PR in the Philippines

In March 2025, the Trump administration gathered over , primarily Venezuelans, and transported them to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT). This was a forceful action—made even more devastating by the fact that, merely four months after the U.S.’s initiative, was adopted as a model for detaining individuals in other nations. The U.S. has currently committed $6 million to CECOT, where individuals are held in cells designed for 65 to 70 occupants. (This week, the granted the Trump administration approval to continue forcibly sending migrants to third countries without further due process.) The U.S.’s agreement with CECOT is, in its own right, unprecedented (). However, it highlights a consistent pattern. The U.S. possesses a detailed history of disseminating and influencing global punishment strategies. What is observed in El Salvador today is not an anomaly, but rather the outcome of precedents established since America’s founding. The U.S. equipped its first penitentiary with running water before the White House; the infrastructure for punishment has consistently been prioritized over that of democracy. Opened in 1829, Philadelphia’s (ESP) emphasized supervision and control through its panopticon layout, which maximized the capacity for a small group of correctional officers to monitor a large population of incarcerated individuals. “It was considered a modern marvel,” states Baz Dreisinger, the scholar, , and Executive Director of . “Over 350 prisons globally are modeled after it.” Punishment in this nation—the intense focus on state-sanctioned force as a means of ensuring safety—has never been merely a domestic concern. In Dreisinger’s book, Incarceration Nations, she elaborates on how, following the establishment of facilities like ESP, “nineteenth-century European scholars made prison tours an essential stop on their trans-Atlantic visits,” from Fredrick William IV of Prussia, among the earliest visitors, to leaders and commissioners in France, Russia, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. American prisons soon “integrated themselves into the fabric of global culture,” she remarks. Well into the 20th century, U.S. correctional facilities served as a conduit for advancements in punitive methods. The U.S. continued to implement the concept of solitary confinement as “penance,” most notably in isolated units such as Alcatraz’s “D-Block.” Yet, it wasn’t until the 1960s that the U.S. constructed its : minimal human interaction and recreation, limited natural light, and scarce to no educational or employment opportunities are some defining features of the psychological and physical brutality that served as a prototype for others. In 1963, the Federal Bureau of Prisons established its inaugural supermax facility, USP Marion in Illinois, operating with a 23-hour-a-day isolation protocol. As the influence of the supermax expanded domestically——the model also permeated punitive objectives abroad. Dreisinger cites Brazil’s Penitenciária Federal de Catanduvas, built in 2007, as a “segment of the United States [supermax] transported to foreign lands.” (Brazil possesses in terms of incarceration rates). “The moment I saw it,” Dreisinger recounts, “I almost forgot which country I was in.” The scholar further explains that these supermax variations exist in other nations as well, such as how New Zealand’s Auckland Prison in its planning documents and the American Correctional Association (ACA) promotes its publication as a primary reference guide for corrections internationally. Beyond these instances of the U.S. providing a blueprint for carceral practices, the country has also directly invested in broader strategies for criminalization internationally. “Police have become frontline U.S. diplomats,” explains Stuart Schrader, a scholar of race and policing, and the author of Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing. “Police diplomacy cultivates police camaraderie.” In El Salvador, for example, serves as a current policing export. Ten minutes away is the International Tactical Training Association, established by a Chicago officer “after the State Department ceased government assistance to a specialized Salvadoran police unit linked to death squads,” Schrader states. Regarding incarceration infrastructure and perceived “success” abroad, the U.S. exported both the concept of as well as the overseen by the ACA. There was minimal resistance to expanding profit-driven privatization globally. As for ACA accreditation, it “validates” facilities and often . Since ACA accreditation exists internationally, it is consequently probable that this would increase the likelihood of those countries receiving financial support. This process can be costly. The Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . (Since the initial award, the contract’s value has decreased to approximately $2 million). A revealed that “accreditation has little to no correlation with detention facility conditions and practices” and is instead “a mere endorsement of dangerous facilities.” It also demonstrated that ACA fees, paid by the institutions it audits, constitute nearly half of the association’s revenue. These ACA certificates are distributed across prisons in Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Dubai, Colombia, and the UAE—demonstrating the extensive degree to which the U.S. has influenced carceral systems abroad. released by the agency proudly states that “there is no doubt” they are “a global organization with work and influence that has stretched over the years to every major part of the world.” The United States establishes the standard for criminalization, frequently acting as a primary external source of financial backing in numerous countries. This encompasses everything from the construction and renovation of prisons and youth detention centers to plea-bargaining reforms that encourage bail and pre-trial detention. In 2022 alone, the United States“The United States has an interest in other countries possessing robust prison systems and police forces because we perceive it as a means of preventing instability at our borders,” Dreisinger explains. However, these very systems often perpetuate harm and the precise instability the U.S. ostensibly aims to avoid. “We are exporting the issue, but we are not exporting well-considered solutions—and we could be,” Dreisinger adds. It is crucial to remember that our present situation is not simply a result of authoritarian opportunism, but a consequence of years of legislation and financial commitment to global prison systems. And yet, administrations, both past and present, consistently depict violence as isolated or individual—never systemic, never historical. Nevertheless, the centuries-long expansion of punitive tactics domestically and internationally has led us to our harsh reality—and it is only set to spread further.

A new migrant detention center has begun operations deep within Florida's Everglades, following approval from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The detention facility, nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” because of its setting, was initiated by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. He stated the center's purpose is to “support President Trump and [Homeland Security] Secretary Kristi Noem in their mission to resolve our illegal immigration issue definitively.” Situated on an airstrip, the facility will serve as a temporary holding area for migrants awaiting deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). At present, the location features “heavy duty” tents and trailers in anticipation of the upcoming Florida summer. The DHS is collaborating with Florida to expedite the construction process. Noem informed TIME via an emailed statement that “We are accelerating efforts to find cost-effective and inventive solutions to fulfill the American public's demand for widespread deportations of criminal undocumented individuals.” During an appearance on The Benny Show on June 23, Uthmeier spoke about the center, indicating an aim to establish 5,000 beds by early July. He noted that construction would be minimal because the center is situated in the heart of the Everglades—a national park wetland in South Florida teeming with alligators, snakes, and mosquitoes. “We thankfully won't need to construct extensive brick and mortar… Nature provides significant perimeter security,” he commented on security measures. Uthmeier released an announcement video featuring . Images of the site depict the commencement of construction on the ecologically sensitive terrain, most recently under Miami-Dade County ownership. Law enforcement vehicles were seen transporting portable restrooms and industrial generators. The DHS estimates the facility's annual operating cost at approximately $450 million, with eligibility for federal reimbursement. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) holds about $625 million in Shelter and Services Program funds that could potentially support this initiative. The facility is under construction at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, characterized by Uthmeier as a “nearly derelict airfield.” However, activists dispute this description. On June 22, demonstrators gathered in the Everglades to protest the construction plans. Environmental activists highlighted that the wetlands are part of . Jared Jacobs of the Love The Everglades Movement stated at the protest: “[Alligator Alcatraz] is detrimental to our community, our environment, and our quality of life.” Describing the center as an “embarrassment” for South Florida and the nation, he remarked: “It serves as a catalyst for a much more profound systemic issue, and we are witnessing its construction directly within our Everglades, adjacent to the Miccosukee [Tribe] homelands.” The protest was orchestrated by the activist group, in collaboration with the Miccosukee tribe, indigenous to Florida. Talbert Cypress, a Miccosukee Business Council member, conveyed the tribe's strong opposition to the center, emphasizing its proximity to 19 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages, and the Congressionally-authorized Miccosukee Reserved Area. Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava has similarly voiced apprehension regarding the project and requested further details concerning its potential ecological impact on the Everglades, stating that it would necessitate “extensive review and due diligence.”

Following the Trump Administration's push for federal workers to return to the office, a new study emphasizes the potential drawbacks of this directive. Conducted by Alessandra Fenizia and Tom Kirchmaier, researchers from George Washington University and the London School of Economics, the investigation focuses on how work-from-home (WFH) arrangements affect productivity in public sector roles. Their findings reveal that working remotely enhances productivity by 12% compared to traditional in-office work. The common belief suggests that physical presence ensures greater accountability and output. However, the study's conclusions indicate that such arguments may stem more from perception than objective reality. The research, which analyzed detailed administrative data from police staff who alternated between home and office environments, found that employees working remotely managed a higher number of cases daily, without any increase in errors or decline in quality. These results remained consistent even when the researchers adjusted for variables such as shift duration and task type, confirming that the outcomes were not simply due to different work schedules. Moreover, the boost in productivity was amplified when supervisors assigned tasks, rather than relying on automated systems, implying that the structure and oversight of remote work can be crucial in maximizing its benefits. A primary factor contributing to the increased productivity was a reduction in workplace distractions. The study observed that in an office setting, employees were more prone to interruptions from conversations, coffee breaks, and other non-work-related interactions. In contrast, the relative solitude of remote work fostered sustained concentration, leading to a greater volume of cases completed from home. This contradicts a prevalent narrative promoted by some legislators, who argue that employees working remotely are more likely to be idle without the direct supervision provided in office environments. For example, Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, at the January 15, 2025 “Stay-at-Home Federal Workforce” hearing, attributed service backlogs to officials “coddling federal workers with a perk—telework—that allowed them to shirk their duties.” Similarly, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, informed reporters on December 5, 2024, that only “about 1 %” of federal employees were “actually working in the office,” adding that workers must “return to their desks and get back to the work they are supposed to be doing”—a claim Politifact rated as “Pants on Fire.” Nonetheless, Fenizia and Kirchmaier’s data showed no such shirking; instead, it demonstrated that remote work can improve efficiency without sacrificing quality. The study's findings present a nuanced view. The researchers determined that productivity gains were most significant when supervisors actively participated in assigning tasks based on the workers’ strengths, rather than using an automated system. This suggests that remote work, when paired with effective management practices, can unlock even greater productivity gains than those observed in a typical office setting. The advantages of telework, therefore, extend beyond mere flexibility—they can encompass improved task alignment, fewer distractions, and greater efficiency. Yet, despite this evidence, the movement to compel a return to in-office work has been gaining traction. Lawmakers assert that local economies, such as small businesses in downtown areas, suffer when federal offices remain vacant. For instance, in an April 30, 2024, subcommittee hearing on commercial real-estate risks, Michigan Republican Rep. Lisa McClain stated that “Even Mayor Bowser has told President Biden that his administration’s telework policies are killing Washington, D.C.’s local businesses.” However, the study suggests that a blanket return-to-office policy might be addressing the wrong problem. If telework enhances efficiency, the true question should be how to establish remote work as a sustainable and secure option, not how to force a reversion to the pre-pandemic norm. Ultimately, a persistent insistence on returning to the office could jeopardize federal efficiency and employee morale. The data presents a clear picture: remote and hybrid work, when thoughtfully implemented and managed, can be more than just a temporary solution. It represents a viable long-term strategy for boosting productivity, reducing costs, and fostering a more satisfied workforce. Instead of focusing on filling office desks, policymakers should prioritize performance outcomes and seek ways to combine the benefits of both remote and in-office work.

According to a report in the Norwegian newspaper Nordlys on Monday, which was picked up by the British tabloid the Daily Mail on Tuesday, “Two pictures ruined Mads’ dream vacation.” Mads Mikkelsen, a 21-year-old tourist from Norway (not the actor), claims he was denied entry to the U.S. at Newark Liberty International Airport on June 11. He says this happened after he handed over his phone to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who discovered a meme featuring U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. Mikkelsen alleges that officials threatened him with a $5,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence if he didn't provide his phone password. After he complied and his phone was examined, he was sent back to Norway, he says. Reports of the denied entry were shared on social media by anti-Trump influencers, including former Republican congressman and #Resistance movement activist, among others. They encouraged the further sharing of Vance memes, which gained popularity following President Donald Trump’s meeting with in the Oval Office in February, during which Vance allegedly demanded the Ukrainian President "thank" Trump. Norwegian tourist, 21, refused entry to U.S. and deported after ICE finds JD Vance meme on phone — Daily Mail — NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) Disinformation researcher Pekka Kallioniemi commented on the Trump Administration in relation to the story, saying, "These are the same people who blame Europe for a lack of free speech." Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), called Mikkelsen’s claims that he was denied entry because of the Vance meme " CBP stated that "Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.” Mikkelsen admitted that the second photo seen by ICE officials was of a wooden pipe he had made himself years ago. He also told Nordlys that the officials asked him “direct questions about drug smuggling, terrorist plots, and right-wing extremism” and that he had been forced to give a . The reason for Mikkelsen's increased scrutiny remains unclear. CBP has not responded to TIME's requests for comment. The bigger picture Tighter immigration controls have become a key aspect of Trump's second term. In addition to , the Trump Administration has directed immigration officials to enhance vetting procedures for certain non-immigrant visas, including . DHS also announced in April that authorities would begin monitoring the social media accounts of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. for “.” While border agents have always had the authority to deny entry on a case-by-case basis, there have been increasing reports of , , and of tourists in recent months. Some incidents have raised concerns about the politicization of border agents' discretion. In March, a French minister described how a researcher from the French National Center for Scientific Research was denied entry to the U.S. after authorities found "personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy" on his phone. Just last week, border agents reportedly sent an Australian writer back to Melbourne from Los Angeles after questioning him about his views on the conflict in Gaza. Several countries, including , and , have issued travel advisories to their citizens regarding travel to the U.S. in response to various Trump policies. Due to these issues, travelers are increasingly avoiding the U.S., and the World Travel & Tourism Council reports that the U.S. economy is experiencing in international traveler spending this year. There is little visitors can do if border officials decide to deny them entry. An immigration lawyer told the that you have the right to remain silent, but this will likely result in denial of entry. If detained instead of being immediately sent back, you can be held for up to 90 days. Nate Freed Wessler, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told that you have fewer civil rights after landing on an international flight but before clearing customs than elsewhere in the U.S. "The normal Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant or individualized suspicion doesn’t apply," he said. "The only minimal protection CBP has in their policy is distinguishing between manual and forensic searches," he added, explaining that a forensic search involves connecting a mobile phone to another device for analysis, while a manual search involves scrolling through the phone's contents. "For a forensic search, they say they need reasonable suspicion, but they don’t define what that means. For a manual search, there are no guardrails. They argue it’s less invasive, but that’s just not true. They can still do keyword searches and spend hours combing through your device.” “Keep calm (but delete your nudes)” advised the Guardian’s headline for tourists headed to the U.S. WIRED has suggested traveling with a separate phone altogether—though a phone that appears “too squeaky clean,” it warns, “can arouse suspicion”—or at the very least minimizing risk by printing your boarding pass and any other documents you may need to present so you can avoid taking your phone out of your pocket. Noor Zafar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Washington Post that travelers should keep the contact information of an immigration attorney in case they run into complications at the border. “The stories are definitely concerning,” Zafar said in March. “I think we’re just in a period of more aggressive policies being implemented at the border. And I think that requires people to take extra precautionary measures.” ```

The sight of Evin Prison's front gate after an alleged Israeli airstrike brought tears to my eyes. I was once held hostage by the Islamic Republic within those walls, a place known for its brutality and devoid of hope. However, my tears were not of joy. I didn't rejoice at the thought of those responsible for my solitary confinement potentially facing retribution. My heart ached at the thought of the innocent prisoners, some of whom I shared years of confinement with, and the suffering their families must be enduring. This center of injustice housed more than just villains. The bombs made no distinction between corrupt officials, political prisoners, or the young conscripts guarding them. Were human rights lawyers, who bravely defended the vulnerable within those halls, among the victims? How many janitors and clerks, commuting from Tehran's poorest areas, are now dead or injured? And what of the families in the waiting area, like my own mother once was, pleading for visits, medicine, or confirmation that their loved ones were even inside Evin? Israel's bombs also struck the infirmary, where I and many others sought medical attention. I recall the desperation there, but also the quiet acts of bravery. What happened to the young female doctor I called "Superhero," who bravely entered the women's ward during the pandemic and forced a reluctant warden to send a political prisoner with severe COVID-19 to a hospital, saving her life? I remember many instances of the infirmary staff helping prisoners discreetly. Their quiet compassion helped us endure and survive. Now, that infirmary is in ruins. Ward 4, housing many political prisoners and foreign or dual-national hostages, was also damaged, including the library, our main sanctuary, where I spent most of my time. The women's ward was also affected. Immediately after the strike, political prisoners were rounded up, placed on buses, and taken to an undisclosed location without their belongings. Terrified families are frantically calling each other, desperately seeking news and praying their loved ones are alive. What about the visitation center, also damaged in the bombing? How many prisoners, families, and lawyers were hurt there? What became of the kind monitor who allowed my mother to stay longer than the allotted 20 minutes, saying it was all he could offer a family enduring so much injustice? This was not a precise strike targeting high-ranking regime officials or military leaders in their luxurious homes. Those bombs certainly won't weaken or topple the Islamic Republic. Quite the opposite. A former political prisoner reports that families of prisoners, guards, and administrators are gathering outside the prison, desperately seeking news of their loved ones and grieving together. Israel's bombing of Evin exposes the consequences of two reprehensible systems colliding: one that imprisons the innocent, and another that claims to liberate them with bombs. We can only hope the recent de-escalation between Iran, Israel, and the United States holds, and that this madness ends. But even if it does, we know what will follow. The Ayatollahs, failing to stop the bombs from Israel or the U.S., will seek revenge internally. They will try to regain control through brute force. Thousands will be rounded up, tortured, and executed as the regime uses fear to survive. Already-persecuted communities will likely be among the first to suffer. As always, the most innocent will pay the highest price. ```

Initially, the U.S. denied in . Subsequently, President Donald Trump for them. Trump stated he wasn't pursuing a ceasefire and would to consider military action against Iran. He then two days later and, two days after that, . His senior advisors initially indicated they were before ultimately declaring that regime change leads to "" and he opposes it. Some supporters view him as a negotiation expert. Critics, however, compare it to "chaos." J.D. Vance refers to it as the Trump Doctrine. “We are witnessing the emergence of a foreign policy doctrine that will positively reshape the country (and the world),” the Vice President stated on Tuesday, before elaborating on a foreign-policy approach that Trump often summarizes as “.” “The Trump doctrine, as I define it, is straightforward,” Vance explained at the Ohio Republican Dinner on Tuesday. “First, clearly define an American interest, which, in this case, is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, aggressively pursue a diplomatic solution to the problem. And third, if diplomacy fails, employ overwhelming military force to resolve it swiftly and then withdraw before the conflict escalates into a prolonged engagement.” Former President James Monroe is recognized for initiating the tradition of presidential doctrines, the fundamental principles guiding a President's foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine, according to the , centered on three key principles: “distinct areas of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention.” Since then, numerous Presidents have articulated their own doctrines, though rarely as explicitly as Vance has for Trump. Observers Joe Biden's doctrine. Following Trump's initial "America First" approach of withdrawing from global forums, some suggested Biden alluded to his own doctrine in a statement prior to his first European trip in 2021: “realizing America’s renewed commitment to our allies and partners, and demonstrating the capacity of democracies to both meet the challenges and deter the threats of this new age.” In an article titled “What Was the Biden Doctrine?” published in August, former Carnegie Endowment for International Peace president Jessica T. Matthews wrote that “four years is insufficient to fully establish a foreign policy doctrine” but that Biden’s approach appeared “to reject wars aimed at reshaping other nations and to prioritize diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy…demonstrating that the United States can be deeply involved in global affairs without resorting to military intervention or the appearance of hegemony.” For Barack Obama, many summarized his foreign-policy perspective as “,” a guiding principle that some critics deemed while supporters considered in light of a history of costly and overconfident U.S. interventions abroad. “The Obama Doctrine represents a form of realism that is not afraid to use American power but recognizes that its application must be moderated by practical limitations and a degree of self-awareness,” Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. observed in 2009. TIME described George W. Bush’s doctrine in 2007 as prioritizing “the projection of American military power.” Syndicated conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer initially attempted to the Bush Doctrine in June 2001, before 9/11, as a “new unilateralism” that “seeks to enhance American power and unreservedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global objectives.” Following 9/11, observers frequently referenced a issued by the White House in 2002 that highlighted combating terrorism as central to U.S. foreign policy. “We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants,” it stated. “We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. … America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists—because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization.” Bill Clinton’s doctrine is often attributed to a line from a he delivered in San Francisco in 1999, when he stated: “The United States has the opportunity and, I would argue, the solemn responsibility to shape a more peaceful, prosperous, democratic world in the 21st century. … We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere.  But where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.” While Vice President Vance has clarified the Trump Doctrine, some observers had already begun to recognize its outlines. Foreign Policy columnist Matthew Kroenig described in April a similar three-pillar worldview underlying the President’s seemingly erratic foreign-policy approach: 1) America First; 2) prevent America from being exploited—in trade, immigration, and NATO; and 3) escalate to de-escalate. “As Trump writes in The Art of the Deal, his preferred negotiating strategy revolves around making threats and extreme demands to throw one’s negotiating partner off balance and ultimately bring them crawling to the table for a deal,” Kroenig wrote of the third pillar in what proved to be a remarkably insightful analysis of Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran conflict. Whether the Trump Doctrine, which is certainly , will ultimately succeed in positively transforming the U.S. and the world remains to be seen.