Arabian Sea. This includes the aircraft carriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Nimitz, one cruiser, and five destroyers. Each carrier strike group has an embarked air wing consisting of dozens of fighter jets, surveillance aircraft, and helicopters. The Vinson is one of just a few US carriers that is currently equipped with advanced, fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighter jets in its air wing. These advanced aircraft are specially designed for the Navy so they can take off from and land on the carrier. The official said two destroyers are in the Red Sea and five more are in the nearby eastern Mediterranean Sea. The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford could eventually join them. Its strike group is leaving Virginia on Tuesday for a regularly scheduled deployment to Europe, but it is available to be retasked. As of Saturday, a guided-missile submarine was at an undisclosed location in the Middle East, as it participated in the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The official declined to say if it was still there. On land The US has around 40,000 troops stationed throughout the Middle East, serving at major military installations in countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. There are concerns that Iran may choose to target US bases or smaller military outposts, which would not be unprecedented. After a US drone strike eliminated Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020, Tehran retaliated by launching missiles at American forces in Iraq. Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US had elevated force protection measures across the Middle East before the weekend strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, especially in Iraq, Syria, and in the Gulf states. "Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice," Caine told reporters on Sunday. He said the US will defend itself, adding that "the safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority." The US military has multiple MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries and at least one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — or THAAD — system in the Middle East. These can be used to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles. A US official told BI last week that the US military has provided both land- and sea-based air defense for Israel since the country started its strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities on June 13. It's unclear how many Iranian retaliatory missiles American forces have intercepted. In the air The US Air Force has a range of aircraft in the Middle East, including fourth- and fifth-generation fighter jets, strike drones, and refueling tankers. After Israel began its bombing campaign earlier this month, but prior to the US joining over the weekend, Reuters reported that additional F-16, F-22, and F-35 fighter jets had deployed to American bases. A-10 attack aircraft and F-15s are also in the region. The Pentagon declined to provide a rundown of the aircraft in the region, and US Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, did not immediately respond to BI's request for clarity on US assets in the region. US fighter aircraft could shoot down Iranian attack drones launched in retaliation, as they did in April 2024 in defense of Israel. They are also capable of intercepting cruise missiles with air-to-air munitions. Iran's response, however, may not be limited to military actions such as launching missiles and drones. There are concerns about terror threats, and it could also opt to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil transit chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. On Monday, the US Embassy in Qatar warned American citizens to shelter in place until further notice, just hours before Doha closed its airspace. It's possible that Iran could choose to retaliate against US interests in the Gulf state.