PR in the Philippines

In the past month, President Donald Trump has taken aim at several prominent law firms through executive orders and investigations into their HR practices. Some critics have been quick to blame the targeted firms for yielding to the President's demands, but the focus should be on Trump himself, the instigator of these retaliatory actions. Three of the targeted firms, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie, responded by challenging the President in court and successfully obtaining restraining orders against the executive orders. Covington & Burling, another firm, did not respond to a more limited executive order. Meanwhile, Paul, Weiss and Skadden Arps reached what are described as "cosmetic settlements" with the President, leading to the withdrawal of his threats. According to Paul Weiss chairman's communication with his firm, this agreement addressed a critical threat without compromising the firm’s principles or policies. The letter also revealed that Paul Weiss became a target after Brad Karp attempted to garner support from other major firms for those initially targeted. Conversely, some rival firms reportedly tried to recruit Paul Weiss attorneys and clients, sensing weakness. These settlements with the President have involved commitments to substantial pro bono legal work on causes like veterans’ rights, anti-Semitism, and promoting fairness in the legal system. The firms have historically supported these causes, and the dollar amounts are relatively small compared to their existing pro bono contributions. Karp also asserts that Paul Weiss’s settlements did not include any condemnation of past firm engagements or HR practices, nor do they impose any formal restrictions on future representations, including those against the Trump Administration. Such a deal appears to be an effective strategy for reassuring major clients and preventing the loss of top attorneys. The legal system often requires balancing drawn-out, costly litigation with quicker, negotiated settlements. The choice depends on the strategic position of each party. The President is unlikely to succeed in lawsuits challenging his executive orders, giving him an incentive to settle with face-saving measures, a reality that Paul, Weiss and Skadden Arps recognized. Furthermore, as a Yale colleague noted in the Wall Street Journal, the firms that settled quickly tend to have larger corporate transaction practices, which are more susceptible to client departures, compared to firms with larger litigation practices. It's understandable that firms with different business models would handle the crisis in distinct ways. Given the volatile nature of law firm assets and their fiduciary duties to clients and employees, firms can make varied business choices while maintaining their integrity and securing their futures. The ongoing, complex situation at Wilmer Hale further highlights the appeal of the settlements reached by Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps. While Wilmer Hale was granted temporary relief, the judge denied a request regarding security clearance matters, recognizing the President's executive authority in that area, which necessitates continued litigation. Clients who need lawyers with security clearances may be uneasy if there is any perceived urgency in their representation. Criticism of Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps's actions has overlooked the central issue. The President's primary aim was to target almost every leading law firm that has represented or hired individuals who have challenged his actions in court. Notably, firms considered Trump-friendly, like Jones Day, Quinn Emanuel, and Sullivan & Cromwell, were not among those attacked. One particularly concerning aspect of this situation is that the President sought advice from the co-chairman of Paul Weiss's rival, Sullivan & Cromwell—who is also Trump’s personal attorney in his appeal of his conviction on 34 counts for falsifying business records—while negotiating with Karp. It's remarkable that this involvement hasn't faced greater scrutiny and criticism. The legal profession could learn from other industries. Following the devastating loss of colleagues in the September 11, 2001 attacks, financial firms saw competitors offering immediate assistance. Clients weren't poached, and talent wasn't taken from the affected firms. Similarly, during the 2008 financial crisis, leaders of top financial firms collaborated to develop support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), even though they were in strong positions to capitalize on their struggling competitors. UPS and FedEx routinely offer support to each other during operational failures, labor disputes, and other disruptions, rather than exploiting the situation for their own gain. In 2021, when Delta Airlines voiced concerns about restrictive new voting laws, the President called for a boycott. In response, the chief executives of American and United immediately expressed public support for Delta and joined a conference call quickly organized for that purpose. The collective action by chief executives in the business world has significantly curbed the unchecked authoritarian erosion of American democratic institutions. The legal industry stands apart, and the resulting impression is unfavorable. The hypocritical condemnation of law firms that settled is noteworthy, especially since many of those same attorneys previously failed to support the firms under attack by the President. Instead, they are blaming the victim. Hopefully, legal leaders can take cues from bolder leaders in other sectors. Already, deans of law schools have collectively denounced the President’s attacks on law firms, while smaller firms, such as Kaplan Hecker & Fink and Gupta Wessler, have publicly defended their larger counterparts, suggesting "friend of the court" briefs. Monday, the New York City Bar Association joined the condemnation of President Trump’s coercive partisan executive orders attacking these law firms, while the American Bar Association has condemned this attack on the rule of law. Perhaps the big firms can join with the scrappy little firms out of enlightened self-interest. It wouldn’t hurt to hear from their clients now, either. It is not too late for the legal industry to redeem itself in this perilous moment.

With the recent approval of two for Alzheimer’s disease, hope is growing for those at risk. However, diagnostic tests still need improvement. Earlier diagnosis would allow individuals to benefit from the drugs sooner, when they are most effective. Current detection methods are challenging. Brain scans like PET scans can detect amyloid plaques, protein clumps indicative of the disease, but these appear after brain function has already declined. These scans are also costly and not universally available. Analyzing spinal fluid can offer more sensitive detection of amyloid and tau, another related protein, but requires a spinal tap, which is painful and potentially risky. Blood tests for these proteins are under expedited review by the FDA but have not yet been approved. A new published in Nature Medicine details promising results from a blood test developed by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis. This test targets a different form of tau than existing tests, which they believe is a better indicator of the amount of damaging protein buildup in the brain and correlates with disease severity. Comparing the blood test results to brain scans, the team found the blood test to be 92% accurate in measuring tau levels. Dr. Randall Bateman, professor of neurology at Washington University and the paper's senior author, emphasizes that both amyloid and tau proteins must be present to diagnose Alzheimer’s. Amyloid plaques develop over years, and symptoms like memory loss and confusion only appear once sufficient clusters have formed. After amyloid aggregates form, tau begins to develop abnormally inside and outside brain neurons. Outside the cell, tau forms phosphorylated tau, which current tests can detect. However, inside neurons of Alzheimer's patients, tau breaks down further, becoming crystallized and forming tangled protein structures instead of the neat, linear forms seen in healthy individuals. “Tau tangles are most associated with a person’s dementia symptoms,” says Bateman. “Plaques are like the fuel driving a lot of changes that we observe [in patients] over time. But not until the fire ignites, with the spread of tau tangles, does the brain really fall apart.” He explains that this crystallized form of tau is more strongly linked to the cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer’s. Detecting early signs of this form could help doctors identify patients at risk of developing more severe memory and cognitive issues. “This is the first report of a tau tangle marker in the blood,” he states. In 2023, Bateman and his team developed the for this crystallized tau form, but it required spinal fluid. Due to the inconvenience and risks of spinal taps, they shifted focus to finding the same crystallized tau signs in blood. After extensive screening of blood markers, they succeeded. “We went through molecule by molecule, atom by atom, looking for the exact structure of the forms of tau that [we knew] existed, and then discovered the form that was uniquely identified with the presence of tangles.” Bateman founded C2N Diagnostics to manufacture and provide the test for clinical trial research. This blood-based test could accelerate the development of anti-tau treatments for Alzheimer’s, enabling drug developers to quickly assess a compound's effect on tau buildup with a blood sample. “A lot of us think that if we can slow down or reverse the formation of tau tangles, then it’s a good strategy to slow down or reverse Alzheimer’s,” says Bateman. “[The test] can accelerate how quickly new treatments are developed.” An accessible method for tracking tau levels could also reveal new insights into Alzheimer’s progression and potential drug targets. The relationship between phosphorylated tau outside neurons and crystallized tau inside cells is still unclear. It's possible that phosphorylated tau buildup triggers the formation of destructive crystallized tau inside neurons. Another unknown is why certain crystallized tau fragments exit nerve cells. Understanding this process could lead to new strategies for controlling tau and slowing disease progression. “If we want better treatments for patients,” says Bateman, “then we have to understand what causes the disease.”

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Pakistan intends to deport 3 million Afghan nationals this year, following the expiration of a deadline for voluntary departure from Islamabad and surrounding areas on Monday. This marks the continuation of a campaign initiated in October 2023 targeting the expulsion of foreigners residing illegally in Pakistan, predominantly Afghans. The initiative has faced criticism from various entities, including the Taliban administration and the United Nations. Originally scheduled for April 1, the commencement of arrests and deportations was postponed to April 10 due to the Eid al-Fitr holidays, according to government documents obtained by The Associated Press. Data from the International Organization for Migration indicates that approximately 845,000 Afghans have left Pakistan in the last year and a half. Pakistan reports that 3 million Afghans remain in the country. Among them, 1,344,584 possess Proof of Registration cards, while 807,402 hold Afghan Citizen Cards. An additional 1 million Afghans are in the country without proper documentation. Pakistan has stated its intention to prevent deported Afghans from returning. Authorities had instructed Afghan Citizen cardholders to leave Islamabad and Rawalpindi by March 31, either voluntarily returning to Afghanistan or facing deportation. Individuals with Proof of Registration are permitted to remain in Pakistan until June 30, while those awaiting resettlement are also required to leave Islamabad and Rawalpindi by March 31. Authorities have stated they will collaborate with foreign diplomatic missions to resettle Afghans; otherwise, they will be deported from Pakistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans fled following the Taliban takeover. They were being processed for resettlement in the U.S. through a program designed for individuals at risk due to their association with the American government, media outlets, aid organizations, and rights groups. However, President Donald Trump ended the program in January, leaving 20,000 Afghans in uncertainty. The Taliban want Afghan refugees to return with dignity According to documents outlining the expulsion plans, "No Afghan officials [are] to be made part of any committee or formal decision-making process." Abdul Mutalib Haqqani, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Refugee Ministry, informed The Associated Press that Pakistan's decisions were arbitrary, lacking involvement from the U.N. refugee agency or the Taliban government. "We have communicated our concerns, emphasizing that unilaterally expelling refugees is not in the best interest of either party," Haqqani stated. "It is not in their interest because [such an expulsion] creates a negative perception against Pakistan." "For us, managing the return of such a large number of Afghans poses a significant challenge. We have requested that deportations be conducted through a structured mechanism and mutual agreement, ensuring their return with dignity." Two transit facilities will be established in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province to facilitate deportations. One will be located in Nasir Bagh, a suburb of Peshawar, and the other in Landi Kotal, approximately 7 kilometers from the Afghan border. Afghans are unsure of their future in a country they don’t know The fate of undocumented children with documented parents, Afghan couples with differing document statuses, and families comprised of a Pakistani citizen and an Afghan citizen remains unclear. However, officials indicated to the AP that social welfare personnel will be available to assist in these situations. Omaid Khan, 30, possesses an Afghan Citizen Card, while his wife holds a Proof of Registration card. Under Pakistani government policy, he is required to leave, while his wife can remain until June 30. Their two children lack documentation, including passports or identity cards from either country. "I am from Paktia province, but I have never been there and I am uncertain about my future," he stated. Nazir Ahmed, 21, was born in Quetta and has never been to Afghanistan. His sole connection to the country is through his father, who passed away in Quetta four years ago. "How can we go there?" Ahmed questioned. "Few people know us. All our relatives reside in Quetta. What will we do if we go there? We appeal to the Pakistani government to grant us some time to explore our options and secure employment." —- Associated Press writer Abdul Sattar contributed to this report from Quetta, Pakistan. ```

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iran has responded to a letter from , addressed to its supreme leader, aiming to initiate discussions about Tehran's rapidly developing nuclear program, declining the option of direct negotiations. Tehran's decision leaves open the chance for indirect discussions with Washington. However, these discussions have been stalled since Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear agreement between Tehran and world powers in 2018 during his initial term. Trump has threatened to impose new sanctions on Iran as part of his "maximum pressure" strategy targeting the nation. He also reiterated that military intervention against Iran was still a possibility, while stressing his belief that a new agreement could still be reached. Iran's 85-year-old on Monday cautioned that Iran would respond to any attack with a counterattack. Here's a breakdown of the letter, Iran's nuclear program, and the overarching tensions that have marked relations between Tehran and Washington since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Why did Trump write the letter? Trump sent the letter to Khamenei on March 5, and then acknowledged sending it in . He stated: "I've written them a letter saying, 'I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing.'" Since returning to the White House, the president has been advocating for negotiations while simultaneously increasing sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the U.S. could target Iranian nuclear facilities. A prior letter from Trump during his first term elicited an angry response from the supreme leader. However, Trump's letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his first term resulted in face-to-face meetings, although and a missile program with the capability to reach the continental U.S. persisted. How has Iran reacted? On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian dismissed direct negotiations with the United States regarding Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. "We don’t avoid talks; it’s the breach of promises that has caused issues for us so far," Pezeshkian stated in televised remarks during a Cabinet meeting. "They must prove that they can build trust." On Monday, Khamenei appeared to respond to comments made by Trump, who was renewing his threat of military action. "They threaten to commit acts of mischief, but we are not entirely certain that such actions will take place," the supreme leader stated. "We do not consider it highly likely that trouble will come from the outside. However, if it does, they will undoubtedly face a strong retaliatory strike." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei went even further. "An open threat of 'bombing' by a Head of State against Iran is a shocking affront to the very essence of International Peace and Security," he wrote on the social platform X. "Violence breeds violence, peace begets peace. The US can choose the course…; and concede to CONSEQUENCES." Why does Iran’s nuclear program worry the West? Iran has maintained for decades that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, its officials . Iran now enriches uranium to nearly weapons-grade levels of 60%, making it the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so. Under the original 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran was permitted to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The most recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's program indicated its stockpile at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds), with a fraction of it enriched to 60% purity. U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has not yet initiated a weapons program but has "undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device if it chooses to do so." Why are relations so bad between Iran and the U.S.? Iran was once one of the U.S.'s closest allies in the Mideast under , who purchased American military equipment and allowed CIA technicians to operate secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The . However, in January 1979, the shah, terminally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations against his rule grew. , led by Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and established Iran's theocratic government. Later that year, , seeking the shah's extradition, triggered the 444-day hostage crisis, which led to the severing of diplomatic relations between Iran and the U.S. saw the U.S. support Saddam Hussein. during that conflict resulted in the U.S. launching a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while . Iran and the U.S. have fluctuated between hostility and reluctant diplomacy in the years since, with relations reaching a high point when Tehran made a 2015 nuclear agreement with world powers. But , sparking years of tensions in the Mideast that continue to this day. ___ Associated Press writer Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, contributed. ```

PARIS — Marine Le Pen, the prominent figure of the French far-right, was found guilty of embezzlement by a French court on Monday. The court has not yet announced her sentence or how it might affect her political future. Le Pen, who was present in the Paris courtroom, displayed no immediate reaction as the verdict was delivered by the chief judge. In addition to Le Pen, eight other current or former members of her party, all of whom previously served as members of the European Parliament, were also found guilty. Le Pen and her co-defendants could face up to 10 years in prison. They have the option to appeal, which would result in a new trial. A major concern for Le Pen is the possibility that the court could declare her ineligible to hold office "with immediate effect," even during an appeal. This could prevent her from running for president in 2027, a scenario she has described as "political death." The verdict is a significant setback for Le Pen and her party. Besides Le Pen and the eight other former European lawmakers, twelve additional individuals who worked as parliamentary aides for Le Pen and the National Rally party (formerly the National Front) were also found guilty. The court stated that Le Pen's party had "a system" in place to divert funds from the EU parliament. Le Pen and 24 other National Rally officials were accused of misusing funds intended for European Union parliamentary aides to pay party staff between 2004 and 2016, violating EU regulations. They have denied any wrongdoing. Le Pen, 56, was the runner-up to Emmanuel Macron in the 2017 and 2022 presidential elections, and her party has seen increased electoral support in recent years. During the nine-week trial in late 2024, she argued that being declared ineligible "would effectively prevent me from being a presidential candidate" and disenfranchise her supporters. "There are 11 million people who voted for the movement I represent. So tomorrow, potentially, millions and millions of French people would find themselves deprived of their candidate in the election," she told the judges. If Le Pen is unable to run in 2027, Jordan Bardella, her 29-year-old protégé and the current leader of the party since 2021, would be the likely successor. Le Pen denied accusations of leading a system to siphon off EU parliament money for her party's benefit, a party she led from 2011 to 2021. Instead, she argued that it was acceptable to adapt the work of European Parliament-funded aides to the needs of the lawmakers, including politically-related tasks for the party, which was allowed at the time. The hearings revealed that some EU funds were used to pay for Le Pen's bodyguard (who was previously Jean-Marie Le Pen's bodyguard) and her personal assistant. Prosecutors requested a two-year prison sentence and a five-year period of ineligibility for Le Pen. Le Pen stated that she believed the prosecution was "only interested" in preventing her from running for president. ```

After much fan speculation, Episode 7 of confirms that Valentin, along with his Russian associates Aleksei and Vlad, were the perpetrators of the hotel robbery. Earlier episodes hinted at this: In Episode 2, Valentin's suspicious parking of his motorcycle near the security barrier, while distracting , coincided with the robbers' van entering the property. This seemed unlikely to be accidental. During the muay thai fight in Episode 7, Gaitok notices Valentin with his companions and something triggers his memory. He observes Vlad's baldness and recalls seeing a bald man exiting the getaway car. The flashback sequence is emphasized with dramatic music, leading Gaitok to believe he has identified the thieves. Later, Laurie, having previously rejected Valentin, goes home with Aleksei, allowing Jaclyn an opportunity with the wellness professional. Following their encounter, Aleksei asks Laurie for $10,000, supposedly to bring his ailing mother from Russia. When she claims not to have the funds, he suggests using Venmo or PayPal, seemingly unaware of the transaction limits these apps impose to prevent such suspicious activities. Aleksei’s enraged girlfriend interrupts them, causing Laurie to hide in the closet. Inside, she discovers a stash of jewelry, including the serpent choker Chelsea had examined before the robbery. This gold necklace was among the many valuable items stolen by the masked thief. Laurie may not be fully aware of what was stolen from the hotel, but she likely suspects that someone requesting $10,000 cannot afford such jewelry. Furthermore, the haphazard storage of the items raises suspicion. She manages to escape through the window, receiving only a light slap from the girlfriend. The question now is: What will Gaitok and Laurie do with this information as the season nears its end? It's unlikely Laurie will involve the police, as she's preoccupied with her conflict with Jaclyn and possibly intimidated by Aleksei's request. However, she recently encouraged Gaitok to be assertive and stand up for himself, even expressing some disappointment when he seemed hesitant to fight. Gaitok, who has also been practicing his shooting skills, might attempt to take matters into his own hands to impress Laurie. This seems risky, considering the numerous violent individuals, including bodyguards and thieves, in his environment.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Donald Trump indicated on Sunday that he is seriously exploring options to bypass the constitutional rule that prevents him from serving more than two terms as president, stating, "I'm not joking" about seeking a third term. His second term is set to conclude in early 2029. “There are methods which you could do it,” Trump said in a telephone interview with NBC News from Mar-a-Lago, his private club. He also mentioned that "it is far too early to consider it." The 22nd Amendment, ratified after Franklin D. Roosevelt's four consecutive presidential wins, restricts any individual from being elected president more than twice. Any effort to stay in office beyond two terms would face legal challenges. The seriousness with which he might pursue this idea remains uncertain. Nevertheless, these remarks highlight his desire to retain power, especially considering his previous attempts to subvert democratic norms by trying to overturn the 2020 election won by Joe Biden. Kristen Welker of NBC inquired whether one possibility for a third term involved J.D. Vance, the Vice President, running for president and subsequently "passing the baton" to Trump. Trump responded, "Well, that's one. But there are others too. There are others.” “Can you tell me another?” Welker asked. “No,” Trump replied. The Associated Press's request for comment from Vance's office went unanswered immediately. Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, stipulates that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Muller explained that this implies Trump's ineligibility to run for Vice President if the 22nd Amendment prevents him from seeking the presidency again. "I don't think there's any 'one weird trick' to getting around presidential term limits," Muller stated. Furthermore, securing a third term would require significant cooperation from federal and state officials, as well as the courts and the electorate. He proposed that Trump's discussion of a third term is a political strategy to "show as much strength as possible." "A lame-duck President like Donald Trump has every incentive in the world to make it seem like he's not a lame duck," he added. Trump, who will be 82 at the end of a potential second term, was asked if he would want to continue in "the toughest job in the country" at that age. "Well, I like working," the President answered. He implied that Americans would accept a third term due to his popularity and falsely claimed to have "the highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years." Historical data indicates that President George W. Bush reached a 90% approval rating following the September 11, 2001 attacks. His father, President George H.W. Bush, achieved 89% after the Gulf War in 1991. Trump's Gallup data peaked at 47% during his second term, despite his assertion of being "in the high 70s in many polls, in the real polls." Trump has previously alluded to the possibility of serving more than two terms, often jokingly, to receptive audiences. “Am I allowed to run again?” he said during a House Republican retreat in January. Requests for comment from the congressional leadership — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York — were not immediately answered by their representatives when contacted by the AP. ```