PR in the Philippines

As a veteran with disabilities, I've relied on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for my healthcare needs since 1999. The VA provided essential care when I experienced an ovarian cyst rupture. They were also there to help me manage debilitating migraines caused by my military service. Following a stroke in 2019, the VA provided crucial care management, rehabilitation access, and support to aid in my recovery. However, the Trump administration, with the support of the new VA Secretary Doug Collins, intends to reduce VA staffing to 2019 levels. This action would undermine the vital support system that veterans like myself and countless others depend on. This decision is not only irresponsible, but it also represents a betrayal of every veteran who has served our nation. The VA's mission, as established in 2023, is "to uphold President Lincoln's commitment to care for those who have served in our nation's military, as well as their families, caregivers, and survivors." Cutting these jobs directly contradicts this mission. It disrespects those who have defended our country by undermining a service many depend upon. The statistics speak for themselves. In 2021, a significant number of veterans relied on at least one VA benefit or service, and utilized VA healthcare. Moreover, since the PACT Act was enacted in August 2022, almost a large number of veterans have enrolled in VA benefits, including over 333,000 veterans from the PACT Act group—those who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Post-9/11 conflicts. In just over a short time since the PACT Act became law, the VA has delivered essential healthcare and benefits to millions of veterans and their families who have been impacted by toxic exposure. The demand for VA healthcare is not decreasing; rather, it is increasing rapidly. Therefore, reducing VA staffing to 2019 levels will have negative consequences. Since 2019, the number of veterans seeking care has increased, with more veterans entering the system and requiring specialized care for combat-related injuries, PTSD, and illnesses resulting from toxic exposure. Returning to pre-pandemic staffing levels disregards these realities and will likely result in longer wait times and less access to specialized care and life-saving treatments. Veterans will suffer, and some may die waiting for the care they were promised. This is not just a matter of policy; it is blatant neglect. But the betrayal extends further. Thousands of veterans are employed by the VA, dedicated to serving their fellow service members. These job cuts will not only affect veterans who need care but also those who have committed themselves to caring for others. The VA was established to support those who have made sacrifices for our country—why is this administration abandoning us? My concern extends beyond my own situation; I am deeply worried about our elderly veterans, those with severe combat injuries, survivors of military sexual trauma (MST), and those struggling with PTSD. They will bear the worst consequences of this heartless decision. Given the already alarming suicide rates among veterans—according to a 2024 VA report, a significant number—cutting off vital support will only exacerbate this crisis, leaving our most vulnerable veterans without the care they desperately need and deserve. When we fail our veterans, we abandon the very principles our nation claims to uphold: duty, honor, and commitment. This is not merely about policy; it is about the individuals who have risked everything in service to our country, only to be disregarded when they require assistance the most. If we allow this to happen, we are not only failing veterans but also failing as a nation. The consequences of inaction will be measured in lives lost, families destroyed, and a breakdown of trust between those who serve and the nation they pledged to protect. We cannot claim to be a nation that supports its troops if we abandon them when they need us most. If these cuts are implemented, how many veterans will suffer? How many will be lost? Consider that a large percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD, and this figure is believed to be an underestimate because it only includes veterans who seek help through the VA. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans and veterans from other conflicts who suffer from PTSD, TBI, and MST. We are not alone in this fight. Organizations like Common Defense, Indivisible, and VoteVets are at the forefront, mobilizing veterans and their allies to oppose these dangerous cuts. These groups recognize that defending veterans' rights is not a political issue; it is about upholding a sacred promise to those who have served. Their efforts demonstrate that we can and must take action to prevent this betrayal. We fought for this country, and now we must fight again—not with weapons, but with our voices. We must demand that the VA and the Trump administration fulfill their obligations to us. We must contact our representatives by phone, email, and attendance to town hall meetings to make them aware that we will hold them accountable. We must collaborate with advocacy groups that are working to protect VA resources and veterans' rights. We cannot and will not be ignored, forgotten, marginalized, or betrayed. Because reducing VA jobs is not just a policy mistake; it is a violation of the oath we took to serve and protect this nation.

Tesla's global sales are declining, potentially due to consumer reaction against CEO Elon Musk's political activities, particularly his association with the Trump Administration. The company's stock experienced a significant drop of 15% by the close of trading on Monday, marking its worst decline . This occurred amidst a broader market downturn triggered by President Donald Trump's suggestion of an impending recession on Sunday. The President addressed Tesla's situation in a Monday night post, attributing the EV company's boycott to "radical left lunatics" and promising to "buy a brand new Tesla." The car manufacturer could benefit from this endorsement, as recent figures indicate substantial sales decreases in various global markets. According to the (ACEA), Tesla's European sales in January were just under 7,517 vehicles, a 50% decrease from the previous January. This is in contrast to the overall growth in battery and hybrid electric vehicle sales in the EU, driven by the region's continued focus on reducing emissions from new vehicles. In Germany, the largest EV market in the EU, overall electric vehicle sales increased by 30% year-over-year in February. However, Tesla's sales in Germany decreased, with fewer than 1,500 new Teslas registered in the country during February. Other European nations also experienced a drop in sales. Reports indicate that between January and February 2025, Tesla's sales fell by 50% in Portugal and 45% in France , while sales decreased. The sales decline is not limited to Europe. In Australia, data from the Electric Vehicle Council reveals that Tesla's sales plummeted by over 70% compared to the previous year. The reported 1,592 sales in February contrast sharply with the 5,665 sales recorded in February 2024, according to . Meanwhile, Tesla's shipments from China experienced a 49% decrease in February, with 30,688 vehicles shipped, marking the lowest monthly figure since July 2022, as reported by . Tesla is facing increasing competition from local EV manufacturers in China. For instance, Chinese automaker BYD sold over 318,000 electric and hybrid vehicles last month, a 161% increase compared to the previous year. In California, the largest domestic market for EVs due to the state's zero-emission vehicle mandates for automakers, Tesla's sales have been declining for the fifth consecutive quarter, as per the from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA). However, not all markets are experiencing a downturn. The UK saw record EV sales in 2024, and Tesla's sales increased by 20% in February. Musk has not directly addressed the sales decrease. However, when questioned by Fox Business's Larry Kudlow about managing his various businesses, the billionaire replied, "With great difficulty." ```

BENGALURU, India — A recent report revealed that the majority of the world's population is exposed to polluted air, with only 17% of cities worldwide meeting the recommended air quality standards. IQAir, a Swiss-based air quality monitoring database, analyzed data from 40,000 monitoring stations across 138 countries. The analysis identified Chad, Congo, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India as having the most polluted air. Notably, six of the nine most polluted cities were located in India, with Byrnihat, an industrial town in northeastern India, experiencing the worst air quality. Experts suggest that the actual extent of air pollution could be significantly higher due to inadequate monitoring in many regions. For instance, in Africa, there is only one monitoring station for every 3.7 million people. The report indicates that efforts are underway to address this issue by increasing the number of air quality monitors. This year, the report incorporated data from 8,954 new locations and approximately one thousand new monitors, reflecting progress in air pollution monitoring. However, air pollution data monitoring faced a setback last week when the U.S. State Department announced it would discontinue public access to data collected from its embassies and consulates worldwide. According to Fatimah Ahamad, chief scientist and air pollution expert at the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health in Malaysia, prolonged exposure to polluted air can lead to respiratory illnesses, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that air pollution causes approximately 7 million deaths annually. Ahamad emphasized the need for greater efforts to reduce air pollution levels, noting that the WHO has previously stated that 99% of the global population resides in areas that fail to meet recommended air quality levels. She illustrated the urgency of the situation by stating, "If you have bad water, no water, you can tell people to wait for half an hour a day, the water will come. But if you have bad air, you cannot tell people to pause breathing." Several cities, including Beijing, Seoul, South Korea, and Rybnik in Poland, have successfully improved their air quality through the implementation of stricter regulations on pollution from vehicles, power plants, and industry. These cities have also promoted cleaner energy sources and invested in public transportation. Another significant initiative aimed at curbing severe air pollution is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations agreement on transboundary haze pollution. Although its success has been limited to date, ten countries in the region have pledged to collaborate on monitoring and controlling pollution from large forest fires, a common occurrence in the region during dry seasons. Shweta Narayan, a campaign lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance, pointed out that regions experiencing the worst air pollution often coincide with areas where planet-heating gases are extensively released through the burning of coal, oil, and gas. She suggested that reducing planet-warming emissions to mitigate climate change can also contribute to improved air quality. Narayan concluded that air pollution and the climate crisis are "two sides of the same coin." ```

NEW YORK — Following President Donald Trump's recent intensification of his , the S&P 500 has fallen more than 10% from its peak. Earlier on Tuesday, the S&P 500 declined by as much as 1.5% before reducing its loss to 1.4%, positioning it 9.9% below its highest point. As of 1:32 p.m. Eastern time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had decreased by 711 points, or 1.7%, while the Nasdaq composite was down 1.2%. These declines occurred after Trump announced increased tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, doubling the planned increase to 50%. The president stated that this action was in response to measures taken by a Canadian province after Trump began threatening tariffs on one of the United States’ major trade partners. Such unpredictable actions are becoming commonplace for investors, with the S&P 500 experiencing swings of at least 1%, either up or down, on seven occasions in the past eight days. These fluctuations reflect Wall Street's uncertainty regarding the extent of economic hardship Trump is willing to accept through tariffs and other policies in his efforts to reshape the country and the world. “The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State,” Trump remarked, while announcing his latest escalation in the trade conflict. “This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” Tuesday’s declines also followed increased warning signs about the economy as Trump’s inconsistent implementation of tariffs generates confusion and negativity among U.S. households and businesses. These tariffs can negatively impact the economy by increasing prices for U.S. consumers and disrupting global trade. However, even if the tariffs are less severe than anticipated, the frequent policy changes could create enough uncertainty to push U.S. companies and consumers into a state of economic stagnation. Delta Air Lines reported late Monday that it is observing a decline in customer confidence, which is affecting demand for last-minute flight bookings. Consequently, the airline reduced its revenue growth forecast for the first quarter of 2025 by roughly half, from a range of 7% to 9% down to a range of 3% to 4%. Delta’s stock value decreased by 8.5%. Southwest Airlines also lowered its projection for a key underlying revenue trend, citing reduced government travel, among other factors, including California wildfires and “softness in bookings and demand trends as the macro environment has weakened.” However, its stock increased by 8.7% after the airline announced that it would soon start charging some passengers for checked baggage and implement changes to reward its most loyal customers. Oracle's stock fell by 3.7% after the technology company's reported profit and revenue for the most recent quarter fell short of analysts' expectations. Several Big Tech stocks helped to moderate the market's losses, showing some stability after recent declines. For instance, Elon Musk's Tesla increased by 2.1% after Trump announced he would purchase a Tesla to demonstrate his support for “Elon’s ‘baby.’” Tesla's sales and brand have faced challenges as Musk has advocated for federal government spending cuts in Washington. Tesla’s stock has fallen 43.8% so far this year. Other Big Tech leaders, which had previously driven the market to record highs, also showed more resilience. increased by 1%, reducing its year-to-date loss to 19.6%. It has struggled as the market sell-off has disproportionately affected stocks perceived as overvalued amidst Wall Street's enthusiasm for artificial intelligence. A small number of these leading companies were primarily responsible for the S&P 500 reaching a record as recently as Feb. 19. Just seven companies accounted for over half of the S&P 500's total return last year: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. Citi strategists suggest they “doubt that the AI bubble is already fully played out” and that these companies could potentially lead the U.S. stock market back to its long-standing position of outperforming other global markets. However, they noted that “that is for the long term, not for the next few months,” stating that “US exceptionalism is at least pausing.” In international stock markets, which have largely outperformed the United States this year, indexes declined across much of Europe and Asia. Stocks in Shanghai increased by 0.4%, and were nearly unchanged in Hong Kong, as China's annual national congress concluded its session with measures aimed at stimulating the slowing economy. In the bond market, Treasury yields remained relatively stable after recent declines due to concerns about the U.S. economy. The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 4.24% from 4.22% late Monday. In January, it was approaching 4.80%. A report released Tuesday morning indicated that U.S. employers were advertising 7.7 million job openings at the end of January, precisely matching economists' expectations. This is another indication that the U.S. job market remains generally robust, at least for the time being, after the economy ended the previous year at a healthy rate.

In diplomacy, predictability is highly valued. However, since January 20th, this has been scarce in Washington, as the Trump administration frequently interferes in the domestic affairs of other countries. This has complicated the work of many diplomats, who are struggling to balance their country's approach to Washington with the concerns of their superiors. Trade disputes, tariffs, and retaliatory measures are prevalent as President Donald Trump appears determined to destabilize longstanding alliances and the nation's once-stable economy. This situation has created a surge in business for the foreign affairs departments of well-connected K Street lobbying firms. They have a wide selection of new clients and seemingly unlimited budgets as embassies seek top U.S. insiders to interpret the new administration's signals. Some countries are now spending large sums monthly to have White House allies explain the political landscape, if they can even find lobbying firms willing to take on more clients. Canada and Denmark offer contrasting strategies for dealing with a newly challenging U.S. While Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is currently taking a firm stance, others, like the Danes, are attempting to accommodate Trump’s policies. "I recognize these are difficult times, brought about by a country we can no longer have faith in," Carney stated on Sunday after winning his party's leadership election in a landslide victory where Trump was a significant factor. Several months prior, the Liberals were preparing for a major defeat among dissatisfied Canadian voters. This changed following Trump's campaign for Canada, reminding Canadians of the importance of their leaders. Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was even more forthright than Carney in his recent farewell address: "Democracy cannot be taken for granted. Freedom cannot be taken for granted. Even Canada cannot be taken for granted." This pessimism is widespread in Washington's diplomatic circles. It sometimes surfaces as dark humor—or a Freudian slip—as when the Danish Ambassador to Washington recently addressed a reception of business leaders, academics, and investors. "I would like to propose a toast to the enduring friendship between our two great nations, the United States of Denmark, and the Kingdom," Jesper Møller Sørensen said, catching himself in a room suddenly filled with nervous laughter, given Trump's repeated interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark. "May I try that again?" he asked. "You understand what I mean." While Denmark's leaders are not adopting the combative attitude of Carney and Trudeau, they are experiencing their own Trump-related political shift, which is expected to influence Tuesday's election in Greenland, where the country's desire for independence is a significant factor. More seriously, Denmark's primary advocate for business, Minister of Industry, Business, and Financial Affairs Morten Bødskov, stated the day after the awkward toast that the kingdom, which funds over half of Greenland's budget, was striving to maintain stability and historical consistency. "The connections between Denmark and the U.S. are exceptionally strong, resulting in a relationship of friendship, trust, and straightforward dealings," the Danish political insider told me, trying to keep his words restrained and avoid causing any negative repercussions from an unpredictable U.S. President. This caution is now common. Words such as *partnership*, *alliance*, and *friendship* are frequently used along Embassy Row, but it is widely known that Trump has disrupted the diplomatic landscape. As he overturns decades of international norms, his own diplomats at the State Department are preparing for widespread changes, and Hill staff, particularly those on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are trying to understand the extent of the impending cuts. Even Trump's defenders are being candid with their counterparts in other governments. "President Trump's approach to diplomacy is very transactional, with economics serving as the foundation and driving force behind international relations," retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, the president's special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told a Council on Foreign Relations audience last week. In simple terms: there will be winners and losers, and Trump intends to be the former. Foreign diplomats understand this and are trying to adapt as necessary without alienating their most important economic ally. For example, 16% of Denmark's export market, worth approximately $40 billion, ends up in the United States. Long-held assumptions about consistent U.S. policy are no longer certain. Since Trump returned to power, he has aligned himself with—or at least excused—Russia in its conflict with Ukraine and advocated permanently removing Palestinians from Gaza. A security guarantee for Taiwan is no longer a given. He has even suggested that the United States needs to reclaim the Panama Canal, possibly by force. These erratic actions and dramatic reversals have heightened anxiety within the diplomatic corps in Washington, as both allies and adversaries attempt to understand the current situation. Consider Bødskov's recent trip to the United States. Denmark's charm-offensive leader visited Texas before stopping in Washington to promote the longstanding ties between Washington and Copenhagen, including hosting a reception for business leaders and investors to demonstrate a stable environment. Like many other global leaders, his message emphasized the benefits for the U.S., noting that Danish companies employ around 200,000 Americans. However, with Trump openly seeking to acquire Greenland, maintaining a friendly demeanor is becoming increasingly challenging. "There are new positions in Washington, and the rhetoric is new. We must, of course, manage that," Bødskov says. "The connections between Danish companies and American companies are at the highest level ever." But so too are the tensions.

Southwest Airlines announced on Tuesday that it will start charging customers for checked baggage. This move reverses a long-standing policy that company executives had previously highlighted as a key differentiator for the budget airline. Southwest, known for advertising its free checked bag policy for years, stated that passengers who are not high-tier members of its Rapid Rewards loyalty program, who haven't purchased business class tickets, or who don't possess the airline's credit card will now be required to pay for checked bags. The airline has not yet released the specific fee amounts but indicated that the new policy will be implemented for bookings made on or after May 28. Southwest Airlines CEO Bob Jordan stated that the airline has a significant opportunity to cater to current and future customer demands, attract new customer groups, and restore profitability to levels expected by both the company and its shareholders. Almost a year ago, the Dallas-based carrier revealed its plan to discontinue its open-boarding system, which had been in place for over half a century. Southwest anticipates introducing assigned seating on its flights next year. Southwest has faced recent challenges and is under pressure from activist investors to increase profits and revenue. In October, the airline reached an agreement with hedge fund Elliott Investment Management to prevent a proxy fight, resulting in Elliott gaining several seats on Southwest's board. Last month, the airline announced the elimination of 1,750 positions, representing 15% of its corporate workforce, marking the company's first major layoffs in its 53-year history. These job cuts, expected to be largely completed by the end of June, are part of a strategy to reduce costs and transform the company into a more efficient and adaptable organization, according to Jordan. Southwest's stock price increased by over 6% in pre-market trading on Tuesday. During Southwest's investor day in late September, airline executives emphasized the free baggage allowance as the most crucial aspect differentiating Southwest from its competitors. Other major U.S. airlines charge for checked baggage, and Wall Street has long suggested that Southwest was missing out on potential revenue. In September, the airline estimated that implementing baggage fees would generate approximately $1.5 billion annually, but could also result in $1.8 billion in lost revenue due to customers choosing other airlines with more generous baggage policies. Southwest clarified on Tuesday that it will continue to offer two complimentary checked bags to Rapid Rewards A-List preferred members and passengers traveling on Business Select fares. A-List members and other select customers will still receive one free checked bag. Customers with Rapid Rewards credit cards will receive a statement credit for one checked bag. Passengers not eligible for these categories will be charged for checked baggage. The airline also stated that it will introduce a new, basic fare option on its lowest-priced tickets when the policy takes effect. In a regulatory filing, Southwest indicated that it now expects first-quarter revenue per available seat mile to increase by 2% to 4%. Its previous forecast projected an increase of 5% to 7%. The airline anticipates a capacity reduction of approximately 2%. The airline announced last year that, in addition to assigned seating, it would offer extra-legroom seating for an additional charge and introduce red-eye flights.

` tags. `` March 11 was a significant day. Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was apprehended at Manila International Airport under an arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity. Former Philippine Senator , a long-time critic of Duterte who was previously acquitted of drug-related charges after nearly seven years of imprisonment, stated, "This is deeply personal for me," in . Randy delos Santos, the uncle of a teenager killed in a 2017 police anti-drug operation in Manila, told the Associated Press that it was "a big, long-awaited day for justice." Duterte spearheaded a crackdown on illegal drugs for over two decades, initially as Davao City's mayor and subsequently as the Philippine President from 2016 to 2022. This campaign resulted in a death toll as high as , predominantly affecting impoverished Filipinos. Duterte’s arrest, coupled with the current Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Administration's cooperation, signifies a shift in the nation's political landscape. Jean Encinas-Franco, a political science professor at the University of the Philippines, notes that "In the short term, this marks the beginning of the end for the Duterte political dynasty." Duterte, often referred to as "Asia's Trump" due to his rhetoric and unconventional governing style, secured a landslide victory in the presidential election almost a decade ago, promising a relentless crackdown on crime. Upon assuming office, he fulfilled his promise through his "war on drugs." He also initiated and suppressed dissent from critics and . Despite sparking global condemnation, Duterte and his political approach maintained at home, even after his presidency. His daughter, Sara Duterte-Carpio, leveraging her family's legacy, won the Vice Presidency in 2022 with a significant margin, while , himself the son of a former dictator who governed the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. However, a power struggle has strained the relationship between the two families. A poll by indicates Duterte-Carpio as a leading contender in the 2028 presidential elections, and the elder Duterte is as mayor of Davao City in the upcoming May midterm elections. Meanwhile, the Duterte patriarch and President Marcos have . The former President has also accused his successor of toward a dictatorship. Last November, Vice President Duterte-Carpio even to have Marcos assassinated. These remarks, along with other allegations against Duterte-Carpio, prompted the House of Representatives, largely composed of Marcos allies, to her last month. Marcos had previously expressed his refusal to cooperate with the . However, in January, his administration stated that it would “” if the ICC issues an Interpol arrest warrant. Richard Heydarian, a Manila-based political analyst and senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines, told TIME that with the arrest, the Marcos Administration has "cut off the head of the snake" after a period of less direct confrontation with the family. He suggests that Duterte's potential transfer to The Hague could encourage Marcos’ allies in the Senate to against Duterte-Carpio. Political analyst Antonio Contreras believes it's premature to assess the impact of Duterte's arrest on the upcoming local elections or the future 2028 presidential race. However, he notes that the "feeling of invincibility before that [Duterte] can no longer be held accountable" is now being challenged.

It's remarkable that it's already been five years since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Since 2020, the U.S. has recorded over 1.2 million deaths, the highest number of any country. This figure represents more than one in seven of all reported COVID-19 deaths globally, although the actual worldwide death toll is likely higher due to underreporting. It's important to remember that COVID-19 was a devastating disease, comparable in lethality only to the 1918 Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague, and not to minimize its impact. In 2025, the days of lockdowns and quarantines seem like a distant memory for many, even though the pandemic's physical, mental, and emotional effects linger. However, a crucial question remains: Are we better prepared for the next pandemic? Unfortunately, the answer is likely no, we are less prepared. Pandemics are not necessarily rare events. We witnessed the 2009 swine flu pandemic, which resulted in deaths. Currently, H5N1 bird flu is spreading among poultry, wild birds, and mammals in the U.S., increasing the risk of it spilling over into humans. This makes the U.S. a potential ground zero for a new flu pandemic if the virus evolves to spread easily among humans. Other circulating threats include MPox, MERS (another coronavirus with a high fatality rate), and Ebola. And, of course, there's always the possibility of "Disease X," a future unknown virus. What actions should we be taking that we aren't? First, we need to invest in pandemic preparedness, not cut funding. The U.S. has . The WHO, working with local and national health authorities, plays a vital role as a "first responder," identifying and containing infectious-disease outbreaks. The U.S. previously contributed approximately to responding to acute health emergencies and preventing pandemics, so a reduction in our contributions will create a significant gap in resources needed to address emergencies and prevent the spread of outbreaks. Moreover, recent funding cuts or freezes are already impacting public health, raising concerns that progress in addressing infectious diseases will slow down or regress. Reduced funding also slows down pandemic preparations, and the U.S.'s decision to cease negotiations for the and amendments to the International Health Regulations exacerbates the situation. On a national level, plans to de-prioritize infectious-disease research and are likely to leave the public-health workforce under-resourced and ill-equipped to handle future pandemic threats. Although some employees have since been , the loss of experienced personnel involved in potential pandemic response means losing invaluable knowledge gained from working on the frontlines during COVID-19. Second, the ideologies and past actions of some individuals in charge of protecting public health in the U.S. suggest that the response to a new pandemic in the coming years would be minimal. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supported (though weakly) the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to combat a measles outbreak in Texas. However, he has a history of RFK Jr. has . The Trump Administration is reportedly for H5N1 mRNA vaccine research. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the , held views on COVID-19 that differed from the scientific consensus, including advocating for a herd-immunity approach that critics argued would have resulted in preventable deaths. While U.S. COVID-19 policies were not perfect, and while some extreme measures like extended could hopefully be avoided in the future, inaction during the next health emergency would be irresponsible. The question is, how actively will measures like vaccines be promoted next time? Third, we need to rebuild public confidence and trust in science, not continue to erode it. Recent rhetoric from figures like Trump and Kennedy, as well as influential social media personalities and podcasters, is fostering a conspiracy mindset towards science and health organizations, branding them as "" and . Research from the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that one of the is the public's level of trust in science and health authorities. Can the new administration restore trust in science and health organizations? If not, will people trust public-health guidance during future health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks? If the answer is not "yes" by the time the next pandemic arrives, the consequences will be dire.

` tags. In 1978, Marilyn Loden, a human resources executive, participated in a Women’s Exposition panel in New York City, discussing women's career aspirations. While the discussion largely focused on how women should adapt to succeed, Loden contended that structural barriers were the real issue hindering their progress. She introduced the concept of an "invisible glass ceiling" impeding their ambitions and opportunities. Since then, the image of a glass ceiling at the top of the corporate ladder has become a common symbol of the challenges women face in reaching leadership positions. Moving forward from Loden's time to the 1990s, women's presence in the workforce was at an all-time high. In response, the U.S. Congress formed the Glass Ceiling Commission to examine obstacles to their advancement. The commission reported that women held only 3% to 5% of senior leadership roles in Fortune 500 companies. Consequently, many organizations began prioritizing increasing the number of women in these top-tier positions. Progress has been gradual but consistent. In the three decades since the Glass Ceiling Commission's report, women's representation in the C-suite has risen from 3-5% to 29%. While still far from equal, this represents progress. In the U.S., between 2012 and 2022, women's C-suite representation increased by 10 percentage points, which translates to roughly one more direct report to the CEO in a 10-person team. However, the very top remains difficult to penetrate: in 2023, women accounted for just over 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, 9% of FTSE CEOs, and 5.4% of CEOs in the S&P Global Broad Market Index. One crucial, often overlooked, factor in promoting women's advancement is addressing the obstacle that affects them early in their careers: the broken rung. Although the glass ceiling persists, many women start lagging behind their male colleagues well before reaching that level. Our research indicates that women entering the workforce have significantly lower chances of securing their first managerial role compared to men. Moreover, when they do achieve that initial promotion, it often occurs later in their careers. In the U.S., for every 100 men promoted to manager, only 87 women receive the same opportunity. This disparity has remained remarkably consistent over the past decade, showing minimal improvement. The broken rung phenomenon often continues through the manager and director levels, preventing women from catching up. Across more than 1,000 U.S. companies surveyed over five years, women held an average of 48% of entry-level positions but only 37% of director-level positions, a mid-level of seniority. This indicates a significant number of women stalling or leaving the corporate workforce. At senior levels, women's representation hovers just below 30%, a significant drop from the parity they experienced in college or at the start of their careers. Women's representation is halved between the entry-level and the C-suite. Similar trends are observed globally. Norway, Australia, and Sweden lead with 24% to 27% female representation in senior leadership. The UK stands at 18%, and France at 13%. Brazil, Germany, and Mexico lag behind with 8% women (although Germany is improving due to quotas), followed by India at 5% and Japan at 3%. Every rung on the ladder presents challenges for women, especially women of color, as they navigate the corporate pipeline. However, the first rung has the most significant impact on both individual women and organizations. An eight-percentage-point drop so early in the pipeline makes it nearly impossible to close the gap, with compounding effects at each subsequent level. Missing the initial promotion to manager impacts an individual's entire career path, particularly in acquiring valuable skills and experiences. The decrease in female representation at each level further reduces the pool of women eligible for promotion, leaving few with a chance to even reach the glass ceiling. To make matters worse, the broken rung is often overlooked by leadership. Despite positive intentions among many CEOs, managers, and HR executives to support women, gaps persist in implementation. Over half of HR leaders believe their organization will achieve gender parity within 10 years. However, the UN estimates that, at the current rate, it will take 140 years to achieve equal representation in leadership worldwide. Optimistically, the problem and solution are two sides of the same coin. Promoting women and men to management at equal rates would create a powerful domino effect, increasing representation throughout the pipeline. This would lead to a larger pool of women available for promotion and hiring at each subsequent level. While achieving equality would still take time, fixing the first broken rung could bring women close to parity within a generation. This would also help companies retain ambitious, talented women and create mentors and leaders at all levels for young women to learn from and emulate. In essence, we must address parity in leadership from the bottom up, not just from the top down. Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Excerpted from by Kweilin Ellingrud, Lareina Yee, and María del Mar Martínez. Copyright 2025 McKinsey & Com­pany, Inc. United States. All rights reserved. 

MANILA, Philippines — Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, was apprehended at Manila International Airport on Tuesday. The arrest was carried out under an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant related to allegations of crimes against humanity, according to the Philippine government. President Ferdinand Marcos’ office stated that Duterte was detained upon his arrival from Hong Kong. Police acted on the ICC's orders, which is currently investigating the numerous deaths that occurred during Duterte's aggressive campaign against illegal drugs. The government stated that "Upon his arrival, the prosecutor general presented the ICC arrest warrant notification to the former president regarding the crime against humanity." They added, "He is currently in the custody of the authorities." The unexpected arrest caused a disturbance at the airport. Duterte's legal team and aides protested that they, along with a doctor, were barred from approaching him after he was taken into custody. Senator Bong Go, a close ally of Duterte, told reporters, "This violates his constitutional rights." Duterte's arrest shocked many and brought tears to the families of victims of his violent anti-drug operations. Randy delos Santos, the uncle of a teenager killed by police during a drug operation in Manila in August 2017, told The Associated Press, "This is a significant and long-awaited day for justice." Delos Santos stated, "We now sense that justice is progressing. We hope that high-ranking police officials and the hundreds of officers involved in the unlawful killings will also be detained and punished." In 2018, three police officers who killed his nephew, Kian delos Santos, were convicted of murder in a high-profile case. This prompted Duterte to temporarily halt his anti-drug campaign. The conviction was among at least three against law enforcement officials involved in the anti-drug campaign. This reflects the concerns of families who feared they would not obtain justice in the Philippines for suspected extrajudicial killings, leading them to seek assistance from the ICC. The whereabouts of Duterte following his arrest were not immediately known. The government stated that the 79-year-old former president was in good health. The ICC initiated its investigation into drug-related killings under Duterte's leadership from November 1, 2011, when he was mayor of Davao City, until March 16, 2019, considering them as possible crimes against humanity. In 2019, Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute, a move that human rights activists believe was intended to avoid accountability. In late 2021, the Duterte administration attempted to suspend the ICC's investigation by claiming that Philippine authorities were already investigating the same allegations, arguing that the ICC, as a court of last resort, lacked jurisdiction. In 2023, ICC appeals judges ruled that the investigation could proceed, dismissing the Duterte administration's objections. The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, intervenes when countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute individuals for severe international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who succeeded Duterte in 2022 and has since been engaged in a political dispute with him, has decided against rejoining the ICC. However, the Marcos administration has stated it would cooperate if the ICC requests international police to detain Duterte through a Red Notice, which is a global request for law enforcement to locate and provisionally arrest a suspect. ```