PR in the Philippines

The Severance team took nearly three years to craft Season 2, and for good reason. Season 1 ended with the "innies" escaping Lumon and encountering their "outie" lives, revealing Helly R.'s outie as Helena, an Egan heir and severance program architect, and Mark's wife, Gemma, as Ms. Casey on the severed floor. Such significant plot twists are challenging to follow. Yet, showrunner Dan Erickson and producer-director Ben Stiller managed to surprise viewers again. In Season 2, Episode 4, the macrodata refinement team's "Outdoor Retreat and Team Building Occurrence" to a snowy mountain leads Irving (John Turturro) to suspect Helena (Britt Lower) is impersonating Helly R. Meanwhile, Mark (Adam Scott) shares an intimate moment with Helly R./Helena. Subsequently, Irving violently attempts to prove his theory by drowning Helena, until Mr. Milchick restores Helly R. to their shared body. TIME interviewed Adam Scott and Britt Lower about the reveal, Lower's performance, and Helena's feelings for Mark. TIME: Why do you think Lumon lets the innies outside? Adam Scott: It's a response to the overtime incident and Season 1's escape. Lumon is essentially saying, "Go out; we'll teach you a lesson." The experience changed their perspectives, showing them the world's harshness. As actors, filming outside was a welcome change. The office sets were demanding. After six or seven weeks of shooting in those confined spaces, filming outdoors was a refreshing change of pace. We spent six weeks shooting, often riding snowmobiles for half an hour to reach the set. It felt like making a movie. Britt, knowing that reveal that Helena has been pretending to be Helly R. was coming, were you dropping hints in you performance in the previous episodes? Britt Lower: They're two sides of the same person. Helena possesses an inner rebel, an aspect she can access. In Season 1, Helena observes Mark and Helly, showing curiosity. Playing these layers was like using Adobe Photoshop—adjusting saturation and exposure. It’s the same base, but modulated by the situation and the reactions of my co-stars and directors. The thing that ends up giving Helena away is her cruelty. Do you think that brutality was nurtured into Helena and that’s why it doesn’t exist in Helly R.? Lower: Helena's father (Season 1) provides insight into her upbringing. You can imagine the "nurturing" she received. Scott: Her cruel remark catches Irving off guard. Helena skillfully impersonated Helly R., but this act of cruelty was instinctive, a communication style learned from her environment. It likely wasn't a conscious decision. Lower: As Helly R., she gains self-awareness. In the tent scene, she acknowledges, "That was mean," showing a sense of right and wrong. Scott: Something she might not have recognized before her time as Helly R.? Lower: Maybe, I don't know. Helena and Mark do end up sharing this intimate moment. Do either of you think that Helena has feelings for Mark? Lower: The audience should decide. She's isolated, her family experiences were chilling. Meeting the innies profoundly impacted her humanity. She shares a sense of humor with Mark. Scott: We extensively discussed the triangle between Innie Mark, Helly R., and Helena. Helena is frightening and responsible for Mark's outie's suffering. But they share a connection. I'll leave it at that.

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Russell Vought as White House budget director Thursday. This places a key figure in President Donald Trump's expansion of executive power in a highly influential federal role. Vought's confirmation was along party lines, 53-47. Despite attempts by Democrats to explain their opposition during the vote, Senate rules prevented debate, and their comments were cut short by presiding officer Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL). This vote followed Democrats' unsuccessful attempt to block the nomination by holding the Senate floor for an extended period, calling Vought Trump's "most dangerous nominee." Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described the confirmation as a "triple-header of disaster for hardworking Americans." Vought's return to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position he held during Trump's first term, gives him significant power in implementing the President's agenda. The OMB is central to developing the White House budget, policy priorities, and agency regulations. Vought's prior involvement in Project 2025, a conservative plan for Trump's second term, highlights his influence. The OMB has already taken actions affecting federal spending, including a temporarily implemented federal spending freeze that was later rescinded due to legal challenges. Senate Republicans supported Vought's nomination, emphasizing his potential to reduce federal spending and regulations. Senate Majority Leader John Thune supported the confirmation, stating Vought would address "cutting burdensome government regulations and addressing excessive spending." Vought has consistently advocated a strong conservative policy approach. After leaving the Trump administration, he founded the Center for Renewing America, a Washington think tank promoting Trump's "Make America Great Again" agenda. He actively advised congressional Republicans on strategies to cut federal programs and spending. In his writings for the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, Vought described the White House budget director's role as reflecting the President's priorities, likening the OMB to the President's "air-traffic control system" with extensive policy influence and the power to "override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies." During Trump's first term, Vought sought to reclassify many federal workers as political appointees, potentially enabling widespread dismissals. Vought also supported the President's use of "impoundment" to enhance executive control over federal spending, a legal theory asserting the President's power to withhold congressionally allocated funds deemed unnecessary. While testifying, Vought affirmed his commitment to following the law but avoided directly answering Democratic questions regarding potential withholding of aid to Ukraine, leading Democrats to accuse him of believing the President is above the law. In response to Republican questions, Vought hinted at potential budget cuts to discretionary social programs, citing the President's focus on fiscal accountability and inflation. Vought has openly promoted "Christian nationalism," a concept gaining traction within the GOP, suggesting that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should reflect this in government. In a 2021 article, Vought described Christian nationalism as supporting an institutional separation of church and state but not a separation of Christianity's influence on government and society.

President Trump is reportedly preparing an Executive Order aiming to dismantle the Department of Education, a campaign pledge reflecting his goal of federal government downsizing. While testing the boundaries of his presidential power, experts deem abolishing the agency challenging, yet feasible. “The Department of Education can't simply be eliminated,” explains Jonathan E. Collins, a political science and education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. “Legally, Congress, not the President, must initiate this action.” Congress established the Department of Education; only Congress can dissolve it. The reported Executive Order would restrict the Department from undertaking functions lacking explicit statutory authorization. Sources indicate officials are exploring transferring certain agency functions to other departments. The Executive Order reportedly urges Congressional approval for dismantling the Education Department.  The White House didn't respond to TIME's request for comment. The Education Department largely administers federally funded programs, including Pell Grants and federal work-study programs (providing financial aid to higher education students) and Title I (assisting low-income student school districts). These are all Congressionally appropriated. Given Congress's authority, Collins suggests Trump's Executive Order might not fully abolish the Department but instead curtail its responsibilities. Experts point out that many Department of Education programs enjoy bipartisan support (e.g., grants for special education). Lawmakers are invested in preventing funding losses for local schools and universities. The Trump Administration would need to reallocate the funds the Department manages. “These funded programs can’t just vanish,” states Josh Cowen, an education policy professor at Michigan State University and author of The Privateers, How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers. “A clear plan for fund allocation and receiving agencies is necessary.” The Project 2025 playbook, a Heritage Foundation policy plan that Trump publicly distanced himself from during his campaign, outlines plans for dismantling the Department. This plan proposes transferring portions of Title I to the Department of Health and Human Services and relocating the Office of Federal Student Aid to “a new government corporation with professional governance and management.” “This is about testing and expanding presidential power,” says Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. “The courts will significantly determine whether this undermines the Constitution's separation of powers.” Some lawmakers might support Trump. In January, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a bill to terminate the Department of Education, garnering 30 Republican co-sponsors. Experts attribute conservative support for abolishment to the belief that parents, not the federal government, should primarily determine education. Even if the House passes such a bill, the GOP would need bipartisan Senate support beyond its 53-member majority to reach the 60-vote threshold for passage. “Unelected Washington, D.C. bureaucrats shouldn't control our children's intellectual and moral development,” Massie stated in a January press release. “States and localities best shape curricula meeting student needs. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the best educational opportunity for their children – homeschool, public school, or private school.” However, the Education Department doesn't dictate school curricula, nor is it the primary funder of public schools. Federal contributions for elementary and secondary education are minimal, supplemented by funding from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture (school lunches and Head Start). States rely heavily on local taxes for school district budgets, and local officials overwhelmingly determine curricula. On Thursday, five Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin, sent a letter to the acting Secretary of Education expressing concerns about Trump's potential plan to weaken the department. “We won’t allow the impact of dismantling the Department of Education on the nation’s students, parents, borrowers, educators, and communities. Congress created the Department to ensure all students have equal access to quality education and civil rights protection regardless of location,” the letter states. “We urge you to provide information on steps the Department is taking to maintain program continuity, effective program administration without waste, fraud, or abuse, and safeguards protecting student data privacy.” ```

Following recent political trends, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) faces potential elimination. Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican, recently reintroduced legislation to abolish OSHA, a bill dubbed the “Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act,” or “NOSHA.” What would the abolishment of OSHA entail? Let's examine the implications. OSHA's Role OSHA's mission is to ensure safe and healthy American workplaces. According to [expert name], former OSHA Assistant Secretary of Labor, employers are legally obligated to provide safe work environments, a responsibility OSHA enforces. Since its establishment in 1970 under President Nixon, OSHA has set standards addressing numerous workplace hazards, from limiting exposure to harmful substances to promoting safer working conditions. The AFL-CIO attributes nearly 700,000 lives saved to these safety standards. Republican Opposition to OSHA OSHA's position has been politically contentious. Biggs’ initial proposal to abolish OSHA in 2021 followed OSHA's enforcement of COVID-19 vaccination measures under the Biden administration. This mandate, later blocked by the Supreme Court, required employers with 100 or more employees to mandate vaccination or implement masking and regular testing for unvaccinated workers. Biggs' 2021 bill had nine cosponsors but failed to progress to a vote. His current bill lacks cosponsors. However, Biggs isn't alone in his criticism. Last year, an Ohio contractor, backed by 23 Republican state attorneys general, petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging OSHA's authority as unconstitutional. While the Supreme Court declined the case, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged the issue's importance. Biggs' renewed bill aims to reduce government size, limit federal workplace intervention, and transfer regulatory authority to states, as stated in a video outlining his rationale. Biggs cited constitutional concerns regarding federal workplace regulation. He specifically highlighted concerns about OSHA's uniform heat standards, arguing they unfairly penalize warm-climate states like Arizona. Consequences of OSHA's Abolishment According to Michaels, abolishing OSHA would create a "race to the bottom," potentially leading companies to cut corners on worker safety, especially if competitors do the same. The incentive for worker protection would diminish. States with federally approved OSHA State Plans could partially fill the gap. However, Michaels argues against sole reliance on state-level regulation. Current law doesn't mandate state-level workplace safety regulation; it only requires that state regulations, if adopted, meet or exceed federal standards. Even with state plans, inconsistencies exist. Arizona, despite having a State Plan, has policy discrepancies compared to federal OSHA, such as in fall protection for residential construction workers. Maintaining national workplace safety standards is deemed the most effective worker protection approach.

Norman Lear, the prolific creator of numerous classic sitcoms, including *All in the Family*, *Maude*, and *The Jeffersons*, remained actively involved in television production until his passing in 2023. In recent years, he collaborated with a new generation of television creators on updated versions of his work. This included a Netflix reboot of *One Day at a Time*, featuring a Cuban American single mother, and an animated revival of *Good Times*. In his final weeks, he was also involved in a new adaptation of *Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman*, starring Emily Hampshire. Clean Slate, an Amazon comedy co-created by Dan Ewen, and George Wallace, with Lear as an executive producer, is an original series reflecting Lear's characteristic sensibilities. This single-camera sitcom, reminiscent of classic heartwarming sitcoms, opens with a quote from Lear himself: “The laughter that I’ve enjoyed most is laughter that has brought numbers of us together.” Lear believed humor could help societies overcome their problems. Clean Slate, while charming, suffers from some predictable jokes and naivete, reflecting a contrast to the 1970s. The show centers on Harry Slate (Wallace), a kind but somewhat stubborn older man, who runs a car wash in his Alabama hometown. His estranged daughter, Desiree (Cox), a trans woman, unexpectedly returns after a difficult breakup and financial struggles. Their reunion is initially strained, especially as Harry grapples with his daughter's identity. The initial shock is evident when a neighbor remarks, “I thought you had a son,” and Harry replies, “So did I.” Harry, despite his traditional views, is ultimately loving and lonely. He learns to be a supportive father with the help of his community. This includes Mack (Wilkison), an ex-con single father; Opal (Murphy), Mack's ambitious daughter; Louis (Uzoukwu), a closeted choir director; and Ella (Hopkins), Louis' mother, with whom Harry shares a playful dynamic. The writing occasionally falters, with gentle humor that may elicit smiles rather than hearty laughter. Some jokes feel tired and predictable, such as: “One man’s bullsh-t is another man’s fertilizer.” “Where there’s a will, there’s a gay.” An episode set on Election Day avoids political specifics. However, a humorous scene involving a voter's burning American-flag cape directly references current political division. Clean Slate's strongest moments arise from character development and community interactions. Desiree's emotional journey, including a poignant moment of self-reflection ("I don’t have anything left! I’m just a sad bitch!”), is particularly effective. The show also sensitively portrays the complexities of faith and family, as seen through the characters' relationship with their church. The show offers comfort and affirmation to the trans community. While at times overly sweet, Clean Slate reminds viewers that individuals are not defined by ideology, and that parental love can transcend differences. It implies that those who choose hate should, as Lear famously advocated, "turn the other cheek." However, the show’s idealized setting feels unrealistic. The idyllic small town represents a world where progress prevails effortlessly, a place where problems are easily resolved and prejudice is easily overcome; a vision that, while pleasant, lacks the messy complexity of reality.

IBM was a pioneer in artificial intelligence, creating the first AI to defeat a chess champion (1997) and the first to win at Jeopardy! (2011). The AI landscape in 2025 is vastly different. While large AI models from Google and OpenAI dominate headlines, IBM's strategy centers on smaller, reliable AI tools tailored to specific client needs. This approach reflects a key debate: will AI profits primarily benefit large companies investing in “foundation models,” or will they spread to businesses using AI for increased productivity? Recent events suggest a shift toward IBM's strategy. The release of a cost-effective open-source AI model from a Chinese lab, coupled with IBM's 10% increase in bespoke AI software sales (surpassing analyst predictions), led to a 12% stock price surge and an all-time high valuation of $240 billion. IBM CEO Arvind Krishna views this as validation of his strategy. He emphasizes the success of smaller, less computationally expensive AI models, potentially challenging the economics of large tech companies. He believes this will create a more level playing field, as reduced training costs and infrastructure demands make AI accessible to a broader range of businesses. IBM's reach extends beyond AI, encompassing cloud computing, software development, and consulting. It’s also heavily invested in quantum computing research, anticipating significant breakthroughs before 2030. Krishna believes these advancements will benefit both IBM and its clients, potentially returning IBM to a dominant position in the tech industry, mirroring its past success in mainframes and PCs. If it does, Krishna is quick to add, much of the value will accrue not only to IBM but also to its clients. But he also says that such a breakthrough could help IBM return to a dominant position in the tech industry, similar to the one that it held for much of the late 20th century as the world’s biggest PC manufacturer. “Assuming the timeline and the [quantum] breakthroughs I’m talking about happen, I think that gives us a tremendous position and the first mover advantage in that market, to a point where I think that we would become the de-facto answer for those technologies,” he says. “Much like we helped invent mainframes and the PC, maybe in quantum we’ll occupy that same position.”This profile is published as a part of TIME’s TIME100 Impact Awards initiative, which recognizes leaders from across the world who are driving change in their communities. The next TIME100 Impact Awards ceremony will be held on Feb. 10 in Dubai.

While figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk have criticized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, Elise Smith, CEO and co-founder of Praxis Labs, views navigating cultural differences as crucial for multinational businesses. Smith, 34, emphasizes that DEI's core value—driving business success—will endure. She highlights the challenge faced by Fortune 500 companies: effectively serving diverse clients and fostering productive, diverse teams.  Praxis Labs develops AI and VR tools to enhance workplace communication and interaction. These tools, surpassing traditional diversity training videos, offer modules focused on feedback delivery, addressing bias, and improving questioning techniques. Users engage with a generative AI chatbot simulating challenging work scenarios, providing tailored guidance on handling situations with cultural sensitivity. Currently focused on specific scenarios, Smith anticipates an "always-on" upgrade this year for broader workplace advice.  Smith draws a parallel between learning critical human skills and athletic training: "You can’t play basketball by just watching a video in theory about passing and shooting—you have to do it," she explains, highlighting the need for experiential learning.  Smith's experience at IBM's Watson Group, applying AI to education, and witnessing colleagues struggle in systems not designed for them, inspired her 2018 co-founding of Praxis with Heather Shen (a 2025 TIME100 Next honoree). Praxis, with $23 million in venture capital and a team of 15, serves clients including Uber, Amazon, and Accenture, aiming to improve employee engagement, retention, and global business relationships.  Smith believes that in an era of increasingly powerful AI for mechanical tasks, soft skills—communication, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution—are paramount. She stresses the need for genuine connection beyond transactional relationships, emphasizing collaboration across differences to achieve beneficial outcomes for all. 

A Black Marin County homeowner's experience in 2021 highlighted racial bias in property appraisal. After renovations, their home was drastically undervalued. However, when a white friend posed as the homeowner, the appraisal increased significantly, exposing systemic inequity. This case underscored the work of California's 2020 reparations task force, which investigates systemic racism's lasting impact. Lisa Holder, Equal Justice Society president, views such incidents not as isolated events but as symptomatic of a persistent problem. She counters the "post-racial" narrative with data showing ongoing disparities for Black and brown communities due to historical inequality. The task force's 2023 report contained over 100 policy recommendations, including financial compensation and reforms across sectors. Recent legislation includes a formal apology for California's role in perpetuating slavery, acknowledging the state's enforcement of fugitive slave laws and the enslavement of over 2,000 people even after statehood in 1850. Holder emphasizes the importance of apologies in reparations, shifting blame from victims to the institutions responsible for harm and oppression. Holder, a prominent civil rights lawyer for over two decades, has addressed education equity, employment discrimination, and constitutional policing. Her involvement in a 2019 lawsuit led to the removal of SAT/ACT requirements for University of California admissions, a key step in advancing her broader mission of systemic change. While acknowledging the challenges and controversies surrounding reparations, Holder maintains that their moral imperative is undeniable. She emphasizes that reparations encompass more than financial compensation; they necessitate systemic reform to prevent future harm.

Last November, David J. Johns, CEO and executive director of the National Black Justice Collective (NBJC), considered ceasing his eye-catching nail art.  He contemplated whether foregoing nail polish might lessen the risk he faces, but ultimately remembered the student who inspired him to paint his nails in the first place—a student who wanted self-expression without fear of bullying. Johns, whose nails currently sport colorful designs, dedicates most of his time to advocating for equity, distinguishing it from equality. He explains that while equality means treating everyone the same, equity acknowledges individual needs, likening it to providing different sized boxes for people watching over a fence to ensure equal viewing.  To promote these values, NBJC annually releases its federal policy agenda, advocating for it through initiatives like “Equity Week,” a series of events in D.C. leading up to Juneteenth. The organization also collaborates with local educators to provide cultural-competency training on Black LGBTQ+ communities and with nonprofits like the Boris L. Henson Foundation to offer free mental-health services for Black queer youth.  Aware of the challenges under President Trump's administration, the 42-year-old Johns draws inspiration from past activists. His home office displays books and art featuring U.S. civil rights leaders and authors—including a feminist and social critic, and former President Barack Obama, with whom Johns worked as executive director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans. He cites their work throughout our conversation. Regarding , the Black, gay activist behind the , he states, “When I think about the challenges that we face institutionally, organizationally, or as a country, I’m reminded that this man did things in spite of obstacles erected by people who purported to be his friend. If he could do that with the resources he had, then I can create magnificent and awesome things.” Johns' experience as a former elementary school teacher also fuels his commitment. He recounts being at his doctorate graduation when a voice called out for Mr. Johns. He recognized the voice but not the person, only to be introduced to Ernie, who reminded him that when he had taught them in kindergarten, they were Ernestine. This interaction further emphasized the harm caused by politicians restricting discussions of gender and sexuality in schools, and underscored the significance of his work, stating, “If I had capitulated to ignoring, possibly shaming transness or queerness in some way, Ernie might not be here.”