PR in the Philippines

The Trump administration is openly targeting civil rights protections under the banner of “DEI,” prompting policy changes in universities, organizations, and companies to safeguard themselves. This focus on DEI is poised to affect communities, particularly infrastructure. The passed in 2021, represented a historic investment in infrastructure, aiming to improve the nation’s infrastructure while addressing the it caused. President Trump halted funding for the law early in his term, citing a "radical social and environmental agenda," as stated by Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Trump has also advocated for increased highway construction, raising concerns about repeating past destructive patterns without adequate protections. The mentioned "agenda" acknowledged the dual nature of infrastructure: connecting people to opportunities while also creating divisions. This historical context remains relevant, carrying the risk of repetition. The situation in South Carolina highlights this issue. In 2019, Amira Johnson, a nine-year-old, appealed to the state's transportation department to protect her great-grandmother's home in Sandridge, a historic Black community founded by formerly enslaved people. The state's plan to construct a four-lane road through Sandridge threatened to displace homes, businesses, churches, and historical sites. Johnson emphasized the impact on her 79-year-old great-grandmother and urged fairness. Despite these appeals, the roadway project is proceeding, potentially devastating Sandridge, making it the most recent Black community endangered by transportation projects. Similar situations exist in nearly every state. Transportation has often been viewed as separate from politics and justice, but roads and transit routes influence both opportunity and exclusion. They reflect societal values and have often communicated a painful message to Black communities: You are disposable. This issue traces back to the interstate system. The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, enacted after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, facilitated the reshaping of American cities. Rather than fostering racial inclusion, highways became tools to resist civil rights, used to demolish Black neighborhoods and reinforce segregation under the guise of progress. In the mid-1950s, the executive director of the American Association of State Highway Officials expressed the view that urban Interstates could eliminate local Black neighborhoods. In Birmingham, Ala., city officials used zoning laws originally enacted by Jim Crow to enforce segregation. When these laws were overturned, local leaders, led by segregationist "Bull" Connor, used infrastructure to maintain segregation. In Indianapolis, the construction of the I-65/I-70 Inner Loop displaced communities. City officials justified the destruction by citing the economic decline resulting from years of redlining. They first deprived Black neighborhoods of investment and then demolished them under the banner of "revitalization." The problem extends beyond highways. Public transportation has also marginalized Black communities. Systems historically segregated by law still face barriers, justified using coded language like "public safety." Bus routes were altered or eliminated, and investments prioritized trains for white suburbs over buses used by Black and low-income riders. This created transportation deserts in Black neighborhoods, isolating residents from jobs, healthcare, and education. Even today, some predominantly white communities oppose public transportation extensions, not because they don't need it, but because they don't want certain people entering their neighborhoods. These decisions exacerbate racial inequality, leaving individuals like Johnson’s great-grandmother facing displacement despite having contributed to her community. The impacts of inadequate transportation policy are visible in , , , and . America's aging infrastructure is in need of repair. The need for rebuilding is evident everywhere, from decaying highways to pothole-filled roads. The Key Bridge collapse in Maryland underscores this urgency. However, funding for repair legislation is on hold, along with requirements for state transportation agencies to consider racial equity in their planning. As infrastructure is rebuilt, new approaches are needed. Continuing to sacrifice communities of color for efficiency is one option. The alternative is to seize this opportunity for positive change. This means halting destructive projects affecting communities like Sandridge and reinvesting in affordable housing, public transit, walkable streets, and access to jobs and services. This requires acknowledging that racial justice and transportation planning are connected. Amira Johnson, even at a young age, grasped this connection and sought solutions. The Trump Administration also understands this dynamic but appears uninterested in finding solutions, seemingly unconcerned about the impact of highway construction on Black neighborhoods. It is up to others to prevent this. ```

Two prominent Evangelical Christian figures addressed an open letter to President Trump on Wednesday, expressing concerns about the potential risks of unchecked artificial intelligence and the displacement of human workers through automation. This letter follows recent comments from Pope Leo XIV, who voiced his apprehension regarding the "defense of human dignity, justice, and labor" in the face of the AI-driven "new industrial revolution." Reverends Johnnie Moore and Samuel Rodriguez stated in their letter, “As people of faith, we believe we should rapidly develop powerful AI tools that help cure diseases and solve practical problems, but not autonomous smarter-than-human machines that nobody knows how to control.” They added, “The world is grappling with a new reality because of the pace of the development of this technology, which represents an opportunity of great promise but also of potential peril especially as we approach artificial general intelligence.” Rodriguez, who leads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, participated in Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Moore, founder of Kairos, served on Trump's Evangelical advisory board during his initial presidential campaign. The letter highlights the increasing collaboration between religious groups and AI safety advocates, who share similar concerns. The Future of Life Institute, an organization dedicated to mitigating the existential risks associated with advanced AI, shared the letter with journalists. Leading tech companies now generally believe that achieving "artificial general intelligence" (AGI), AI capable of surpassing human expertise in any task, is feasible. Some researchers have even used religious terminology when discussing this technology. The possibility of AGI presents theological challenges, raising questions about the role of God in a universe where a God-like machine could exist. The Reverends emphasized the spiritual implications of creating intelligence that could exceed human capabilities, stating that it "raises profound theological and ethical questions that must be thoughtfully considered with wisdom." They also noted that “Virtually all religious traditions warn against a world where work is no longer necessary or where human beings can live their lives without any guardrails.” Despite its complimentary tone, the letter proposes an approach to AI governance that contrasts with Trump's current stance. The president views the U.S. as being in a race with China to achieve AGI dominance, and his AI advisor, David Sacks, has cautioned against regulating AI, fearing it would jeopardize the U.S.'s competitive edge. The White House AI team includes advisors who are skeptical of alignment risks, which involve the possibility of AI becoming hostile to humans and causing catastrophic outcomes. The letter appeals to Trump's leadership, stating, “We believe you are the world’s leader now by Divine Providence to also guide AI,” and urges him to establish an ethics council to consider the ethical implications of AI development. The letter clarifies that the U.S. should strive to "win the AI race," but emphasizes that "this victory simply must not be a victory at any cost." The letter echoes concerns previously voiced within the Vatican by both Pope Leo XIV and his predecessor, Pope Francis. Last year, Francis emphasized that AI should enhance, rather than diminish, human dignity during an event at the Vatican. He questioned whether AI serves humanity's needs and promotes well-being or enriches a few powerful tech companies at the expense of humanity. Some Catholic theologians view AGI as a modern manifestation of idolatry. A Vatican document published in January warns against substituting God with human-made artifacts, stating that AI "may prove even more seductive than traditional idols." The document emphasizes that AI is a reflection of humanity, created by human minds and dependent on human input and labor. ```

I recall a lengthy lunch with graduate school friends at a well-known New Orleans restaurant in the French Quarter. The walls were adorned with memorabilia. While enjoying my gumbo, I noticed my friends were distracted by what was behind me. The paintings, old menus, and other artifacts depicted an idealized South where enslaved people contentedly served the landowners. Having seen these images throughout my life, I had become accustomed to them. However, my friends from countries like Canada and South Korea were disturbed.  Louisiana, like much of the South, has many former plantations. However, on May 15, 2025, the largest remaining plantation mansion completely burned due to an electrical fire, leaving only part of the facade standing. The rest was destroyed.  Nottoway , like many plantations, was repurposed as a venue for weddings and photoshoots. Currently, the website describes Nottoway as a “resort” offering amenities like a gym, pool, and tennis courts. The description lists the dimensions of certain oak trees but omits the history of the plantation, its construction, or the events that transpired there. Many, including myself, view the plantation as a former slave labor camp where crimes against humanity went unpunished and those associated with these crimes were often celebrated.  John C. Calhoun, Vice President under Andrew Jackson, frequently argued that slavery benefited America by generating wealth for the ruling class. Slavery was profitable for individuals like Calhoun. By 1863, many of the wealthiest Americans were plantation owners from the "Cotton Belt".  Calhoun even claimed that slavery was beneficial to the enslaved because it provided them with necessities they couldn't obtain themselves. Films such as Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind perpetuated this idea in the 20th century, portraying plantations as places of prosperity where the elite lived well and the enslaved were regarded as beloved family members. In "Gone With The Wind," Scarlett O'Hara had beautiful dresses, numerous suitors, and an enslaved caretaker who offered maternal advice.  However, these portrayals are fictional. No classic Hollywood film tells the story of plantation life from the perspective of the enslaved, which would have shattered the myth. These films did not depict the enslaved families' feelings as they were forced to enrich others, while their family members were sold to other labor camps.  There is no doubt that the enslaved workers at Nottoway Plantation during the antebellum era were treated as property. They were unpaid, unable to leave, and had no rights to property, their children, or their own bodies. They also had no legal recourse, even if they or a loved one was assaulted, raped, or murdered.  The central question is how should we treat the physical sites of such terrible histories? In Amsterdam, near the Rijksmuseum and a tulip-filled park, is the Anne Frank House. Anne Frank was a young woman who hid with her family from the Nazis in the attic of this house. She was eventually captured and killed. There are also the "Doors of No Return" on the west coast of Africa. These memorials in Senegal and Benin mark the points from which Africans were transported into chattel slavery. In 2023, I visited the Doorway of No Return at the House of Slaves on Gorée Island in Senegal, where knowledgeable tour guides provided detailed accounts of the suffering endured by people held in the building. (Some were confined to spaces under the stairwells, no larger than a doghouse.) Given this context, it was impossible not to be moved at the end of the tour when the guide allowed me to stand at the doorway's threshold. There were no tennis courts or facials available at the House of Slaves. Between 2017 and 2022, I visited Amsterdam three times for research. I tried to visit the Anne Frank House each time, but the line of people waiting to witness the events that occurred there stretched down the block. By all accounts, seeing the inside of the house is a powerful experience. Herein lies the issue with America’s attitude toward its former slave labor camps: they are controversial because they overlook their own histories. While some plantations attempt to contextualize their past (the Whitney Plantation in Wallace, Louisiana, is a prime example), many others offer sanitized versions of history designed to make visitors comfortable with what happened there. This is particularly harmful when visitors believe they are on an educational tour. Most people would not want to take glamorous photos at the site of a human catastrophe. Most would be horrified if someone held a party where their great-great-grandmother was imprisoned and abused. Any attempt to transform the World Trade Center site into a vacation resort would likely face widespread opposition from Americans. This is because the past must be confronted. Recognition and mourning must precede reconciliation. If Nottoway Plantation had been serving the community it was based in, I would be devastated by its loss. But as it is, I feel nothing. ```

Despite a decade of federal courts pulling back from safeguarding voting rights, they still seem unwilling to interfere after an election to alter vote-counting rules. A recent ruling, upholding a North Carolina Supreme Court race result, demonstrates this rejection of post-election subversion—attempts to overturn election results after they're official. This decision from North Carolina resonates widely, sending a strong signal to potential subverters of the 2026 elections: their efforts are unlikely to succeed. The November 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election saw incumbent Justice Allison Riggs win by a mere 734 votes, a result confirmed by two recounts. Nevertheless, her opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, challenged the outcome in state court, attempting to discard over 60,000 votes post-election. Griffin didn't allege voter rule-breaking; instead, he argued for retroactive rule changes and the invalidation of ballots not complying with these new rules. Initially, Griffin's legal battle found some success in state courts. Both the North Carolina appeals court and the North Carolina Supreme Court considered invalidating some votes, a departure from other courts' dismissals of similar claims in recent years. Allowing these decisions to stand would have had severe consequences, setting a bad precedent in North Carolina and encouraging losing candidates to selectively invalidate votes. Rogue officials could have reinterpreted rules post-election, undermining the will of the people and enabling politicians to choose their voters. However, when the case reached federal court, it was rejected as a tool for election subversion. A conservative federal judge, appointed by President Donald Trump, mandated the election's certification in favor of Riggs, citing the violation of voters’ federal constitutional rights by changing rules after the election. The court upheld the fundamental democratic principle that votes cast under established rules must be counted, preventing similar post-election challenges in the future. Following this ruling, Griffin conceded the race six months after the election. This court's decision isn't isolated. After the 2020 election, Trump and his allies launched numerous lawsuits challenging the results, which were repeatedly dismissed by the courts. The 2022 and 2024 elections saw more sophisticated, but equally illegitimate, attempts to subvert elections through the courts. There were challenges to valid election results and a surge of pre-election litigation seemingly designed to create post-election disputes. Federal and state courts rejected these efforts. This doesn't mean federal courts can be relied upon to protect voting rights amidst the ongoing assault across the country. In fact, federal courts have recently made it harder to ensure fair rules and equal access to the ballot. Notably, the Supreme Court weakened key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision. Since then, there have been unfavorable rulings limiting the ability to stop partisan gerrymandering in federal court and hindering efforts to stop restrictive voting rules during election years. Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that, if upheld, would severely limit the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by anyone other than the Justice Department in seven states. The federal judiciary's retreat from its traditional role as a protector of voting rights has eroded trust in our elections. However, at a time when election deniers spread misinformation, attempt to manipulate election processes, and employ extreme tactics, this North Carolina ruling sets a crucial boundary. While our democracy isn't perfect, this boundary is significant for upcoming elections. The message from federal courts is clear: you can't "change the rules of the game after it had been played," as the North Carolina district court stated. ```

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he is moving forward with an ambitious and costly national missile defense system, with the goal of having it operational before his term ends. The President, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Space Force Vice Chief of Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein, unveiled the “Golden Dome,” a missile, satellite, and sensor defense system. Named in a similar vein to his and mirroring Israel's U.S.-funded "Iron Dome," Trump has put Guetlein in charge of leading this new initiative. If it proceeds according to the current plans, the “Golden Dome” would represent the first instance of the U.S. deploying weaponry in space. Trump, who advocated for an American Iron Dome during his campaign, is not the first president to suggest such a system. Ronald Reagan proposed a space-based defense system (dubbed "Star Wars") in 1983, which was ultimately unrealized due to financial, political, and technological hurdles. "Once fully operational, the Golden Dome will be able to intercept missiles regardless of their launch location, even from space," Trump stated. "We will truly complete the work President Reagan began 40 years ago, permanently eliminating the missile threat to the American homeland." Here's what you should know. What would the Golden Dome look like? While standing in front of posters illustrating a literal dome surrounding the U.S., Trump offered few specific details regarding the exact configuration of his proposed "Golden Dome." However, it is understood to be a network of sensors and missile interceptors situated both on the ground and in space. Hegseth stated that the system would defend the U.S. against "cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they are conventional or nuclear." According to an outlining the President's expectations from January, the system is designed to intercept missiles during all four phases of an attack: pre-launch, early flight, midcourse flight, and descent toward a target. Who will build the Golden Dome? In April, it was reported that SpaceX, owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, along with software company Palantir and drone manufacturer Anduril, were leading contenders to secure the contract for developing the "Golden Dome." Citing anonymous sources, the report indicated that the three companies have recently met with high-ranking officials from the Trump Administration and the Pentagon to present a plan for constructing and launching between 400 and over 1,000 satellites worldwide for missile detection and tracking. The report also mentioned that over 180 companies have shown interest in developing and building the "Golden Dome." The reported that following Trump's January directive, the Pentagon has been evaluating program options based on cost and scale, considering the quantity of satellites, sensors, and space-based interceptors to be procured. The AP indicated that the Trump Administration had selected a mid-range option. How much would the Golden Dome cost?  The "Golden Dome" will likely require considerably more funding than Israel's Iron Dome. The nonpartisan estimated the production cost of each Iron Dome battery at approximately $100 million, with 10 batteries in total. The U.S., being over 400 times larger than Israel (roughly the size of New Jersey), contributes to the increased cost. Trump stated in his announcement that the project is projected to cost $175 billion over the next three years, with $25 billion allocated for initial costs in his tax spending megabill. Earlier this month, the nonpartisan indicated that the overall cost of a space-based interceptor system could fluctuate depending on future launch expenses. The CBO estimated that the total expenditure for deploying and operating such a system over 20 years could range from $161 billion to $831 billion in 2025 dollars. What are other concerns about the Golden Dome? The proposal has encountered significant opposition from lawmakers and analysts, citing concerns ranging from expenses to capabilities. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D, Texas) are leading a group of 42 members of Congress into the project's awarding process, including Musk's reported involvement. In a , Sen. Angus King (I, Maine) also questioned defense officials regarding the Dome's ability to counter attacks, specifically asking if such a system "could deny a substantial missile attack from Russia or China." Even Republican Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana suggested that the system's construction costs could reach "trillions." Critics of the "Golden Dome" have also voiced concerns about , potentially prompting military rivals like Russia and China to enhance their arsenals to maintain a credible deterrent. When questioned about criticisms of the proposal, Trump simply responded, "Well, they're wrong. It's about as close to perfect as you can get in terms of actual production." ```

New Jersey's Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver is facing assault charges following an altercation with law enforcement outside an immigration detention center earlier this month. The charges arise from a May 9 incident. McIver visited Delaney Hall, a federal immigration detention facility in Newark, for a “congressional oversight inspection.” Court documents filed Monday allege she intervened during the arrest of Newark's Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka. The filing claims McIver "slammed her forearm into the body" of a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agent and pushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation officer. Delaney Hall, recently reopened, has been at the center of debates over the Trump Administration’s mass deportation efforts. Alina Habba, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey and former personal attorney for Trump, announced on X Monday that her office would drop misdemeanor trespassing charges against Baraka but proceed with the charges against McIver. Here's what to know about these charges. What are the charges against McIver? Court documents reveal McIver faces two counts of assaulting, resisting, and impeding an HSI agent and an ICE officer. Habba stated on X, “That conduct cannot be overlooked by the chief federal law enforcement official in the State of New Jersey, and it is my Constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties. No one is above the law—politicians or otherwise. It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially, regardless of who you are. Now we will let the justice system work.” McIver has refuted the charges in a statement, asserting that she and her colleagues visited Delaney Hall “to inspect the treatment of ICE detainees” and “were fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before.” McIver's statement continued, “Our visit should have been peaceful and short. Instead, ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka.” “The charges against me are purely political—they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” she added. “This administration will never stop me from working for the people in our district and standing up for what is right. I am thankful for the outpouring of support I have received and I look forward to the truth being laid out clearly in court.” What potential penalties is she facing? According to the law, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees carries a maximum penalty of eight years in prison. However, sentencing for those convicted typically follows federal guidelines. Could she be tried while serving in Congress? Yes. Prosecutors can bring federal criminal charges against sitting members of Congress, though this is rare outside of fraud or corruption allegations. A recent example involves then-Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, who was tried last year for his involvement in an international bribery scheme. Menendez was found guilty and subsequently resigned from the Senate. ```

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has been a long-standing and vocal critic of Bitcoin. Back in 2017, he stated he would fire any employee caught trading Bitcoin, deeming it "stupid" and a "fraud." As recently as last year, he referred to the cryptocurrency as a "pet rock." However, this week saw Dimon announce that JPMorgan Chase would permit its clientele to purchase Bitcoin. This announcement, delivered with apparent reluctance during JPMorgan Chase's investor day, was accompanied by a reiteration of common criticisms against Bitcoin, such as its potential use in facilitating sex trafficking and terrorism. Despite these reservations, he acknowledged his clients' autonomy to invest their money as they see fit. He stated, “I don’t think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy Bitcoin. Go at it.” This decision represents a notable victory, both symbolically and practically, for the Bitcoin community. Despite its origins as an anti-establishment movement, the community has actively sought acceptance from mainstream institutions. Dimon, an influential figure in traditional finance, has consistently used his position to dissuade both ordinary investors and other financial leaders from engaging with Bitcoin. However, he has also been known to adapt his views, and his evolving stance on Bitcoin reflects a shift in the political landscape and increasing client demand. Dimon's decision is a result of growing competition and interest in Bitcoin from other major firms over the past year. The integration of Bitcoin and traditional finance began in January 2024 when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved Bitcoin ETFs—investment products that allow individuals to speculate on Bitcoin's price without directly owning it. These ETFs quickly attracted billions of dollars in investments, demonstrating their value to prominent financial institutions like BlackRock. By the summer, Morgan Stanley had authorized its wealth advisors to offer Bitcoin ETFs to clients, and Goldman Sachs had already traded a significant amount of them. Subsequently, Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election further amplified the hype surrounding crypto. Throughout his campaign, Trump garnered support from many crypto enthusiasts by accusing Biden of stifling the industry. Trump then pledged to establish the U.S. as the "Bitcoin capital of the world." Since assuming office, Trump has leveraged both his governmental authority and personal brand to promote cryptocurrency initiatives, significantly impacting the banking sector. During his first week, Trump revoked SAB 121, an accounting rule implemented during Biden's administration that discouraged banks from handling crypto assets. Following this, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency revised their anti-crypto guidelines, granting banks greater flexibility in their approach to digital assets. Numerous banks have since entered the crypto space. Millennium Management, for instance, has accumulated over $1 billion in Bitcoin ETFs. The CEOs of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley have also expressed interest in providing crypto-related products. Dimon had the option to maintain his opposition and keep JPMorgan out of the crypto market. However, the bank, being the largest in America with over $3 trillion in assets globally, risked losing affluent individuals and institutional clients seeking portfolio diversification amidst extreme financial instability. Consequently, JPMorgan customers will now have the opportunity to purchase Bitcoin, as announced on Monday. However, he clarified that the bank would not offer Bitcoin custody services, necessitating the involvement of a trusted third party. Dimon's decision could potentially spur further changes in the industry. His apparent concession might act as a powerful signal to other traditional finance holdouts. Moreover, JPMorgan's extensive customer base could introduce a new wave of investors to Bitcoin. Unsurprisingly, the crypto community on Twitter celebrated Dimon's about-face. Cory Klippsten, the CEO of Swan, remarked on Twitter that "Jamie Dimon has bent the knee." ```