PR in the Philippines

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, preventing the Trump administration from placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid leave. Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, granted the injunction requested by two federal employee unions, halting the planned leave effective midnight Friday. The unions contend that President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally dismantle the six-decade-old agency, a move they argue violates existing congressional legislation. “CLOSE IT DOWN,” Trump posted on social media regarding USAID on Friday. Friday witnessed the agency's name being obscured with duct tape at its Washington headquarters, its flag removed, and a floral tribute left outside. USAID officials, speaking anonymously due to administration restrictions, contradicted Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims that essential programs had been exempted. With most staff furloughed and funding halted, one official described the agency as effectively defunct. The Trump administration and its ally, [billionaire's name], leading the Department of Government Efficiency's budget cuts, have aggressively targeted USAID in an unprecedented attack on the federal government and its programs. The administration initially planned to exempt 297 USAID employees from the broader leave impacting at least 8,000 staff and contractors, according to agency personnel. This was later revised to 611 employees, many tasked with facilitating the repatriation of thousands of staff, contractors, and their families overseas, a figure confirmed by Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate in court. The USAID officials and staffers spoke anonymously due to a Trump administration order barring them from talking publicly. A small number of remaining staffers and contractors, along with approximately 5,000 locally hired employees abroad, would manage the few life-saving programs the administration intends to maintain temporarily. The duration of these staff reductions remains unclear, with the possibility of reinstatement pending a review of aid and development programs by the Trump administration. Trump and [billionaire's name] have discussed transferring surviving programs to the State Department. State Department employees also anticipate significant staff cuts following the deadline for the administration's early retirement incentive program, according to officials who spoke anonymously due to fear of reprisal. A judge temporarily blocked this incentive program, with a hearing scheduled for Monday. Among the un-exempted USAID programs: $450 million in food aid for 36 million people, and water supplies for 1.6 million people in Darfur, both currently suspended due to funding cuts. Earlier this week, nearly all overseas USAID personnel were given 30 days to return to the U.S., with the government covering travel and relocation expenses. Embassies requested extensions for certain individuals, including families needing to withdraw children from schools mid-year. A late Thursday USAID website notice clarified that no overseas personnel on leave would be forcibly removed from their duty stations. However, those remaining beyond 30 days might bear their own expenses unless granted a hardship waiver. Rubio stated that the government would assist staffers in returning home within 30 days and would consider individual circumstances. He justified the actions as necessary to prevent staff from circumventing the foreign aid spending freeze, a claim denied by agency staff. Rubio asserted that the U.S. will continue providing foreign aid aligned with national interests. Democratic lawmakers and others deem the actions illegal without congressional approval. This argument was central to the lawsuit filed by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees on Thursday. The suit seeks the court's order to reinstate USAID operations, employee return, and funding restoration. The suit alleges government officials failed to acknowledge the catastrophic impact of their actions on American workers, global populations, and U.S. national interests. ___

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), located near the White House, manages personnel data for millions of federal employees and applicants. While seemingly mundane, its extensive records and access to employee contact information make it a powerful entity. Recent actions by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s associates have focused on leveraging OPM’s data in potentially questionable ways. The OPM headquarters is central to these efforts. OPM career officials raised concerns during transition meetings with incoming Trump administration officials. These meetings typically involve transferring details about ongoing projects and organizational structure. However, the Trump team showed unusual interest in OPM's computer systems. According to an OPM official, Greg Hogan, the new chief information officer, intensely questioned the agency's computer systems, access procedures, security measures, and patch installation processes. This raised significant red flags for the official, who had participated in previous transition briefings. On January 28th, most federal employees received an email from a new government-wide email system, offering eight months' pay in exchange for resignation. Following this, agencies like USDA and NOAA reported a surge in spam emails. This buyout offer is currently stalled due to a temporary injunction from a U.S. district judge, following a lawsuit by labor unions. This mass resignation request was just one example of the administration using OPM's resources to advance its agenda. The administration has installed Trump appointees into key technical roles at OPM, roles typically filled by career officials. Musk's allies are pursuing similar changes across various agencies, using OPM's central hiring function to achieve this. This week, OPM’s chief financial officer, Erica Roach, a career official managing trillions of dollars in employee benefit funds, was ousted and subsequently resigned. The White House and OPM did not respond to requests for comment. A few days earlier, the agency’s top technology officer, Melvin Brown, was reassigned, enabling Hogan, a Trump ally, to assume the role. Charles Ezell, OPM’s acting director, plans to replicate this pattern across the federal government. He sent a memo to all cabinet departments and agencies, initiating a potential overhaul of federal tech officer hiring practices. Currently, many agency CIO positions are “career reserved,” meaning they must be filled from within the federal government's senior executive service. This practice has been maintained by multiple administrations to ensure impartiality and public trust. However, OPM’s new leadership argues that CIOs should not be limited to career officials because their decisions impact policy. Ezell stated that CIOs shape policy and allocate budgets based on administration priorities, not solely technical tasks. Agencies have until February 14th to request that OPM remove the career service requirement for CIO roles. Placing hand-picked candidates in these IT roles will provide the Trump White House with increased access to federal workforce and spending data. However, this raises concerns about potential neglect of employee privacy safeguards and vulnerability to foreign intelligence hacking. OPM’s senior leadership now includes Musk allies, such as senior advisor Brian Bjelde (formerly of SpaceX), chief of staff Amanda Scales (formerly of xAI), senior advisor Anthony Armstrong (involved in Musk's Twitter acquisition), and general counsel Andrew Kloster (formerly with the White House and Matt Gaetz). Some senior OPM career officials have been locked out of key databases. There are concerns that political appointees have unauthorized access to sensitive systems, including the Enterprise Human Resources Integration system, which contains personal information like pay grades, Social Security numbers, and addresses. On January 31st, Bjelde reportedly stated a goal of cutting 70% of the agency’s staff, a move that could severely impact teams responsible for federal employee healthcare and retirement benefits.

Following the detection of avian influenza (bird flu) in seven Queens, Brooklyn, and Bronx markets, New York Governor Kathy Hochul issued an emergency order on February 7th mandating the temporary closure of all live bird markets across New York City, Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties. This includes markets without reported cases. The order directs market owners to remove all live birds and thoroughly clean and disinfect their premises, regardless of infection status. A five-day post-cleaning closure is mandated before resuming operations to ensure the H5N1 virus is eradicated, preventing reintroduction. Here’s what to know about the decision and the implications of bird flu detection in poultry. Will market closures mitigate the bird flu threat? Dr. Raj Panjabi, former White House pandemic office leader, commends New York's proactive approach, highlighting the collaborative effort between state and city agriculture and health departments. Cornell Veterinary School's Jarra Jagne explains that some infections were reported by market operators following bird deaths, while others were identified through routine H5N1 surveillance. The state's comprehensive testing network, she notes, enabled early detection. New York State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald emphasizes the importance of proactive measures following confirmed positive tests, stating that acting decisively increases the likelihood of preventing wider spread. How are birds in live markets becoming infected? Infection pathways are diverse. Birds may contract the virus on farms, where exposure to wild bird feces is common. Jagne highlights January findings of 23 H5N1 cases in wild birds across 12 New York counties. Human activity also contributes; individuals entering markets may unwittingly carry the virus on shoes, or farmers might introduce it from infected farms. Pinpointing the exact source proves difficult. Should other states also close live bird markets? Panjabi suggests that other states should consider similar measures. His White House experience with H5 bird flu outbreaks showed the challenges posed by wild bird migration patterns and viral activity. He notes that while temporary closures cause inconvenience, they prevent long-term spread. Live bird markets, unlike commercial poultry farms, often lack adequate disease prevention measures, increasing human interaction risks. How widespread is bird flu? Outbreaks among commercial poultry farms have surged recently. The USDA reported 85 affected flocks and nearly 24 million birds by January's end. University of Minnesota's Michael Osterholm attributes the increase to heightened environmental H5N1 levels, with infected wild bird feces contaminating commercial flocks. Can I get bird flu from eating chicken or eggs? The CDC assures that properly cooked chicken and eggs are safe. However, consuming undercooked poultry, eggs, or unpasteurized milk from infected cows poses a risk. New York City Health Commissioner Michelle Morse states that the risk to New Yorkers remains low, emphasizing the lack of human-to-human transmission. Dr. McDonald adds that birds from affected establishments aren't entering the food supply, and proper cooking neutralizes the virus.

(To receive this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter .) Early in his term, the President has aggressively sought to dismantle environmental regulations. His administration is rolling back numerous regulations and undermining enforcement agencies by targeting their personnel. These actions, he claims, will alleviate burdensome compliance costs for businesses, fostering growth. A White House fact sheet describes the deregulatory agenda as a way to counter “overregulation” that stifles “American entrepreneurship,” harms “small business,” limits “consumer choice,” discourages “innovation,” and infringes on “the liberties of American citizens.”  While some businesses, particularly smaller ones significantly impacted by compliance costs, may welcome this, the rapid dismantling of climate regulations carries a significant price – beyond just emissions reduction efforts. Businesses require policy stability for investment and growth. Currently, any company even remotely involved in climate and energy faces considerable uncertainty.  Despite the substantial financial uncertainty, most corporations remain publicly silent, voicing concerns only privately. The President's potential for retaliation against dissenting companies encourages executive silence.  However, mandatory regulatory filings reveal companies acknowledging the financial repercussions of abrupt climate policy shifts. Ford Motor Company cites the fluctuating climate policies between administrations as a “legal and regulatory risk” potentially affecting its business. Bank of America points to “divergent views of stakeholders” on climate change and warns of increased “legal and compliance risk” from all sides. Dow, a chemical company, lists climate change among its business risks, noting “changes in public sentiment and political leadership, including government incentives and tax credits to promote emission reductions.” Following the election, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Semafor that the U.S. needs more consistent policies. He stated that the “polarization and political back-and-forth…is not good for the country, not good for society. It’s frankly not good for business,” advocating for “more thoughtful, consistent regulation.” Even seemingly beneficial changes, such as expedited permitting for energy infrastructure, present considerable risks. Rapid project permitting may be difficult with staff reductions. More importantly, the long-term legal challenges to the Trump Administration's executive actions create uncertainty and delay, hindering effective investment deployment.    Early in the Trump presidency, the complexities of his anti-climate actions became clear – his moves clash with market realities. The disruption itself, given the urgency of climate change, significantly slows the green transition.  

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers are voicing concerns about Elon Musk’s company, DOGE, and its access to the Education Department’s systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. In a letter to the acting education secretary, a group of Democrats are requesting intervention as DOGE’s access to student loan databases and other systems increases. They fear this could lead to a takeover attempt similar to Musk’s past actions. The letter seeks details of DOGE’s activities and pledges opposition to any attempt to dismantle the Education Department. Democrats, including Representative Mark Takano of California, planned a Friday visit to the department’s Washington headquarters to request a meeting with Trump-appointed leaders. The department is facing turmoil amid President Trump’s efforts to abolish it. The White House is considering a directive instructing the education secretary to drastically reduce the department’s size and urging Congress to eliminate it entirely. Numerous employees have been dismissed without explanation, and DOGE personnel have begun reviewing departmental records to cut spending. According to sources familiar with the matter, Musk’s DOGE team has already accessed a database with personal information on millions of students and parents with federal student loans. One source, a department employee, stated that DOGE requested access over a week ago. Another source indicated that DOGE would receive administrator access to the department’s website on Friday, enabling them to modify website content or take it offline. These individuals spoke on the condition of anonymity due to concerns about retaliation. A federal lawsuit, filed Friday by Student Defense on behalf of the University of California Student Association, aims to prevent DOGE’s access to student financial aid systems, arguing it violates the privacy rights of millions of federal borrowers. The lawsuit states that DOGE may now have access to Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, and contact information for student loan borrowers. The database also contains information on the parents of dependent loan applicants, including citizenship status and income details. The suit describes this as an “enormous and unprecedented” invasion of privacy impacting over 42 million individuals whose data was entrusted to the department when applying for federal loans and grants. The Education Department stated that DOGE is assisting with a return to in-person work, restoring employee accountability, and reforming the hiring process to prioritize merit. It insists that “nothing inappropriate or nefarious” is occurring. “The DOGE employees are federal employees,” the department stated. “They have been sworn in, have the necessary background checks and clearances, and are focused on making the Department more cost-efficient, effective, and accountable to the taxpayers.” Trump campaigned on a promise to close the department, characterizing it as infiltrated by “radicals, zealots and Marxists.” He nominated Linda McMahon, a professional wrestling executive, as education secretary, jokingly stating he wanted her “to put herself out of a job.” However, Trump’s promise clashes with the reality that Congress mandates the department’s existence and most of its funding. It remains uncertain whether Trump could secure the political support to abolish the department, a goal some Republicans have pursued unsuccessfully in the past. The White House moderated its stance on Thursday, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt stating that Trump and his team are exploring options “to reduce the size of the Department of Education, if not abolish it completely.” ___ The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find  for working with philanthropies,  of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

A recent series of aviation accidents and near misses has raised public concerns about air travel safety. The incidents causing the most alarm include a fatal collision near Washington, D.C., another accident in Philadelphia, and a further recent incident. There was also an incident involving a Japan Airlines plane taxiing in Seattle earlier this week and a United Airlines plane experiencing an engine fire during takeoff in Houston on Sunday. Beyond these major events, several other incidents, such as the discovery of deceased stowaways on two aircraft and two additional flights, and a passenger incident on a plane taxiing in Boston, have added to public anxiety. Consequently, many are questioning the safety of air travel. Details of the most serious incidents The January 29th collision between an American Airlines jet and an Army helicopter resulted in fatalities for all aboard both aircraft. This marked the deadliest such incident since November 12, 2001. There had been no fatal crashes involving U.S. airliners since February 2009. Smaller aircraft accidents are, however, more frequent. For example, a single-engine Cessna went missing in Alaska on Thursday with ten people aboard; search efforts continued on Friday. A Learjet crash in Philadelphia on January 31st resulted in the deaths of six people on board and one on the ground. The crash created a large fire. How much cause for concern is there? The rarity of fatal air crashes contributes to their impact. The safety record of U.S. airlines is notably strong, underscored by the extended period between fatal incidents. However, recent fatal accidents have occurred internationally, including one in South Korea in December. There were also two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 Max aircraft in 2018 and 2019. A further incident involving a 737 Max occurred last January, raising further questions about the aircraft. Federal officials have voiced concerns for years about an overburdened and understaffed air traffic control system, citing issues like low pay, long shifts, extensive training requirements, and mandatory retirements. President Trump further emphasized these concerns on Thursday, attributing the mid-air collision to an "obsolete" air traffic control system and promising its replacement. Despite these concerns, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently reassured the public on Fox News that air travel is significantly safer than car or train travel, citing statistics to support his claim. Statistics from the National Safety Council and other sources support this assertion, indicating that the probability of dying in a plane crash is far lower than that of a car accident. Ongoing Actions The National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration are investigating the recent accidents and near misses to identify their causes and prevent future incidents. Initial findings regarding the mid-air collision have been concerning, but a comprehensive report will take more than a year. While the NTSB consistently issues safety recommendations, numerous previous recommendations have been unheeded by government agencies and relevant industries. Secretary Duffy acknowledged public concerns about the recent accidents and pledged to prioritize safety in the regulation of all transportation modes. Duffy expressed confidence in the current and future safety measures and plans to enhance the system's safety and efficiency further. ```

Prolonged screen time, a common occupational hazard in today's digital world, often leads to eye strain. Symptoms can include headaches, dry eyes, discomfort, and blurry vision. “It's a common problem in our digital age,” explains Dr. Douglas Wisner, chief of cataract and primary eye care at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. Let's explore the causes of these visual issues and address any concerns. Why does screen time cause blurry vision? According to Amy Watts, director of vision rehabilitation at Massachusetts Eye and Ear hospital, there are two primary causes. Firstly, screen focus significantly reduces blinking frequency, leading to dry eyes. “Your eyelids act like windshield wipers, keeping your eyes clear,” she explains. Insufficient blinking is like raindrops accumulating on a windshield, impairing vision. Secondly, sustained focus on a fixed point fatigues the eye muscles. “These muscles must work perfectly for clear vision,” Watts notes. Prolonged use results in muscle fatigue and subsequent vision impairment. These issues can result in temporary blurred vision and other symptoms, including headaches, redness, itchiness, eye fatigue, and general discomfort. How can I prevent or treat digital eye strain? Regular visual breaks are crucial. The 20/20/20 rule (every 20 minutes, look 20 feet away for 20 seconds) is often suggested, but even longer breaks—perhaps a five-minute break every hour—might be more effective in preventing digital eye strain. “The key is to take breaks and avoid prolonged screen time,” Watts emphasizes. “This helps relax your focus and allows your muscles to rest.” (Breaks also provide opportunities to stand, stretch, and move.) Eye drops can help combat dryness from reduced blinking. Preventive use is most effective, but they also treat existing symptoms. Watts recommends using them every few hours if blurry vision is a recurring issue. However, it’s important to use preservative-free products to avoid irritation. Maintaining bright lighting and clean screens is also beneficial. Dirty screens hinder focus, leading to faster fatigue. What about blue-light glasses? Regarding blue-light glasses, Steven Reed, president of the American Optometric Association, states, “They likely won't hurt.” However, research on their efficacy in alleviating eye strain is limited. While blue-light glasses may not be essential, limiting screen time before bed is advisable, as nighttime device use can disrupt sleep. “Poor sleep contributes to chronic fatigue and eye strain,” Wisner explains. “It's a cycle.” Should I be concerned about digital eye strain? Generally, digital eye strain doesn't indicate a serious problem, but rather a natural consequence of using your eyes in ways they weren't designed for. “For centuries, we didn't sit at desks staring at screens,” Wisner notes. “Our bodies weren't adapted for this.” However, persistent, severe, or regular eye strain might signal underlying vision problems. If symptoms are bothersome or don't improve with simple remedies, consult an eye care professional. Simple solutions like over-the-counter reading glasses or prescription adjustments might be helpful. Children's complaints of blurry vision or eye discomfort after device use should be taken seriously. Screen time can contribute to myopia in children, so professional evaluation is recommended.

Trade wars typically involve one country imposing tariffs on another's goods, prompting retaliatory tariffs in response. This occurred between the U.S. and China after the Trump Administration's 10% tariff on Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs, including a 15% tariff on U.S. coal and LNG, and a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and large-engine vehicles. These tariffs could hinder U.S. exports to China due to increased product costs for Chinese buyers. China's retaliatory tariffs, effective February 10, are projected to disproportionately impact smaller towns in states like North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia—many of which supported President Trump, according to a Brookings Institution study. “These global conflicts have significant local consequences,” notes Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro and a study author. While major cities like Houston and Detroit may see substantial job losses, rural communities could experience a more severe impact due to the concentration of affected industries within their economies. For example, Sargent County, N.D., faces the potential loss of approximately 1,600 jobs, representing 59% of its employment. Other counties with potentially significant impacts include Gibson County, Ind.; Noble County, Ohio; and Irion County, Tex. The study estimates that nearly two-thirds of jobs potentially affected by the retaliatory tariffs are located in counties that voted for Trump in the 2024 election. This contrasts sharply with the 2018 Chinese tariffs, which had a broader impact across both Republican and Democrat-leaning counties. The Brookings study estimates between 400,000 and 700,000 U.S. jobs could be affected, spanning various sectors including automotive, petroleum, and construction equipment manufacturing. “Factory downsizing can significantly impact local employment,” explains Rob Maxim, a co-author of the Brookings study. Research from January 2024 indicated that the 2018-2019 trade war negatively affected Republican areas, including the lower Mississippi Valley, Midwestern industrial states, and manufacturing-focused Southern states. However, Trump did not suffer politically. The research showed that residents in affected regions became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote for Trump in 2020. “Despite the failure to bring back jobs, voters in regions impacted by Chinese import competition in the 1990s and 2000s were particularly inclined to reward Trump's tariff policy,” that research concluded. Similar outcomes could occur in regions affected by the 2025 tariffs, suggests Brookings’ Maxim. “For some smaller communities, Trump’s appeal lies in his decisive action.” West Virginia exemplifies this. While U.S. coal exports are not substantial, nearly half originate from the state. Consequently, local coal miners could be significantly affected by the Chinese tariffs, according to Chris Hamilton, president of the West Virginia Coal Association. However, this won't deter the association's support for President Trump. The Trump Administration's commitment to reversing policies aimed at phasing out coal from the U.S. power grid is expected to create job growth in the industry. “We fully support President Trump,” Hamilton told TIME, despite the trade war's consequences.

In The Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC) urged its member states to resist sanctions imposed by former President Donald Trump, characterizing the action as an attempt to undermine its independent and impartial judicial processes. The White House issued an executive order on Thursday, citing what it termed “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel,” referring to the ICC’s warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arrest on alleged war crimes in Gaza. The ICC denounced the sanctions, affirming its commitment to its staff and its dedication to delivering justice to victims of atrocities worldwide. The court issued a statement pledging to continue its work. The ICC called upon its 125 member states, civil society, and the global community to uphold justice and fundamental human rights. The order detailed that the U.S. would impose significant consequences on those deemed responsible for the ICC’s alleged transgressions. These could include asset freezes and travel bans for ICC officials, employees, and their relatives. The Treasury and State Departments will identify the individuals and organizations subject to sanctions. Human rights groups criticized the decision. Human Rights Watch's international justice director, Liz Evenson, stated that sanctions against ICC officials would hinder efforts to hold perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable, asserting that sanctions should target human rights violators, not those seeking justice. Evenson drew parallels between Trump's executive order and Russia's attempts to obstruct the court's work. Court officials had anticipated sanctions for months. According to two anonymous court insiders who spoke to the Associated Press, the court had advanced staff salaries by three months in January. At least two senior staff members resigned since Trump's election to avoid potential sanctions. The Netherlands, the ICC's host nation, also condemned Trump’s order, stating the court's work is crucial in combating impunity. Dutch officials indicated efforts to help the court mitigate the impact of the sanctions. Organizations collaborating with the court expressed concern over the sanctions' scope. One advocacy group leader, speaking anonymously to the AP, reported halting projects due to uncertainty, while another revealed moving funds out of U.S. banks as a precaution. This marks the second time Trump targeted the court. During his previous term, he imposed sanctions on former prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a deputy over the Afghanistan investigation; President Biden lifted these sanctions in 2021.