PR in the Philippines

WASHINGTON — President Trump will travel to western North Carolina and Los Angeles on Friday, his first trip of his second term, to survey areas where political considerations have influenced disaster relief efforts. The President has criticized former President Biden's handling of the North Carolina disaster response and expressed disapproval of California's water management policies, falsely linking them to recent wildfires. Trump is also considering FEMA restructuring. Some conservative allies suggest reducing federal reimbursement to states for disaster-related expenses. The White House has reportedly requested a roundtable discussion with California Democrats at a Santa Monica hangar during the President's visit, according to a source who wished to remain anonymous due to authorization constraints. Any meeting could prove contentious. Trump has hinted at using disaster aid as leverage in legislative negotiations or to pressure California to change its water policies. “Southern California and California has always been there for other regions of the country in their time of crisis, and we expect our country to be there for us,” Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, stated this week. Trump has a history of injecting partisan politics and misinformation into disaster responses. During his first term, he reportedly discussed limiting aid to states that did not support him. During last year’s presidential campaign, he unsubstantiatedly claimed Democrats hindered aid to Republican areas of North Carolina. More recently, he falsely claimed that California's water policies, specifically fish conservation efforts, led to water shortages in Los Angeles. “I don’t think we should give California anything until they let the water run down,” Trump said on Wednesday. The President also suggested shifting more disaster management responsibilities to individual states. “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems,” he stated, adding that “FEMA is getting in the way of everything.” Michael Coen, former FEMA chief of staff under the Biden administration, called Trump's comments “misinformed,” highlighting FEMA’s crucial role in assisting overwhelmed states. Coen further criticized the idea of conditioning aid. “You’re going to pick winners and losers on which communities are going to be supported by the federal government,” he said. “I think the American people expect the federal government will be there for them on their worst day, no matter where they live.” During his first presidency, Trump visited numerous disaster zones but often generated controversy, such as his comments to Hurricane Maria survivors in Puerto Rico. “If you’re a disaster survivor, no matter who you voted for, it’s always good when the president comes to town,” said Pete Gaynor, former FEMA head during the Trump administration (2019-2021). “You can see him and hopefully talk to him about what you need in your community.” Laurie Carpenter, a 62-year-old North Carolina retiree, expressed anticipation for Trump's visit due to her dissatisfaction with the federal response. She noted persistent debris and trash months after Hurricane Helene. “If anybody’s going to do something about it, I think he will,” Carpenter said. Trump appointed Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL with limited disaster management experience, as FEMA's acting director. He advocated for state-led disaster response with subsequent federal funding. Biden pledged full federal coverage of Los Angeles wildfire response costs, potentially the costliest US natural disaster, but this requires Congressional funding. Friday’s trip may spark discussions on climate change, a topic Trump has downplayed and denied. Both Hurricane Helene and the Los Angeles wildfires were worsened by climate change. World Weather Attribution's study indicated climate change increased Hurricane Helene's rainfall by 10%. California's record dry fall and winter increased Los Angeles' wildfire vulnerability. “This is just breaking our comfort zone of what is supposed to be normal,” stated University of Oregon researcher Amanda Stasiewicz. Following his North Carolina and California visits, Trump plans a Saturday rally in Las Vegas. Advisors say he will detail plans to exclude tips from federal taxes, celebrating his Nevada election victory. “I’m going to go to Nevada to thank them,” Trump said. He was the first Republican to win the state since George W. Bush in 2004. Las Vegas' economy relies heavily on the hospitality and service industries, where tips are crucial. However, exempting tips from taxes would be complex and require Congressional action for permanence. —Associated Press writers Stephen Groves, Seth Borenstein and Makiya Seminera contributed to this report.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on artificial intelligence, overturning previous government policies deemed obstacles to American AI advancement. To retain global AI leadership, the order emphasizes the need for AI systems free from ideological bias or manipulative social agendas. While the order doesn't specify which policies are hindering AI progress, it mandates a comprehensive review of all related policies, directives, regulations, orders, and actions stemming from former President Biden's AI executive order (rescinded on Monday). Any conflicting Biden-era actions will be suspended unless they align with Trump's directive promoting human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security. Last year, the Biden administration mandated that federal agencies demonstrate the safety of their AI tools or cease their use. Trump's order instructs the White House to revise and reissue these directives, impacting how agencies acquire and utilize AI tools. The Trump administration contends that Biden's executive order imposed excessively burdensome requirements on AI developers and deployers, stifling private sector innovation and jeopardizing American technological leadership. Trump's order also calls for an AI action plan within 180 days, led by a White House team including a new Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, David Sacks. Trump repealed Biden's 2023 AI regulatory framework shortly after his return to the White House. This action potentially undoes Biden administration efforts—led by then-Vice President Kamala Harris—to mitigate the discriminatory impacts of AI, addressing issues such as biased medical chatbots and discriminatory face recognition technology. Prior to Thursday, Trump's intentions regarding a replacement for Biden's AI policy were unclear. Trump had previously issued AI executive orders, including a 2019 order promoting AI research and development, which remains in effect. A former Biden administration official criticized Trump's order as "backward-looking," suggesting it aims to dismantle helpful initiatives. She argued that Biden's AI policies balanced innovation and public protection. The official questioned which Americans' rights and safety the Trump administration would prioritize and whether the playing field would remain level for all technologists or only benefit tech billionaires. Much of Biden's 2023 order involved government-wide studies on AI's impact, aiming to ensure AI's responsible use. This work is largely complete. A key element rescinded by Trump was a requirement for tech companies to share details of powerful AI models with the government before public release. The Trump order's emphasis on "human flourishing" aligns with his campaign promise to overturn Biden's AI policy and reflects views of his advisor, who has cautioned against "woke AI" reflecting liberal biases. Americans for Responsible Innovation stated that Trump's top AI priority is out-innovating the world. The organization's executive director described the executive order as a temporary measure pending a comprehensive strategy. Agencies had already paused work on Biden-era AI policies following Trump's initial repeal, according to the organization. The organization characterized the new instruction as unsurprising.

President Donald Trump has authorized the release of numerous classified government documents concerning the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a subject of long-standing conspiracy theories. Thursday's executive order also covers the declassification of remaining federal records related to the deaths of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. This is one of several swift executive actions taken by Trump during his second term's initial week. Addressing reporters, Trump declared, “everything will be revealed.” During his reelection campaign, Trump promised to publicly release the remaining classified documents surrounding President Kennedy's assassination, a decades-long point of public fascination. While making a similar pledge in his first term, he ultimately yielded to requests from the CIA and FBI to retain some documents under wraps. Trump's new administration includes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of the slain president, as the nominee for health secretary. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s father, Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated in 1968 while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. The younger Kennedy has expressed skepticism about the lone gunman theory in his uncle's assassination. The order mandates that the director of national intelligence and the attorney general create a plan within 15 days for releasing the remaining John F. Kennedy records, and within 45 days for the other two cases. The exact release date remains uncertain. Trump presented the signing pen to an aide, instructing its delivery to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Only a few thousand of the millions of government records pertaining to President Kennedy's assassination remain fully classified. While experts suggest the public shouldn't anticipate groundbreaking revelations, significant public interest persists in details surrounding the assassination and related events. “The possibility remains that something overlooked could be the tip of a much larger iceberg,” stated Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of “The Kennedy Half-Century.” “That's what researchers hope to uncover. However, it's unlikely, though possible.” Kennedy was fatally shot in downtown Dallas on November 22, 1963, as his motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository, where 24-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald fired from a sixth-floor sniper's nest. Two days later, nightclub owner Jack Ruby fatally shot Oswald during a prison transfer. In the early 1990s, the federal government mandated that all assassination-related documents be compiled into a single collection at the National Archives and Records Administration. This collection, exceeding 5 million records, was scheduled for public release by 2017, with presidential exemptions allowed. The order acknowledges that while no congressional act mandates the release of information on the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy or King, making these government records public “is also in the public interest.” During his first term, Trump claimed he would release all remaining records on the president's assassination but ultimately withheld some due to concerns about national security risks. Although some files have been subsequently released under President Biden, others remain inaccessible. Sabato, who mentors student researchers working with these documents, estimates that approximately 3,000 records, many originating from the CIA, remain unreleased, either fully or partially. Documents released in recent years provide insights into the operations of intelligence services at that time, including CIA cables and memos detailing Oswald's visits to Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City shortly before the assassination. Oswald, a former Marine, had previously defected to the Soviet Union before returning to Texas. King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated within two months of each other in 1968. King was fatally shot outside a Memphis, Tennessee motel on April 4, 1968, while supporting striking sanitation workers and planning further nonviolent protests. He died at a hospital within an hour. James Earl Ray pleaded guilty to assassinating King, later recanting his plea and maintaining his innocence until his death. FBI documents released over time reveal the bureau's wiretapping of King's phone lines, surveillance of his hotel rooms, and use of informants to gather information against him. The agency's actions were the subject of the recent documentary, “MLK/FBI.” Robert F. Kennedy, then a New York senator, was fatally shot on June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, shortly after his victory speech in the California Democratic presidential primary. His assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, was convicted of first-degree murder and remains imprisoned. Some documents within the JFK collection are unlikely to be released, according to researchers. Approximately 500 documents, including tax returns, were not subject to the 2017 disclosure requirement. Researchers also note that documents have been destroyed over the years. —Stengle reported from Dallas. AP writer Terry Tang contributed from Phoenix. ```

The climate crisis is no longer a future threat; its impact is felt globally. Last year marked a concerning milestone: global temperatures exceeded pre-industrial levels, highlighting the urgent need for immediate action. Every incremental improvement and responsible leader is crucial. A 2023 survey reveals that 68% of IKEA customers worldwide view climate change as the most significant threat, a figure remarkably consistent across various nations. However, only 6% are willing to pay more for sustainable products. This doesn't indicate apathy; rather, affordability is a major constraint. Consumers rightfully expect businesses and policymakers to provide affordable and sustainable solutions. Sustainability shouldn't be a luxury. As a business leader and parent, I see three compelling reasons to drive climate action: First, we have a moral obligation to future generations. Second, our customers and employees demand leadership on this issue; brands failing to act will face consequences. Third, and critically, climate-conscious practices are financially sound. Waste is inherently costly, and sustainable business models enhance profitability. Some initiatives yield quick returns; others require a longer-term perspective, similar to any investment. While we aren't on track to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C warming target, current projections indicate a disastrous 2.5-2.9°C increase by 2030. However, we've reached peak carbon per capita, and significant emissions reductions are within reach. Our company is committed to the Paris Agreement—halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieving a 90% reduction by 2050. This encompasses all three emission scopes: direct operations (scope 1), indirect energy (scope 2), and the entire value chain (scope 3). And our progress demonstrates the viability of this approach. Since 2016, we've reduced our climate footprint by 30.1% across all scopes while growing the business by 23.7%. This involved over 4.2 billion euros in off-site renewable energy investment since 2009, approximately 1 billion euros in companies bolstering recycling infrastructure, and efficiency measures saving 97 million euros (29%) on energy costs compared to five years prior. We've also halved operational food waste. We are not alone. The World Economic Forum's Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, with over 130 member companies, collectively reduced absolute carbon emissions by 10% across all three scopes while growing their businesses by 18%, exceeding global GDP growth. While insufficient, this demonstrates progress. Initially, many decisions were based on faith; now, the financial returns are evident, benefiting people, the planet, and businesses. The challenge is pace and scale. With five years until 2030, we're at the midpoint of a crucial decade. All entities, regardless of size, must assess their carbon footprint and act decisively. Stronger collaboration between policymakers and corporations is necessary to establish a climate-smart economy. We must accelerate change, share successes, and counteract misinformation. Silence from responsible actors is as dangerous as greenwashing. We must dispel myths hindering progress. The resources for net-zero transition exist. Inaction risks not only missed economic opportunities but also substantial financial losses—estimated at 10-15% annually, according to the World Economic Forum. The greatest risk for a leader is knowing they could have acted but didn't. Ethical business practices are cost-effective, resource-efficient, and environmentally responsible. Let's embrace our responsibilities and seize the opportunities. We are the first generation capable of building a sustainable future that benefits both humanity and the planet. Jesper Brodin is the CEO Ingka Group I IKEA, co-chair of the U.N. Global Compact, co-chair of the WEF Climate Alliance, and co-chair of the B Team.

(SEATTLE) — A federal judge issued a temporary injunction on Thursday against President Trump's executive order revoking the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, irrespective of parental immigration status. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour sided with Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which argued that the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent firmly establish birthright citizenship. This case is one of five lawsuits filed nationwide by 22 states and various immigrant rights organizations. The suits include personal accounts from U.S. citizen attorneys general and pregnant women fearing their children will be denied citizenship. The order, signed by Trump on Inauguration Day, is set to take effect February 19 and could affect hundreds of thousands born in the U.S., according to one lawsuit. In 2022, approximately 255,000 children born to one undocumented parent and about 153,000 to two undocumented parents became citizens, according to the Seattle lawsuit. The U.S. is among approximately 30 countries that grant birthright citizenship (jus soli, or "right of the soil"). Most are in the Americas; Canada and Mexico are examples. The lawsuits contend that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to those born and naturalized in the U.S., a view states have held for over a century. Ratified in 1868 post-Civil War, the amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump's order claims that children of non-citizens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and instructs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children without at least one citizen parent. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, involving a child of Chinese immigrants born in San Francisco, established birthright citizenship. The government attempted to deny his reentry after a trip abroad, citing the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, some immigration restriction advocates argue that Wong Kim Ark clearly applies only to children of legal immigrants, leaving the application to children of undocumented parents less clear. Trump's executive order prompted attorneys general to highlight their personal connection to birthright citizenship. For example, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, the nation's first Chinese American elected attorney general and a birthright citizen, described the lawsuit as deeply personal. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong stated this week. One lawsuit includes the case of "Carmen," a non-citizen residing in the U.S. for over 15 years with a pending visa application for permanent residency. “Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit asserts. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

At a TIME roundtable in Davos, Switzerland on January 22, business leaders and AI experts examined the opportunities and challenges presented by artificial intelligence. The TIME100 Talks event, "Go Beyond the Transformative Power of AI," explored AI's potential to improve healthcare and address climate change, while also acknowledging the inherent risks of its rapid advancement. Participants included musician will.i.am (also founder and CEO of ); (full professor at the Université de Montréal and founder and scientific director of Mila – Quebec AI Institute); (director and co-founder of The Centre for Humane Technology); Ravi Kumar S (CEO of Cognizant, the event sponsor); Lucian Boldea (president and CEO of industrial automation at Honeywell); Graham Kerr (CEO of South32); Jayee Koffey (global head of enterprise execution and chief corporate affairs officer at BNY); Kathrin Renz (vice president of AWS Industries); Chris Foster (CEO of Omnicom Public Relations Group); Madeleine Ballard (CEO of Community HealthImpact Coalition); Surya Gummadi (executive vice president at Cognizant and president of Cognizant Americas); James Landay (co-director of the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI); Janey Whiteside (partner and chief growth officer, Consello); Wendy Clark (partner and president of Consello); Angela Baker (chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm); and Adam Evans (Executive Vice President and general manager at Salesforce AI). (Salesforce chair and CEO Marc Benioff owns TIME.) TIME interviewed several attendees to gain further insight into their perspectives on the technology. For more, please visit [link removed]. TIME100 Talks—Go Beyond: The Transformative Power of AI was sponsored by Cognizant.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a video address to the World Economic Forum on Thursday, President Donald Trump offered global leaders lower taxes in exchange for bringing manufacturing to the United States, while threatening tariffs as an alternative. Addressing the forum from the White House on his third day in office, Trump highlighted his executive actions and claimed a strong mandate for change. He proposed a strategy of incentives and penalties to encourage private investment within the U.S. “Bring your manufacturing to America, and we’ll offer you some of the lowest taxes globally,” Trump stated. “However, if you choose not to manufacture in America, you will face tariffs – varying amounts – diverting hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars into our treasury, boosting our economy and reducing our national debt.” Trump, who spoke with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince on Wednesday, also mentioned Saudi Arabia’s proposed $600 billion investment in the U.S., suggesting an increase to $1 trillion. This remark elicited laughter from the Davos audience. Introducing Trump, Davos founder Klaus Schwab emphasized the significance of the president's return and agenda to the summit's discussions. He invited Trump to attend in person next year. Trump, who had previously pledged to end the Russia-Ukraine war, reiterated its importance as a priority but provided limited details on his approach. “It’s crucial that I meet with President Putin soon to resolve this war,” Trump told the Davos audience. “We must stop this devastating conflict.” Earlier, Trump blamed the OPEC+ alliance for maintaining high oil prices, a key factor in fueling the Russia-Ukraine war. He asserted that lower oil prices would swiftly end the conflict, stating that OPEC+ bears some responsibility for the ongoing situation. “Lower oil prices would immediately end the Russia-Ukraine war,” Trump said. He added regarding OPEC+, “They are partly responsible for what’s happening.” Recently, oil prices have declined due to weaker-than-expected Chinese demand and increased production from non-OPEC+ nations like Brazil and Argentina. ___ Keaton reported from Davos, Switzerland. Associated Press Writer Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed to this report.

Current events, though challenging, echo past struggles. They are characterized by division, fear, and uncertainty, yet also hold the promise of hope and positive change. Dr. King's assertion that “Evil and fear have within them the seeds of their own destruction” remains powerfully relevant, as Ambassador Andrew J. Young recently reminded me. Fear consistently attempts to dominate, but hope persistently counters it. This recurring pattern in our history showcases our nation's resilience and capacity for renewal. We've faced similar challenges before. In the 1960s, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy profoundly impacted America. The loss of these leaders created a void, yet the Civil Rights Movement persevered. This turbulent period yielded significant advancements—the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the eventual designation of Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. This progress, however, wasn't guaranteed; it resulted from persistent struggle and the determination to overcome fear and division. The 1860s provide another example. The Civil War, though a devastating national fracture, also laid the groundwork for a new beginning. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican president, campaigned on an anti-slavery platform (a little-known fact is that the Republican Party itself originated in 1854 on an anti-slavery, social justice platform, reacting to the Kansas-Nebraska Act which sought to expand slavery). This laid the foundation for the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment. Nearly a century later, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, navigated significant congressional opposition (from both Democrats and Republicans) to enact the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. These leaders, despite their different eras and political affiliations, shared a commitment to justice and unity that transcended partisanship. History progresses towards justice, as Dr. King noted, but this requires dedicated individuals working collaboratively. Even during periods of setback, progress finds a way. Consider the evolution of affirmative action. After Dr. King's assassination, the focus shifted, sometimes away from African Americans to women, or at times to nothing at all. Yet, unexpected champions emerged. President Richard Nixon, known for his conservatism, solidified affirmative action policies, expanded environmental protection and advanced women’s rights. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan, collaborating with the King family and figures like Stevie Wonder, signed legislation establishing the MLK holiday. Who would have foreseen these leaders, from opposing political viewpoints, making such substantial contributions to justice? This spirit of bipartisanship and collaboration has been crucial to American progress. George H.W. Bush recognized the need for community development, partnering with Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley (a prominent Democrat) to provide a $61,000 grant establishing Operation HOPE after the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Later, he collaborated with President Bill Clinton on Hurricane Katrina relief. His son, President George W. Bush, worked with me to establish financial literacy as a federal policy and achieved significant progress for Africa. President Barack Obama’s administration, at my request and under Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Wally Adeyemo, renamed the U.S. Treasury Annex Building the Freedman’s Bank Building—a powerful symbol of Lincoln’s vision for economic equity. These narratives demonstrate our interdependence. This has been a consistent truth throughout our nation's journey. Through collaboration, we achieve not just good things, but extraordinary things, transcending limited perspectives to create enduring solutions. This isn't simply history; it's a call to action. In 2025, we must recommit to the inclusive vision Dr. King and civil rights activists championed. We must engage with those holding differing views, not to argue, but to listen and find common ground. A commitment to “expand the table and add a seat,” to borrow a phrase from my friend Stephanie Ruhle, is essential. Our future generations deserve a world built on hope, not fear. As Dr. Dorothy Height often said, we need “leaders and dreamers with shovels in their hands”—committed to building a better future and equal opportunity for all. Dr. King's message wasn't solely about civility; it emphasized respectful disagreement. These values remain as pertinent today as they were in 1963. They urge us to look beyond our differences and focus on our shared humanity. Reflecting on these lessons, I recall being asked if I'd dine with Presidents Clinton and Bush. My response was immediate: “What time?” for President Clinton, and “What for?” for President Bush. But in both cases, the answer was yes. Because dialogue—even with those holding different perspectives—is the first step toward understanding and progress. Our current circumstances demand this same openness, courage, and commitment to unity. Fear may threaten, but hope must prevail. Division may tempt us, but collaboration must triumph. And when we work together—truly together—we can accomplish the seemingly impossible.

Upon assuming the presidency, Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, authorizing the Defense Secretary to redirect funds for border wall construction and mobilize reservists to aid Homeland Security. Six years prior, with illegal border crossings near a 40-year low, Trump similarly declared an emergency. His latest action, while border crossings are higher (though below 2023-2024 peaks), follows a predictable pattern. However, increased border traffic doesn't justify this misuse of emergency powers. Trump's actions circumvent Congress's constitutional role and potentially exceed his legal authority. The 1976 National Emergencies Act grants broad presidential discretion, unlocking potentially abusive powers, including those affecting communications and assets without judicial oversight, threatening liberties and democracy. Trump's Monday proclamation invoked a provision allowing the Defense Secretary to reallocate funds for unauthorized “military construction” projects. This mirrors his 2019 actions, bypassing Congress's funding decisions and leading to the cancellation of projects like weapons maintenance facilities. He also invoked authority to call up reservists, supplementing National Guard forces at the border to support Homeland Security. This mirrors President Biden's use of the same authority, avoiding Posse Comitatus Act violations due to logistical, rather than law enforcement, support. Regardless of policy merits, using emergency powers is an abuse of presidential authority. These powers address sudden, unforeseen crises—not longstanding issues Congress could address. The border situation is neither sudden nor unexpected. Congress should address this through comprehensive immigration reform. Trump, however, showed little interest, actively hindering a bipartisan border security bill in 2024 to maintain his campaign narrative. While the law lacks a clear “national emergency” definition, courts usually defer to presidential judgment. However, they scrutinize the actions' alignment with invoked powers, a point of potential legal challenge for Trump. Courts previously questioned Trump's use of the “military construction” provision for the border wall, arguing that construction must support military deployment, not vice versa. While stays and Supreme Court actions followed, similar arguments will be raised again. The reservist call-up might fail due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military support to law enforcement if it impairs military readiness. With extensive global deployments and National Guard strain, a significant reservist call-up would likely be detrimental. Serious border issues exist, fueled by migration driven by persecution, violence, and hardship, reflecting a broken immigration system. Misusing emergency powers won't solve this; it risks future abuses, potentially impacting liberties and democracy. Without congressional action to prevent presidential overreach, the courts must intervene.