PR in the Philippines

Donald Trump, the oldest U.S. President at 78, underwent his initial physical examination of his second term on Friday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, which included a series of medical tests. He stated on Truth Social that he felt prepared for the check-up, noting that while he felt excellent, these examinations are necessary. The extent of medical information to be released by the White House about Trump's exams remains uncertain. It has been seven years since Trump released comprehensive details about his health. Despite promising to do so during the 2024 campaign, he did not, breaking with established precedent. After sustaining an ear injury during an assassination attempt in July, his former physician, Ronny Jackson—now a Texas congressman—shared a describing the ear wound. During the latter part of Trump’s first term, the White House reduced the amount of health information shared publicly. Following his hospitalization at Walter Reed with a severe COVID-19 case in October 2020, limited details were released about his health. Similarly, in 2019, his medical checkup was not disclosed on his public schedule until days later, and minimal information was provided about the results. The last instance of detailed public information regarding Trump’s health was in 2018. During a check-up at Walter Reed in 2018, overseen by Jackson, Trump’s heart rate and blood work were reported as normal. At that time, Trump was taking a statin for cholesterol, aspirin, Propecia for hair loss, and received vaccinations for pneumococcal pneumonia and hepatitis A and B. Jackson addressed reporters in the White House briefing room, answering questions about the examination. He remarked that Trump had “incredible genes” but advised him to increase exercise and improve his diet, suggesting that with a healthier diet over the past 20 years, Trump might live to be 200. Jackson was not the first of Trump’s physicians to exaggerate about his health. During Trump's 2015 presidential campaign, his personal physician Harold Bornstein issued a very positive health assessment. Bornstein stated that if Trump were elected in 2016, he would be “the healthiest individual elected to the presidency,” which appeared to be an unscientific embellishment in a medical report. Three years later, Bernstein told CNN that Trump had dictated the letter. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Friday that Trump’s physician will “provide an update” after the President’s physical “in the effort of transparency.” She criticized the Biden White House for a “lack of transparency” regarding Biden’s “health and competence” and accused reporters of a “cover up.” This followed instances where President Biden had confused countries' names, lost his train of thought, reduced press conferences, and limited interactions with the press. —With reporting by Nik Popli ```

High-level diplomats from the United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Oman this Saturday. This meeting could represent a significant diplomatic victory for President Donald Trump, something his predecessor, Joe Biden, was unable to achieve. Despite the criticisms of Trump's foreign policy approach, his unique positioning might enable him to re-establish a diplomatic agreement with Iran. For several weeks, the U.S. and Iran had been exchanging private communications. Trump had authorized a military surge in the region, while Tehran threatened to target U.S. bases if attacked. Complicating matters further, U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz seemed to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stringent demand for the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear program—an unrealistic condition that was widely interpreted as an attempt to undermine diplomacy and pave the way for military intervention. In essence, the conditions seemed more conducive to escalation than to diplomatic resolution. Nevertheless, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is expected to meet with Iran’s chief negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, to explore the potential for negotiation. Whether these discussions are indirect, as some suggest, or direct, as Trump prefers, is secondary. The crucial point is that dialogue is occurring. Several factors indicate that Trump’s diplomatic efforts could prove successful. Firstly, both parties have compelling reasons to reach an understanding. Despite his tough rhetoric and military deployments, Trump cannot afford to engage in another major conflict in the Middle East. He has consistently campaigned on a promise to withdraw U.S. troops from foreign entanglements, not initiate new wars. Prominent figures within the MAGA movement, such as , , and others, have also voiced strong opposition to military action against Iran. On the other side, Iran’s struggling economy urgently requires relief from sanctions. European nations are likely to reinstate sanctions before October under the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement, exacerbating Iran’s economic difficulties. Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, a moderate, won the election on a commitment to negotiate with the U.S. to ease sanctions and revitalize the economy. The success of his presidency hinges on his ability to fulfill this promise. Secondly, Trump does not appear to be taking his cues from Israel regarding Iran. Since the early 1990s, Israeli leaders have consistently opposed engagement with Iran, urging the U.S. to maintain a hard line. Many believe that the sanctions and Israel’s covert operations have significantly weakened Iran, making it vulnerable to military strikes. Netanyahu stated this week in a video address that a deal can only be effective if Iran’s nuclear facilities are physically destroyed, “under American supervision with American execution.” He also advocated for a “Libya-style agreement,” referencing the George W. Bush Administration’s approach in 2003 to disarming Libya. Trump seems to disagree, as evidenced by recent events. Netanyahu was reportedly expecting a meeting at the White House on Monday to focus on tariffs. However, upon arriving in Washington, he was informed of the U.S.-Iran talks and received no guarantees that any agreement would align with his demands, according to Israel’s Channel 12. CNN reported that the Israeli delegation was dissatisfied with the meetings. Trump’s willingness to act independently of Israel on Iran may be a crucial factor in the potential success of Saturday’s discussions. Instead of the Libya-style dismantlement, Witkoff has advocated for a less radical approach—the basis of former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal. This type of agreement focuses on limiting and monitoring Iran’s nuclear program rather than completely eliminating it. Iran has previously accepted such a framework and may be willing to do so again. Third—and perhaps most importantly—Tehran seems convinced that Trump genuinely desires a deal and is prepared to offer meaningful sanctions relief to achieve it. In contrast, Iranian officials perceived Biden as lacking the necessary urgency and political will. As one Iranian official told me, “For Biden, offering us sanctions relief was as painful as peeling off his own skin.” A deal with Trump presents Iran with a different opportunity. For the first time, Iranian officials are openly suggesting that they seek more than just sanctions relief to resume trade with Europe and Asia—they want to engage in direct commerce with the U.S. Until recently, this was unacceptable to Iran’s hardliners, who feared that U.S. economic influence would empower Iranian moderates and weaken conservative control. However, Iran’s foreign minister is now publicly soliciting American business. Writing in the , he argued that U.S. sanctions—not Iranian resistance—have prevented American companies from seizing a “trillion-dollar opportunity” in Iran’s economy. “To say that the scope for trade and investment in Iran is unparalleled is an understatement,” he added. By offering this business prospect, Tehran is not only appealing to Trump’s interests but also recognizing a crucial point: lifting restrictions on foreign companies trading with Iran (secondary sanctions relief) is unsustainable without also allowing U.S. companies to engage directly (primary sanctions relief). Obama’s nuclear deal only provided the former, which made it easier for Trump to abandon it, as the U.S. business community had little incentive to maintain the agreement. Given how far Iran has shifted, primary sanctions relief may be the leverage Trump needs to achieve a stronger deal than Obama’s. Reaching an agreement will still be challenging. Deep-seated mistrust persists, and Tehran will find it difficult to negotiate with the individual who authorized Soleimani's assassination in 2020 and withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018. Nevertheless, despite the inherent risks and the narrow path forward, the prospects for diplomacy have not appeared this promising in recent years.

One doesn't necessarily need combat experience to create a compelling war film. Though , , and had no such experience, their cinematic depictions of war's brutality remain powerful. However, a filmmaker's own harrowing experiences can lend an even greater weight, as seen in Sam Fuller's The Steel Helmet, a Korean War film drawn from his WWII diaries. Many veterans choose not to share their war experiences, making the accounts of those who do all the more significant. Ray Mendoza, an Iraq War veteran, collaborated with director (of and ) on Warfare, co-writing and co-directing the film. Mendoza was part of a Navy SEAL team involved in a perilous surveillance mission in Ramadi province, Iraq, in November 2006. Within hours, enemy forces attacked with a grenade, injuring two SEALs, including sniper and medic Elliott Miller (portrayed by in the film). Miller and another SEAL (Joseph Quinn) sustained further injuries when an IED detonated during their evacuation. Warfare recounts the intense, real-time story of their rescue. Despite the film's use of extended, lingering shots, the narrative progresses through moments of high tension. Warfare is not for the faint of heart. While the cinematography is restrained, the film allows the viewer's imagination to fill in the violent details. The film achieves a simultaneous sense of elegance and brutality: the grenade's lingering smoke forms a pinkish-gold haze; sunlight filters through bullet holes in a door. Mendoza and other mission participants (played by talented young actors like , , and ) reconstructed the events from their recollections. Miller, who has no memory of that day, inspired Mendoza to create the film as "a living snapshot," a tribute to his experiences. While most war movies emphasize individual character development, Warfare takes a different approach. Although the audience becomes familiar with the faces of the young soldiers, their names and specific roles are less defined. The film conveys the idea that the loss of one man is deeply felt by all, connected by a shared bond. For those whose understanding of military experience comes primarily from media, the youth of these characters becomes increasingly striking with age. These are the individuals sent to war, and the U.S. has a questionable record of supporting them upon their return. It is sobering to see the young actors in Warfare and consider the real-life veterans they depict, now middle-aged. With potential cuts to veteran benefits and understaffed facilities, their future care is uncertain. This is the reality after facing the horrors of war: a hero's welcome is not guaranteed.

The moon's actual size remains consistent. Since its formation billions of years ago, its average diameter has remained steady. To provide context, this distance is shorter than the span from Los Angeles to New York. As a comparison, if the Earth were the size of a nickel, the moon would be comparable to a coffee bean. However, the moon's apparent size can vary, and this Saturday, April 12, it will appear smaller than usual, a phenomenon known as a micromoon. Here's what to keep in mind. The moon's perceived size can change significantly from night to night. The , or moon illusion, can make it appear especially large when it's near the horizon, only to seem smaller as it rises higher in the sky. However, this is an optical illusion. You can test this by extending your arm, closing one eye, and holding up your index finger. Your fingernail will appear to be about the same size as the moon, regardless of how large or small the moon looks. This is because your brain unconsciously compares the moon to objects like houses and trees on the horizon, making it seem larger. Higher in the sky, the moon is dwarfed by the vastness of space, leading your mind to believe it has shrunk. The micromoon is a separate phenomenon. The moon's average distance from Earth is 238,855 miles, but this distance fluctuates. The moon follows an elliptical orbit around Earth, with its closest point (perigee) being about 224,000 miles and its farthest point (apogee) being 251,650 miles. When the moon is at perigee, it appears larger, creating a , where the moon looks 7% larger and 15% brighter than usual. At apogee, where the moon will be this weekend, it appears 14% smaller and 30% dimmer, resulting in the illusion of the . This micromoon is also called a , though its name doesn't refer to its color. (This contrasts with the , which occurs during a lunar eclipse when Earth's shadow falls on the moon. During this event, the Earth's atmosphere scatters blue wavelengths of sunlight but allows red wavelengths to pass through, giving the moon a reddish tint.) The pink moon is simply a traditional name for the April full moon, named after the spring flowers that bloom during this time. The pink micromoon will rise at dusk this Saturday, reaching its . Space enthusiasts will be observing it, similar to how they view a supermoon. However, not everyone is equally impressed. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out: "If last month's Full Moon were a 16.0 inch pizza, then this month's 'Super' Moon would be 16.1 inches. I'm just saying." By that logic, the micromoon would be a 13.76-inch pizza. Enjoy it regardless. ```

The last time we saw Joel and Ellie in The Last of Us, they were both grappling with the events that transpired at the Fireflies' hospital base in Salt Lake City. Ellie (Bella Ramsey) was unconscious during Joel's (Pedro Pascal) violent actions to prevent her sacrifice in the search for a Cordyceps cure. However, she seemed to suspect the truth about Joel's actions by the end of the episode. Despite her hesitant "OK" when Joel insisted he was truthful about the Fireflies no longer needing her, Ellie's expression suggested she understood what really happened. Now, over two years after the Season 1 finale, The Last of Us is returning for its second season, incorporating a time jump. Based on the acclaimed video game and developed by Neil Druckmann, the game's creator, and Chernobyl showrunner Craig Mazin, Season 1 of the HBO series revolved around the developing father-daughter dynamic between Joel, a hardened survivor, and Ellie, a 14-year-old orphan, as they journeyed across a post-apocalyptic America 20 years after the Cordyceps brain infection devastated civilization. Here's a recap of the key events from the first season of The Last of Us before Season 2 premieres on April 13. What happened between Joel and Ellie? Marlene (Merle Dandridge), the leader of the Fireflies, initially hired Joel to smuggle Ellie out of the FEDRA-controlled Boston quarantine zone to the old Massachusetts State House. He soon discovered Ellie was immune to the Cordyceps fungus after being bitten by a "clicker" three weeks prior. Marlene believed Ellie's DNA held the key to creating a vaccine. Despite his initial reservations, Joel eventually agreed to escort Ellie across the country to the Fireflies' facility after finding the group meant to receive her dead. As they traveled and faced numerous dangers together, they formed a deep bond, giving them both a renewed purpose. Why is Ellie immune? The Season 1 finale revealed that Ellie's mother, Anna (Ashley Johnson, who voiced Ellie in the video games) and a close friend of Marlene, was bitten by an infected person while giving birth to Ellie. As a result, traces of Cordyceps entered Ellie's system through her umbilical cord. According to Marlene, this produced "a kind of chemical messenger" that tricks normal Cordyceps into thinking that Ellie is one of them. However, Marlene made the mistake of informing Joel that the Firefly surgeon intended to remove Ellie's brain without her consent to access these immune cells and attempt to develop a vaccine. "Our doctor, he thinks that the Cordyceps in Ellie has grown with her since birth," she explained. "He's going to remove it from her, multiply the cells in a lab, produce those chemical messengers, and then we can give it to everyone. He thinks it could be a cure." Joel then killed almost everyone in the hospital, including the surgeon, to save Ellie, sacrificing humanity's chance at a cure. "They were runnin' some tests on you and some others," Joel lied to her as she regained consciousness. "Turns out there's a whole lot more like you, people who are immune. Dozens of 'em. And the doctors, they couldn't make any of it work. They've actually stopped lookin' for a cure." What to expect at the start of Season 2 Season 2 will jump ahead five years, depicting Joel and Ellie as deeply estranged while living in Jackson, Wyo., the settlement founded by Joel's brother Tommy (Gabriel Luna) and his wife Maria (Rutina Wesley). However, a violent act will soon change everything. Without spoiling specific plot points from The Last of Us Part II video game, expect a significantly darker narrative than Season 1 that pushes the story to new extremes. Even dedicated fans of the game will likely be surprised by what's coming. "I love the changes that we've made," Druckmann told Entertainment Weekly. "It's a different version of that story, but its DNA is in there. Maybe more than excited, I'm really curious what their reaction will be."

Lately, economic recession has been a prominent concern. When questioned about a potential U.S. recession in March, then President Donald Trump neither confirmed nor denied it, but hinted at an economic transition. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated on March 11 that Trump's economic strategy was "worth it," even if it caused a recession. On April 9, Goldman Sachs increased the likelihood of a recession to 65% due to Trump's tariff plan, but later withdrew this prediction after Trump announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs, excluding China. This economic uncertainty has led to growing anxiety about the global economy. As economic conditions evoke memories of 2008, cultural parallels are also emerging: "recession indicators" are now common parlance; some experts view as harbingers of economic downturn; and, notably, is resurfacing, exemplified by Kesha and T-Pain’s "Yikkee Ki-Yay" and Lady Gaga’s Mayhem, both hailed as recession pop successors. The pop music of the 2008 recession provided solace during a difficult period. Upbeat, chart-topping songs served as an "auditory balm" for a struggling nation. Examples include Lady Gaga’s "Poker Face," Black Eyed Peas’ "I Got A Feeling," Timbaland’s "The Way I Are," Far East Movement’s "Like A G6", and Pitbull and Ne-Yo’s "Time Of Our Lives." These anthems encouraged embracing life amidst hardship—or escaping reality—reflecting the feelings of a generation grappling with . Now, facing renewed economic instability, we're drawn to these same lighthearted sounds, now tinged with nostalgia. While nostalgia can romanticize the past, it raises questions about its current relevance, including its potential for escapism and delusion. Gen Z and millennials aren't the first to use music to express societal unease. gave rise to blues and swing. Disco offered an escape from the Vietnam War. expressed themselves through music as marginalized Black and Brown youth facing economic hardship. Young people have historically used music to capture their reality and voice the frustrations of being marginalized by those in power. Despite generational differences, Gen Z and millennials share common ground. Both generations have faced due to global crises: the 2008 recession for older millennials and the COVID-19 pandemic for Gen Z. Both events affected their . Both also struggle with "," where debts exceed assets. to find stability and control in a volatile world. Unsurprisingly, our music reflects this uncertainty, or at least attempts to provide an escape. The music of the 2008 recession exemplified this. As journalist Olivia Bennett noted in DAZED, with discretionary spending limited, aimed to encourage consumers to party regardless of financial consequences. Over a decade later, a new generation experiences similar economic frustrations. Last year’s series of —Chappell Roan's synth-pop, Charli XCX's hyperpop, and Sabrina Carpenter's bubblegum pop—demonstrated a desire to escape reality on the dance floor. Finding comfort in nostalgic sounds, whether in a gay bar, a rave, or the California sun, is preferable to financial struggles. However, nostalgia is complex, blending happiness, gratitude, loss, and longing. It also creates a in culture. Overreliance on the past hinders progress, reducing cultural output to distorted imitations of previous generations. Yet, young artists have successfully used nostalgia. For example, Doechii’s ""—which samples Gotye and Kimbra’s 2011 post-recession hit "Somebody I Used to Know"—became a viral TikTok dance trend. The song captured feelings of anxiety, fear, depression, and trauma prevalent among young people (according to a Gallup and Walton Family Foundation report, Gen Z has the). Doechii created a for fans to access mental health resources. Roan, after her Grammy speech, donated to Backline, a mental health resource for music professionals. , among others, matched Roan’s donation. Universal Music Group later partnered with the Music Health Alliance to launch the . The difference between past recession pop and today's cultural shift is that current pop music uses music not just to highlight issues caused by instability, but also to inspire action—while providing an enjoyable beat. This is crucial as we try to acknowledge our reality while also dancing and enjoying ourselves. ```

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to receive stories like this in your inbox. Shortly before President Trump announced his broad, reciprocal tariffs, Senator Jacky Rosen contacted Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to express her concerns about the tariffs' effects on small businesses. Rosen, a Democrat representing Nevada, secured her second term last November, even as Trump carried the state for the first time. She spoke with TIME about the local impact of the tariffs, Nevada's role as a national indicator, and the significance of Senator Cory Booker's filibuster-style speech. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. What are your expectations regarding the implications of these tariffs? Essentially, they function as a national sales tax. The fundamental issue is how people manage their finances, which starts at home. Everywhere I went, I heard concerns about rising food prices. And I can assure you that food prices are set to skyrocket. The same goes for gas prices, affordable housing costs, and the prices of all materials needed for home or apartment construction – every nail, every piece of insulation, every piece of lumber. Everyone will feel the squeeze. And Nevada will be hit particularly hard, because when people are worried about their financial security, they cut back on vacations. We've already seen a 70% decrease in visitors from Canada. My friends, my community, my state, will be hit with higher prices and reduced tourism, creating a double burden that will harm our businesses. You won re-election last year in Nevada, a state that Trump won after losing it in the previous two presidential elections. What missteps did Democrats make there, and what different approach did you take? Nevada is a crucial battleground state with a large working-class population. We're a pragmatically purple state. Independent voters seek practical problem-solvers, which is why I won. Hardworking families are struggling with the high cost of living, and they were looking for change. On a national scale, I believe Democrats have struggled to connect with working-class voters and address their primary concerns. We experienced significant losses with working-class voters in 2024, particularly within our Latino and Asian communities, which were key areas where I performed better than the overall ticket. Voters want leaders who listen and stand up against corporate special interests. Could you provide more specific examples? What actions were you taking that Kamala Harris wasn't? I focused on concrete issues. Consider the kitchen table again. What's the first thing people worry about? Buying food. In Nevada, we have two main grocery chains: Kroger and Albertsons. They were planning to merge. What would that mean? In some rural communities, they were the only two grocery stores. If they merged, would they keep both stores open? Certainly not. This would result in job losses. Additionally, with only one store remaining, would prices decrease? Of course not. So, we blocked the Kroger-Albertsons merger, which was significant for Nevada. We're also facing an affordable housing crisis. Particularly in Southern Nevada, corporations are buying up homes and apartments. We're pursuing legislation to prevent these corporate investors from price-gouging residents. We ran TV ads highlighting both of these issues, and I discussed them extensively. I think too many Democrats in D.C. spent their time attempting to convince people that inflation in America wasn't as bad as elsewhere, or that they were doing better than they perceived. That wasn't the reality for most people, and it made our party seem disconnected. Do the Democrats have a strategy to counter Trump? If so, what is it? The losses in the recent election and Trump's victory were surprising to many. It's no secret that we're in the minority in Congress, which limits our influence. It hasn't even been 100 days yet. I think we're beginning to understand the levers we can pull. I believe a turning point was . Many initially thought no one would tune in at 2 a.m. for just another speech. But by the end, all the Democrats were there, and there were tears and applause, a powerful emotional response. Then came the Hands Off demonstrations. And people began calling us, saying, "You all stood up. You used your voice. We aren't powerless, we're going to use ours." I didn't expect it to be such a profound moment. The tears and applause were a cathartic release, a realization that even without all the legislative tools, we are not powerless. Now it's time to get to work. It felt like a call to action. I feel a renewed sense of purpose. Understand the key issues in Washington. . ```