PR in the Philippines

` tags. On Thursday, the Supreme Court Justices heard arguments in an important birthright citizenship case. The outcome could significantly affect the Trump Administration's immigration policies and its efforts to broaden presidential authority. The case revolves around an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. This order challenged the established interpretation of birthright citizenship by asserting it doesn't apply to children born to parents who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The arguments focused on the Administration's attempts to overturn nationwide injunctions from lower courts. These injunctions have blocked the policy while legal challenges proceed. Representing the Trump Administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions, which he termed “universal injunctions,” are unconstitutional. He contended that lower courts should only be able to prevent Trump’s order from affecting the individuals who filed lawsuits. Sauer stated that only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the executive order's constitutionality for the entire nation. Justice Sonya Sotomayor strongly opposed the Administration's stance. She argued it was unreasonable for an executive order as broad as Trump’s on birthright citizenship to be enforced in some parts of the country but not others. She also questioned waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve such matters. Using the hypothetical of a president seizing all guns due to gun violence concerns, she challenged Sauer's argument that the courts must wait until every claim is resolved before overturning such an order. Several courts have ruled that the executive order violates the principle of birthright citizenship, as protected by the 14th Amendment, and contradicts over 120 years of legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in the 1898 ruling. Sotomayor noted that Trump’s order, in her view, violates four Supreme Court precedents. Although Trump’s immigration policy is central to the case, the court may only rule on the power of federal courts to limit executive power through nationwide injunctions. This decision could have major consequences for Trump’s presidency, given his push to expand executive power and the courts' efforts to define its limits. Several Justices questioned the practicality of ending nationwide injunctions. Justice Elena Kagan presented a scenario where the government consistently loses cases in lower courts. She questioned why an Administration would appeal to the Supreme Court and risk an unfavorable ruling if nationwide injunctions were not a concern. Conservative Justices offered some support to Sauer. Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the country "survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions." Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned instances where the Supreme Court acted swiftly on important cases, citing the TikTok case. While the Court primarily addressed nationwide injunctions, they also discussed the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship was intended for freed slaves, not immigrants. Justice Sotomayor pointed out that without a nationwide injunction, Trump's Executive Order could leave thousands of newborns "stateless," lacking citizenship in the U.S. and potentially born to parents from countries requiring birth on their soil for citizenship. She emphasized that numerous lower courts have found the Order to violate "not only precedent, but the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment."

` tags. On Thursday, May 16, during a business discussion in Qatar, President Donald Trump again floated the idea of the U.S. taking control of Gaza as a means to rebuild the Palestinian territory. Speaking to Qatari officials and reporters at the roundtable, he stated, “I think I’d be honored for the United States to possess it, acquire it, and transform it... To enable positive developments, ensuring people reside in secure homes, while also addressing the issue of Hamas.” He added, “I have some excellent concepts for Gaza. The goal is to create a freedom zone, with the involvement of the United States.” According to CNN, the President further commented: “They have been unable to resolve the Gaza issue, and if you examine it, I have aerial images showing that hardly any buildings remain standing. People are living under the debris of collapsed structures, which is unacceptable and results in significant loss of life. I would like to see it become a freedom zone.” Trump's remarks coincide with overnight strikes on the Gazan city of Khan Younis extending into Thursday. This isn't the first instance of the President proposing ideas regarding Gaza's future, which is currently under Hamas's governance. In January, while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump suggested Jordan and Egypt should accommodate Palestinians, proposing a comprehensive evacuation. Trump stated, “You’re considering around 1.5 million individuals, and we simply eliminate the entire issue. I’m unsure. Something must occur, as it currently resembles a demolition site.” The proposal triggered disapproval. During a White House visit in February, Trump reiterated his vision for the war-torn area. “The U.S. will assume control of the Gaza Strip. We will manage it effectively. We will own it and take responsibility for removing all hazardous bombs and other weaponry,” he said. “We will level it, foster economic growth providing numerous job opportunities and housing for the local population.” When questioned about the basis for the U.S. undertaking this initiative and whether he envisioned a “permanent occupation,” Trump responded: “I do foresee a long-term ownership role, which I believe would bring considerable stability to that region of the Middle East, and perhaps the entire Middle East.” Trump continued by saying that it was “not a decision made hastily,” asserting that “everyone I’ve spoken with is enthusiastic about the United States owning that territory.” Standing alongside Trump, Netanyahu stated that a primary objective for Israel was to “ensure Gaza never poses a threat to Israel again,” suggesting that Trump’s proposition would elevate this objective “to a much greater extent.” “I believe this warrants our attention,” Netanyahu concluded. Later in February, an AI-generated video portraying “Trump Gaza” was circulated. The video showcased AI-generated visuals of a golden statue of the U.S. President in Gaza, opulent vehicles, and skyscrapers in a rebuilt Gaza Strip. The clip provoked strong condemnation from critics.

` tags. ` When faced with a pressing health issue, quick and effective care is paramount. But where should you go? Aside from obvious emergencies like suspected heart attacks, it's not always clear whether to rush to the ER or visit an urgent care center. Here's a guide to help you decide when to seek emergency medical attention versus when urgent care or even a virtual appointment will suffice. When to go to the ER Emergency rooms are known for long waits and high costs. However, it's crucial to go to the ER when necessary, regardless of these drawbacks. The recommendation is to head to the ER or dial 911 if you have potentially life-threatening symptoms. Experts advise visiting an emergency department if you or someone nearby experiences any of the following: Heart attack symptoms: chest pain, arm or jaw pain, shortness of breath Stroke symptoms: weakness on one side, slurred speech, sudden difficulty speaking or seeing, drooping on one side Significant trauma or injury, particularly to the head or neck Severe lower abdominal pain Severe allergic reaction Serious burns Heavy bleeding Sepsis symptoms: sudden confusion, high fever unresponsive to medication Stopped breathing If something needs immediate treatment, within minutes, an emergency room is the right choice, according to a professor of emergency medicine and chair at Yale School of Medicine. ERs possess advanced imaging technology, such as CAT scans, that urgent care facilities typically lack, notes a clinical assistant professor and medical director at NYU Langone Health. When to go to urgent care Urgent care centers can handle health issues requiring prompt attention, but that are not life-threatening emergencies. Appropriate symptoms for urgent care include: Colds, flus, and coughs Scrapes or cuts, especially if a tetanus shot is needed Ear pain Minor injuries Minor headaches Diarrhea Rash While you might usually see your primary care doctor for these problems, same-day appointments aren't always available, according to Leybov. Urgent care staff are well-equipped to refer patients to the ER if they require more extensive treatment, which commonly occurs with chest pain, potential appendicitis, or severe injuries. The services available can vary significantly between urgent care centers. Some may have X-ray machines, while others don't. Similarly, blood test capabilities and the ability to administer stitches can differ. What about telemedicine? Depending on your symptoms, a virtual urgent care visit might be suitable. A key advantage is the ability to receive care from any location, making it easier when you're unwell and preventing potential exposure to others, explains Leybov. Telehealth appointments are appropriate for numerous symptoms and conditions, including: Upper-respiratory infections like colds, flu, and COVID-19 Asthma Urinary tract infections (UTIs) Minor headaches Rashes Diarrhea Virtual urgent care can provide quick answers and guidance on treatment options, such as cough medicine, antibiotic prescriptions, and determining how long to stay home, all without leaving your home. What if you’re not sure? It's common for patients to feel "guilty" about going to the ER only to receive a diagnosis of a mild condition, but you shouldn't, says Venkatesh. Timely ER visits can be life-saving for certain symptoms. For instance, clot-busting medications for stroke need to be administered within hours of symptom onset. Don't delay seeking help because you're unsure if chest pain is "that bad." Going to urgent care first could waste valuable time if you need an ER referral anyway. Emergency symptoms can be subtle. Instead of intense chest pain, mild pressure could still indicate a heart attack. The time it takes to reach the ER with a potential heart attack or stroke can determine eligibility for fast-acting, life-saving treatments. If possible, call your primary care office or a telehealth line for advice on where to go. It's crucial to go to the ER regardless of cost concerns. The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures access to emergency care for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. It's disheartening when someone experiencing a stroke or heart attack delays seeking care due to fear. Many anxieties prevent people from getting the necessary care when they need it most.

For Ukrainians enduring the ongoing war and concerned about Russia's future actions, observing Donald Trump's recent behavior has been emotionally taxing. Sentiments have shifted rapidly between negative and positive. Leading up to the previous U.S. elections, Ukrainians largely favored President Joe Biden. While some viewed him as overly cautious regarding Russia, his assurances that the U.S. would stand by Ukraine were enough to overlook what many perceived as the Biden administration's slow pace in providing military aid to Kyiv. Despite the delays, there was confidence that support would eventually reach the front lines. Trump was viewed with considerable apprehension, mainly due to his repeated statements about halting aid to Ukraine. However, upon his taking office, his pledge to end the war "in 24 hours" offered a glimmer of hope. The desire for an end to the conflict is universal in Ukraine. The question arose: Could Trump successfully negotiate an end to Russian aggression? This hope was short-lived. Even President's staunchest critics were shocked by his treatment in the Oval Office in February. This widely publicized event deeply affected Ukrainian society. Some attempted to rationalize the incident as a negotiating strategy, suggesting Trump was signaling to Russia his intention to mediate rather than exclusively support Ukraine. However, the video of the American leader's verbal criticism of the Ukrainian President was seen as a humiliation by Ukrainians across the political spectrum. It also diminished any remaining hope that the U.S. would effectively counter Russian aggression or secure a negotiated resolution that would end the fighting while preserving Ukraine's sovereignty. Against this backdrop, the visit of the American leader's envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the Kremlin was met with renewed worry. Witkoff's meeting with Vladimir Putin left Ukrainians feeling betrayed and concerned that the U.S. was abandoning them. From the perspective of those in Ukraine, still at war, it appeared Russia was emboldened, with the U.S. seemingly accepting the Kremlin's aggression without consequence. Consequently, Ukrainians struggle to feel optimistic about America's current leadership. As "peace talks" commence this week in Istanbul, they are viewed with skepticism. While not speaking for every Ukrainian, the prevailing sentiment is clear: these talks do not resemble genuine negotiations. Russia seems to believe it has no need to negotiate, and Putin's attendance remains uncertain. Therefore, hope now rests with Europe. With America appearing to withdraw its support, Ukrainians are increasingly looking to their Western neighbors to fill the void left by the U.S. Whether they can effectively do so remains to be seen. For now, hope is all that remains.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Donald Trump, as a candidate, made numerous pledges about his potential actions if elected President. However, President Trump has yet to fulfill many of these promises, and some may never come to fruition. He vowed to quickly end the war in Ukraine, resolve the conflict in Gaza, cut federal spending by $2 trillion, eliminate the "Deep State," end Social Security taxes, and provide free IVF. These promises have not been kept, at least not yet. While it's often said that campaigning is idealistic and governing is practical, Trump's disconnect from reality is particularly noticeable. His tax cut faces resistance in Congress due to a narrow Republican majority. Other campaign promises are stalled, showing the limits of his influence. Trump's list of unfulfilled guarantees is extensive. For example, he insisted that Russian aggression in Ukraine would cease immediately upon his election. He stated in Detroit last August that he would settle the war between Russia and Ukraine shortly after winning the presidency. However, in a recent interview with TIME, Trump downplayed this prediction, saying it was partly a joke but also an indication that the war would end. Currently, his stance has shifted, expressing frustration and surprise at Vladimir Putin's reluctance to compromise. En route to Qatar, Trump mentioned attending peace talks this week, but Putin has not committed to attending, and Trump also hasn't confirmed his participation in the proposed Moscow session. While progress in Gaza is notable—the last living U.S. hostage was found after U.S. lobbying—the region remains unstable. Recent airstrikes resulted in casualties, and the UN warns that Israeli actions risk genocide. Israel is considering flattening and occupying Gaza if all hostages aren't released by Trump's return from his trip. Despite pledges of a balanced budget on social media, achieving it is challenging. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), intended to cut federal spending, has fallen short of advisor Elon Musk's promises. Millions in canceled federal contracts were reinstated, sometimes due to legal requirements. Further cuts are hindered by Trump's agenda, which could increase the federal debt by $5 to $11 trillion over the next decade. Many other Trump promises are stalled in courts, such as ending birthright citizenship, deporting more immigrants, and firing federal workers indiscriminately. Additionally, Trump has taken unexpected actions like cutting medical research funding, making tax evasion easier, and restricting public-housing vouchers. Politicians often make unrealistic promises. In Trump's case, it's unclear if he recognizes the impracticality of his pledges or which ones the public truly desires. Evaluating his deliverables is difficult, as some voters opposed his vows of revenge on political enemies or pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, yet these count as fulfilled promises. He has also achieved goals like banning transgender service members and withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Others, like releasing JFK assassination files, feel incomplete. As Trump nears his four-month mark back in power, it's important to assess his actual accomplishments and failures, moving beyond immediate reactions and online debates. Despite a fast-paced White House, some of his major pledges remain unfulfilled. Make sense of what matters in Washington. .

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who heads the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the current administration, advised Congress on Wednesday that individuals "should not seek medical guidance" from him. These remarks occurred on May 14 during a House Appropriations Committee meeting, where the committee examined the administration's proposal, which was unveiled on May 2. During the session, Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin questioned Kennedy about whether he would vaccinate his child against measles if he had one now. "Probably for measles," Kennedy initially stated, before retracting his statement. "I don’t think people should be taking advice — medical advice — from me….I think if I answer that question directly, it will seem like I’m giving advice to other people, and I don’t want to be doing that.” Kennedy has previously expressed concerns regarding vaccine safety. Since being appointed to lead HHS, he has attempted to distance himself from these views and recently supported vaccination as a preventative measure during a measles outbreak. However, he still asserts that vaccination decisions should be left to the discretion of parents and has continued to . "Okay, but that’s kind of your jurisdiction, because the CDC [Center for Disease Control] does give advice,” Pocan countered. The CDC offers direction on preventing diseases, creating optimal health practices, and ensuring access to vaccinations. The hearing primarily addressed proposed significant cuts to health services within the Administration’s budget proposal, requesting $94 billion for HHS agencies—approximately a 26% reduction from the 2025 funding level. The budget also aims to reduce programs and personnel at several HHS agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC. The budget also suggests allocating $500 million for Kennedy's initiative, which involves decreasing the HHS workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees and prioritizing "ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness.”