PR in the Philippines

Freezing my eggs in 2014 felt like a progressive and empowering decision, a technological safeguard for future motherhood. However, I didn't foresee the emotional challenges I'd face a decade later, as this scientific intervention became a personal reflection on time, money, and unrealized aspirations. I always envisioned having children. I loved my younger cousins, often babysat, and worked in a church nursery during college. Yet, childbirth wasn't an overwhelming desire. Unlike some friends in high school, I never pretended to be pregnant with a pillow or felt pressured by a ticking biological clock. By my mid-30s, I had achieved career success and felt ready for a family. A colleague's warnings about declining fertility prompted me to check my hormone levels. Despite my youthful appearance, tests showed my egg count was below average. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine had recently deemed egg freezing no longer experimental, prompting positive media coverage and employer coverage of costs. Despite the high cost, freezing my eggs seemed like the right choice. My then-boyfriend was unsure about marriage and fatherhood. If we broke up, I didn't want to resent him for wasting my fertile years. If we stayed together, the eggs could be used for a second child, or our first if necessary. By the time I started hormone injections, we had separated. The doctor retrieved only three eggs, less than the recommended eight to 15 for a future pregnancy. During my second cycle, I was dating someone who was enthusiastic about marriage and children. He even flew to support me after the retrieval, joking that he might be helping another man father my children. This cycle yielded a slightly better five eggs. In my early 40s, I remained hopeful about finding a partner and using my frozen eggs for in vitro fertilization. I ruled out having a baby alone with donor sperm, although I respect those who choose that path. I filled my life with fulfilling work, close friends, and travel. I became the quintessential "aunt," showering my niece and nephew with gifts and enjoying time with my friends' children. Now at 49, I feel my chance to have children has passed. It wasn't a conscious decision; it simply didn't happen, and I've accepted it. Recently, meeting a friend's newborn son and experiencing baby snuggles and his scent, while also seeing her kitchen full of bottles and hearing stories of sleepless nights, reinforced my satisfaction with my independent life. Yet, every spring, I feel anxious when the fertility clinic sends the annual storage renewal letter. In recent years, a demanding job left me no time to think about it, so I simply paid the fee. Last year, after leaving my job and planning a year of international travel, a friend encouraged me to pay the fee and use the time to consider my future. Now, starting a new job overseas, I'm still struggling with what to do with my eggs. Despite accepting my child-free life, I hesitate to tell the clinic to discard them. Last year, I cleared out a storage unit containing childhood mementos my parents had saved. Being sentimental, I kept more than I probably should have. However, in a burst of productivity, I purged a lot, including my fourth-grade Trapper Keeper. If my parents had thrown it away years ago, I wouldn't have thought about it. It has no practical use now, but I realized I liked knowing it existed and now wish I had kept it. It's a small comparison, but it makes me wonder. Having saved my eggs for so long, will I regret letting them go? Is there a scenario, like meeting a new partner, where I would still use them? I thought I had accepted not having children, but the idea of destroying my eggs has unexpectedly made me grieve or perhaps finally accept a different future than I imagined. My eggs represent both what could have been and what still could be. Instead of passively accepting that I never got pregnant, I must now actively eliminate the last chance I have. Of course, I haven't been paying for a guaranteed pregnancy, but for the possibility of one. There's no guarantee that my few eggs would even thaw, form an embryo, implant, or result in a baby. This makes me question the financial investment and whether I should continue throwing money away. Despite the initial optimism, studies show that only a small percentage of women use their frozen eggs, often conceiving naturally or using fresh eggs for in vitro fertilization. And biology still plays a role, as pregnancy in older women, even with frozen younger eggs, can have risks. Although discarding these eggs feels surprisingly significant, there's no ceremony—just a form authorizing lab technicians to "ethically discard" what once held my deepest hope. Friends have suggested donating my eggs, but that doesn't solve my problem. I froze my eggs intending to raise my own child, so I'm not comfortable giving them to a stranger, assuming they're even viable. If I already had a baby, I would have realized that future and feel less attached to these unused eggs. Here's what I wish I had known a decade ago: besides the financial cost, there's an emotional toll—lingering hope and unfulfilled potential—to keeping frozen eggs. If I could go back to 2014, would I make the same choice? Probably. I valued the peace of mind and sense of control. However, that was based on the assumption that I would eventually have a baby. I wish I had also known the psychological weight of my unused eggs would become a source of grief. I will write another check this spring, not because I truly believe I will use my eggs, but because letting go feels too final. Maybe when I turn 50, I will finally be ready. Maybe.

Apple users who have used Siri on devices like Macbooks, iPhones, and Apple TVs might be able to file a claim as part of a $95 million class-action settlement related to the voice assistant. The settlement stems from a 2021 lawsuit by Fumiko Lopez of California, alleging that Apple, through Siri, illegally recorded private communications without consent and then improperly disclosed them. The lawsuit stated, “Apple intentionally, willfully, and knowingly violated consumers’ privacy rights, including within the sanctity of consumers’ own homes where they have the greatest expectation of privacy,” and that users “would not have bought their Siri Devices, or would have paid less for them, if they had known Apple was intercepting, recording, disclosing, and otherwise misusing their conversations without consent or authorization.” In 2019, Apple acknowledged that it hadn't "been fully living up" to its "high ideals" and promised improvements. Apple agreed to the settlement on Dec. 31, 2024, but denies any wrongdoing, stating on the settlement website: “Apple denies all of the allegations made in the lawsuit and denies that [they] did anything improper or unlawful.” The website also provides details on eligibility and claim deadlines. Here's what you need to know about filing a claim: Who is eligible to file a claim? Eligible individuals include those who owned or purchased a Siri-enabled device—such as an iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod, iPod touch, or Apple TV—between Sept. 17, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024, and who "purchased or owned a Siri Device in the United States or its territories and enabled Siri on that device.” According to the settlement website, eligible parties should also have “experienced an unintended Siri activation during a confidential or private communication.” Those excluded include Apple employees, legal representatives, and judicial officers involved in the case. How can you make a claim and when is the deadline? Claimants can file online via the settlement website, and claims can be submitted for up to five Siri devices. The deadline for filing a claim, and for opting out of the settlement to preserve the right to sue Apple separately over the same issues, is July 2, 2025. Some eligible individuals may have received a postcard or email with the subject line “Lopez Voice Assistant Class Action Settlement,” containing a Claim Identification Code and a Confirmation Code. These codes can be used when filing a claim, but those who didn't receive correspondence can still file. When can you expect to receive payment? A final approval hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2025, but payments will only be distributed after any potential appeals are resolved. The settlement website will provide updates on the payment schedule as information becomes available.

Interruptions are a major communication faux pas, though they don't always arise for the same reasons. It's possible that someone is interrupting due to neurodivergence and finds it "difficult to focus without speaking," according to Jefferson Fisher, a Texas-based lawyer and author. In that case, allow them to speak, as they likely don't intend to be rude. However, sometimes the person you're talking to will clearly make a conscious decision to interrupt you. Fisher explains that "What they’re saying is, ‘What I have to say is more important than what you have to say,’” Fisher points out. “In some sense, they’ve stomped on your self-esteem. They’ve put themselves above you.” So, what should you do? We consulted experts about what to say when someone cuts you off. Just keep talking. If someone interrupts you, the first time, continue as if nothing happened. Jamila Musayeva, an etiquette expert, says that "If you take a pause, you allow the other person to intervene." She adds, "It might sound like it’s rude to continue what you’re saying, but it establishes power. You’re not allowing them to cut into your message.” Maintaining your tone is crucial: avoid raising or mumbling. "You’re not showing them that you’re being triggered by it, and you’re not giving them the emotions or attention they’re looking for," she says. This may be enough to get them to let you speak. “Bob, I can’t hear you when you interrupt me.” If the interruptions persist, it's time to act. Use their name: "Names get people's attention," says Fisher. Also, the phrasing he suggests focuses on your experience: "It’s not me saying anything about you. It’s me saying it about me: ‘I can’t hear you.’" He has found that this often stops the interruptions. “May I finish?” People often mistakenly apologize when interrupted, saying things like, "Sorry, can I continue?" Avoid this, says Elise Powers, who runs a global communications training firm and frequently coaches clients on how to handle interruptions, because you did nothing wrong. Instead, ask to finish your thought. She suggests doing it "in a confident way, where almost no one is going to say, ‘No, you may not finish.’” It's "polite, tactful, and professional—you’re not trying to alienate them." Also, avoiding aggressive replies saves others from discomfort. “John, I’ll turn it over to you when I finish my thought.” Again, using their first name immediately gets their attention. Powers says that "You’re being really clear and setting their expectations." "You’re putting yourself in control of the situation and giving them peace of mind: ‘I care about what you have to say, John. I want to hear it, so don’t worry about me not valuing your perspective.’” You're simply prioritizing the order of discussion – you finish, then they share. “I’d like to finish my thoughts—thanks for your patience.” Even when you say you're wrapping up, they might keep interrupting. That's why body language is important, says Musayeva. She notes that when interrupted, people often shrink inwards, rolling shoulders and tucking necks. Instead, "Make sure you roll your shoulders backwards and drop them down, so it’s almost like an exaggerated movement," she advises. Keep your chest out and neck elongated, with open and visible palms. "We want to show that we have command of the room," Musayeva says. “I want to make sure: Is this a conversation, or do you need me here only to listen?” There are different levels of response to interruptions, and this isn't the first step. But if it's a recurring issue, Fisher likes this direct way of addressing it. "It tends to take care of it," he says. “There have been a few times lately, today included, where I’ve felt like I haven’t been able to share my thoughts completely.” If you're dealing with a repeat offender – a colleague who always interrupts – address it privately, suggests Powers. After the meeting, tell them you feel unheard because they constantly jump in. "It’s worth having a conversation to understand why this is happening, and how you could both make efforts to reduce the likelihood of it happening again," she says. “Sarah, you were mentioning something about X, Y, or Z. Could you elaborate more on that?” Bonus tip: What if a colleague is being interrupted? It depends. They might prefer to handle it themselves, so consider the situation. "There are some women who would feel like, ‘OK, is this guy just trying to be the quarterback for me? I don’t need a hero; I can handle this on my own,’” Powers says. In that case, approach them privately: "I noticed you weren’t able to finish your thoughts in the meeting today. Would it be helpful in the future if I jumped in?" Or, share your favorite interruption strategy: "Here’s something I’ve done when I’ve been cut off. I don’t know if it’ll be helpful for you, but I wanted to share it because I do want to hear what you have to say.” Generally, it's helpful to give the floor back to someone who's been interrupted. Asking them to expand on their point is a good way to show interest and ensure they're heard, without undermining them, says Powers. Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email

Mark Zuckerberg recently shared his thoughts on AI's potential to address social isolation. In a conversation with podcaster Dwarkesh Patel, he highlighted that the "average American has fewer than three friends." He suggested that AI, rather than traditional approaches like community centers or mental health support, could be the answer. He imagines AI friends, companions, and therapists as solutions to modern disconnection, suggesting these systems would understand individuals as well as their personalized social media feeds do. Zuckerberg's proposition may seem radical, but it raises fundamental questions about the nature of friendship and whether algorithms can truly replicate the complexities of human connection. These are critical questions that society needs to address promptly. Zuckerberg correctly identifies the serious issue of loneliness. The loneliness epidemic is worsening. Surveys indicate a significant decrease in in-person interactions among certain demographics. Beyond loneliness, the problem encompasses declining trust and social cohesion—a lack of belonging. Evidence suggests that social media and the pandemic have contributed to increased anxiety and depression, as well as worry and fear about the future. Currently, the United States ranks lowest among G7 nations in trust in public institutions. The Meta founder is also correct in that AI can fulfill some immediate emotional needs. Since the 1960s, with the creation of ELIZA, a program mimicking a psychotherapist, it's been known that even simple AI interactions can offer temporary comfort. Current research even indicates that ChatGPT responses are comparable to human therapists in therapeutic contexts. This suggests that AI systems can provide accessible support without the biases and limitations of human therapists. While AI companions may have their own biases and hallucinations, they provide consistency, immediate availability, and tailored interactions based on individual preferences, which busy friends or family may not always be able to provide. However, the importance of preserving genuine human bonds isn't merely sentimental or based on skepticism towards technology. Connection is essential to our humanity, and despite Zuckerberg's optimism, substantial evidence indicates that machines cannot replace real human interaction. Researchers like Julianne Holt-Lunstad at Brigham Young University have demonstrated how face-to-face interactions reduce psychological distress and physical health issues, including cardiovascular disease. Neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni of UCLA emphasizes the role of "mirror neurons," brain cells activated solely through direct human interaction, which are vital for empathy and emotional understanding—abilities AI interactions cannot replicate. Human relationships are complex and inherently messy, offering intangible benefits like growth through discomfort and emotional depth through complexity. Psychology research spanning over 50 years shows that even negative social interactions—such as misunderstandings and disagreements—can promote personal empathy, problem-solving skills, and resilience. Overcoming social friction is essential for building community. Normalizing the idea that AI can replace human connection is dangerous, as it leads people to devalue investments in real relationships. Instead of navigating difficult but necessary conversations or striving to earn someone's trust, people may be tempted to turn to chatbots for companionship. This risks reducing ourselves to mere machines, which is damaging to both human character and community. There's a clear reason why "human-centered" solutions to the social connection crisis are frequently discussed—including investments in mental health, youth programs, community centers, volunteerism, libraries, parks, and quality public spaces. They are effective. Decades of research confirm that well-funded, vibrant public spaces and service-oriented initiatives significantly alleviate loneliness and enhance trust and social cohesion. Yet, our investments in these strategies remain inadequate. The decline of religious institutions also significantly weakens social bonds. Historically, religion has provided rituals, intergenerational connections, community building, and opportunities to explore profound existential questions—all vital aspects of belonging. While understandable reasons lead many to distance themselves from organized religion, we shouldn't dismiss the wisdom accumulated by these structures over centuries. As religious participation decreases, creating secular frameworks that foster common meaning and shared purpose among people—qualities that machines inherently cannot provide—is an important response. It's easy to dismiss Zuckerberg's comments as the musings of a detached tech mogul eager to automate humanity. However, simply dismissing them is insufficient. This moment requires clarity and conviction regarding the irreplaceable value of human presence. Zuckerberg accurately identifies our crisis of isolation, but automation is not the solution.

President Trump's recent trip to the Middle East involved brokering the sale of a significant number of AI chips made in the U.S. to companies in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, marking a notable change in U.S. policy regarding advanced AI technology. The previous approach was to restrict access to these powerful chips, particularly to nations considered potential security risks. Now, Trump is using these chips to further his broader trade objectives. During the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum in Riyadh, the White House announced Saudi Arabia's commitment to invest $600 billion in the U.S., aiming to create lasting economic bonds. Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, revealed a major partnership with Humain, a new company owned by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, and pledged to provide them with chips. AMD also announced its $10 billion project in Saudi Arabia. Another agreement is reportedly being finalized with the Emirati firm G42. While Trump's allies view these deals as beneficial for all involved, some national security experts are concerned about the long-term implications of distributing these chips globally. Janet Egan, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), warns against using AI chips as bargaining tools for broader trade deals. She emphasizes their importance in maintaining U.S. AI dominance and cautions against short-term trade benefits that could jeopardize long-term AI leadership. Earlier in the year, the Chinese company Deepseek revealed its development, largely using Nvidia chips acquired before the Biden administration closed an export loophole in 2023, intensifying the competition. In his final weeks, President Biden increased export controls, including restrictions on countries in the Gulf. The Trump administration recently revoked these regulations, with a spokesperson describing them as "overly complex, bureaucratic" and detrimental to American innovation. They have shifted to a strategy of linking AI chip access to broader trade negotiations. This negotiation-based approach, according to the administration, offers greater flexibility and allows Trump to secure key business concessions from Middle Eastern partners. Businesses and governments in the Middle East have ambitious AI plans, seeking to become leaders in this emerging technology. They have advantages such as abundant energy resources, readily available capital from oil and sovereign wealth funds, and fewer government regulations, facilitating rapid infrastructure development. However, until now, access to cutting-edge American chips from companies like Nvidia has been a missing component. The number of chips that U.S. companies are reportedly sending to the UAE and Saudi Arabia is substantial. Alasdair Phillips-Robins, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, states that it could be "larger than any AI training system that exists in the world today." The powerful models created with this training system could potentially automate cyber-attacks, intelligence gathering, and weapons development. This situation is concerning to some U.S. analysts, given Saudi Arabia and the UAE's ties with China. In the past, American spy agencies have issued warnings about G42 potentially transferring advanced American technology to China. G42 has denied any connections to the Chinese government or military. Egan believes that a non-democratic authoritarian regime should not be leading the future of such a critical and transformative technology. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, led by Michigan Republican John Moolenaar, stated on Twitter that the new chip deals "present a vulnerability for the CCP to exploit." Sam Winter-Levy, another Carnegie Endowment fellow, fears that the deal will incentivize U.S. AI companies to relocate to the Gulf, where they might find better energy deals and avoid U.S. regulations and public opposition. Major U.S. companies are already taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the Trump administration. OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, and AMD’s Lisa Su all attended the forum. The AI startup Scale AI, which partners with the U.S. government to develop AI safety standards, plans to open an office in Saudi Arabia. Google, too, is establishing an AI hub in the country. Winter-Levy warns that a significant portion of U.S. computing power could be offshored to countries that could use leverage over U.S. foreign policy in ways that may not align with U.S. national interests. Winter-Levy also argues that these AI chip deals contradict Trump's previous emphasis on an "America first" foreign policy. He points out that these are data centers and chips that could be built and used in the United States. He finds it difficult to reconcile this with an America First approach to industrial or economic policy.

President Trump is standing by his controversial plan to accept a luxury Boeing jet from Qatar. He argues that the "free" gift would save the U.S. money, which could then be used to "Make America Great Again." In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, May 13, Trump stated that the Boeing 747 is a gift for the U.S. Air Force/Department of Defense, not for him personally. He emphasized that it comes from Qatar, a nation the U.S. has defended for many years. He asserted that "Only a FOOL would not accept this gift" for the country. Trump explained that the donated jet, a Boeing 747-8 valued at around $400 million, would serve as a "temporary Air Force One" while the U.S. awaits the completion of its official jet. During an interview that aired Tuesday night, Trump elaborated on his position. He mentioned he's still waiting for the Air Force One jet he approved during his first term, a wait he anticipates will last another two years. Qatar offered to provide a plane in the meantime. He claimed other countries have planes that are superior to the current Air Force One, adding, "We’re the United States of America and I believe we should have the most impressive plane.” “Some people say you shouldn’t accept gifts for the country, my attitude is: ‘Why wouldn’t I accept a gift? We’re giving to everyone else,’” Trump said. He added that he personally gains nothing from the gift, and would fly it as any other president would. The Qatar-gifted jet will be "decommissioned" once the U.S.-ordered Air Force One plane is ready. (The current Air Force One consists of two modified Boeing 747 planes.) Regarding the pre-ordered jet under construction, Trump said, “We’re painting it red, white, and blue. Just like the American flag.” Trump's plan to accept the gift has sparked legal and ethical concerns from both Democrats and Republicans. Senator Chuck Schumer stated he would place a blanket hold on Justice Department nominees awaiting Senate confirmation until the White House provides a full accounting of the deal. "This is not just naked corruption, it’s the kind of thing that even Putin would give a double take," Schumer said on the Senate floor. Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts told TIME: “He’s going to turn Air Force One into Bribe Force One. Congress has to be involved with such a clear threat to our national security.” Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, have also expressed concerns about the gift from the Qatari royal family and the potential high costs of inspecting the Boeing for foreign surveillance devices. Prominent conservative voices have also criticized the President's plan. Right-wing commentators Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren have both sharply criticized it, with Shapiro referencing Qatar's relationship with Hamas officials. ```

CNN anchor Sara Sidner shared at the TIME100 Health Impact Dinner that she underwent 16 chemotherapy rounds while continuing to work after her stage III breast cancer diagnosis in 2023, a statement met with enthusiastic applause. Sidner emphasized the ability to maintain one's life during cancer treatment, expressing gratitude to nurses, doctors, researchers, and drug developers for their essential work and research. Sidner joined Dr. Vinod Balachandran, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Victor Bulto, from Novartis, the event's sponsor, on a panel led by TIME's Alice Park. They discussed advancements in cancer detection, treatment, and prevention, as well as ongoing research needs. Sidner mentioned that initially, she hadn't intended to share her cancer diagnosis publicly. However, upon learning about her stage III breast cancer, she felt compelled to share her experiences honestly, including the difficult aspects. Balachandran described cancer as a critical health challenge, noting that statistics indicate a high likelihood of cancer diagnosis for men and women in the U.S. He explained that cancer's adaptability poses a significant challenge. Current treatments often fail to keep pace with cancer's evolution. Balachandran highlighted the progress in developing more sophisticated cancer treatments, including the use of AI and a deeper understanding of the immune system. These advancements could lead to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments. He has been using personalized vaccines to potentially strengthen patients' immune systems against pancreatic cancer, which is known as a deadly cancer in the U.S. Bulto stressed the importance of improving both the science and the patient experience. Bulto emphasized that advancements in cancer treatment should be accessible to all patients, regardless of their location. Despite previous budget cuts, Balachandran remains optimistic about the future of cancer treatment. He asserted that the momentum of transformative progress in cancer care is difficult to stop, warranting continued support due to cancer's widespread impact. Park concluded the discussion by asking the panelists if a cancer cure was within reach. Balachandran responded affirmatively, stating that cancer is already being cured. The focus now is on improving the effectiveness, simplicity, and accessibility of these cures, while minimizing side effects. He emphasized the need to broaden access to treatments and reduce side effects. Sidner and Bulto agreed with Balachandran, with Sidner highlighting the need for equitable cancer cures, noting the disproportionately high mortality rate among Black women with breast cancer. Sidner emphasized the urgent need to address disparities in cancer outcomes. The TIME100 Impact Dinner: Leaders Shaping the Future of Health was sponsored by Novartis and FIGS.

Congressional Democrats are seizing on President Trump's plan to receive a $400 million luxury aircraft from Qatar, viewing it as both a potential breach of the Constitution and a powerful issue to win over disillusioned voters. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is spearheading the effort, announcing a hold on all Justice Department nominees awaiting Senate approval until the White House provides a full account of the deal and Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before Congress. Schumer stated on the Senate floor that this isn't just blatant corruption, but something that would shock even Putin. Schumer presented a list of questions and demands for the Trump Administration to address before he releases his hold on nominees, primarily focusing on the national security implications of the President accepting a customized Boeing 747-8 jet for use as Air Force One, and then transferring the aircraft to his presidential library. Schumer questioned whether the Qataris are providing a ready-to-use plane with pre-installed security measures, and if so, who installed them and how their proper installation is verified. After their 2024 election loss, Democrats have been seeking a unifying issue. Many now believe this Qatar plane deal has more potential than Trump’s deportation policies or broad government spending cuts. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts told TIME that Trump is turning Air Force One into "Bribe Force One," and that Congress must be involved due to the clear threat to national security. The national security concerns stem from questions about Qatar's allegiances. The Qatari government has historically provided financial aid to the Gaza Strip, supporting the Hamas government. In 2017, Trump himself accused Qatar of funding terrorism and supported a Saudi-led blockade against the country. Democrats are wagering that voters, weary of Trump’s actions but uncertain about his limits, will see the jet deal as a clear instance of personal gain and compromised national interests. Last month, the Trump Organization finalized an agreement to develop a luxury golf resort in Qatar featuring Trump-branded villas and a course built by a Saudi firm—his first such foreign undertaking since returning to office. Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York labeled the Qatari offer as "the most valuable ever conferred on a president by a foreign government," describing the arrangement as a "flying grift." In a letter to ethics officials, Torres called for an immediate ethics review and policy changes to prevent foreign gifts from becoming private assets for current or former presidents, stating that Air Force One will ironically have something in common with Hamas: funding from Qatar. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who led Trump’s second impeachment after the Jan. 6 attack, plans to introduce a resolution requiring Trump to seek congressional approval for accepting the $400 million aircraft. Raskin intends to invoke Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits federal officials from accepting emoluments without congressional consent. Even some Republicans have expressed concern about Trump’s plan. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas raised espionage risks, while Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said she would be "checking for bugs.” Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley stated on social media that taking gifts from other countries is never a good practice. However, others argued that the story isn't gaining traction outside Washington. Senator Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, stated that instead of objecting to everything President Trump does, Democrats should connect with the American people, who he believes don't care about an airplane. He asserted that they care about their lives and the economy, and that President Trump is working to rebuild what has been destroyed in the past four years. Democrats recognize that outrage alone might not sway public opinion in a political environment where Trump’s supporters often dismiss criticism as biased. But the Qatar jet controversy—with its blend of constitutional questions, luxury, and international intrigue—could serve as a powerful symbol of what Democrats consider an ongoing assault on American norms. Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia told TIME that the President is not allowed to accept flying palaces from foreign princes, and that he obviously cannot accept this gift.