PR in the Philippines

This past June, a humanitarian convoy comprising 15 trucks traversed over a thousand miles through Sudan, carrying essential life-saving provisions for highly vulnerable children and families facing immediate starvation. Journeys of this nature inherently involve peril and unpredictability, necessitating careful negotiations to gain access to civilians caught within a violent conflict. While nearing its destination in El Fasher, the convoy was ambushed, resulting in the deaths of five individuals before reaching its intended point. These individuals were not military personnel. They held no involvement in the hostilities. Instead, they represented a vital humanitarian link. Serving UNICEF and the World Food Programme (WFP), the organization I lead, they were humanitarians—and they were tragically punished for the crime of saving lives. It constituted an appalling and indefensible act. Aid workers are not legitimate targets, full stop. Nevertheless, our five courageous colleagues sacrificed their lives for their dedication to humanity. World Humanitarian Day falls on August 19 annually, commemorating the 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that claimed the lives of 22 aid workers. It serves as a day to recognize and celebrate aid workers and the immense sacrifices they undertake for those they assist. A humanitarian is defined as an individual who delivers food, medicine, or shelter, adhering strictly to the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. Such a person remains unaligned in conflicts, shields the vulnerable, and prioritizes the welfare of others to assist those in dire need. The five colleagues we lost in Sudan exemplified true humanitarianism. Currently, operating as a humanitarian has never been more challenging. Reaching individuals requiring humanitarian assistance is increasingly arduous—at times impossible. Forecasting future needs and anticipating new crises has also become more complex. Moreover, as demonstrated by the tragic occurrences in Sudan, it is now more perilous than ever for aid workers to carry out their crucial life-saving duties. The WFP, alongside all other humanitarian organizations, finds itself navigating an increasingly complex and demanding geopolitical environment. Worldwide requirements are alarmingly elevated, primarily propelled by the repercussions of conflict and instability; concurrently, the necessary resources to address these needs are diminishing as certain governments reduce their contributions to international humanitarian efforts. Consequently, the WFP is contending with a significant budget deficit, compelling severe reductions in vital food aid. Millions of individuals have either already lost or are on the verge of losing the crucial support we offer. Concurrently, ground conditions are becoming progressively more perilous and intricate, as adherence to international humanitarian law and the security of aid workers consistently deteriorates. This statistic is undeniable: the previous year marked the deadliest on record for humanitarians, with 383 fatalities. This current year appears poised to be equally lethal. A significant number of those lost belonged to our UN family. Every one of them made the supreme sacrifice. Presently, our teams in Gaza are performing extraordinary work amidst insurmountable circumstances. They live in fear for their own safety while they and their families grapple with the same hunger afflicting the wider civilian populace. In Yemen, WFP personnel have faced arbitrary detention; sadly, one perished while in custody earlier this year. In Ukraine, humanitarian locations and vehicles have suffered 41 strikes in the last year alone. In Haiti, unprecedented levels of gang violence impede our capacity to access individuals in critical need. Despite others who are able to depart to avoid danger, committed humanitarians remain resolute in their mission to stay and provide aid—even if it entails imperiling their own lives to rescue others. Observing the profound courage and dedication of our teams, who toil ceaselessly to reach the planet's most vulnerable, is truly humbling. I consider myself fortunate to collaborate with them and grieve for all whom we have lost. However, facing life-or-death situations should never be an inherent aspect of any humanitarian's role. The WFP will continue to serve the world's most vulnerable populations. Yet, we cannot achieve this autonomously. We require conflicting parties to honor their duties under international humanitarian law and to face consequences should they fail. We urge governments to increase their efforts, not only financially, but also through political resolve and diplomatic resolutions to cease the conflicts that exacerbate so much of the global hunger and malnutrition witnessed today. Hostilities against humanitarian personnel must cease. Assaults on civilians and their essential supporting infrastructure must also conclude. Such acts are inexcusable. Whenever global leaders neglect to uphold and enforce humanitarian law, fail to broker ceasefires, or neglect to demand secure corridors for vital aid, they compel my teams to incur ever-greater risks to close the expanding deficiencies within the multilateral framework. This must stop. We cannot—and ought not—persist in this manner. The demise of every aid worker is an affront. Equally egregious is the death of every child taken by starvation. Both tragedies are avoidable. Neither should occur. On World Humanitarian Day, let us pledge to reverse this deadly degradation of humanitarian principles, and instead undertake the necessary actions to guarantee that aid workers can function safely and securely—thereby safeguarding the lives of the vulnerable populations we assist.

TIME, collaborating with Statista, the foremost global provider of market and consumer data and rankings, has unveiled its inaugural "America’s Top Venture Capital Firms 2025" ranking. This thorough quantitative study identified 350 leading firms within the U.S. venture capital (VC) landscape, recognized for propelling innovation, backing emerging startups, and fostering future economic expansion. Here is an explanation of how the top firms were chosen. Selection Process The research initiative, titled "America’s Top Venture Capital Firms 2025," involved a detailed analysis to pinpoint the highest-performing VC firms across the United States. To qualify, a firm had to be based in the U.S. and actively provide direct venture capital funding to companies and startups across various stages and sectors as a primary aspect of its business model. Firms primarily or solely involved in growth equity, private equity, fund-of-funds, venture debt, or similar non-VC-focused strategies were not eligible. Only U.S.-headquartered firms were considered for the "America’s Top Venture Capital Firms 2025" list. The ranking was established through a comprehensive assessment of crucial financial and operational data points across three main categories: Fundraising Strength, Investment Capacity & Activity, and Exit & Fund Performance. Statista collected and meticulously reviewed data from over 10,000 firms through desk research, online application submissions, and partnerships with data and market intelligence providers. The first criterion, Fundraising Strength, was evaluated by examining each firm’s total capital raised over the previous five years and the most recent year, alongside its fundraising momentum and efficiency, to determine its consistent ability to attract investors. The second criterion, Investment Capacity & Activity, was assessed using key indicators such as available capital (dry powder), assets under management (AUM), and deal flow, analyzing both current investment potential and operational engagement. The third criterion, Exit & Fund Performance, was measured based on the volume and effectiveness of successful exits, specifically through the exit-to-investment ratio and benchmarked fund returns, highlighting the quality and consistency of each firm’s track record. After the data was gathered and assessed, it was integrated and weighted within a scoring framework. The ultimate score was calculated as follows: 35% from the Fundraising Strength Score + 35% from the Investment Capacity & Activity Score + 30% from the Exit & Fund Performance score. The 350 firms achieving the highest scores were recognized as "America’s Top Venture Capital Firms 2025" by TIME and Statista.

President Donald Trump has stated that no U.S. forces will be deployed in Ukraine as part of a *potential security agreement* between Russia and Ukraine. When questioned in a Fox News interview on Tuesday regarding assurances that there would be no “American boots on the ground” to defend the Ukrainian border with Russia, even beyond his presidency, Trump replied: “You have my assurance, and I’m president. ” A day earlier, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, Trump had suggested the U.S. would assist in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security should a peace accord be reached between Kyiv and Moscow. “We will give them very good protection, very good security,” he remarked. His Tuesday comment, however, revealed a clear limitation to any such guarantee—no U.S. troops in Ukraine. “I’m just trying to stop people from being killed… they’re losing 5-7,000 people a week in that ridiculous war,” **, without specifying if these figures referred to Ukraine, Russia, or both. The President added that he telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin later on Monday after his meeting with several European leaders to discuss a possible meeting between the Russian President and Zelensky, stating that if the meeting progressed favorably, he would step in to “wrap it up.” “It takes two to tango, they have to have somewhat of a relationship, otherwise we’re just wasting time,” *he asserted*. The Kremlin *reported* following Trump’s call with Putin, saying: “the parties discussed the idea of considering the possibility of increasing the level of both countries’ delegations involved in the direct talks.” Moscow’s response has been interpreted as *a sign that it intends* to continue its invasion of Ukraine, as Putin seemingly brushed off Trump’s proposal for confirming a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky. Trump met with Zelensky on Monday ahead of a broader meeting with several European leaders, stating that “When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help… they are the first line of defense,” the President said in reference to the European allies he later met with. On Monday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry declared its rejection of “any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO military contingents in Ukraine,” directly criticizing the United Kingdom and “certain European Nations” for suggesting such peacekeeping forces. The U.K. and others have *expressed openness* to sending troops to Ukraine should it be necessary as part of a peace deal. On Tuesday British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer *commented that his discussions* on Monday resulted in breakthroughs for security guarantees without directly mentioning any sort of peacekeeping force.

For the past five decades, venture capital firms have played a crucial role in shaping the U.S. economy into its current capitalist powerhouse. Many of the world's largest companies by market capitalization, including Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta, attribute part of their initial success to funding from VC firms when they were just beginning, making these VC firms some of the most influential businesses globally. To highlight the entities that are molding the business landscape, TIME and Statista evaluated 350 VC firms leading the way in accelerating innovation, supporting emerging startups, and driving the next wave of economic expansion. These firms primarily focus on providing direct venture capital funding to companies and startups across various stages and sectors. Their ranking was determined by their fundraising capabilities over the last five years, their investment capacity, and the volume and efficiency of their exits through IPOs and acquisitions. These firms provide private equity to young, innovative, and frequently high-risk companies that possess significant growth potential. For instance, Accel (ranked #1 on the list) has funded , , Slack, and Spotify; General Catalyst (ranked #2) has invested in , , and ; and Andreessen Horowitz (ranked #3) has supported , , , and . “We have been operating since 1983, investing in technology startups,” stated Sameer Gandhi, a partner at Accel. “Our goal is to be the first and primary institutional investor. We aim to be involved very early on. We begin with compelling ideas and exceptional individuals, and we build alongside them from there.” Accel has demonstrated strong confidence in AI-native companies, including and . “Venture capital propelled the internet. Venture capital propelled mobile. And venture capital is currently propelling AI,” remarked , a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Companies often choose VCs over more traditional financing methods like banks because VCs are typically more willing to embrace higher risks. Additionally, they offer greater mentorship, assist startups in forming management teams, and connect them with suppliers and customers. For Accel, its competitive advantage stems from its deep involvement in supporting companies during their nascent stages, offering not just financial backing but also industry knowledge and perspectives. Slack and CrowdStrike, for example, were early investments that Accel supported throughout their development. Notably, Accel was among the initial investors in Scale AI and spearheaded a funding round for the company in 2024. The firm is now reportedly expected to receive a payout of $2.5 billion from Meta’s acquisition of Scale, according to . While tech startups often draw more attention in portfolios, VC firms invest in groundbreaking ideas across diverse industries, supporting businesses ranging from to mRNA vaccine developer to . Kaplan stated, “The small number of [U.S. businesses] that receive venture funding—those are disproportionately the major successes. [VC firms] are very adept at selecting the ones that are poised to flourish. And generally, they are also highly skilled at establishing incentives and governance structures that lead to success.” He acknowledged that this process is not easy. “If you examine the deals venture capitalists invest in, more than half result in financial losses,” he observed. “It is the few significant successes that .” Most of the VC firms on this list are located on the coasts—over half are headquartered in California, home to Silicon Valley, followed by New York, Massachusetts, and emerging startup centers . Drive (ranked #93) is an anomaly, based in the Midwest, a location its CEO Chris Olsen views as an asset. Olsen, who grew up in Ohio, left Sequoia Capital in 2012 to co-found Drive in Columbus. “By the time I departed,” he noted, “the technological advancements in cloud computing suddenly meant that being in Silicon Valley was no longer a necessity.” Currently, Drive is a $2 billion firm with companies like Duolingo in its portfolio and a pipeline of over a dozen near-IPO companies generating more than $100 million in revenue. “There is $18 trillion in GDP between the coasts,” Olsen remarked, adding that founders in America’s heartland benefit from hands-on experience and specialized knowledge in their respective industries, whether that’s welding or healthcare. This makes them well-suited to understand how new technologies such as mobile, cloud, or AI will operate in practical applications. “We are bringing venture capital directly to the founders. We encourage them to remain close to their research, their families, their networks, and their customers.” However, while the venture capital firm is fundamentally an American business model, some, like 500 Global (ranked #41), embrace a more international perspective. With a team spanning 20 different countries and a portfolio that encompasses over 80 countries, 500 Global takes pride in supporting startups across numerous markets worldwide. “If you look at our portfolio, our team, particularly among leadership and investment partners, it appears quite different from many venture firms. It is remarkably diverse,” stated Christine Tsai, CEO and founding partner of 500 Global. Her firm is challenging a noticeable and disparity, both among founders and investors, even though research indicates that having more female partners and often leads to . “The fact that our team is so diverse, and we are committed to investing in exceptional founders everywhere, across industries, sectors, or customer segments that many might overlook, has led to our current achievements,” Tsai commented. Approximately 30% of 500 Global’s portfolio companies include at least one female founder, and 53% of their managing partners are women. Excellent examples of the firm’s investment preferences include Australian unicorn (led by CEO Melanie Perkins), (which operates in Japan and Silicon Valley), and Play AI (a voice AI startup co-founded by international individuals). The complete roster of top VC firms is provided below: Applications constitute a key part of the project’s selection process. For next year’s list, the application period is anticipated to open in spring 2026. To be notified upon its commencement, you may register .

The Trump Administration is implementing stricter standards for evaluating the “good moral character” of individuals applying for U.S. citizenship. According to a policy released on Friday by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency must now perform a more thorough and “holistic” evaluation of an applicant's “good moral character.” This includes taking into account an applicant's “positive attributes and not simply the absence of misconduct.” In a statement to news organizations, USCIS chief spokesperson Matthew Tragesser stated that U.S. citizenship is highly valued and should only be granted to the most deserving individuals. He added that USCIS is incorporating a new element into the naturalization process to ensure that new citizens embrace American culture, history, and language and demonstrate good moral character. This is the latest effort by the Trump Administration to selectively restrict immigration to the U.S. On , President Donald Trump aimed to birthright citizenship, which has led to . Trump has also international students from top universities, Chinese international students, and the social media accounts of applicants. The Administration has also resources for immigration enforcement, tens of thousands of people, including some , rules for asylum seekers, the number of refugees admitted to the U.S., , and . Simultaneously, he’s introduced a system and programs while limiting refugee intake. This recent change may cause concern among critics who worry that the Trump Administration is introducing more subjectivity and political leaning into U.S. immigration policies. Last week, Stanford University’s student newspaper the Administration, claiming that the of students with pro-Palestinian views, including those , is suppressing free speech. The American Association of University Professors is also Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding the Administration’s alleged “ideological deportation policy.” David Rozas, an immigration attorney who represented Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian student who was detained for several weeks and ultimately , told TIME in May that anyone who holds a position that contradicts the American government's views is immediately labeled as "anti-American." Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official under the Biden Administration, told CBS that the administration is attempting to expand the reasons for denying U.S. citizenship by manipulating the definition of good moral character to include harmless behavior. Redefining “good moral character” Historically, demonstrating “good moral character” has involved showing the absence of certain criminal offenses or disqualifying behaviors. These include "permanent bars" such as murder, aggravated felonies, and genocide, as well as "conditional bars" like multiple convictions for driving under the influence, where applicants must prove they have been rehabilitated. According to the memo, evaluating "good moral character" will now require "more than a superficial mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing." Instead, applicants must demonstrate that their character aligns with the standards of average citizens in their community. Officers are instructed to use a "holistic approach" and consider positive attributes such as: sustained community involvement and contributions in the U.S.; family caregiving and ties in the U.S.; educational achievements; a stable and legal employment history; length of lawful residence in the U.S.; and compliance with U.S. tax obligations. USCIS officers are also instructed to consider disqualifying applicants based not only on permanent and conditional bars but also on "any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside," even if those acts are "technically lawful." The memo also emphasizes the applicant's need to demonstrate rehabilitation if they have "engaged in wrongdoing," such as by fully paying overdue taxes or complying with court orders. The memo states that officers have the authority and now an explicit directive to weigh all relevant evidence, both adverse and favorable, before granting or denying naturalization when assessing conditional bars. Test impacts naturalization applicants Typically, green card holders who have lived in the U.S. for at least 3 to 5 years take the test when applying for naturalized American citizenship. In addition to demonstrating "good moral character," applicants must pass English and civics tests. According to USCIS, between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants have been naturalized as citizens each year since 2015. Around of the U.S. population are naturalized citizens, representing more than half of all foreign-born individuals in the U.S. in 2023. Trump could also use this policy change to to his former ally, tech billionaire , as well as New York City Democratic mayoral candidate . A in June directed the department's civil division to "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence." The law allows for the denaturalization of naturalized citizens if they are found to have violated their eligibility conditions, including having "good moral character." ```

Texas State Representative Nicole Collier, a Democrat from Fort Worth, asserts she is being unlawfully confined within the Texas House chamber. She remained there overnight on Monday and may continue to do so for several days until the matter is resolved. Collier was among a group of Democratic lawmakers who left the state earlier this month to prevent a vote on a redistricting plan supported by former President Donald Trump, which could impact the 2026 midterm elections. While some representatives returned for the second special session, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (Republican) is now requiring state troopers to escort them when they leave the House chamber to prevent another walkout. Collier has stated her refusal to comply with this requirement. “I will not compromise my dignity as an elected representative by allowing Republicans to control my movements and monitor me with police escorts,” Collier stated. She added, “My constituents sent me to Austin to defend their voices and rights. Knowing these maps will negatively impact my constituents when I vote, I refuse to silently accept their intimidation or discrimination.” Proposed Texas maps kicked off interstate redistricting fight Texas GOP leaders have criticized the absent Democrats for “abandoning their duties.” Earlier this month, Attorney General Ken Paxton initiated a lawsuit to remove 13 representatives from office for their absence on August 8. Governor Greg Abbott also requested the Texas Supreme Court to vacate the seat of House Democratic leader Gene Wu. Litigation is ongoing, but it is unclear how the members' return will affect the lawsuits. Nevertheless, passage of the redistricting plan seems likely. The Texas Senate redistricting committee approved the maps on Sunday, and the Republican-controlled Senate could vote on the plan as early as Wednesday. “We understood that we couldn’t stop this,” said Rep. Ramon Romero, another Democrat who left the state. “However, we could delay it, and that's what we accomplished.” Texas Republicans were invigorated by the return of the Democrats. “Representatives come and go. Issues rise and fall. But this body has endured wars, economic depressions and quorum breaks dating back to the very first session,” Burrows stated during Monday’s session. “We are done waiting. We have a quorum. Now is the time for action.” Trump posted on Truth Social, “Please pass this Map, ASAP.” Trump had previously suggested involving the FBI to bring back the representatives. The Democrats' return to the state follows California's announcement of a plan to counter the Texas Republicans’ efforts. Several other states, including Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio, have also become involved. Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census, which was last conducted in 2020. However, Trump and his allies began pushing for Republican states to redraw their congressional lines earlier to gain an advantage in the upcoming midterms. “Now that the nation is engaged in this fight, some Texas Democrats are coming back to fight these racist maps in the legislature and then in the courts,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Kendall Scudder said in a statement on Monday. “Texans can see that the Republicans would rather serve Trump than serve the interests of Texans.” Wu told the media that the Democrats will contest the legality of the maps. However, many Democrats expressed concerns on Monday. “Even if California and New York redistrict and successfully get rid of Republicans, that doesn’t help my district,” Rep. Jolanda Jones, who did not return to Texas, told the media. “We will lose one Black seat in Houston and one Black seat in Dallas. That’s unacceptable.” Collier alleges “illegal confinement” Collier reported to the media that she could either go to her office with a police escort and DPS officers stationed outside or remain inside the chamber. She told the Fort Worth Report that she is unsure how long she will remain there. Collier has filed a petition to a Travis County court alleging "illegal confinement." Another Democratic representative, Ann Johnson, signed the permission slip but remained with Collier for a period after objecting to being followed by an officer. Johnson eventually left the chamber. “This is yet another demonstration of authority and power over people of color, over people who resist,” Collier stated, who is the former chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus. “This exercise, this requirement that we be trailed by DPS officers who could be out there fighting crime is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars but is also offensive to the dignity of each one of us who has been elected by our constituents to come here and fight.” Collier’s action has garnered support from Democrats across the state and nation. “As a former Texas State Rep, let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous,” U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D, Texas) posted on X. “Forcing elected officials to sign ‘permission slips’ and take police escorts to leave? That’s not procedure. That’s some old Jim Crow playbook.” Democratic state senator Roland Gutierrez, who visited Collier in the chamber, shared a video of supporters gathered inside the Texas Capitol building chanting, “Let her out.” ```