PR in the Philippines

President Donald Trump stated he would patrol D.C. streets on Thursday night alongside the Metropolitan Police Department and National Guard troops, as his Administration continues its efforts to combat crime and assert control over the nation’s capital. “I anticipate going out tonight with the police and the military, naturally. We are going to accomplish something,” Trump remarked during an interview with conservative talk show host Todd Starnes. “The National Guard is excellent. They have performed splendidly.” According to a White House official, details regarding the evening's activities were still being finalized. It remained uncertain how security protocols would accommodate the President's accompanying law enforcement personnel. This action follows over a week after Trump assumed authority over the city's police force and dispatched hundreds of National Guard members throughout the city to address what he described as intolerable crime levels, even though official statistics indicate otherwise in the city. The Trump Administration has contended that the crime figures reported by the city fail to accurately represent the actual crime situation in the nation’s capital.  Attorney General Pam Bondi stated on Thursday that arrests have occurred in Washington since federal officers were deployed citywide on August 7. Among these, 251 involved arrests of individuals who are undocumented immigrants. A survey released on Wednesday indicated that approximately 80% of D.C. residents opposed Trump’s executive order to bring the city’s police department under federal control, and 65% believed Trump’s measures would not enhance the city’s safety. On Wednesday, Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller convened with National Guard personnel stationed at Union Station, the city’s primary railway terminal, to express gratitude for their service. Protesters jeered and yelled as these officials distributed burgers to the troops. “We intend to disregard these foolish white hippies who all ought to return home and rest, as they appear to be over 90 years old,” Miller stated in response to the demonstrators. He continued, “And we will resume our task of safeguarding the American populace and the residents of Washington, D.C.” This is a developing news report and updates will be provided.

Should your baby receive a COVID-19 vaccination? The answer is no longer as straightforward or universally agreed upon as it once was. In an uncommon move, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is advocating a distinct approach to childhood immunization compared to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While both organizations concur that families, in consultation with their physicians, should decide whether to vaccinate their children, the AAP adopts a more definitive position for the youngest eligible U.S. children, advocating for all of them to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. The CDC's position on COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children aged over six months originated following guidance from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in May. However, the CDC does endorse the shot for children who are moderately or severely immunocompromised. The day after the AAP issued its recommendations, Kennedy publicly criticized the organization, alleging they permitted pharmaceutical company donors to influence their guidance. The AAP, however, asserts that its recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence. Here is key information regarding the differing guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for children. What is the AAP's advice concerning COVID-19 vaccinations for children? The AAP states that whether most children should receive a COVID-19 vaccine ought to be determined by their specific risk, considering existing conditions like asthma, obesity, or diabetes, and if they reside with individuals susceptible to severe illness. This risk is elevated for the youngest eligible demographic—those aged 6 to 23 months—leading the AAP to advise that all children in this cohort be vaccinated. Dr. Sean O’Leary, who chairs the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, notes, “For the youngest children, the hospitalization rate parallels that of adults aged 50 to 64 years. It is a significant concern. And this pertains to an ailment preventable by a vaccine, a medical product more extensively researched than any other in our history. Our confidence in the vaccine’s safety is exceptionally high.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not provide a response to TIME's inquiry for comment. What accounts for the divergence in recommendations? Typically, the CDC establishes the immunization schedule, specifying which vaccines individuals should receive and at what ages. The CDC bases its decisions on guidance from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP comprises independent experts who voluntarily examine data, deliberate on their discoveries, and formulate recommendations to assist in guiding the CDC. However, Kennedy—a long-standing vaccine skeptic who now oversees the CDC as head of HHS—intervened regarding all members of ACIP, accusing them of prioritizing industry interests. Days later, Kennedy replaced them with his chosen individuals, "many of whom hold strong anti-vaccine views," states O’Leary. Following the replacement of ACIP, the AAP—which ordinarily collaborates closely with the advisory committee and other liaison entities in establishing vaccination schedules—opted not to participate in ACIP's initial meeting under the new administration that spring. O’Leary remarks, “We observed from that gathering that ACIP has, in essence, deviated significantly in its operational methods and in the communications from its new members, which largely centers on fostering skepticism about vaccines rather than issuing evidence-based vaccine recommendations.” Weeks afterward, the AAP and other collaborating groups were requested to cease their involvement in ACIP work groups, according to O’Leary. He states, “We received an email rescinding our invitation.” The stated reason, he notes, was that these organizations constituted “special interest groups,” which O’Leary deems a “flawed interpretation of the regulations. All participating organizations possess expertise, and there are ample justifications for including representation from professional societies.” Whose recommendations will medical practitioners and pharmacists adhere to? O’Leary indicates that pediatricians foresee needing to engage in more frequent discussions with families regarding the contradictory vaccine guidance, and that the AAP is offering resources to facilitate these conversations through its website and member emails. He observes, “Politics has permeated the examination room in an unprecedented manner. These conversations will be situational, contingent on the pediatrician’s familiarity with the family, their established relationship, and the extent of candor achievable during the discussion.” Ultimately, he asserts, pediatricians should convey this message: “Our dedication is to children's health, and our recommendations are grounded in the foremost scientific evidence.” Pharmacists are required to adopt a somewhat different stance, as their authority to vaccinate is limited to the CDC’s recommendations, whereas physicians can administer vaccinations beyond strictly approved conditions or populations in what is termed “off-label” use. Given that current CDC recommendations state families should independently decide whether their children receive the vaccine, pharmacists will administer shots if parents desire them, but will not specifically advise individuals to get them. Rick Gates, chief pharmacy officer at Walgreens, states, “Our directive is always to adhere to the recommendations of the CDC or HHS.” Should families present with inquiries about whether their child ought to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, pharmacists will likely direct them back to their pediatrician or family doctor. Will insurers provide coverage for pediatric COVID-19 vaccines if the CDC does not endorse them? The manner in which insurers will react to the divergent recommendations remains uncertain. Dr. David Higgins, an infectious-disease expert at AAP, expresses, “This constitutes a genuine apprehension.” Conventionally, an ACIP recommendation implies that a vaccination will be covered, as all vaccines endorsed by the committee must be reimbursed by insurers under the Affordable Care Act. It is unclear how insurers will interpret families' individual discretion regarding childhood vaccinations. The AAP is advocating for insurers to maintain coverage for the COVID-19 vaccine for infants aged six to 23 months, notwithstanding ACIP's lack of recommendation for all children within this age bracket. Higgins states, “The AAP is already collaborating with private insurers and policymakers to guarantee coverage for our evidence-based recommendations, and we will persist in advocating for vaccine accessibility for every child in every community.”

For decades, I've listened to children—in border shelters, red-light districts, refugee camps, and various quiet corners of the globe where safety is often a fragile hope. Their voices have taught me to observe not merely what laws state, but what they actually accomplish, especially when legal frameworks neglect the essence of childhood. In the United States today, immigration policies are influencing more than just national borders; they are shaping childhood itself. Steadily and subtly, the structure of enforcement has encroached inward—into homes, educational settings, medical facilities, and safe havens. Children, once legally recognized as a distinct category requiring protection, are now being drawn into systems of observation and detainment. Some are isolated; others live with an increasing fear that by staying with their parents, they might lose them. Since January, new executive orders and enforcement directives have transformed the U.S. immigration system. What has emerged is a framework where children are not only disregarded but also repurposed—serving as tools for enforcement.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now has access to information collected by the Office of Refugee Resettlement from its network of shelters—data that includes the names and locations of adults who come forward to sponsor children. These adults, often parents, siblings, or grandparents, are subsequently fingerprinted, DNA tested, and sometimes detained. For numerous families, the act of claiming a child now carries the risk of deportation. Consequently, sponsors are withdrawing their support. Children are enduring longer waits in shelters. Some children, without anyone willing to step forward to care for them, are left without direction. They are no longer viewed as children in need of care, but rather as connections to unauthorized adults.  An internal ICE memo, titled the , justified these actions as part of a strategy to prevent trafficking. However, having advised the United Nations on anti-trafficking frameworks, assisted in rescuing girls from brothels in India, and taught this specific subject at New York University, I can affirm this is not how we prevent trafficking. This is how we cultivate the conditions for it. Children who have escaped danger, abuse, conflict, sex-trafficking, or forced labor often arrive in the U.S. clinging to the promise of safety. When they discover that coming forward could expose their parents or relatives, many retreat into obscurity.  They discontinue their schooling. They stop visiting parks, clinics, and libraries. They stop seeking assistance. Cut off from essential services and trustworthy adults, they disappear from notice, into low-wage jobs, exploitative housing, and survival economies. Children who are isolated, denied legal support, and separated from family care are not shielded from trafficking; they are made vulnerable to it. The circumstances we have created—months-long stays in shelters, the apprehension of identifying a sponsor, and the loss of schooling and security—do not deter predators. They attract them. In certain instances, deportation delivers children directly back into the custody of the traffickers they had fled. More than unaccompanied children have entered the U.S. since 2019. Their individual stories vary. Some escaped gang violence or forced labor, while others came to reunite with a parent already residing here. However, they share a common experience with a legal system that increasingly regards them as a risk rather than as refugees.  In recent months, . Children now remain in federal custody for an average of seven months, while relatives deliberate the dangers of coming forward. In February, legal aid funding for unaccompanied minors was temporarily . Tens of thousands of children were left without lawyers. Even after services were reinstated, the disruption's effects persisted. A missed court date, previously a minor bureaucratic obstacle, is now sufficient to trigger a deportation order. Children, many of whom do not speak English or comprehend the process, are left without representation, unnoticed, and unprotected. This system does not exclusively impact those who arrive unaccompanied. It casts a shadow over millions of children already residing here. Today, 18 million American children, , live in households with at least one immigrant parent. Many of these parents may lack legal status, even if they have resided in the U.S. for decades. They are raising children who recite the Pledge of Allegiance, participate in Little League, and win high school spelling bees. Yet, these children now live with a dual apprehension: that the nation they call home may not safeguard them, and that their very presence might bring harm to the individuals they love most. A recent executive order aimed to revoke for children of undocumented or temporarily present parents. Although blocked by the courts, the message conveyed was unmistakable: even those born here may no longer be secure. This situation does not have to persist. U.S. law already incorporates the fundamental principles required to protect children: due process, family unity, and the best interest of the child. However, these principles are only meaningful when they are implemented in policy, within courtrooms, and in homes. When we treat children as threats, we teach them to fear compassion. When we regard their families as liabilities, we undermine the very relationships that fortify children. What is lost in this system is not just safety. It is the feeling of being embraced by a community, by a country, by the notion that a child’s worth is not determined by their documentation, but by their existence. Children are not instruments of enforcement. They are not risks to manage or data points to exploit. They are children. And in forgetting this truth, we risk losing something far more profound than a policy debate. We risk losing our collective identity.

When delivered an earlier this month, significant attention was directed toward North Korea. He announced his intention to and reminded his nation that he has adopted a with the North, such as ceasing anti-North propaganda balloon launches and loudspeaker broadcasts across the demilitarized border zone. responded this week with a pledge to his country’s nuclear forces. His sister Kim Yo Jong, who serves as Pyongyang’s chief spokesperson, then issued a statement once again , despite Lee’s efforts to maintain the U.S.-South Korea alliance. The siblings the South for continuing with annual joint military exercises that . Lee originates from the “progressive” faction, a group historically more inclined to extend concessions and assistance to Pyongyang. However, his more accommodating strategy has thus far yielded or silence. Regrettably, this is likely to persist. The reasons are straightforward: for the present, the North Korean side gains nothing from warmer relations. For decades, Pyongyang primarily regarded South Korea as a source of in economic support. To state it plainly, North Korea treated the South as a nation-sized ATM—especially when progressive administrations were in power. But North Korea has been subjected to a since 2017. This U.S.-led initiative aims to prevent North Korea from funding its nuclear program and has rendered large-scale economic cooperation between Seoul and Pyongyang virtually unfeasible. From the North’s viewpoint, therefore, improving ties with Seoul serves little purpose: the old ATM is no longer functional. It is true that U.N. sanctions did not prohibit humanitarian assistance or certain cultural activities, but this is not what North Korean leaders desire. They view cultural or other non-economic exchanges as detrimental to the hermit kingdom, given the between the two Korean states. Awareness of South Korea’s prosperity and freedoms inevitably prompts questions about whether the North Korean system is truly superior and whether their leaders are as wise as they claim. Moreover, Pyongyang is not as desperate for South Korean aid as it once was. Arms sales worth an and consistent have helped alleviate its difficulties—at least for the time being. Pyongyang would also prefer to avoid appearing weak by accepting humanitarian aid it can now manage without. What the North seeks is financial and material assistance, without conditions attached and presented as tribute rather than aid. Undoubtedly, the Lee administration is quite willing to provide such assistance, whether through joint industrial or tourist projects like the pursued in the past. But South Korea will not openly violate the U.N. sanctions regime. That is why any significant shift in inter-Korean relations requires the lifting—or at least the meaningful relaxation—of U.N. sanctions. This is a step only the U.S. could orchestrate, and in practice, only Donald Trump might attempt. During his first term, Trump came quite close to forging such an agreement with Pyongyang. At the February 2019 U.S.-North Korea summit in Hanoi, the two sides discussed a framework under which North Korea would agree to dismantle its major nuclear facilities. In return, the U.S. was anticipated to endorse a revision of U.N. sanctions policy—a move that other members of the Security Council would likely not have opposed once Washington gave its consent. However, in the end, the two sides to agree on the details, and the . It is possible, however, that negotiations will resume shortly; some U.S. officials have recently about the prospects of renewed engagement with Pyongyang, and even Trump himself said a couple of months ago that he had a “” with Kim Jong Un and hoped to “solve the conflict” with North Korea. If negotiations do commence, there remains a genuine, but limited, chance of success. North Korea will not, under any circumstances, relinquish its . Yet from Pyongyang’s perspective, there is a certain logic in pursuing a nuclear arms control agreement (if it comes with the right perks). Such a deal could offer the regime a means of easing its heavy reliance on China and Russia, the only two countries that are willing to disregard the U.N. sanctions regime when dealing with North Korea. The North Korean leadership considers such dependence burdensome, especially concerning China. In any case, progress in inter-Korean relations ultimately hinges on direct U.S.–North Korea discussions. Only if those negotiations succeed will Seoul and Pyongyang be able to move forward. And that remains, at best, a very significant uncertainty.

Donald Trump shared a serious admission regarding his reasons for seeking to mediate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, stating it was not for personal recognition. On Tuesday's Fox & Friends, the President remarked, “If I can prevent 7,000 deaths per week, that's quite positive.” He continued, “I aspire to reach heaven, if achievable. I hear my standing isn't great; I'm quite low on the ladder. However, if I can reach heaven, this action would be a contributing factor.” This comment has drawn considerable social media attention, prompting some detractors to jest that an individual recognized for cheating in various aspects of his life, disparaging and misleading people, and evading military service is unlikely to pass through the pearly gates. Some have mused whether his period of introspection suggests a potentially grave illness. When queried about Trump’s statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt commented on Tuesday, “I believe the President was earnest. I think the President desires to reach heaven—as I trust we all do here in this room.” This represented a striking exhibition of uncertainty regarding one’s ultimate destiny from a figure who has previously hinted at divine endorsement and who has gathered numerous followers who consider him "chosen by God." Yet, this is not the inaugural instance of Trump openly pondering the afterlife, or even reflecting on his own chances. “We End Up Somewhere” In a 1990 interview with Playboy, Trump reportedly stated, “I do not subscribe to beliefs in reincarnation, heaven, or hell—but we do go somewhere. I genuinely cannot ascertain where.” Throughout the 1990s, Trump progressively detached himself from the Christian Church. A 1997 Playboy profile described him as “not a religious man.” Two years subsequently, as Trump prepared for a potential 2000 presidential bid under the Reform Party, he differentiated between individual faith in God and formal religious institutions. On Today in 1999, he remarked, “Firstly, I believe there’s a distinction between faith in God and organized religion. I think God and belief in God hold more significance than organized religion. However, I consider organized religion important because it guides people toward upright conduct.” “My Sole Path to Heaven” By the time of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump portrayed himself as someone who attends church. In 2015, he commented, “Can you believe it? No one thinks I’m Presbyterian. I am Presbyterian. I am Presbyterian. I am Presbyterian. Honestly, that’s a very mainstream denomination, folks.” In that same year, he humorously suggested that the presidency would be his means of entering heaven. Addressing more than 700 evangelical pastors in Orlando, Fla., Trump stated, “So go forth and disseminate the message, and once I am in [the White House], I will perform my duties with great proficiency. And I suspect that might be the only route for me to reach heaven. Therefore, I must perform well.” Significant Regions Globally Are “Facing Ruin” Trump has also referenced hell on several occasions. In his 2017 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump declared, “Large parts of the world are engaged in conflict, and some, indeed, are descending into chaos.” His address further mentioned God multiple times, concluding with: “We shall strive together, endure together, and unite for peace, for liberty, for fairness, for family, for humankind, and for the omnipotent God who created us all. Thank you, God bless you, God bless the world’s nations, and God bless the United States of America.” He also asserted that the U.S. was “going to hell” in 2015 and again in other instances during his presidential campaigns. During his second-term inauguration speech, Trump stated, “I simply wish to express gratitude to everyone, especially God. I was divinely preserved to restore America’s greatness.” “Should I Be Virtuous, I Will Attain Heaven” In an August 2024 interview following an incident in Butler, Pa., Trump stated, “I do [believe in heaven]. If I behave well, I will go to heaven. And if I behave poorly, I will go elsewhere.” When queried about his prayers, he responded, “Well, I pray for our nation. Naturally, I pray. I pray for the same things you do—our family and our country… and I suppose we have a world. I pray for the world as well.” Later in September, Trump, aged 79, recounted on an episode of the Lex Fridman Podcast how a “highly successful” friend in his eighties disclosed that he frequently contemplates mortality: “He remarked, ‘I think about it constantly.’ Then, a week subsequent, he telephoned me to convey something, initiating the dialogue by saying, ‘Tick-tock, tick-tock.’ This individual is somewhat bleak, yet that is how it stands.” Trump further added: “If one is religious, I believe one possesses a more positive outlook concerning it. One is ideally meant to go to heaven, not hell, but one is presumed to go to heaven if virtuous.” Uncertainty Regarding His Father’s Entry to Heaven At an election rally held last October in Madison Square Garden, Trump conveyed to an audience of approximately 20,000 individuals that he is “not entirely certain” about his father’s prospects of having passed into the afterlife. Trump stated, “My father is observing me from above at this moment. He was a stern individual, but he was genuine. And I am certain my mother is in heaven. I am not entirely sure about my father, though he is likely close.” Trump’s humorous remark was made during a diatribe concerning four legal cases, which encompassed allegations of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss, mismanaging classified documents, and fabricating business records to conceal “hush money” payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump concluded, “He is observing me now, and he is saying, ‘How on earth did this befall my son? He is not an ill-intentioned individual.’”

On Wednesday, over 750 public health professionals dispatched a letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demanding he “cease disseminating inaccurate health information” and guarantee the safety of employees, following a shooting incident earlier this month at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters. The correspondence—endorsed by both identified and anonymous current and former staff members from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CDC, and National Institutes of Health, who specified they signed in their “own personal capacities”—asserted that the assault on the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters on August 8 “was not random.” “The assault occurred amidst increasing distrust in public institutions, fueled by politically charged rhetoric that has transformed public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of vilification—and now, violence,” stated public health workers in the letter, which was also addressed to members of Congress. “The CDC serves as a public health leader in America’s defense against health threats domestically and globally. When a federal health agency is attacked, America’s health is jeopardized. When the federal workforce is not secure, America is not secure.” The public health workers proceeded to accuse Kennedy, a prominent critic of vaccines, of being “complicit in dismantling America’s public health infrastructure and endangering the nation’s health by consistently spreading inaccurate health information.” They referenced several declarations and actions made by Kennedy in recent months, highlighting his assertion that mRNA vaccines “fail to effectively protect” against upper respiratory infections such as COVID-19—despite evidence demonstrating the shots are both safe and effective—and his announcement that HHS would be phasing out mRNA vaccine development. They further denounced his decision to dismiss all experts from a crucial vaccine advisory committee. Additionally, they claimed some of Kennedy’s previous remarks—such as his statement that there is a “cesspool of corruption at CDC”—were “sowing public mistrust” in the health agency. The public health workers expressed their desire to honor police officer David Rose, who tragically died while responding to the August attack on the CDC headquarters. HHS declared in a statement to TIME that Kennedy “is standing firmly with CDC employees—both on the ground and across every center—ensuring their safety and well-being remain a top priority.” The agency added that, after the shooting earlier this month, Kennedy traveled to Atlanta and lauded the CDC as “a shining star” among global health agencies. “For the first time in its 70-year history, the mission of HHS is truly resonating with the American people—driven by President Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s bold commitment to Make America Healthy Again,” HHS asserted. “Any attempt to conflate widely supported public health reforms with the violence of a suicidal mass shooter is an attempt to politicize a tragedy.” Law enforcement officials reported they discovered evidence that the suspect in the August shooting, identified as Patrick Joseph White of Georgia, attributed his health issues to the COVID-19 vaccine. White was found deceased at the scene, with authorities later confirming he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. CDC Director Susan Monarez acknowledged the dangers posed by misinformation during a staff meeting following the attack. “We know that misinformation can be dangerous,” she stated, according to reports. “Not only to health, but to those that trust us and those we want to trust. We need to rebuild the trust together.” The day after the shooting, Kennedy extended his condolences to Rose’s family in a post on X. “We know how shaken our public health colleagues feel today. No one should face violence while working to protect the health of others,” he commented. “We are actively supporting CDC staff on the ground and across the agency. Public health workers show up every day with purpose—even in moments of grief and uncertainty. We honor their service. We stand with them. And we remain united in our mission to protect and improve the health of every American.” Kennedy was one of President Donald Trump’s nominees, and faced scrutiny from Senators during his confirmation. He has previously provoked outrage from the medical community for spreading misinformation, including reiterating the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. In their letter, public health workers alleged that Kennedy’s “dangerous and deceitful statements and actions have contributed to the harassment and violence experienced by CDC staff.” They urged him to undertake three actions by September 2 to “uphold his pledge to safeguard the health of the American public,” including asking him to “stop spreading inaccurate health information,” particularly concerning vaccines, infectious disease transmission, and the nation’s public health institutions. They also implored him to affirm the scientific integrity of the CDC and guarantee the safety of HHS employees, such as through emergency procedures and alerts. “The deliberate destruction of trust in America’s public health workforce jeopardizes lives,” they concluded in the letter. “We urge you to act in the best interest of the American people—your friends, your families, and yourselves.”

Rivers of Fate (Pssica), a four-part series filmed in Pará and adapted from Edyr Augusto’s novel, depicts three interwoven narratives set against the violent backdrop of the Amazon’s waterways. Janalice (Domithila Catete), a 15-year-old whose personal life becomes public, is exposed to exploitation and ultimately caught in a human trafficking network. Preá (Lucas Galvino), compelled to lead a group of river pirates, faces internal conflicts while trying to reconcile his role with his moral compass. Mariangel (Marleyda Soto), a Colombian woman, seeks retribution after her husband and child are killed by the same gang. From its outset, the series illustrates how various paths converge to ensnare individuals in cycles of violence. The climax unites these threads in a confrontation that seals the ultimate destiny of each primary character. The story's beginning The narrative commences with Janalice at school, where a leaked intimate video results in ostracization from her peers and indifference from her parents. Sent to reside with her aunt, she endures abuse from the aunt’s boyfriend and forms friendships with Dionete and Miltinho, who reveals his sister Luzia was previously abducted. This context establishes Janalice’s vulnerability and foreshadows her entanglement in trafficking. In a parallel plotline, Preá assumes leadership of the criminal group that uses jet-skis to assault boats along the rivers. His authority is challenged by Gigante, creating internal tension within the group. Meanwhile, Mariangel’s existence is shattered when her husband and child are murdered during one of the gang’s assaults. Seeking justice, she turns to law enforcement, but official channels fail to act, leaving her no option but to pursue vengeance independently. Janalice's abduction Events intensify when Janalice calls her father to report the abuse at her aunt’s residence, but receives no assistance. Later that night, she is attacked again and, while attempting to escape, is kidnapped by Preá’s gang. Although he develops compassion for her, Preá is unable to prevent her delivery to trafficker Zé Elídio. At Zé Elídio’s compound, Janalice and other girls are subjected to assault before being handed over to Philippe Soutin, who arranges their auction during the mayor’s birthday celebration. This marks the pivotal point where Janalice’s journey fully intersects with the world of organized trafficking. Mariangel's pursuit of justice Still grieving her family, Mariangel decides to take matters into her own hands to dismantle the gang. Her path crosses with police officer Amadeu, who is investigating Janalice’s disappearance. Their alliance provides Mariangel with crucial clues, and together they close in on the traffickers’ operations. As Mariangel’s vendetta intensifies, she systematically eliminates those connected to her family’s death and Janalice’s captivity. Tabaco becomes her first casualty, followed by Gigante, whose rivalry with Preá had been destabilizing the gang. These killings signify Mariangel’s transformation from grieving widow to active agent of retribution, pushing her closer to the heart of the conflict. The progression to the auction With the auction drawing near, various strategies emerge. Preá accumulates sufficient funds to attempt purchasing Janalice out of captivity, viewing this as his sole means to rescue her. Mariangel enlists a former associate to infiltrate the event and place winning bids as part of her scheme to secure the girl’s freedom. Despite these endeavors, Janalice alters the outcome through her own actions. During the event, she overpowers Crisotbal, seizes his money, and escapes before either Preá’s or Mariangel’s plans can materialize. Her escape disrupts the elaborate schemes surrounding her and reasserts her autonomy within the narrative. The ultimate confrontation While on the run, Janalice encounters Preá. He insists on taking her away, but their interaction is interrupted by the arrival of Philippe Soutin. A standoff ensues, concluding with both men shooting each other. Their deaths signify the collapse of two opposing forces: one pursuing power through trafficking, the other seeking redemption while still embroiled in criminality. Mariangel arrives shortly after the confrontation and escorts Janalice to safety. She takes her back to her mother’s home, but Janalice opts not to remain there. Instead, she chooses to stay with Mariangel, marking a definitive separation from her family environment and indicating a new phase in her life. The significance of the conclusion The ending highlights how each character’s journey culminates. Preá’s demise illustrates the futility of redemption while remaining connected to the criminal underworld. Philippe’s downfall represents the removal of one component in the trafficking chain, though the broader system persists. Mariangel’s transformation from victim to avenger and then to protector completes her arc, as she redirects her quest for justice into the guardianship of Janalice. For Janalice, the conclusion signifies not only survival but a deliberate choice to depart from neglect and abuse. Her decision to stay with Mariangel reflects a search for stability outside of her fragmented family and underscores the series’ wider message: in a setting dominated by exploitation and dysfunctional institutions, survival often relies on forming unexpected partnerships.

A recent study indicates that nearly 3 million Americans, including 1 in 30 teens (ages 13-17), identify as transgender. However, the report's authors caution that access to data about the transgender community in the U.S. may become increasingly difficult due to efforts by the Trump Administration and Republican-led states to limit the recognition and rights of transgender individuals. The UCLA Williams Institute has been publishing reports on transgender Americans since 2011, tracking demographics such as race, ethnicity, age, location, and mental health. The institute's latest report reveals that transgender adults and youth comprise 1% of Americans aged 13 and older, and 3.3% of those aged 13 to 17. The study also found that younger adults (18-34) are more likely to identify as transgender, representing over half of the country's transgender population. The initial 2011 report relied on only two state-level surveys. Since then, researchers have gained access to more comprehensive data through the CDC. The most recent findings are based on data from the CDC's 2021-2023 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System and the 2021 and 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The report emphasizes that the Youth Risk Behavior Survey currently offers the best available data for estimating the size and characteristics of the transgender youth population in the U.S. However, the agency may cease collecting data on transgender people due to President Donald Trump's Executive Order, which seeks federal recognition of only two biological sexes. Since Trump's return to office in January, information related to LGBTQ+ people has been quietly removed or altered on federal websites. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has shifted away from supporting gender-affirming care, despite endorsements from major medical associations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which consider such care best practice. HHS has suggested "exploratory therapy" or psychotherapy as alternatives to medically recommended care for individuals with gender dysphoria. Numerous states have also attempted to restrict access to gender-affirming care, particularly for minors, as part of broader global efforts targeting such care for trans youth. A June court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for youth has dealt a significant blow to the U.S. LGBTQ+ community. This ruling sets a precedent for similar bans across the country, creating a major hurdle for future legal challenges to these restrictions. The authors of the Williams Institute report express concern that the current political climate may affect survey respondents' willingness to accurately disclose their gender identity. They state that both the future of data collection on the U.S. transgender population and individuals' openness to identifying as transgender on surveys are uncertain. Despite these challenges, the authors emphasize that younger people are more likely to identify as transgender, a trend they expect to continue. They conclude that these trends have significant implications for various institutions, including schools, the military, workplaces, and healthcare settings, requiring them to adapt and provide appropriate support and opportunities for current and future generations.