PR in the Philippines

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established birthright citizenship in the U.S., granting citizenship to anyone born within the country's borders. However, on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order making birthright citizenship contingent on the parents' legal status, affecting numerous children born to immigrants each year. This order faced immediate challenges as unconstitutional and is anticipated to be legally blocked before implementation. The U.S. is among approximately 30 nations upholding unrestricted jus soli (right of soil), automatically granting citizenship regardless of parentage. Trump's order, effective February 19, mandates at least one parent be a citizen or lawful permanent resident for a U.S.-born child to gain citizenship. Further stringent immigration measures are being enforced. Critics of the Trump administration argue that the proposed birthright citizenship changes risk deportation, detention, loss of public benefits, and statelessness for affected children. What does it mean to not have birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship isn't globally standard. While Canada, Mexico, and most Latin American countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship, most countries in Asia, Europe, and Africa impose restrictions, often similar to those proposed by Trump. Most countries with restricted birthright citizenship require conditions based on at least one parent's legal residency, the child's residency, or both. In Australia, for instance, birthright citizenship is granted if a parent is a citizen or permanent resident, or if the child resides in Australia for a decade. Where jus soli isn't applied, jus sanguinis (right of blood) prevails. Countries like Singapore and China require at least one parent to be a citizen for their child to obtain citizenship, irrespective of the child's birthplace. The U.S., along with other jus soli countries, also applies jus sanguinis to children born abroad to American parents. The geographic concentration of birthright citizenship, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, might be linked to its use as a colonial tool to outnumber native populations, according to sociologist John Skrenty. In the U.S., the 14th Amendment aimed to address the legal status of formerly enslaved people. Have other countries changed their birthright citizenship laws before? Several countries, including Pakistan, the Dominican Republic, and Ireland, have recently revised their citizenship laws to restrict or revoke birthright citizenship. Following a 2022 petition by an Afghan born in Pakistan who was denied citizenship, the Islamabad High Court ruled in the petitioner's favor. However, Pakistan later enacted legislation requiring either a parent's citizenship or residency, or a decade of residency for citizenship, potentially impacting many lacking necessary documentation. The Dominican Republic abolished birthright citizenship in 2013, declaring those born after 1929 without at least one Dominican parent to be illegally in the country. This affected over 200,000 immigrant children, predominantly of Haitian descent. Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in 2004 after a referendum. The amendment requires at least one parent to be an Irish or British citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident (excluding students and asylum seekers). This followed a publicized case involving Chinese nationals obtaining U.K. residency through birth in Ireland. In 2018, a bill to restrict birthright citizenship in Ireland gained traction after a case involving a nine-year-old boy facing deportation. A poll showed strong public support for restoring birthright citizenship, but while the boy's deportation was prevented, the bill failed, although the Irish Labour Party continues to advocate for change. —Chad de Guzman contributed reporting. ```

During a Thursday phone call with President Trump, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince announced the kingdom plans to invest $600 billion in the United States over the next four years. This announcement follows President Trump's suggestion that a return trip to Saudi Arabia for his first foreign visit, as he did in 2017, would be contingent upon significant Saudi investment. This decision marks a departure from the tradition of U.S. presidents initially visiting the United Kingdom for their first overseas trip. It also highlights the strong relationship between the Trump administration and Gulf state leaders, a connection further underscored by the Trump Organization's business dealings in the region. The Saudi Press Agency, a state-run outlet, initially reported the crown prince's statement. The report stated the crown prince confirmed the kingdom’s intent to significantly expand investments and trade with the U.S. over the next four years, totaling $600 billion or potentially more. Specific investment areas remained unspecified. The U.S.'s dependence on Saudi oil has diminished in recent years, altering a cornerstone of their long-standing relationship. Saudi sovereign wealth funds have made substantial investments in American companies and shown interest in the sports industry. A significant portion of the investment could be allocated to U.S.-made weaponry and defense systems, given Saudi Arabia's reliance on them. The White House has yet to release an official statement regarding the call. It's also unclear if this call was President Trump's first with a foreign leader since his re-election, though it was the first reported foreign contact. The crown prince also spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday. On Monday, following his inauguration, President Trump indicated a potential return trip to Saudi Arabia as his first foreign visit, mirroring his 2017 trip. “The first foreign trip typically has been with the U.K. but … I did it with Saudi Arabia last time because they agreed to buy $450 billion worth of our products,” Trump told reporters. “If Saudi Arabia wanted to buy another $450 billion or $500—we’ll up it for all the inflation—I think I’d probably go.” His 2017 visit to the kingdom initiated a prolonged boycott of Qatar by four Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia. Trump maintained close ties with Saudi Arabia, even after Prince Mohammed's alleged involvement in the 2018 killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul. The kingdom has also engaged in ongoing discussions with Israel regarding a broader diplomatic recognition deal, potentially secured through U.S. defense support. The $600 billion commitment, a sum exceeding the GDP of many nations, comes as Saudi Arabia faces its own budgetary challenges. Global oil prices remain subdued following the coronavirus pandemic, impacting the kingdom's revenue. Simultaneously, Prince Mohammed seeks to advance his $500 billion NEOM project, a new city in Saudi Arabia’s western desert, and the preparations for hosting the 2034 FIFA World Cup, both of which require significant infrastructural investment.

In his first presidential interview, President Trump spoke with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. Here are key points from the first segment, broadcast Wednesday. Trump advocates for Biden investigations President Trump expressed his desire for investigations into former President Joe Biden. Following his own indictments—one related to hush money payments and another concerning attempts to overturn the 2020 election—President Trump indicated to Hannity that he believes Biden should face similar scrutiny. He stated, “It’s really hard to say that they shouldn’t have to go through it also.” Biden pardoned his siblings and their spouses before leaving office, a move Trump described as setting a “precedent” for his own actions. Trump threatens to withhold California aid President Trump suggested to Hannity that California's approach to water management needs to change, hinting at a connection to rebuilding efforts in fire-damaged areas. He and other Republicans have floated the idea of linking federal aid to their policy priorities. Trump indicated he might withhold aid to California until the state alters its water resource management. Trump incorrectly asserted that California’s fish conservation measures are responsible for water shortages impacting fire suppression efforts. “I don’t think we should give California anything until they let the water run down,” he stated. Local officials have refuted Trump’s claim, attributing the water shortages to high demand on an insufficient municipal water system, not conservation efforts for the delta smelt. Trump criticizes FEMA and seeks reform President Trump voiced his intention to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), claiming it hinders recovery efforts following recent storms in the southeast and wildfires in California. Trump told Hannity, “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems.” He provided no specifics about his proposed reforms, only mentioning that it “going to be a whole big discussion very shortly.” President Trump plans his first presidential trip Friday to assess storm damage in North Carolina and wildfire damage in Los Angeles.

BANGKOK — Thailand anticipates hundreds of LGBTQ+ couples will legally wed on Thursday, the inaugural day of a new law affording them the same marital rights as heterosexual couples. The Marriage Equality Act's implementation designates Thailand as the first Southeast Asian nation and the third in Asia, following Taiwan and Nepal, to legalize same-sex marriage. While marriage registration typically occurs at district offices, approximately 300 couples are scheduled to formalize their unions at a celebratory event in a Bangkok shopping mall. Many more are expected to register across the country in less formal settings. The marriage equality bill, unanimously approved by both parliamentary houses, modified the Civil and Commercial Code. The terms "men and women" and "husband and wife" have been replaced with "individuals" and "marriage partners," respectively. This aims to grant LGBTQ+ couples comprehensive legal, financial, and medical rights. Partners will enjoy equal rights and responsibilities regarding shared assets, tax obligations, inheritance, and survivor benefits. Known for its inclusivity, Thailand annually hosts thousands of international visitors. However, advocates have persistently campaigned for marriage equality in this largely conservative society, where LGBTQ+ individuals often face discrimination, although progress has been significant in recent years. Couples interviewed by the Associated Press earlier this month expressed delight with the new legislation, even those already in long-term relationships. “The marriage equality law proves that, irrespective of gender, we all possess equal fundamental human rights under Thai law,” stated Kullayahnut Akkharasretthabudh (38), a real estate owner, whose partner, Juthatip Suttiwong (24), is a chef. “It also sets a precedent for other Asian countries, emphasizing the importance of mutual human values and enabling everyone to thrive.” Patherine Khunnares (37), a web designer, and her partner, Vivian Chullamon (36), a researcher, shared, “We have a supportive social network, friends, and family who accept us and the people we love. Marriage isn't everything for our emotional fulfillment…” “However, fundamentally, we believe that as two human beings, we deserve the same basic legal rights as heterosexual couples. We are a family in spirit, but legal recognition would ease our future concerns. Ultimately, we don't seek anything extraordinary; we simply desire a happy family life.” Bangkok's city government conducted workshops for district office marriage registration staff. These workshops included training on gender diversity awareness and effective communication with individuals seeking services. The Interior Ministry provided similar guidance. “It's a crucial final piece,” Bangkok Deputy Gov. Sanon Wangsrangboon remarked at a workshop earlier this month. “Society is prepared. The law is in place. But the vital element is understanding among officials.” ```

President Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) is deeply regrettable. Reduced funding will significantly impair the WHO's life-saving work, particularly in impoverished nations. The U.S. is the WHO's largest single contributor, providing a substantial portion of its funding in recent years. The U.S. contribution constitutes a significant percentage of the WHO's annual budget. Global health agencies require increased funding, not cuts, especially during multiple crises (the WHO recently appealed for significant funding for 2025 health emergencies). The WHO relies on voluntary national contributions. The U.S. recently contributed significantly to global health initiatives, including emergency response and access to essential health services. While the impact of this decision will be most keenly felt in vulnerable countries, the U.S. also benefits from WHO participation. International cooperation is crucial for pandemic prevention. Supporting low- and middle-income countries in preventing, detecting, and responding to outbreaks protects global health security, including that of the U.S. The cessation of negotiations for the and amendments to the International Health Regulations—a move initiated by the —is especially concerning given recent H5N1 cases in the U.S., which, while currently posing low risk to the public, presents a potential pandemic threat. In 2024, the WHO reclassified Mpox, and the U.S. provided substantial funding to support vaccine delivery and outbreak response. From HIV to diabetes, from to improving , WHO guidelines and expertise significantly inform global public health practices, including in the Americas. These benefits to the U.S., while perhaps less direct than those to low- and middle-income countries, remain considerable. The WHO contributes to international guidelines on disaster response, including managing health impacts from wildfires. The implications extend beyond funding; U.S. scientists and health workers provide invaluable expertise globally and domestically. Many have dedicated their careers to global health. This decision's communication is also deeply problematic. The Executive Order, without justification, alleges the WHO's inability to demonstrate independence from political influence. This rhetoric, along with the WHO withdrawal, could be exploited to fuel distrust in scientific and health organizations. The has faced unsubstantiated accusations of political manipulation. The of Anthony Fauci highlights the targeting and maligned of public health scientists. Such claims undermine public trust in health authorities—a 2023 study showed a significant drop in U.S. trust in scientists since 2019, with a minority believing science benefits society. Vaccine confidence is declining globally, despite vaccines saving countless lives annually. The WHO plays a vital role in global vaccine supply. Polio eradication efforts are threatened by reduced funding (the U.S. contributed significantly to polio eradication efforts last year). President Trump should reconsider withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO. Amidst ongoing conflicts and climate emergencies, the WHO's role is paramount. Strengthening American health and global health are not conflicting objectives.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox. A second Trump term was promised as less chaotic and more competent, with a refined team and policy focus. His administration would leverage pre-prepared policy documents from Washington think tanks. However, the initial days revealed this claim to be false. Despite purported readiness, the early executive orders were marred by numerous errors: formatting inconsistencies, typos, internal contradictions, and inconsistent numbering. Numerous executive orders, released initially with significant formatting issues (bolding, oversized text, duplicated passages, repeated numbering), were subsequently corrected on the White House website. Social media highlighted these flaws. Some errors went beyond simple typos. One order, intending to restrict gender recognition to biological sex at birth, inadvertently implied all fetuses are initially female. Another order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, effective January 27, stranded vetted refugees before the cut-off date. Trump's first term also saw similar issues, yet he issued over 200 executive orders. This pattern appears set to continue, given the current pace and ambition. Beyond written orders, Trump's statements remain unreliable. He incorrectly claimed Spain was part of the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), demonstrating a disregard for accuracy. This casual approach to detail seems intentional. Voters elected Trump based on a certain attitude, rather than an expectation of meticulous governance. His focus on high-profile events like disaster recovery visits prioritizes image over bureaucratic precision. Make sense of what matters in Washington. .

Amidst the peak respiratory illness season, the incoming Trump administration mandates that federal health agencies obtain White House clearance before releasing public communications. A January 21st memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), reviewed by TIME, states that “As the new Administration considers its plan for managing the federal policy and public communications processes, it is important that the President’s appointees and designees have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations, guidance documents, and other public documents and communications (including social media),” until February 1st. The CDC, FDA, and NIH, all under HHS, frequently publish crucial health information impacting public response to various health threats. Epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, a former CDC communications advisor, highlights the potential disruption: “CDC is the health warning system of the United States,” she explains, cautioning that delays could severely hamper the agency’s effectiveness. Sources within federal health agencies, speaking anonymously due to the situation's political sensitivity, describe internal efforts to understand the implications of this directive. These sources note that agencies are interpreting the new rules in real time. The January 21st memo indicates that this isn't a complete communication freeze, but rather a pre-publication review process for all public communications. This isn't entirely unprecedented; similar reviews occurred in 2017 under the first Trump administration and during the COVID-19 pandemic under both Trump and Biden. Mitch Zeller, former director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, describes such a temporary pause as "not unusual" for a new administration, allowing time for the new leadership to familiarize themselves with ongoing projects. However, he expresses concern over White House review of scientific documents, stating that during his tenure, White House involvement was minimal unless the announcement was exceptionally high-profile. Zeller points to HHS’s already complex approval process, adding another layer of review potentially causing significant delays, especially for time-sensitive communications. Reportedly, this has already delayed CDC bird flu reports. (The memo notes that exceptions may be granted for communications affecting critical health, safety, or national security.) Zeller voices distrust in the incoming administration's approach, citing an alleged "anti-regulatory, anti-science agenda." Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's HHS nominee, has signaled potential sweeping changes within federal health agencies, including staff purges at the FDA, restricting CDC functions, and shifting focus towards alternative health topics. (His confirmation hearing is unlikely before February.) A day prior to the communication memo, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization, a move that experts believe increases the country's vulnerability to public health threats. The White House's pandemic preparedness office is also reportedly weakened under the new administration. Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University's O’Neill Institute describes the communications directive as another attack on public health, questioning the White House's scientific expertise in this matter. While HHS didn't respond to TIME's requests for comment, the memo assures that the review process will be efficient, returning to a standard process as quickly as possible.

Former followers of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Instagram may now be following President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. This automatic transfer of followers to the new administration's official accounts (@POTUS and @VP) has sparked anger and confusion. These official accounts are distinct from Trump and Vance's personal social media profiles. However, some users reported difficulties unfollowing Trump, attributing the issue to Instagram. Meta, Instagram's parent company, maintains this is standard procedure. Andy Stone, Meta's communications spokesperson, stated on Wednesday that users weren't automatically enrolled to follow official Facebook or Instagram accounts for the President, Vice President, or First Lady. He explained that these White House-managed accounts' content changes with each new administration, mirroring the process used in previous presidential transitions. He added that processing follow and unfollow requests may take time during these account handovers. This practice involves official accounts for high-ranking officials retaining their follower base while the page content is cleared. This applies to X and Facebook as well. President Barack Obama, who had an official presidential account on X, documented this transition. Archives of previous administrations' social media posts are preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Other official accounts, including those for the Press Secretary, have also undergone this transition. This online controversy unfolded as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat behind Trump at the Inauguration alongside other tech CEOs Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Zuckerberg also recently donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund. Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts were temporarily suspended following the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump criticized Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde for her pointed address to him during a National Cathedral service the previous day, where she advocated for immigrants and LGBTQ+ children. In a Truth Social post, Trump labeled Budde a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater,” criticizing her performance and accusing her of injecting politics into her church. He demanded an apology. Bishop Budde's sermon offered the only overt criticism Trump faced during his first day in office. During Tuesday's prayer service at the National Cathedral, as Trump sat in the front pew, Bishop Budde implored him to show mercy to fearful citizens. Trump reacted visibly uncomfortably. She highlighted the plight of LGBTQ+ children, particularly in light of Trump's early executive actions recognizing only two sexes and ordering increased deportations. Budde's sermon also addressed the concerns of immigrants, emphasizing that most are law-abiding, tax-paying members of communities. She pleaded with Trump to show mercy to families facing potential separation due to deportation. Since her sermon garnered national attention, Budde has received both support and intense criticism, including death threats. Bishop Budde, who has served in her role since 2011, previously criticized Trump in 2020 for his handling of racial justice protests. In an interview with TIME, Budde discussed her reaction to the backlash. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. TIME: Are you comfortable with being this well known nationally? BISHOP BUDDE: I hope the message of dignity, honesty, humility and kindness resonates. While grateful for the support, the intense vitriol is disheartening. Many have expressed gratitude, while others have wished me dead, which is heartbreaking. I'm perfectly happy to engage with those who disagree, but the level of attack has been sobering. Are you hoping to inspire others to push back against President Trump’s policies? I hope to encourage alternative perspectives, compassion, and broader discourse. Trump called you a “Radical left hard line Trump hater.” What’s your response to that? I don't hate President Trump. I strive not to hate anyone, and I'm not 'radical left'. That's not who I am. He said you’re not very good at your job. That's for others to judge. He's entitled to his opinion. And he said you should apologize. Will you apologize? I am not going to apologize for asking for mercy for others. Have you received threats? Do you feel in danger? Those truly in danger are those facing deportation and vulnerable youth. I have support and don't feel personally at risk, although death threats are heartbreaking. My sermon was mild and respectful, simply urging mercy for the vulnerable. Anything else? This is bigger than me. It's about the kind of country we should be. I aimed to counter the culture of contempt, to show that diverse perspectives can coexist with dignity and respect. The culture of contempt threatens us, and I've experienced a small taste of it this week.

President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20th in Washington, D.C., drew together some of the world's wealthiest individuals, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, whose collective net worth approaches $900 billion. Concurrent with Trump's inauguration, Harold Hamm, a prominent figure in the fracking industry with a net worth exceeding $18.5 billion as head of Continental Resources, hosted an exclusive inauguration viewing event. Among the attendees was Doug Burnam, Trump's nominee to lead the Department of the Interior. The Climate Accountability Research Project (CARP) highlights a strong correlation between Trump's political ascent, policy decisions, and the fortunes of leading American business figures, particularly fossil fuel billionaires. CARP has monitored the impact of Trump's recent election victory on the wealth of 15 fossil fuel billionaires. Within 24 hours of Trump's inauguration, CARP reports a $3.31 billion increase in the collective wealth of these 15 billionaires, rising from $317.86 billion to $321.17 billion. Since the start of the year, their combined wealth has grown by $17 billion, according to CARP's analysis of Bloomberg data. This group of prominent U.S. fossil fuel billionaires includes Julia Flesher Koch (David Koch's widow), Charles Koch (chairman and CEO of Koch Inc.), Hamm, and numerous other owners of oil and gas companies such as Kinder Morgan, Enterprise Products, and Hunt Consolidated. “A significant return on investment,” Chuck Collins, CARP co-founder, commented to TIME regarding the billionaires' wealth increase since Trump's election. Collins co-authored a report released by CARP this month examining the links between Trump's second presidential campaign and major U.S. oil and gas companies. According to reports, nearly $23 million in oil and gas industry funds were directly contributed to Trump's campaign and supporting PACs during his recent election. At a dinner in April 2024 at Mar-a-Lago, organized by Hamm and attended by oil executives from companies including Exxon and Chevron, Trump solicited a $1 billion campaign donation. He suggested that significantly greater sums would follow the repeal of environmental regulations and expedited drilling permit approvals. CARP's analysis coincides with Trump's declaration of a "national energy emergency," his initiation of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and his pledge to accelerate fossil fuel project approvals. In his "national energy emergency" declaration, Trump cited the need to reduce energy costs and increase domestic oil and natural gas production, aligning with his consistent campaign message: Trump reiterated this stance in his inaugural address: “We possess something no other manufacturing nation will ever have—the largest reserves of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we will utilize them. We will fully utilize them.” His remarks prompted a standing ovation at Hamm's inauguration viewing party at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, D.C. Collins characterizes Trump's election and subsequent executive orders as a "dream scenario" for oil and gas executives—a dream with the potential for further improvement. “It's a substantial windfall for the industry, and it's just the beginning,” Collins stated. “This is the payoff for investing millions upon millions of dollars to elect Trump and pave the way for pro-industry, climate-change-denying members of Congress. This is precisely what they paid for.”