• I got a body composition analysis through my gym, with a trainer explaining the results to me.
• While my BMI and muscle mass were in healthy ranges, my body fat was not.
• The results encouraged me to add more weights at the gym and drink more water.

If there was ever a time for me to scan my body for any health weaknesses, it was now. As the new year began, I got back into working out almost every day and kicked off Dry January.

I was ready: I booked a 30-minute body composition analysis at Life Time, a popular athletic club. A trainer met me and explained the process: I would take off my shoes and socks (of course when I forgot to repaint my toenails) and stand on an InBody body composition analyzer.

The scanning process took about five minutes. First, the machine weighed me, then scanned my skeletal muscle mass, body fat, and water content when I held the hand electrodes.

At first, my stats looked good. I quickly glanced at the printout and saw my BMI was in the healthy range. So was, to my pleasant surprise, my muscle mass — strength training seemed to pay off!

It was when he reviewed my body fat percentage that I panicked a little. I'd like to say it was an overdue wake-up call, but it was more a confirmation of what I already knew: I needed to change my routine.

The hot new trend of measuring body composition

The scanner, made by InBody, was first developed in South Korea in the late '90s as an alternative to traditional scales. By the early 2000s, the first InBody body composition scanners hit the US market.

In 2020, InBody unveiled new technology at CES, a high-profile science conference. This update could ostensibly analyze abdominal fat and total body water, advancing the accuracy of body composition results.

In the years to follow, body composition scans became popular due to their ability to better measure overall health than BMI does.

An InBody 570, like the one I tried, can cost up to $15,000. Getting an InBody scan is considered to be a more affordable and convenient alternative to a DEXA scan, which uses X-ray images to measure how much muscle, fat, and bone you have. New DEXA scanners cost anywhere between $45,000 to $80,000 and can only be used by healthcare providers, while personal trainers can operate InBody machines.

DEXA scans are considered to be more accurate than InBody, which can produce skewed results if you eat right before, drink alcohol 24 hours before, or apply hand lotion.

BMI doesn't tell the whole story

I've known for a long time that BMI isn't a great health metric because it doesn't separate the weight differences between muscle and fat.

Still, because mine was always in the "healthy" range, I used it as a quick barometer of my overall health, the same way I listen to my horoscope if it tells me I'm crushing it at life.

While my BMI and skeletal muscle weight were both in healthy ranges, my body fat percentage was slightly over the healthy limit. I also had the maximum healthy limit of visceral fat, fat stored near my internal organs.

Right now, my trainer said, I'm at a "crossroads" with my visceral body-fat ratio. It's still easy enough for me to reverse through diet and more challenging exercise. But if it keeps increasing, he said I'll be at a higher risk for developing heart disease later on in life, even if my BMI remains the same.

The analysis gave me targets for how much body fat to lose and muscle to gain to be maximally fit. Knowing my body, hitting those targets would require me to essentially live at the gym and be incredibly strict with my diet, two things I'm not willing to do.

However, I agree with the broader goal: lose some body fat and gain a little bit of muscle, which requires monitoring my diet and getting my heart rate up at the gym.

My diet needs work

My trainer said that most of the work will be in my diet, meaning I would need a calorie deficit. He said I should prioritize whole foods like lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and grains, essentially following the Mediterranean diet.

I've already been focused on getting more protein and eating enough plant-based foods. My breakfast is either oatmeal with berries and peanut butter or scrambled eggs. Every week, I meal-prep some variation of fish with vegetables and grains. Even when I make pasta at home, it's always whole wheat with a homemade sauce.

When the new year started, I cut alcohol to improve my health, something that will definitely help me lose body fat. I've also been working on eating smaller portions. When I was training for a marathon or preparing to deadlift my heaviest, I got into the habit of eating a lot more than I used to. Now that I'm not doing either, all that extra food is being converted into fat I'm not burning off.

I still have room for improvement. He said I should drink more water, which can help with fat loss. Reflecting on my diet, I could be more mindful about how many little treats I give myself in a day (probably should be less than three!). Given his emphasis on unprocessed foods, I knew I had to tweak my diet to include more fruits and vegetables.

The same day I got the assessment, I texted my husband: our comfort dinner of miso-butter pasta was going to come with some salad.

Heart rate is key

When I started running a decade ago, I quickly dropped about 15 pounds without changing much about my diet.

More recently, I started going to strength classes about two to three times a week, and running between two and five miles on the other days, with usually one rest day. I also live in a city, so I often walk or bike to get places.

Done together, I thought this would keep me lean and healthy.

My trainer explained that it isn't so simple: if I'm more leisurely with my runs (which I am), I'm not getting my heart rate up high enough to burn fat. It matters less that I can run a marathon than how fast I can go.

The same thing goes for strength training: if I'm not actively increasing the weight I lift, I'm not building enough muscle to experience the fat-burning benefits.

When I had a strength training class later that day, I challenged myself to sprint more in the running portion and lift heavier on my bench press.

Additionally, I wrote down my weights so I could track my improvement.

A few days later, I chose to join a faster pace group in my run club. It was challenging, but doable — exactly what the trainer said I should aim for.

He also said HIIT classes could help me burn fat and gain muscle, so I'm planning to try one soon.

While it initially stung to hear that I wasn't in as excellent health as I thought, I also learned how in control I am of my body. I was already working on fine-tuning my eating habits and gym routine. The body composition analysis is just there to remind me why I do it.

• As Donald Trump returns to the White House, loyalty will be a key aspect of his second term.
• Unlike 2017, Trump is no longer a political outsider adjusting to Washington for the first time.
• On Inauguration Day, Trump will be sworn in with a firm grip on the Republican Party.

When President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in for a second term on January 20, a lot will have changed since his 2017 inauguration, when he came into office as a political outsider who still elicited skepticism from many in Washington's Republican political class.

"They just weren't expecting to win," Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider about Trump's victory in 2016. "This time, there's an entire infrastructure. He has plans. There's Project 2025. He's much more like a traditional candidate who's ready to start governing on Day One."

Here's a look at how Trump and the country have entered a whole new era as the start of the president-elect's second term approaches:

Trump has raked in post-election cash

From Meta and Amazon to Ford and GM, a wide range of businesses and CEOs have contributed to Trump's inaugural fund.

In 2017, Trump raised $107 million for his inaugural committee, a staggering sum at the time. Just four years earlier, then-President Barack Obama's inaugural committee raised roughly $43 million.

Trump has so far raised at least $170 million for his second inaugural, according to The Associated Press. A full accounting of his inaugural funds isn't due until after he takes office.

Trump's business and tech support has grown

Ahead of Trump's first term, there was optimism among many in the business community over what they saw as his pro-growth agenda.

Trump's $1.5 trillion tax bill, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, was applauded by leaders who had been vocal about the need for American businesses to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

However, Trump's relationships with many of these leaders fizzled after the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., where white nationalist groups unleashed a wave of violence. And many top leaders steered clear of Trump in the immediate aftermath of the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, where legions of pro-Trump supporters stormed the complex in an effort to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory.

After Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in November, though, many business and tech leaders actively began to renew or establish relationships with the incoming commander-in-chief.

Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, was ahead of the curve. He spent lavishly to help elect Trump and other GOP candidates last year, and Musk is now seemingly never too far away from the president-elect during major public appearances.

Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple chief executive Tim Cook, and Musk will be guests at Trump's inaugural, according to NBC News and Bloomberg.

Loge told BI that many businesses have decided that it's "better to be on the Trump train than under it," pointing to the president-elect's penchant for dismissing the traditional workings of Washington and the desire for business leaders to have access to power.

"As a result, a lot of businesses are lining up behind Trump pretty rapidly," he said.

A Cabinet evolution

During Trump's first term, several high-profile members of his Cabinet, like onetime Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had turbulent tenures and were fired by the president.

This time around, Trump is leaning heavily on loyalists and longtime supporters in selecting his second-term Cabinet picks and other high-level appointees.

Many of the names stand out. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York has been tapped to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations, pending Senate confirmation. Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth underwent a tough confirmation hearing but is likely to win enough GOP votes to secure the post. And ex-presidential candidate and Health and Human Services secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who backed Trump's campaign after ending his own candidacy — has emerged as a popular figure in Trumpworld over his stances on food and vaccine policies.

The million dollar question of Trump's second term is whether or not picking loyalists for his Cabinet will give him the sort of stability that he lacked in his first administration.

A less shocking win compared to 2016

Many Americans, who saw the multitude of national polls showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump in 2016, were genuinely surprised when he won that November.

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communication at the University of Southern California and the University of California-Berkeley, told BI that Trump's first election "caused much more disruption" than it did in November 2024.

"The idea of Trump beating Clinton was inconceivable to most of the political universe," Schnur said.

After Trump's tumultuous first term and his lonely exit from Washington after losing to Biden in 2020, a large segment of the public saw the president-elect's political career as finished.

Still, Trump retained his hold over the GOP base, which powered his dominant caucus and primary wins last year. This was the case despite his myriad legal problems, which threatened his general election campaign.

Even as Harris' presidential candidacy spiked enthusiasm among Democrats after Biden stepped aside as the party's nominee, Trump still retained an advantage on the economy — which was a top issue for voters last November.

So when Trump won, it wasn't a shock to many. And the results showed that Trump broadened his appeal, as he won every major swing state and even secured a plurality of the national popular vote.

Congress will be more obedient

Trump is entering his second term with perhaps his strongest influence over Republicans to date. Lawmakers who may have been reluctant to align themselves with Trump in the past have largely put old feelings aside, embracing the fact that Republicans will now control the levers of power in Washington.

Republicans who defy the party on critical votes are more likely to be met with swift repercussions this time around, mostly in the form of primary challenges and pressure campaigns on social media platforms like X.

Trump is also going to be reliant on GOP leaders in Congress — namely House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota — to get his ambitious immigration and tax legislation passed.

However, while Republicans will enjoy a 53-47 edge in the Senate, they currently have a razor-thin 219-215 House majority, which is set to shrink even further following the expected departures of two members for roles in the Trump administration.

The wind is at Trump's back

In 2017, Trump was still a political novice and leaned on the legislative relationships that then-Vice President Mike Pence had amassed during his years on Capitol Hill.

"Back then, he tended to rely on establishment figures whom he felt would give him the necessary credibility in Washington," Schnur told BI. "But he learned over the course of those four years that many of those figures weren't nearly as loyal to him as he had expected."

"This time, he's put much more of a premium on personal relationships and loyalty. He's much more confident that the team around him is motivated toward the same goals as he is," Schnur added.

Trump now has a unified Congress, and he won a second term on the strength of his prior economic record, giving him a level of public support that he lacked early on in his first term.

Once he's is back in office, it'll clearly be a new day in Washington.

When a new year rolls around, social circles split into two groups. The dividing line: alcohol. There are the people doing Dry January, swearing off booze for the month to regroup after the holiday season's indulgence. Then there are the people who have no plans to shift gears — if anything, they're excited that all the January teetotaling means smaller bar crowds. But increasingly, the sober/drinking split is stretching beyond the confines of January into other months and across American culture.

The conversation around sobriety and sober curiosity has become louder and more open in recent years. Whereas 20 years ago a decision to abstain from alcohol was often kept hush-hush (the implication being that the abstainer had a shameful problem), nowadays people are much more open about sitting drinking out. They're skipping happy hours, going on booze-free dates, and laying out their reasoning for sobriety online. The beverage industry has been happy to cater to them, too. IWSR, which covers the alcoholic-beverage industry, said volume in the nonalcohol segment in the US grew by 29% in 2023, driven by young people in particular.

Before everyone does a victory lap about how America's given up on alcohol, it's important to note that the nonalcohol segment is still pretty small — IWSR expects it to make up 4% of the overall alcoholic-beverages market by 2027. And while the modern temperance movement is growing, so too is the high-alcohol-content segment. Americans are increasingly opting for spirits over beer, and ready-to-drink cocktails and high-ABV beers are becoming more popular than middle-of-the-road options.

Polling from Gallup suggests men, white people, college graduates, and higher-income people are among those with a higher propensity to drink. And heavy drinkers consume the bulk of alcohol volume in the US. But many drinkers are incorporating nonalcoholic options into their routines without giving up on booze altogether. They're looking at occasional abstention as a form of moderation. After all, per the market-research firm NIQ, more than 93% of nonalcohol buyers also buy alcoholic drinks.

"The people who are drinking a lot of NA stuff, they just are interested in more flavors and more beverage profiles and things like that," said Dave Infante, a contributing editor and columnist at VinePair who writes a Substack about drinking called Fingers. "So they're just drinking more interesting shit out of everything."

To some extent, drinking culture is moving toward the extremes. Sure, more people are abstaining on a given night — but when people do order an alcoholic drink, they're really going for it. They're getting an old-fashioned, not dialing down to a light beer or two. Instead of forgoing the real thing altogether, Negroni lovers are mixing in a phony Negroni from time to time.

The surgeon general's recent warning that alcohol can cause cancer reiterated for a lot of people something they already (begrudgingly) knew: Drinking is not good for you. The proportion of Americans who say drinking is bad for health has risen quite steadily over the past two decades, per Gallup, even if the amount they drink hasn't changed much. The polling also suggests that the proportion of Americans who consume alcohol has for decades remained relatively stable, at about six in 10. Per-capita consumption of ethanol from alcoholic beverages has stayed at about 2 to 2.5 gallons.

"There's just a lot of evidence that suggests even though we have more alternatives than ever, people are still happy to consume and indulge in something, especially if they feel they can do it responsibly," said Bryan Roth, the director of insights at Sightlines, an analyst group that covers the alcohol industry.

For some people, drinking responsibly means strategically turning alcohol time on and off — sometimes throughout the year or week, sometimes just in a night — and moderating without giving up the bottle entirely. They think it's healthier, even if their doctor might not entirely agree. It's a way to slow down, to get a check on how much they're drinking. And sometimes they just can't afford to be too hungover ahead of a big workday.

"If all people who were buying Athletic beers and Bud Zeros were 100% sober, that would be one thing, but what we find is a good majority of people are sort of mixing and matching," said Nadine Sarwat, an analyst who covers the beverage and cannabis industries at Bernstein.

Some people set rules for themselves about when alcohol is allowed. They eschew alcohol on weekdays and leave it only for the weekends — so they'll drink alcoholic beer on a Friday but a nonalcoholic beer at lunch on a Wednesday. Or they'll replace that bottle of cabernet with a 0% option a few nights a week to take it easy. Some drinkers take part in Damp January and reduce their alcohol intake instead of going totally dry. Or there are those who attempt a harder and longer reset with the "75 Hard" challenge, which says no alcohol (or cheat meals, or, seemingly, fun) for 75 days. (There's a "75 Soft" for those who want some semblance of joy.)

Day to day, at the bar or a party, some drinkers are doing what's been dubbed "zebra striping," where they alternate between alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages — a Manhattan one round and a mocktail the next. It's a more festive — albeit expensive — tactic than chugging a glass of water between drinks. In other instances, they incorporate "bookending," where they begin and end the night with an NA option. Or they go NA for the "fourth quarter," finishing off the night with a few alcohol-free drinks, emulating what stadiums do toward the end of sporting events.

"It then becomes a method of pacing so you can just kind of maintain," said Joaquín Simó, the global brand ambassador and mixologist for On the Rocks Cocktails. "What I am hearing anecdotally a lot more too is just people who are like, 'Yeah, I know I have to tone it down, but I don't want to give it up entirely. So I'm doing this as a means of dipping my toes not necessarily into sobriety but more into temperance.'"

Kaleigh Theriault, an associate director of beverage-alcohol thought leadership at NIQ, said that while nonalcoholic options appeal to people of many ages in many locations, higher-income people tend to favor them. Even as young people drink less overall and look for more ways to have booze-free fun, many are still imbibing. That NA IPA is combined with an 8% IPA that will knock their socks off.

"What we see with Gen Z is they want non-alc, but they also want those high-ABV beers as well," she said.

But the strongest indicator that someone will be into an NA option is that they're also an alcohol drinker, or at least a buyer. (Some proportion of NA purchasers are probably buying for parties and gatherings for other people to drink.) That many NA drinkers would also be alcohol drinkers tracks. If you don't really have a taste for alcohol, you might spring for a fun mocktail from time to time, but you may also just go with a Diet Coke, which you like better, has fewer calories, and is cheaper. And if you've never been a beer drinker, you're probably not jazzed about downing an NA one.

"No one likes the taste of beer when they first drink it," Sarwat said. "I think that's a universal truth."

For people who have given up drinking, NA options can be appealing, especially as the offerings get better in stores and at restaurants and bars. But as Laura Silverman, the founder of Zero Proof Nation, which is dedicated to the NA-beverage industry, told me, some people who have experienced problem drinking may opt to steer clear of them as they work on their sobriety.

"For people who have had problems with alcohol, many doctors and psychiatrists and stuff, they recommend not going down the path of some of these nonalcoholic beverages because they can be triggering for some people," she said. "I think it's completely individualized."

There's also a divide in the types of nonalcoholic beverages people are consuming — some categories are doing better than others. Most of the analysts and people in the industry I talked to for this story said NA beer was pretty good and close enough to the real thing price-wise that it's compelling to swap in. Many were not so bullish about wine and cocktails — Simó said that besides the sparkling options, most NA wine was "not good," and he described NA distillates as "hot trash." Silverman was more optimistic about the taste and price points.

"Where we were before, everything was sort of premium because it was the only thing that was available," Silverman said. "Not everything has an exorbitant price point anymore, but there is a wide range, and some things are quite expensive."

On the whole, Americans aren't drinking markedly less than they were in the past, but they are drinking differently. Some of the divides and distinctions are complicated to parse.

Gallup has found that while young people report drinking less than previous generations did, older people report drinking more. Gen Z is, for now, straighter-edged than the generations before them in terms of alcohol, but that doesn't necessarily amount to "the kids will be saints forever." With marijuana legal in so many states, some may be opting for cannabis products instead. Drinking is a social activity, and as young people socialize less, they skip out on imbibing, too. Many Gen Zers are still under the legal drinking age, and their consumption habits might change once they're not breaking the law. Roth, from Sightlines, told me that so far, as Gen Zers hit 21, they appear to be drinking about the same amount millennials did when they got into their 20s.

"What we see younger people do in terms of their attitudes toward drinking is very in line with how adults are shifting their attitudes and thought processes toward it as well," Roth said. "It's just a greater understanding of how it impacts you."

Consumers have more options now for drinking than ever. A lot of those options are concentrated at the bottom and at the top, with a sort of hollowing out of the middle. Instead of a 4.2% ABV Bud Light, they're going for a 0% Athletic or a 9% Voodoo Ranger IPA. Or they're swapping a six-pack of Miller Lite for a martini that really packs a punch.

"Demand is gravitating either to the high end of the ABV spectrum or the zero-ABV spectrum," Infante said.

Meanwhile, younger and older generations alike are thinking about their habits and choices — maybe never drinking, or maybe opting in sometimes and out others.

"We do see this broader trend of moderation happening across the industry," Theriault said.

In the ideal, healthiest world, Americans would probably give up on drinking, perhaps except for the most special occasions (and even the surgeon general would likely say that's a no-no). We'd also have a perfectly balanced diet of fiber and proteins and get in those 10,000 steps a day plus strength training and eight hours of sleep. But we do not live in the ideal, healthiest world; we live in the real one, where drinking is not going to "poof!" disappear. Part-time sober — or mindful drinking or whatever you want to call it — might be the best some people can do, or are at least willing to do, right now. And in an alcohol market that's increasingly split between super sober and hella boozy, it's an understandable impulse. That lunchtime beer was never a good idea anyway — let alone the lunchtime martini. Swap it out for a Heineken 0.0 or a mocktail, and leave the good stuff for Friday night.

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

• Universal basic income is recurring cash payments for participants, no strings attached.
• Traditional welfare restricts spending to specific categories, like healthcare or groceries.
• Basic-income policy could supplement welfare but likely wouldn't replace the existing safety net.

As America's cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income. might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country's budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

How does UBI differ from welfare?

The US's welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don't have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

Could UBI replace welfare?

Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that's drawn from the state's oil revenue.

True UBI hasn't been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a "Freedom Dividend," which would've given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would've made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it's not financially sustainable and gives people "free money."

"We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary," Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

In most of America's basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

"Anyone who's had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income," a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. "This is just assisting us in our time of need."

Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a "welfare trap" and an "unconstitutional" use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

"We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future," Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income's financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.

• The ex-aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy began its final journey to the scrapyard.
• The decommissioned vessel was the last conventionally powered flattop built by the US Navy.
• The Kennedy namesake will continue with the future Ford-class nuclear-powered supercarrier.

The decommissioned aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy embarked on its final journey to be dismantled earlier this week.

The Kennedy was moored at the Navy's Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility in Philadelphia for nearly two decades before being sold to scrap dealers for just a cent.

The Kennedy namesake will live on in the future Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. PCU Kennedy, the second-in-class ship, is scheduled to be commissioned in 2025, three years behind schedule.

Navy's last conventionally powered carrier

Commissioned in September 1968, the Kennedy was the fourth and final vessel in the Kitty Hawk class, initially designated as an attack aircraft carrier.

Comprised of the first-in-class Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation, USS America, and the Kennedy, the vessels were the last group of carriers to be powered by fossil fuels, which were replaced by the Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered flattops.

The name honored the president slain five years before, who had served as a naval officer during World War II. After his motor torpedo boat was rammed and sunk by a Japanese destroyer, he famously helped save his men from the water and relayed their stranded location to nearby allies by writing on a coconut husk.

Only ship of its class

After undergoing heavy modifications to adapt to a broader range of missions, the Kennedy became a class of its own, changing its classification to CV-67.

Nicknamed "Big John," the Kennedy completed 18 deployments over nearly four decades in service, including operations in the Mediterranean, Tyrrhenian, Ionian, Ligurian, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas.

In 2005, the Navy decided the cost of the maintenance overhaul for the aging carrier outweighed the benefits, opting to retire the ship instead. The aircraft carrier was taken out of service in August 2007 and towed to Philadelphia, moored alongside other inactive Navy vessels.

Deployed to the Mediterranean

The Kennedy was notably involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the 1970s and deployed to the Middle East as part of the US response to the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

The vessel was also sent to waters off the coast of Lebanon after a suicide bomber struck the US Marine Corps Multi-National Forces Barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 241 Marines.

Aircraft aboard CV-67 launched the first major strikes on Iraq on the night of January 17, 1991, lighting up the night sky as the 80 sorties flying over Baghdad were pummeled with heavy fire from below.

"Imagine the Disney World light show, then magnify it 100 times," one pilot said. "That's what it looked like from the sky last night… it was incredible!"

9/11 terror attacks

The Kennedy and its battle group were also briefly deployed to the mid-Atlantic coastline to support the Nimitz-class carrier USS George Washington, establishing air security following the terror attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001.

"While John F. Kennedy Battle Group's services were needed for only a brief time, every member of the Battle Group was proud of their role in Operation Noble Eagle, providing security along the eastern seaboard of the United States," an observer with the Kennedy's battle group wrote, per the Navy.

The Kennedy also played an early role in the war in Afghanistan, launching the first air strikes off the coast of Pakistan that commenced Operation Enduring Freedom.

One of the greatest military pranks

Not only will the Kennedy go down in history for its involvement in key conflicts in US history, but it was also the setting of one of the greatest military pranks of all time.

A Navy tradition dating back to the 1960s, crews aboard Navy aircraft carriers would prank the sailors aboard the relieving ship by releasing greased pigs on its flight deck.

When the Kennedy was set to relieve the Kitty Hawk-class supercarrier USS America in 1986, aviators aboard the America dropped off an unusual payload on the new arrivals: three greased pigs dyed with red, white, and blue food coloring.

It's #NationalPigDay! Dating back to the early 60s, a prank played by carriers in the Mediterranean was to surprise their relieving carrier by releasing greased pigs on the flight deck. This 1986 video is of a helicopter from USS America dropping off pigs on USS John F. Kennedy. pic.twitter.com/LL6UHnfk0V

— U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) March 1, 2022

Final journey

In 2021, the Navy sold two old aircraft carriers — the Kennedy and the Kitty Hawk — to scrap dealers for just one cent each.

Though towing and breaking down the ship for scrap is a costly process, the profit from selling scrap steel, iron, and non-ferrous metal ores will benefit the company.

After 17 years at the Navy's decommissioned ship facility, Big John embarked on its final voyage to International Shipbreaking Limited's scrap metal yard in Brownsville, Texas.

Departing from the Philadelphia naval facility, the ship is set to sail into Delaware Bay and into the North Atlantic Ocean before transiting south, around the Florida peninsula, and then across the Gulf of Mexico.

The next JFK

The Kennedy namesake will live on in the future Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.

Expected to be delivered to the Navy in the summer of 2025, the second-in-class PCU John F. Kennedy touts a hefty $11 billion price tag — albeit $2 billion shy of the $13 billion first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford.

Measuring 1,092 feet in length — only a few feet shy of the height of the Eiffel Tower — the future Kennedy will be able to accommodate more than 75 aircraft.

Powered by two nuclear reactors, the Navy said its newest warship will incorporate nearly two dozen technological upgrades to make it more efficient, including improvements in propulsion, power generation, ordnance handling, and aircraft launch systems.

''USS John F. Kennedy will carry the legacy of its namesake and the power of our nation,'' then-acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said in a 2019 statement. ''The advanced technology and warfighting capabilities this aircraft carrier brings to our global challenges will strengthen our allies and partners, extend our reach against potential adversaries, and further the global mission of our integrated naval force.''

Carrying on the Kennedy legacy

At just 9 years old, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the 35th president, was chosen as the sponsor for the first carrier named after her father.

Fifty-two years later, Caroline Kennedy was once again selected to be the sponsor of the future CVN-79, christening the ship in December 2019 in a ceremony attended by over 20,000 people at Newport News shipyard.

"Having a chance to get to know the people who served on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) really gave me insight into who he was and what kind of leader he was in a way that I wouldn't have had any other way," Caroline Kennedy said. "And I know that's going to be just as true now with a whole new generation."

New construction approach

Navy Capt. Todd Marzano, then the commanding officer of the Kennedy, told Business Insider said the Kennedy's construction was streamlined by improvements from the inefficiencies and delays that plagued the Ford.

"We are definitely benefiting from being the second aircraft carrier in the class," Marzano said in 2019. "We're leveraging their lessons learned, which has helped not only from the construction side but from our sailor training."

Using a modular process, workers built smaller sections of the ship to form a superlift, a structural unit fitted with piping, electrical equipment, cable, ventilation, and joiner work, before bringing it to the assembly area on the dry dock.

The second-in-class carrier was launched into the James River three months ahead of schedule in October 2019 — then set to be delivered to the Navy in 2022.

Plagued by delays

Despite being leagues ahead of schedule compared to its predecessor, the Kennedy was not immune to shipbuilding delays of its own. The carrier's delivery date kept being pushed back, due in part to supply chain issues brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and delays in the ship's capability upgrades.

At first, PCU Kennedy wasn't designed to launch fifth-generation stealth fighters, prompting Congress in 2020 to step in and pause the delivery of the $13 billion flattop until it was retrofitted to support the aircraft, which cost over $100 million.

Testing its catapult

In February 2024, the future supercarrier tested its new electromagnetic aircraft launching system by catapulting 80,000-pound wheeled carts into the James River to ensure it could handle actual loaded aircraft.

An improvement on the Nimitz class' steam-powered catapult, the EMALS has a higher launch capacity, sending aircraft barreling down the 300-foot track at over 150 miles per hour.

The modernized catapult and arresting gear are also optimized for more accurate end-speed control, reducing stress on the aircraft.

Joining the Pacific Fleet

The Navy said the second-in-class carrier is now expected to be delivered in July 2025 to perform more work and prepare it for its first deployment in the Indo-Pacific.

The Navy said that assigning the Kennedy to the Pacific fleet would cut down the amount of time the carrier needed at the shipyard to identify any issues with the ship's systems, equipment, or performance.

Deploying the Kennedy to the Indo-Pacific is also intended to strengthen the US' naval presence in the region amid heightened tensions with China.

"Our adversaries are modernizing at speeds akin to the Germans and Japanese during the Interwar period — both in the physical and technological sense," US Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Daryl Caudle said in June 2024.

"Winning this competition means achieving an overmatch of our adversaries," he added. "That necessitates having a fleet of technologically advanced warships with the readiness and lethal capabilities to answer our nation's call at a moment's notice."