PR in the Philippines

With Israeli projectiles impacting, the Middle East edged closer to a widespread regional conflict. Iran's Islamic Republic experienced, for the first time since the 1980s, a direct military strike from a different regional state, which not only struck its territory but also the regime's symbolic and political core. Currently, that conflict is on hold due to a truce, and despite considerable anticipation and near-frenzied speculation, the government retains control. Iran's authorities might have endured this phase, yet their authority is now more precarious than before. An intensification of domestic control and the initiation of internal purges to identify alleged Israeli collaborators are highly probable, if not already in progress. The leadership will attempt to highlight its military endurance, but beneath this facade exists a worsening crisis and persistent governance issues. Although Iranians showed solidarity against the unparalleled Israeli and U.S. attacks, the conflict provoked critical inquiries into the regime's persistence and Iran's development. The direct cause was military. On June 12, Israel initiated deep strikes within Iranian land, followed by further attacks on June 22 aimed at nuclear facilities. The Trump Administration presented the operation as essential to “perpetually dismantle” Iran’s armaments capacity. Characteristically, Trump complemented the assault with a pledge to “rebuild,” hinting that overthrowing the government was the objective. However, on June 24, Trump altered his stance and declared a cessation of hostilities. The conditions are undefined, and the implementation method is obscure. What is evident, though, is that Iran’s governmental and military framework remains predominantly undamaged. The notion that a long-standing regime could be overthrown by an Israeli air campaign without ground troops or internal backing has once more been shown to be unrealistic. The Islamic Republic is not a delicate autocracy sustained by one individual. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s well-being has consistently been a topic of speculation, yet the government has maintained stability. The Revolutionary Guards continue to be formidable, profoundly integrated, and committed to the system—if not to their own continued existence. Nevertheless, persistence does not equate to might. The conflict revealed a government incapable of safeguarding its own urban areas or populace from external aggression. The Islamic Republic is economically strained and under severe penalties. It has dedicated decades to presenting itself as a protector of national independence, but its display of might and defensive approach have proven empty. This deficiency has created fresh avenues not merely for critique, but for envisioning new possibilities. For many years, Iranians have organized demonstrations against what they oppose: religious governance, malfeasance, and oppression. However, in this period of turmoil, a more challenging and fundamental inquiry into what Iranians desire and who possesses the authority to determine it is re-emerging. That resolution cannot originate from banished monarchs or international figures. It must emerge domestically. Recent movements provided an insight, representing the most varied and expansive demonstrations in Iran’s recent past. The Iranian expatriate community reacted with unmatched vigor, arranging gatherings and suggesting frameworks for a post-Islamic Republic shift. Yet, a significant portion of that impetus diminished, partly owing to the re-involvement of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the preceding Shah, who is once more echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appeal for Iranians to “take control.” The way forward does not involve reinstating a monarchy, nor a government-in-exile facilitated by foreign powers. It demands the arduous, intentional endeavor of constructing a representative framework that mirrors and incorporates the complete range of Iranian populace across various ethnic, religious, geographical, and gender divisions. This implies prioritizing restorative justice over retribution, and systemic structures over individual figures. Iranians are aware of the hazards associated with externally instigated government changes. In 1953, a coup supported by the U.S. and U.K. removed the democratically chosen Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, reinstating the Shah and suppressing dissent. In 1979, a revolution seeking liberty was usurped by a religious ruling class. In both instances, Iranians forfeited control of their destiny to opportunists who pledged deliverance but instead imposed subjugation. Iranians have also long harbored apprehensions about the possibility of a civil conflict akin to Syria’s, internal fragmentation, or foreign interference presented as emancipation. These concerns are not merely academic historical concepts or remote lessons derived from the wider Middle East. They are actively intensified by the nation’s continuous encounter with economic hardship. Decades of extensive sanctions have undermined the financial basis of daily existence, depleted governmental efficacy, and resulted in a fractured societal agreement. The conflict might be suspended. Yet, the resolution is far from complete. The Iranian government is bruised but remains whole, and will undoubtedly search for an exit, potentially via an agreement brokered by Trump that guarantees its continuance, limits subsequent Israeli assaults, and delivers much-anticipated relief from sanctions. However, any international diplomatic settlement must be accompanied by a domestic reconsideration. What is in contention is not solely foreign relations but also political self-determination. The upcoming challenge for Iran involves conceiving a future not constructed by powerful figures or envisioned by external entities, but founded on diversity and novel governance that obtains its legitimacy from its populace.

Caution: Spoilers ahead for Season 4, Episode 7 of The Bear. Among the many ambitious episodes of The Bear, “Fishes” stands out as particularly unforgettable. This hour-long Christmas episode, if it can be called that, from Season 2—taking place five years prior to Carmen's plan to launch his renovated restaurant—depicts a large, noisy, and unruly family get-together. Given the attendees, it was inevitable: the Berzattos, the Fak brothers, Uncle Jimmy, Uncle Lee (Donna’s recurring boyfriend), Cousins Michelle and Steve, friends and Tiffany, and Natalie’s husband Pete—a volatile combination of individuals destined for conflict. The situation rapidly ignites. During dinner, a discussion about the Seven Fishes custom quickly devolves from lively to disorderly. Mikey initiates an intense argument with Lee, resulting in forks being thrown. asks her mother Donna if she is “alright,” which sparks an altercation. Amidst this upheaval, Donna then drives her car through the dining room wall. This serves as a drunken punctuation mark on a turbulent, aggressive evening. For Carmen, it represents another pivotal, traumatic event that compels him to relocate to New York and distance himself from the detrimental individuals in his life. A detail frequently overlooked in that intense episode is the brief reference to Neil and Ted’s sister, Francie Fak. Earlier on that night, when Michelle asks why she isn't attending the party, the brothers reveal that Francie is barred from the gathering because Natalie declines to be in her presence. “She’s furious. She’s enraged,” Neil comments about Natalie. “‘Because of what happened…”  “Still, really?” Michelle responds, taken aback.  Despite being only 30 seconds of conversation, the absence of an explanation for their estrangement captivated avid fans of The Bear. When did this occur? What transpired between them? How severe was it? And most importantly: Would Francie ever appear? If so, who would portray her? These inquiries, particularly among dedicated Reddit users, persisted throughout but the series' contemplative, dominant, Carmen-centric narrative largely overshadowed most secondary backstories. When would the truth be revealed? One year subsequent, the anticipation concludes. In the seventh episode, Francie, embodied by Oscar laureate Brie Larson, makes her significant debut on the series. Throughout this hour-long installment, set at the wedding reception for Tiffany and Frank, Natalie and Francie engage in verbal confrontations, share a moment of fragility, and ultimately reconcile, resolving their longstanding animosity. Yet, do we fully uncover the roots of their conflict? To some extent, yes. Upon Francie's initial arrival, she embraces Uncle Jimmy, to Natalie's clear displeasure. Subsequently, the two initiate the first of several verbal altercations. “You’re free to apologize whenever you’re ready, you know?” Natalie hisses at Francie. “You damn b-tch!” The verbal jabs quickly descend into a sarcastic imitation of each other's words, much like children. “No! Yeah? Well…” It appears they are nearing another “Fishes”-like situation.  The reality then begins to surface. While challenging to discern amidst the overlapping arguments, fragments of the pivotal night that transformed these two into bitter adversaries become clearer. Natalie laments about what seems to have been a house party, grumbling that “whipped cream was all over,” and that Francie was intoxicated, and “I couldn’t figure out how to start the car…” Francie retorts: “It was pouring, the bus was about to depart,” before providing an additional detail. “Mobile phones didn’t exist back then!”  At this juncture, as they commence yelling a fresh barrage of obscenities, Pete intervenes to part the two women and de-escalate the situation. Subsequently, Ted reveals a minor shocker. “Pete’s refusing to acknowledge these two had a fling,” he states. Pete dismisses this with a scoff. “You two absolutely did not hook up,” he declares, gazing at his wife in incredulity. Amidst the uncomfortable quiet, Natalie and Francie exchange glances. “Well….” Natalie utters.  This is an amusing and revealing segment, though it doesn't provide every specific. Nevertheless, as the episode unfolds, showrunners Christopher Storer and Joanna Calo supply additional understanding of Francie—and the reasons behind Natalie's intense animosity. When she encounters Neil and Ted near the restroom, the brothers challenge her, questioning her unkindness toward their girlfriends. “It’s my duty; that’s what I do,” she asserts, prior to criticizing Ted’s girlfriend’s footwear. “Those shoes are truly awful, and they speak volumes about someone,” she remarks, essentially recommending he end their relationship. “Focus on what matters.”  This depiction renders Larson’s casting an ingenious decision. Far from the typical appearance one might anticipate for a Fak sister, she defies her past roles of gentler, more compassionate characters, employing her attractiveness akin to a malevolent monarch, concealing her vulnerabilities by disparaging others. This selection also aligns with a series that frequently —whether through , UK actors, or ex-wrestling champions (e.g., ). Ultimately, she and Natalie convene to resolve their issues. They articulate their genuine emotions. They frequently consider each other. Each wishes happiness for the other. They hope the other is achieving something significant. “Francie, would you consider attempting to be friends?” Natalie inquires. When Francie reacts favorably, Natalie poses a final query. “You won’t betray me, will you?” The resolution—and Francie’s very presence—fits logically within the series' framework. This episode essentially functions as a spiritual continuation of “Fishes,” bringing the entire family together once more for a celebration. However, this time, the utensils remain in place. After all, compared to earlier ones—it centers on Carmen's core objective ("filtering out the bad, to make it good"), a purpose he articulates at the conclusion of Season 3. It explores processing past trauma, cultivating forgiveness and recovery, and progressing. And what more fitting backdrop to commemorate the rekindling of a friendship than at the marital ceremony of two other companions? It remains uncertain if the precise details of what transpired between Natalie and Francie will ever be disclosed. Nevertheless, we can be confident that the two will avoid whipped cream for the foreseeable future. 

In conjunction with its annual TIME100 Most Influential Companies list, TIME introduces the inaugural TIME100 Companies Impact Awards—honoring five exceptional companies driving significant progress in AI, Health, Sustainability, Equality, and Culture. Today, TIME unveiled its fifth annual TIME100 Most Influential Companies list, featuring businesses and leaders who are shaping our world. The 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies issue is presented with two global cover editions, each featuring a prominent executive from a listed company in a detailed profile. These include: Ryan Reynolds, co-founder of Maximum Effort, and Dmitry Dolgov and Tekedra Mawakana, co-CEOs of Waymo. – See the complete 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies list: – See the TIME100 Most Influential Companies covers: To compile the list, TIME invited nominations from various sectors and consulted its worldwide network of editors and correspondents, alongside external experts. This process yielded a varied selection of 105 enterprises that are paving crucial paths for the future. INTRODUCING THE TIME100 COMPANIES IMPACT AWARDS: Beyond the 100 companies highlighted on the main list, TIME has established its inaugural TIME100 Companies Impact Awards—to honor five leading companies that have made significant contributions in the fields of AI, Health, Sustainability, Equality, and Culture. The inaugural 2025 TIME100 Companies Impact Award recipients include: Google DeepMind for , Vertex Pharmaceuticals for , Schneider Electric for , Janngo Capital for , and The Lego Group for . THE 2025 TIME100 MOST INFLUENTIAL COMPANIES LIST: Abbott Aldi Alibaba Amazon Anduril Industries Anthropic Anysphere Arm ASML Beast Industries Berkshire Hathaway BlackRock Bobbie BYD ByteDance Cloudflare Coinbase Colossal Biosciences Comcast NBCUniversal Coursera CRISPR Therapeutics Debut DeepL DeepSeek Dick’s Sporting Goods Diriyah Company DoorDash Duolingo e.l.f. Beauty Engie Entangled Publishing Equinor EssilorLuxottica Fervo Energy Fiserv Flawless Flutterwave Function Health G42 Gap Gilead GoFundMe Harvey Huawei Hyundai Motor Group Iberostar Group L’Oréal Groupe Le Creuset Life Time Lime LinkedIn LTK Maximum Effort MercadoLibre Meta Midi Health Mixue Group Moniepoint NBBJ Netflix Nintendo Northwell Health On OpenAI Orkla Snacks Oura Palantir Pano AI Partiful Penguin Random House Plaid Pocket.watch Pok Pok Polymarket Pop Mart Poppi Prada Group Procter & Gamble Prologis Qure.ai SandboxAQ Scale AI Scopely SharkNinja Signal SoftBank SpaceX Substack Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Tony’s Chocolonely Touchland Tyme Group UFC Unitree Robotics Universal Music Group Vermillio Walmart Watch Duty Wave Sports & Entertainment Waymo See the complete 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies list: ###

The landscape has dramatically shifted in just a few months. Before Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January, same-sex marriage was largely considered a settled legal matter in the United States. It had, after all, been only a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court established gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right through its seminal ruling on . However, a series of executive orders targeting the LGBTQ community now casts significant doubt on the future of gay marriage. On January 25, his initial day in office, Trump that asserted: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” Shortly thereafter, Trump transgender women from participating in female sports and the Pentagon transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. Subsequently, U.S. park services from national landmarks like Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, a historic site for early gay rights activism. The Trump Administration then followed up by that funded research into LGBTQ health and a national suicide hotline specifically for LGBTQ youth. So, how vulnerable is gay marriage under the Trump administration? Advocates for gay marriage and their supporters find reassurance in the strong public endorsement for same-sex unions among Americans. A poll from May indicates that over two-thirds of Americans support it, with nearly the same number deeming gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable. Gallup also noted that most Americans have supported gay marriage since the early 2010s. This widespread sentiment is underscored by the U.S. Congress’s with extensive bipartisan backing. This legislation formally acknowledges the legality of gay marriage for federal purposes, such as enabling same-sex couples to file joint tax returns. It also mandates that states honor same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. Nonetheless, neither these safeguards nor the poll numbers should lead to complacency. Public support for gay marriage in the U.S. is on a decline, not an ascent. The 69% support registered in May is lower than the 71% recorded in both 2022 and 2023. Furthermore, a majority of Republicans once again oppose gay marriage, with their support having dropped 14 points since 2022. Contrary to common belief, the RMFA did not legally enshrine Obergefell. The RMFA primarily ensures federal recognition of gay marriage by the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was enacted in 1996 amidst intense moral alarm over gay marriage, largely fueled by the Christian right. DOMA had prevented federal recognition of gay marriage, even if a marriage was legally performed in a state where it was allowed. Consequently, should Obergefell be invalidated, the RMFA would safeguard federal recognition of gay marriage. However, it would not prevent the re-activation of that existed across the U.S. before 2015, many of which remain on the books. Nor would the RMFA stop states from creating new legal obstacles. In fact, the law includes an exemption for nonprofit religious organizations, allowing them to refuse “any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of marriage.” All these factors explain why the RMFA received a among gay rights advocates. The anti-gay marriage movement, which had been largely inactive until recently, is now showing signs of renewed vigor. It has been energized by , the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended 50 years of legal abortion in America. In remarks that pleased opponents of gay marriage and alarmed its proponents, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Court should also previous decisions on same-sex marriage and contraception. Just this month, the annual convention of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, for an end to gay marriage. This action mirrors ongoing efforts by to undermine same-sex marriage. Yet, other states are taking defensive action. Democratic lawmakers in and Oregon are working to repeal existing laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, which could theoretically be revived if Obergefell were overturned. Meanwhile, the renewed debate surrounding gay marriage provides an opportunity to reframe the discussion. In the 1990s, gay marriage advocates adopted a civil rights perspective, highlighting the approximately 1,000 marriage benefits exclusively available to heterosexual couples. However, this approach backfired, appearing overly legalistic and materialistic. Following several setbacks, notably California’s in 2008, gay activists shifted to a new narrative of “love and commitment.” While this framing increased support for gay marriage, its limited scope meant a significant chance was missed to profoundly alter societal attitudes toward LGBTQ individuals. Moving forward, gay activists should present gay marriage as inherently moral and intrinsically beneficial. For one, the dire predictions made by social conservatives about gay marriage—ranging from a new Civil War to the disappearance of heterosexual children to the collapse of marriage itself—never materialized. Additionally, there is now a that underscores the advantages of gay marriage for both the gay community and society at large. In the decade since Obergefell became federal law, it is evident that gay marriage has positively impacted the American gay community, and arguably, the broader American society even more so. Its potential revocation would represent a national disgrace and a substantial setback for LGBTQ equality.

A specific line from the latest MARINA album caught my attention: “Where are all the parties now?” the pop star queries in her track. Indeed, where are they? I mused. It has been extensively reported that large in-person social gatherings are declining. Nightclubs and bars are certainly less frequented. And with the widespread decrease in late-night socializing, house parties have also become less common. Overall, we are partying considerably less. According to a report, a survey indicated that only 4.1% of Americans attended or hosted a social event on an average weekend or holiday. Furthermore, another study revealed that just 59% of Americans had attended a birthday party in the past year. When my friends and I gather in the evening now, our activities typically involve dinner out or one or two drinks at a bar. Perhaps a polite dinner party at someone’s home. Yet, no one is scuffing the dining table with their high heels; no one is stargazing in the garden. It increasingly feels as though those vibrant times of booming speakers in the living room and crowded hallways and bedrooms are a thing of the past. I am not entirely surprised. Last year, as I entered my 30s, I anticipated a slowdown in late-night entertainment. My stamina isn't what it once was: I tire more easily, more drained by work. Most of my social circle is now in relationships, meaning partners, friends, and family all factor into our leisure planning. And soon, many of us will begin raising children. I reflect on all of this with a slight pang of regret. Nostalgia lingers, reminding me of the carefree feeling when I'd spill wine in a friend’s kitchen at 2 a.m., sharing gossip with casually dressed strangers. I long for the days when we would pile into someone's house and mix with acquaintances and friends of friends, never knowing who we might encounter or who some of us might kiss. I miss that boundless sense of not knowing how the night would unfold or how late we would stay up. I become wistful recalling those next-day debriefs, exchanging stories and gossiping over bacon and black coffee. These days, social interactions are highly structured: we consult our calendars to arrange the next get-together, sometimes two or three weeks in advance. We agree on being home by 10 p.m. to be in bed by 11 at the latest. This rigid structure feels somewhat stifling. It's too formal, too predictable. Of course, when we do manage to meet and catch up on each other’s lives, it's wonderful. But we don't meet to simply let loose and embrace spontaneity. House parties provided precisely that space—once you stepped through the front door into a crowd of chattering, laughing individuals, you forgot all about work deadlines and chores. You were simply there to have fun. What truly troubles me, what truly makes me gasp and figuratively clutch my Millennial pearls, is the prospect that the younger generation might not experience house parties at all. Gen Z is often considered more reserved, and if TikTok trends are any indication, many 20-somethings are prioritizing early nights and elaborate 10-step beauty routines over going out. Theirs is a generation raised with social media readily available, and for many Gen Z-ers, it's largely about appearance. Late nights followed by messy takeaways are not conducive to good skin. Furthermore, in a sea of smartphones, one poorly timed photo or video can lead to public embarrassment. Another factor contributing to the decline in partying is the COVID-19 pandemic and its lasting effects, which are still felt today. Many young people missed out on the freedom of their formative years, finding comfort in self-care and contemplative, solo activities at home like crafting and reading. This was how we collectively managed the fear and anxiety that overshadowed our world, and it hasn't been easy for any of us to shed that mindset. The mindset that affirms structure is good, chaos is not. That health and wellness must be prioritized to maintain any semblance of safety and sanity. Then there's the economic situation. Going out to party at a bar or club is expensive, even if you consume less alcohol. There's the cost of transport, the cost of new attire if your current wardrobe feels inadequate, the cost of drinks if you do indulge, and the price of late-night pizza. We are navigating a cost-of-living crisis, nervously anticipating the looming prospect of a global recession. Most of us lack disposable income for luxuries. Consequently, our homes have become a last sanctuary from the escalating costs of daily life, and we've grown accustomed to staying indoors to avoid financial anxiety. Money should be reserved for essentials, not for frivolous pursuits, we tell ourselves. It's all quite rational. It's all very understandable. And it's all so disheartening. The term “loneliness crisis” is being discussed with increasing urgency. According to a survey by the global health service company Cigna, 43% of participants sometimes or always felt isolated from others. Only 53% of participants reported having meaningful in-person social interactions daily. And the study found that Gen Z reported feeling the loneliest. It's crucial to grasp the seriousness of this: the World Health Organization identifies loneliness as a significant global health threat, noting that “people lacking social connection face a higher risk of early death,” and loneliness “can increase risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.” Staying indoors might not be the surefire path to health and wellness that young people believe it to be. Our widespread phone addiction has driven us to retreat into the digital realm for a sense of connection and community, but simply "liking" an Instagram comment doesn't compare to dancing with a friend. Sending a Hinge message isn't the same as blushing with a charming person across a kitchen counter. House parties bring us together physically and enable us to be our most boisterous, unfiltered selves. They offer a space dedicated to carefree indulgence and enjoyment for its own sake. They are distinctly unserious in a world that feels oppressively serious. I believe we all need an infusion of joy and vitality right now; to invigorate us, to remind us that we have a beautiful world worth striving for. Now more than ever, we need the comfort of a hand in ours; the sudden flash of a genuine smile; the revitalizing, electric energy of community. Because here's the truth about house parties: You don't have to drink if you don't wish to, and you don't need to spend a lot of money. You could even propose that other partygoers deposit their phones into a bag at the beginning of the evening, ensuring you won't find yourself having gone viral on TikTok by morning. It's important to venture out and try to feel uninhibited and carefree, even if just for one night. The clearest skin in the world isn't worth endlessly scrolling through feeds all evening, with loneliness weighing on your heart.

For years, there has been talk of artificial intelligence extending into the physical realm, but no instance exemplifies this more clearly than the autonomous taxi company . Although AI-powered taxis may appear futuristic or daunting to many, Waymo vehicles have already integrated smoothly into daily life in several major urban centers, having facilitated over 10 million journeys. This spring, seeking insight into our current and future AI landscape, TIME correspondent Andrew R. Chow experienced them firsthand in Austin and conversed with Waymo co-CEOs Dmitri Dolgov and Tekedra Mawakana regarding the company's understated emergence on the roads—and its future direction. His investigative work forms the foundation for the leading article in our fifth yearly TIME100 Most Influential Companies publication, released this week. Waymo serves as a model for ethical technological advancement: driven by a significant objective (to reduce traffic fatalities), they have meticulously engineered their technology and deployed it gradually (at a pace considered very slow by Silicon Valley norms), understanding that one fatal incident could jeopardize not only their own enterprise but also the entire sector. “Trust is arduous to establish and simple to forfeit,” Mawakana informed TIME. “We’ve grasped the necessary degree of modesty: ultimately, the patrons will be the arbiters.” Featured on the issue’s alternate cover, Ryan Reynolds similarly focused his venture on fostering public confidence, albeit with remarkable swiftness. His marketing and production company, , introduced the concept of “fastvertising” to describe seizing a cultural opportunity to create a pertinent advertisement within mere days, and it is Reynolds’s genuine, approachable demeanor that cultivates consumer trust. This approach has proven effective: The businesses Reynolds co-possesses or has divested are collectively valued at more than $14 billion; his recent Deadpool film emerged as the highest-earning R-rated movie last year, exceeding $1.3 billion in box office revenue; and his football club, Wrexham AFC, made history as the first to achieve three successive promotions within the British football league system. For the selection of the TIME100 Most Influential Companies list, our editorial team, spearheaded by Emma Barker Bonomo, solicited nominations and submissions from diverse industries, polled our global contributors and correspondents, and consulted external specialists. A singular data point or financial indicator does not define a TIME100 Company. Rather, we considered a multifaceted combination of attributes, examining influence, groundbreaking ideas, strategic aspirations, and achievements, each manifesting in contemporary forms. And as is consistently stated for all TIME100 endeavors: influence can manifest in various ways, for both advantageous and disadvantageous outcomes. Beyond the one hundred companies showcased on the main compilation, this year we are launching the TIME100 Companies —acknowledging five supplementary distinguished enterprises that are making significant contributions within the domains of AI, Health, Sustainability, Equality, and Culture. These organizations were chosen from candidates that demonstrated remarkable foresight and demonstrable achievements. The initial awardees include: for its Impact in AI, for its Impact in Health, for its Impact in Sustainability, for its Impact in Equality, and for its Impact in Culture. Discover more about all the TIME100 Most Influential Companies of 2025 .

Donald Trump is known for creating nicknames. He invents them for himself (, , ) and for others (, , ). Now, he appears to be content with adopting a new one: “Daddy.” On Wednesday night, the White House released a video depicting the U.S. President's attendance at accompanied by the 2010 R&B song “Hey Daddy (Daddy’s Home)” by Usher. 🎶 Daddy’s home… Hey, hey, hey, Daddy.President Donald J. Trump attended the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands. — The White House (@WhiteHouse) This social media post seemingly referred to who appeared to address Trump as “daddy” on Wednesday. This occurred during a question regarding Trump’s assessment of Israel and Iran after these two nations had entered a delicate . “Essentially, we have two countries that have been warring for such an extended period and with such intensity that they are unaware of what the f-ck they are doing,” Trump stated on Tuesday, upon his departure from the White House en route to The Hague. “Sometimes Daddy needs to employ strong language,” Rutte commented, positioned next to Trump at the summit.  VIDEO: 🇳🇱 🇺🇸 'And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language…'He's already the world's most powerful man, but US President Donald Trump got a new nickname on Wednesday from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — AFP News Agency (@AFP) Earlier, Rutte had commended Trump, based on text messages Trump shared on his Truth Social platform, for actions taken concerning three nuclear facilities in Iran during the weekend. When questioned on Wednesday about Rutte addressing him as “daddy,” Trump : “He has an affection for me. Should he not, I will inform you, I will return, and I will strike him forcefully.” “He uttered it with great fondness, ‘Daddy, you are my daddy,’” Trump mimicked. Q: NATO Chief Rutte "called you daddy earlier. Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children?"Trump: "I think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know…He did. He did it very affectionately. Daddy, you're my daddy." Sec. Rubio in the back laughing — Olivia Rinaldi (@olivialarinaldi) Rutte subsequently attempted to explain that his intention was not to literally call Trump “daddy,” but instead to compare Trump's role concerning Europe to that of a paternal figure. “My statement was that sometimes, within Europe, I occasionally hear nations inquire, ‘Hey, Mark, will the U.S. remain with us?’ And I responded that it somewhat resembles a young child asking their daddy, ‘Hey, are you still part of the family?’” This is not the initial instance of Trump being referred to as “daddy,” and he appears to appreciate it.  During a 2023 interview with former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, golfer John Daly expressed that he and other golfers “desire the return of Daddy Trump.” Trump shared posts about this comment on Truth Social and . Daly stated he’s since their first encounter in 1992. Carlson similarly once drew a comparison between Trump and a paternal figure at an October 2024 rally, portraying a segment of the American populace as a “hormone-infused 15-year-old daughter” permitted to “slam doors and make disrespectful gestures.” “A moment must arrive when Dad returns home,” Carlson . “And upon Dad’s arrival, do you know what he declares? ‘You have been an unruly girl. You have been a naughty little girl, and you are currently receiving a firm correction.’”