Category: Hot News

A man holds a placard with a picture of lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh on September 24, 2020 in The Hague, Netherlands. —Robin Utrecht/SOPA Images/LightRocket—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - On the night of April 1, 2026, agents from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence detained renowned human rights attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh. Her arrest occurred amid ongoing conflict in Iran and as the Islamic Republic intensified its suppression of domestic dissent. Sotoudeh, who has dedicated her career to defending political prisoners, human rights defenders, and women’s rights activists, now finds herself imprisoned for political reasons.This marks another chapter in Sotoudeh’s long history of persecution. Since 2010, the 62-year-old lawyer has faced repeated arrests and extended periods of solitary confinement. She was previously handed a sentence of approximately 38 years in prison, 148 lashes, and a two-decade ban on practicing law. International pressure and declining health had previously secured her temporary releases and furloughs.Yet in a system where torture is widespread and executions are sharply increasing, the risks Sotoudeh now faces are greater than ever. Her latest detention thus represents not only a loss of freedom but potentially her life.Sotoudeh’s ordeal reflects the broader plight of lawyers across Iran and around the globe.Worldwide, legal professionals are coming under increasing assault. Authoritarian regimes are weaponizing the justice system to target and prosecute their critics, deploying an ever-expanding array of fabricated charges and show trials. As dissidents are rounded up, journalists imprisoned, and freedom of speech suppressed, lawyers often serve as the final line of defense—which has made them prime targets. They are being transformed from legal advocates into defendants, from upholders of the constitution into alleged criminals.In the fight against authoritarian rule, it may appear pointless to rely on compromised and corrupt judicial systems to protect citizens. Nevertheless, the resolve and bravery of lawyers who continue to demand proper application of the law—even under repressive and dictatorial regimes—constitute a potent form of resistance. By targeting lawyers, autocrats reveal their deep-seated fear that fair trials and adherence to the rule of law pose a genuine threat to their authority.As Czech dissident and later president Václav Havel wrote in *The Power of the Powerless*, “demanding that the laws be upheld is thus an act of living within the truth that threatens the whole mendacious structure at its point of maximum mendacity.” The hollow “ritual” of legal procedure is essential for tyrants to maintain the illusion of fairness. By invoking this ritual and insisting on the real enforcement of legal safeguards and due process, courageous lawyers expose authoritarian regimes for what they truly are.Consider Russia, where Vladimir Putin has long exploited the “ritual of the law” to simulate a fair and independent judiciary, permitting lawyers to represent even his most outspoken critics—despite the certainty of unjust outcomes. The subjugation of Russia’s courts has been a deliberate and gradual process, resulting in a system where rulings often amount to “telephone justice,” with judges complying with directives from state officials. Recently, however, the Kremlin has moved to silence any lawyers willing to take on such cases, leading to the exile and imprisonment of some of Russia’s most skilled and principled legal defenders.The prosecution of Alexei Navalny’s former attorneys—Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser, and Igor Sergunin—exemplifies the Kremlin’s ongoing campaign to eliminate authentic legal representation. These lawyers defended Navalny in the period leading up to his death at a remote Arctic penal colony. They were arrested in October 2023 on baseless “extremism” charges. Following their detention, Navalny’s already harsh conditions deteriorated further, his isolation deepened, and he was ultimately killed by poisoning.By going after these lawyers, Putin effectively eliminated one of his most prominent political opponents. Another of his well-known pro-democracy rivals, opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza, saw his attorney, Vadim Prokhorov, forced into exile under threat of prosecution at the conclusion of Kara-Murza’s fraudulent trial. Other human rights lawyers in Russia have also faced recent prosecution, including Maria Bontsler, a leading defender of individuals targeted by politically motivated charges. Bontsler has remained in pre-trial detention since May 2025, with her health continuing to decline dangerously.As international legal representatives for both dissidents and their embattled lawyers, we have witnessed this pattern of repression extend beyond national borders. One of us survived an assassination attempt in Canada and believes he was poisoned in Russia for defending Iranian human rights lawyers and Russian dissidents.Beneath these overt acts of aggression lies a disturbing trend: transnational repression spilling from autocratic regimes into democratic nations, endangering lawyers of all nationalities.Tragically, at this pivotal moment for the legal profession, some countries that once upheld the rule of law are now actively weakening protections for lawyers instead of safeguarding them. Efforts to intimidate, co-opt, or dismantle judicial institutions are becoming as alarming in their frequency as they are in their impact—even within free societies. The situations in Iran and Russia should serve as urgent warnings about where such erosion can lead—and as a rallying cry to defend the rule of law.To uphold the rule of law globally, we must employ measures like targeted Magnitsky sanctions, which not only publicly identify perpetrators but also impose tangible consequences such as visa restrictions and asset freezes. Complaints to the International Criminal Court concerning acts of transnational repression within member states’ territories could also be pursued. Strengthening international legal standards protecting legal professionals is essential—a need underscored by the timely launch of the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which merits broad support.To halt the escalating attacks on lawyers, we must ensure that targeting them carries consequences far outweighing any perceived benefit for authoritarian leaders.We believe that, when it comes to safeguarding our freedoms and the future of democracy, the price of inaction is far too great. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

A man holds a placard with a picture of lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh on September 24, 2020 in The Hague, Netherlands. —Robin Utrecht/SOPA Images/LightRocket—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - In the early hours of April 1, 2026, agents from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence took prominent human rights attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh into custody. Her detention occurred during Iran’s ongoing conflict and as the Islamic Republic ramped up its crackdown on domestic critics. Sotoudeh—who has dedicated her career to representing political prisoners, human rights defenders, and women’s rights activists—now finds herself a political prisoner too.This isn’t Sotoudeh’s first time behind bars. Since 2010, the 62-year-old attorney has been arrested multiple times and held in long-term solitary confinement. She once received a sentence of roughly 38 years in prison, 148 lashes, and a 20-year suspension from practicing law. Public outcry and her declining health resulted in her release and temporary furloughs.Yet in a system where torture is widespread and executions are surging, the risks for Sotoudeh are greater than ever before. Her latest arrest isn’t just a loss of freedom—it could cost her her life.Sotoudeh’s ordeals mirror those of countless lawyers in Iran and across the globe.Lawyers worldwide are facing increasing attacks. Authoritarian leaders are misusing legal systems to target and prosecute their opponents, using an expanding array of fabricated charges and mock trials. When dissidents are locked up, journalists imprisoned, and free speech silenced, lawyers are often the final barrier to injustice. For this reason, lawyers have become targets themselves—shifted from being advocates to the accused, and from upholders of the constitution to labeled criminals.Fighting authoritarianism often feels like a losing battle when relying on broken, corrupt justice systems to protect citizens. However, the bravery and resolve of lawyers who demand the law be applied fairly—even in corrupt, dictatorial regimes—serve as a potent form of resistance. By targeting lawyers, authoritarians expose their deep-seated fear that fair trials and the rule of law pose a threat to their hold on power.As Czech dissident-turned-statesman Václav Havel noted in The Power of the Powerless: “Demanding that the laws be upheld is thus an act of living within the truth that threatens the whole mendacious structure at its point of maximum mendacity.” The hollow “ceremony” of the law is critical for a tyrant to maintain the illusion of fairness in an authoritarian state. By using this ceremony and insisting on the real implementation of these empty legal safeguards and processes, brave lawyers unmask despotic regimes for everyone to see.Consider Russia, where Vladimir Putin has long employed the “ceremony of the law” to create the impression of a free and fair legal system—allowing lawyers to represent its most outspoken critics even when a just result is impossible. The takeover of Russia’s judiciary has been a deliberate, long-term process, leading to courts that often deliver nothing more than “telephone justice”: judges following orders from state officials who call in their desired verdict. But recently, the Kremlin has clamped down on lawyers handling these cases, resulting in the exile and arrest of some of Russia’s most skilled and brave attorneys.The prosecution of Alexei Navalny’s former lawyers—Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser, and Igor Sergunin—shows the Kremlin’s ongoing push to erase authentic legal representation. These lawyers stood by Navalny until his death at a remote Arctic penal colony. They were arrested in October 2023 on baseless “extremism” charges. Following their detention, Navalny’s already harsh prison conditions deteriorated sharply, and his isolation from the outside world deepened until he was ultimately poisoned to death.By going after lawyers, Putin eliminated one of his most high-profile political foes. Another of Putin’s pro-democracy opponents—opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza—saw his lawyer, Vadim Prokhorov, forced into exile under threat of prosecution after Kara-Murza’s mock trial. Other human rights lawyers in Russia have faced recent prosecution, including Maria Bontsler, a prominent attorney who represented people targeted with politically motivated charges. Bontsler has been in pre-trial detention since May 2025, and her health is worsening dangerously.As international lawyers representing both dissidents and their persecuted legal advocates, we’ve witnessed this type of repression spread across borders. One of us was even the target of an assassination plot in Canada and believes he was poisoned in Russia for defending Iranian human rights lawyers and Russian dissidents.Beneath these overt acts of aggression is a hidden trend: transnational repression spilling from authoritarian regimes into democracies, oppressing lawyers of all nationalities along the way.Sadly, at this critical juncture for the legal profession, some countries that once stood for the rule of law are now actively undermining lawyers instead of protecting them. Attempts to intimidate, co-opt, or weaken judicial institutions are growing both more frequent and alarming in free societies. The examples of Iran and Russia should serve as a wake-up call about the consequences of this trend—and a call to action to defend the rule of law.To safeguard the rule of law worldwide, we need to use tools like targeted Magnitsky sanctions—measures that not only identify and shame perpetrators but also impose tangible consequences, such as visa restrictions and asset freezes. We could also pursue complaints at the International Criminal Court for transnational repression occurring on member states’ territory. Strengthening international legal standards to protect lawyers is essential, making the recently launched Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer particularly timely and deserving of broad support.To put an end to the growing attacks on lawyers, we must ensure that targeting them is more costly for authoritarians than it is beneficial.We believe that when it comes to our freedoms and the future of our democracies, the price of doing nothing is far too steep. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Television presenter and naturalist David Attenborough, photographed in connection with his new series 'The Life of Birds'. —Peter Nicholls—The Times/News Syndication/Redux(SeaPRwire) - For nearly everyone who grew up in the United Kingdom, Sir David Attenborough transcends being merely a broadcaster; he is regarded as a secular saint. He stands as an essential pillar within the national culture, just as integral to daily life as enjoying a cup of tea. His gentle, almost-whispered narration has served as the soothing background soundtrack to countless homes, transforming weekend nature documentaries into a cherished national ritual.To Americans, I believe, Attenborough often appears less like a distinct personality and more as a familiar archetype: the "Voice of Nature." He is the quiet, elegant authority figure guiding viewers through the high-definition wonders of series such as *Planet Earth* or *Blue Planet*. Regardless of whether one grew up eating "biscuits" or "cookies," Attenborough is the man who unveiled our world through an extraordinary lens. He has earned global trust not by commanding attention, but by captivating us with the sheer wonder of the natural world. In his approach lies a crucial lesson for our era: that genuine awe serves as a powerful foundation for care, teaching us that we can only protect what we first come to truly value.As we celebrate Attenborough’s 100th birthday on May 8, I find myself reflecting less on the monumental scope of his work and more on the personal moments that revealed his humanity beneath it all. Brief flashes of amusement when things did not go according to plan. Unmistakable delight when animals treated him not as a presenter, but as a natural part of their environment—sometimes surprising him, interrupting the carefully crafted narrative, reminding us that nature cannot be controlled or predicted. Those moments always seemed significant, because they revealed something deeper than technical expertise: a profound sense of reverence and curiosity. And I suspect they brought him the greatest joy—those rare instances when he felt completely connected to the natural world, where the creatures he was observing accepted him as one of their own, perhaps the purest form of acceptance nature can offer.Attenborough’s calm demeanor and complete lack of agenda mean that the warnings he voices carry even greater weight. When a man who has witnessed so much in his long life begins to speak urgently about the planet’s destabilization, he is not issuing provocations. Instead, he is reporting from the front lines of a world he has known intimately for longer than almost anyone else alive.His most profound contribution has been systematically dismantling the belief that climate challenges are occurring "somewhere else." For many, the natural world remains a distant destination experienced only through screens, safely detached from everyday pressures, offering moments of peace, perspective, and escape. Attenborough has made such detachment impossible, helping us recognize that remote glaciers, forests, and rivers are far more than scenic landscapes—they are vital components of the systems upon which our communities depend. His work has also deepened our understanding of how seemingly unrelated modern consumption patterns can exert immense pressure on the ecosystems that sustain us.This transformation in how we perceive our relationship with nature has had its deepest impact on those who grew up alongside his influence. These individuals did not learn about extinction from dry textbooks; instead, they watched it unfold in vivid detail, narrated by a voice they trusted. His voice.Even as his messages have grown increasingly sobering, Attenborough’s ability to engage younger audiences has only strengthened. By embracing the platforms where young people spend their time—social media and streaming services—he has reached millions directly. Rather than preaching or lecturing, he shares a perspective shaped over a century. To a generation overwhelmed by noise and uncertainty, Attenborough embodies credible authenticity. Young people continue to turn to him not only for the spectacle of nature but also for a sense of continuity in an unstable world. From him, they learn that environmental stewardship is a lifelong commitment built on careful observation and the courage to remain engaged, even when the data is discouraging.Attenborough’s credibility stems from decades of unwavering consistency and a quiet determination never to look away from uncomfortable truths, no matter how difficult they became to witness. He has provided the global audience with both a detailed map of the damage and a vision of what still remains intact. For today’s leaders, adopting his unique perspective—a rare fusion of childlike wonder and unflinching realism—is essential to any meaningful progress.I believe his lifetime spent immersed in close observation of the natural world has nurtured within him some of the most human qualities: humility, curiosity, patience, and deep reverence for all life. By cultivating these traits, today’s youth can channel their climate concerns into focused, purposeful advocacy.At 100, Sir David Attenborough has devoted his entire life to sharing facts with patience, honesty, and wonder. He has shown us the world in all its brilliance and fragility, leaving humanity with both a precious gift and a solemn responsibility. The question now is whether those in positions of power will choose to act decisively before more of our planet—our shared life support system—is lost forever. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

(SeaPRwire) -The Saudi Aramco Marjan oil and gas gathering and transportation platform, the largest international offshore oil and gas platform constructed by China, was shipped from Qingdao West Coast New Area in Qingdao, Shandong province, China, on August 16, 2024. —FOTOFuture Publishing—Getty Images This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Scientists continue to study the environmental and health impacts of microplastics. —Peter Dazeley—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - Microplastics appear to be pervasive—present in our oceans, air, drinking water, and even cosmetic items. Evidence of microplastics and the even smaller nanoplastics has been discovered by researchers within the human body.Scientists now suspect that these airborne microscopic particles may also be playing a role in planetary warming. This raises a critical question: what level of concern is warranted?What are the sources of airborne microplastics?Microplastics are tiny fragments—smaller than five millimeters—that result from the breakdown of plastic goods. As plastics degrade, such as during the washing of polyester garments or from tire wear, microscopic plastic particles are released, which are light enough to become airborne.Once aloft, they can influence the atmosphere in several ways. “Airborne particles can influence atmospheric conditions through two primary mechanisms,” explains Fay Couceiro, a professor of environmental pollution at the University of Portsmouth. “They can either reflect sunlight back into space, which prevents surface heating and has a cooling effect, or they can absorb the sunlight, warming the surrounding air and thereby contributing to planetary heating.”What is the climate impact of microplastics?A recent study in Nature Climate Change concluded that, overall, airborne microplastics—especially dark and colored ones—tend to absorb more heat than they reflect, thus adding to global warming. The study's authors calculate that atmospheric microplastics might contribute to warming at a rate roughly one-sixth that of black carbon, or soot, which comes from burning fossil fuels.It is evident, however, that their impact is significantly less than that of major greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane. “In reality, they constitute a very minor portion of the pollutants present in our air,” states Ian Mudway, an associate professor of environmental toxicology at Imperial College London’s School of Public Health, who was not affiliated with the Nature study.Nevertheless, this is not a reason to dismiss the problem completely.“Should we be concerned? I believe so. Should we panic? Absolutely not,” remarks Couceiro, who was not involved in the new research. “We lack sufficient evidence to justify eliminating all plastic from the planet. However… I do think concern is justified, and we ought to seek ways to minimize our exposure and prevent it from increasing.”How harmful are microplastics to the human body?There remains significant uncertainty regarding the effects of microplastics on human health. “It is a lengthy process to isolate the impact of plastic from other factors like obesity, age, or various other lifestyle influences,” Couceiro notes.The existing knowledge is not encouraging. Laboratory studies on human cells have shown that high microplastic concentrations can lead to outcomes ranging from inflammation to endocrine system interference. In one of Couceiro's studies on algae, microplastic presence caused significant disruptions to the ecosystem. “We observed stunted growth in the algae, which subsequently affects all creatures that depend on it for food,” she explains. “So there are consequences for their food supply, as well as direct effects. If an animal consumes the plastic, it can cause intestinal blockages, lodge in gills and impede breathing, or leach chemicals that interfere with hormones and cause infertility.”Mudway argues that a lack of complete understanding about human health impacts should not delay action: “The devastating environmental impact alone should be sufficient motivation for us to act. Yet, we often find ourselves striving to prove it is harmful to human health, as if that were the only justification for addressing the issue.”How do you get rid of airborne microplastics?It is not currently feasible to entirely remove microplastics from the air. “Even if plastic production ceased today, environmental accumulation would continue for some time,” says Couceiro.For those worried about personal exposure, measures can be taken at home. One study demonstrated that high-efficiency HEPA air purifiers can eliminate more than 99% of nanoparticles from indoor air.Couceiro advises finding ways to decrease plastic use in daily life. “Cutting down on the plastic we have in our homes will lower the quantity we inhale,” she says. “A sensible approach is needed, but the existing evidence of harm warrants concern.” This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Pope Leo XIV meets with Secretary Of State Marco Rubio during an audience at the Apostolic Palace on May 07, 2026 in Vatican City, Vatican. —Simone Risoluti––Vatican Media/Vatican Pool/Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - In a Thursday meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pope Leo highlighted their “shared commitment to promoting peace,” against the backdrop of a continuing dispute between the pontiff and President Donald Trump.Rubio’s arrival at the Vatican on a significant diplomatic trip came shortly after Trump charged the Pope with “endangering Catholics” due to his stance against the war in Iran.Their conversation lasted approximately two and a half hours, covering “the situation in the Middle East and topics of mutual interest in the Western Hemisphere,” according to State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott.Pigott stated that the encounter “underscored the strong relationship between the United States and the Holy See and their shared commitment to promoting peace and human dignity.”Rubio additionally conferred with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who had defended Pope Leo from Trump’s criticisms the day before the meeting.“To attack him in this way or to reproach what he does seems a bit strange to me," Parolin remarked on Wednesday.The discussions also touched on “mutual cooperation and pressing international issues” and included a review of “ongoing humanitarian efforts in the Western Hemisphere and efforts to achieve a durable peace in the Middle East.”According to the Vatican, the conversations addressed the “need to work tirelessly in favor of peace.”A Vatican statement noted the parties exchanged perspectives on current affairs, “with particular attention to countries marked by war, political tensions, and difficult humanitarian situations.”A “shared commitment to fostering good bilateral relations between the Holy See and the United States of America” was also affirmed.The gathering was clouded by Trump’s comments days earlier, which misrepresented Pope Leo’s view on the Iran conflict.“I think he's endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people. But I guess if it's up to the Pope, he thinks it's just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said on Monday.These remarks led Pope Leo to publicly reaffirm his and the Catholic Church’s position, asking critics to be “truthful.”“For years, the Church has spoken out against all nuclear weapons, so there is no doubt on that point,” he stated Tuesday.Steve Millies, a Public Theology professor at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, informed TIME that the visit was a crucial diplomatic event for the Trump Administration, as “the Holy See is very important, even for a power like the United States,” considering its worldwide sway.By Thursday, the strain seemed to have diminished.In a gift exchange at the Vatican, Rubio gave Pope Leo a small crystal football-shaped paperweight, alluding to the Pope’s backing of the Chicago White Sox baseball team."You're a baseball guy, but it has the seal of the State Department," Rubio said. "What to get someone who has everything?" he quipped, displaying the paperweight.Pope Leo reciprocated by presenting Rubio with a pen apparently crafted from olive wood. "Olive being of course the plant of peace," the Pope explained, noting it bore his coat of arms and was accompanied by a picture book of Vatican art.Pope Leo XIV exchanges gifts with Secretary Of State Marco Rubio during an audience at the Apostolic Palace on May 07, 2026 in Vatican City, Vatican. —Simone Risoluti––Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty ImagesThe feud between Trump and the Pope explainedThe first American Pope, Leo, has frequently been at odds with the Trump Administration on matters from immigration to the Iran wars and the persistent U.S. blockade of Cuba.Conflict intensified when Trump openly assailed the Pope, labeling him “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy” following the Pope’s appeal to halt the Iran war.Trump’s censure of the Pope, along with a since-removed AI-created image portraying him in a Christ-like manner, also provoked a negative response from Christians and conservatives.Even with the criticism, Trump kept misstating the Pope’s Iran stance, leading Leo to reaffirm his advocacy for diplomatic solutions.“I always believe that it is much better to enter into dialogue, than to look for arms, and to support the arms industry, which gains billions and billions of dollars each year,” he declared.Rubio continues his diplomatic missionPrior to his Vatican journey, Rubio maintained the trip was scheduled well in advance, though he conceded “obviously we had some stuff that happened.”Rubio also came to Trump’s defense, contending the President’s words were misinterpreted.“What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics, and Christians, and others,” Rubio explained.Millies told TIME the disagreement arises at a politically delicate time for Republicans before the U.S. midterm elections. “For most Catholics, having the President of the United States attack the Pope over and over in this pointed way, pushes a button. It excites a reaction, and the reaction is not one that's going to play well for President Trump or for the Republican Party,” he said.The voyage also served as a political challenge for Rubio personally, as he is broadly considered a top candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028.The Secretary of State will proceed with his diplomatic tour in Italy, with scheduled meetings on Friday with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani.These talks are anticipated to further challenge Rubio’s diplomatic abilities, as friction between Washington and Rome grows following Trump’s threat to pull U.S. troops from Italy and Spain over their lack of support for the Iran war. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Jeffrey Epstein with Ghislaine Maxwell at the Wall Street Concert Series in New York City on March 15, 2005. —Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - A New York judge has made public what is purported to be a suicide note authored by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The document had previously been sealed as part of criminal investigations into the billionaire’s former cellmate.The note was allegedly discovered by the cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York in July 2019, shortly after Epstein first attempted suicide weeks before his death.“They investigated me for months — found nothing!” the note reads. “It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye.”The note continues: “Watcha want me to do — burst out cryin! No fun - not worth it.”The words “no fun” were also included in a separate note obtained by CBS from Epstein’s cell following his death. In both notes, the words are underlined. Epstein also appears to have used the phrase “watcha want me to do- burst out cryin” in an email from 2016, released by the Justice Department.Epstein’s first apparent suicide attemptThe note has no signature. TIME has been unable to independently verify if it was written by Epstein and has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.Records released by the Justice Department show that on July 23, 2019, Epstein was found “unresponsive” in his cell, and that Epstein claimed later that same day that Tartaglione, who was awaiting trial in a quadruple murder case, had assaulted him. The sex offender was then put on suicide watch.The document then shows that Tartaglione appears to have found the note in the days that followed. Epstein was later moved to a separate cell following the alleged assault, where he was later found dead on August 10, 2019. A medical examiner later determined that the cause of death was suicide.Tartaglione was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences in June 2024, one for each murder he carried out.The push to unseal the documentJudge Kenneth M. Karas of Federal District Court in White Plains, New York, released the note on Wednesday, after a request from the New York Times for its release was sent on April 30.Democrat Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois also requested for the release of the note, writing to the Justice Department on May 4 calling for it to be unsealed.“The survivors of Jeffrey Epstein deserve a full and transparent accounting of all pertinent information,” Krishnamoorthi wrote.Speaking to the Times, Tartaglione said he found the note tucked into a graphic novel after Epstein was transferred from the cell. He said he then gave the note to his lawyers.The former cellmate of Epstein had already mentioned the note, speaking on a podcast with Jessica Reed Kraus in July of last year.Tartaglione previously discussed the alleged noteTartaglione claims on the podcast that the note read along the lines that the FBI had investigated Epstein “for months and found nothing” and “what do you want me to do - cry about it?”Over the last year, questions about alleged relationships between Epstein and prominent global figures have emerged, including with President Donald Trump.The Justice Department has released several batches of the so-called ‘Epstein files’, most recently in January, when more than 3 million documents were published.First Lady Melania Trump is the latest prominent figure to address allegations of association with Epstein. In early April, the First Lady said in an address that “lies” tying her to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell “must end.”“To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell,” Melania said. “My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trivial note,” she added in reference to a message sent to Maxwell in 2002, released by the Justice Department.Scrutiny over Epstein associations continuesSince January’s release, several high-profile names have resigned from positions following questions about alleged association with Epstein.In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has faced continued scrutiny over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S., despite being aware of continued correspondence between Mandelson and Epstein.The former ambassador was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in February, though he maintains no wrongdoing.Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, has also been put in the spotlight in recent months after the Justice Department files appeared to show alleged communication between Epstein and the brother of King Charles.Mountbatten Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in February, and he has also continuously denied any wrongdoing.If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental-health crisis or contemplating suicide, call or text 988. In emergencies, call 911, or seek care from a local hospital or mental health provider. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

—Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Image: skynesher/Getty Images)(SeaPRwire) - Most of us believe that a good listener maintains steady eye contact, nods appropriately, reflects feelings with empathy and stays fully present—without glancing at their phone.But here’s the truth, according to one of the top researchers in listening: That ideal is largely a cultural construct.“Good listening is a myth,” says Graham Bodie, a professor of media and communication at the University of Mississippi who studies how people listen, comprehend, and respond. “The notion that there’s one universal set of behaviors everyone should follow or a single way everyone ought to listen” is just an illusion, he explains.Bodie has spent his career challenging the clear-cut “active listening” checklists found in workplace training sessions and relationship advice columns—such as making eye contact, nodding, paraphrasing, asking open-ended questions, and avoiding interruptions. He acknowledges these aren’t bad suggestions, but the issue lies in treating them as a universal rule—as if being a good listener were something you could mimic like a pose, rather than a dynamic decision made in real time.The real question, he argues, isn’t whether you’re a good listener. It’s whether you’re listening in the right way for that specific conversation.You're listening—just not the way they wantMost disputes about listening usually aren’t really about attention at all, Bodie says. They stem from a disconnect between what the speaker hoped for and what the listener provided.“When we judge someone as a good or bad listener, we rely on a particular framework of what we think makes up effective listening,” he explains. “And if that doesn’t align with what the other person expects, we end up in confusing arguments. ‘You’re not listening to me.’ ‘Yes, I am.’ ‘No, you’re not.’”He offers a common example: Your partner returns home upset after a difficult day at work. Your natural response is to shift into problem-solving mode. You believe you’re being a great listener—but they feel dismissed.“Advice can be risky,” Bodie notes. “When someone offers advice, it implies we’re unable to manage our own challenges. And most of us don’t like feeling incapable. Sometimes, all the person wants is to be heard, comforted, and supported while expressing their emotions.This scenario often affects analytical thinkers. Those who naturally lean toward a questioning, detail-focused style—asking “Where’s your source?” or “Can you prove that?”—are frequently seen as cold or confrontational. But Bodie points out they may actually be listening effectively—just not in the manner the speaker needed at that moment. “Am I a poor listener because I expect you to cite credible sources?” he asks. “Or am I simply using a listening approach that doesn’t match what you need right now?”Pay attention to what they’re reaching forIf there’s no universal standard for good listening, how do you listen well? Bodie says it boils down to a simple yet obvious principle: Focus on the language the other person is actually using.“What exactly are they saying?” he says. “What phrases keep repeating? What clearly matters to them?” Then, reflect and adapt accordingly. If someone uses emotional expressions—like “I feel…” or “I’m so frustrated”—they likely want deeper emotional engagement. If they speak in facts and figures, they probably prefer a discussion grounded in data. Relying on a default approach across every conversation is precisely how well-meaning listeners often fall short.If you know the person well enough, Bodie says it’s perfectly acceptable to ask: “I want to support you best—what would be most helpful to you right now?”Most people operate from a default listening style—analytical, advisory, emotionally attuned, or distracted—and apply it indiscriminately to everyone, constantly. Then we wonder why the people we care about repeatedly say they don’t feel truly heard. The solution, he argues, isn’t improving your listening performance. It’s simply paying closer attention. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

—Jorg Greuel—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - I have a confession to make. For years, I believed the internet would inevitably improve society. It seemed obvious. A more connected world would be a more empathetic one. The traditional gatekeepers would disappear. We'd gain greater access, more expertise, and more opportunities for curiosity to be fulfilled.That is not the reality we live in.To be fair, there are positives. We did gain access to a vast wealth of high-quality information, but the information itself proved less critical than expected. With infinite content available, the most important factor became which pieces were the easiest to focus on.A whole profession of creators arose, dedicated to making their content more captivating, viewable, and impossible to ignore than anyone else's. We launched into an arms race for attention, aided by recommendation algorithms built to magnify even the smallest advantage one piece of content has in holding your gaze.As a YouTuber, I also work to seize people's attention. I produce educational and socially positive content, but our systems aren't structured to value it. Our social media environment cannot reliably gauge how accurate something is. The algorithms only track whether you click or, on modern platforms, whether you continue watching what's presented to you.The problem is this: attention is not equivalent to comprehension. Often, the two are directly at odds. The outcome is a media landscape that carves the world into its most basic forms. Heroes versus villains. Panic versus certainty. Fear and a sense of superiority. Danger and outrage.Any piece of information processed by the social media machine of relevance inevitably emerges in a degraded state.Yet I've discovered a sliver of hope from a surprising source.In the 1890s, affordable printing and improved distribution didn't just increase newspaper access; they revolutionized the information economy. Expanding cities, higher literacy rates, advanced presses, telegraphs, railways, and a growing advertising sector created an environment where newspapers were no longer primarily rewarded for serving a loyal readership well. They were rewarded for growth. In a competitive mass market, growth frequently meant publishing more sensational, scandalous, and emotionally charged stories. What captured attention? Crime, vice, corruption, foreign threats, and societal breakdown. It was a potent technology, unleashed without robust social norms to guide it. Meanwhile, press magnates like Hearst and Pulitzer amassed enormous fortunes.But this period of "yellow journalism" wasn't permanent. It flared intensely, distorted motivations, caused genuine harm, and then, gradually, the public started to value trustworthiness. People grew weary of the sensationalism. Newspapers, in turn, began concentrating on establishing reputable brands.This past shows us that a market for truth always exists. There is a market for avoiding manipulation. There is a market for information that remains valuable after the first emotional shock fades.I am convinced this pattern will recur. Today, people are exhausted by AI-generated junk and falsehoods. The digital social contract has been shattered. They were promised connection, knowledge, and empowerment by the internet. Instead, many feel controlled, divided, and numb.So when I express continued faith in the internet's positive potential, I'm not saying all is well. I'm saying I see an opening.The opening is to construct institutions, economic models, and platforms where credibility regains its competitive edge. Certainly, such organizations already operate. But new ones are also forming. To create a better internet, we require commitment from three parties. First, content creators like myself. Whether you are a podcaster, comedian, journalist, or editor, building a sustainable business means resisting the pressure to reduce everything to a spectacle. You might aim to be a supermarket tabloid, but that strikes me as a poor long-term strategy. Discover a way to provide genuine value, or face the fallout.Second, social media companies must acknowledge their recommendation engines are not impartial. They are the machinery that constructs our shared reality. Designing them to prioritize certainty, conflict, and outrage over truth, comprehension, and context is an act of building an inferior world.Finally, we who cherish the internet must seek out media experiences where we maintain our own choice. Do not surrender your autonomy completely to algorithms. Decide for yourself what merits your focus. Everyone has a part to play, and we are not obligated to passively accept whatever is fed to us.I do not romanticize the old media system. It had many failures. I don't wish to return to it. But I also don't believe our current digital media landscape is the final stage. Our options are not limited to the old gatekeepers or an endless stream of algorithmic garbage. We have the capacity to create anew. To build improvements. We can establish institutions born of the internet yet not enslaved to its most destructive impulses.This era of exploitation is the start of something improved, but it won't assemble on its own. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished on Oct. 23, 2025 in Washington, D.C. —Eric Lee—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - President Donald Trump is defending the growing cost of his White House ballroom project after estimated costs to complete its construction have nearly doubled.In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump acknowledged that the construction project’s price tag has gone up from around $200 million to “something less than 400.” But he claimed that the end result “will be magnificent, safe, and secure.”“The only reason the cost has changed is because, after deep rooted studies, it is approximately twice the size, and a far higher quality, than the original proposal, which would not have been adequate to handle the necessary events, meetings, and even future Inaugurations,” Trump said. “This was a necessary change, it was done long ago, but the Fake News failed to report it, trying to make it look like there was a cost overrun. Actually, it is coming in ahead of schedule, and under budget!”The President’s post comes after Senate Republicans included a stipulation in a funding bill for immigration enforcement that they are seeking to push through, in which they allocate $1 billion “for the purposes of security adjustments and upgrades, including within the perimeter fence of the White House Compound to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.” The bill does not explicitly name Trump's proposed ballroom. A separate bill put forth by a group of GOP senators, led by Lindsey Graham, proposed providing $400 million in funding for the ballroom project, which would be offset by customs fees.Trump previously said that the project would be funded by private donations.Democrats have pushed back on the ballroom project. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it a “vanity project that resulted from the destruction that was unauthorized of the East Wing of the White House.”On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed his opposition to the funding package that Republicans are seeking to pass, which includes the $1 billion for White House security enhancements.“Republicans are on a different planet than American families,” Schumer said in a post on X. “Republicans looked at families drowning in bills and decided what they really needed was more raids and a Trump ballroom.”The Administration began tearing down the White House’s East Wing in October, in order to begin construction on the President’s ballroom project.In December, a preservation group filed a legal challenge against the project, arguing that the construction was unlawful. In March, a judge ruled that the Administration had to halt construction until Congress authorizes the initiative—but that some work could continue if it was “necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.”The President and members of his Administration have responded by arguing that the project will enhance security measures, particularly because it includes a large military complex underneath the ballroom that will replace the Presidential Emergency Operations Center—a secure underground bomb shelter that was built during World War II.“The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what’s being built under the military, including from drones and including from any other thing,” Trump told reporters on March 29. He added that the ballroom would have “high grade bulletproof glass.”On March 31, he told reporters that, per the judge’s ruling, the Administration was “allowed to continue building as necessary to cover the safety and security of the White House and its grounds.”“Well, that’s what we’re doing, because everything’s bulletproof glass, etc. etc., including the ballroom,” the President said. “We have bio defense all over. We have secure telecommunications and communications all over. We have bomb shelters that we’re building. We have a hospital and very major medical facilities that we’re building. We have all of these things, so that’s called: I’m allowed to continue building as necessary.”Administration officials have disclosed little else about the underground portion of the project. White House director of management and administration, Joshua Fisher, said at a National Capital Planning Commission meeting earlier this year that “there are some things regarding this project that are, frankly, of top-secret nature that we are currently working on.”After the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ dinner in April, Trump and Republican lawmakers reiterated their claims that the ballroom project is important for security purposes, with some suggesting that Congress provide the $400 million needed to fund its construction. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Margaret Atwood photographed at Detroit Opera House on January 26, 2026 —Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - Warning: Spoilers ahead for The TestamentsHulu’s six-season adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s celebrated 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale became a symbol of opposition to Donald Trump during his first presidential term. As for how its sequel series, The Testaments, loosely adapted from Atwood’s 2019 best-selling book of the same name, will resonate with audiences under Trump’s second administration, “that’s not up to me,” the 86-year-old author tells TIME. “Readers and viewers will decide for themselves what it represents.”The Testaments, now available on Hulu, continues four years after the events of The Handmaid’s Tale’s 2025 finale. In that episode, protagonist June Osborne (Elisabeth Moss), known as the titular handmaid, escapes the totalitarian theocracy that forced her into sexual servitude for infertile couples but vows to continue fighting for those still trapped within, including her teenage daughter, Hannah—now known as Agnes MacKenzie after being adopted by a prominent Gilead commander a decade earlier.The Testaments TV series offers a young-adult perspective on the world of women in this hyper-patriarchal society, following Agnes (Chase Infiniti), a wide-eyed teenager navigating high school, growing hormones, and arranged marriages alongside her friends. Among them is Daisy (Lucy Halliday), a vengeful Canadian teen recently brought into Gilead who shares ties with June.At its core, the speculative series centers on “someone on the inside deciding they want to bring down the system,” says Atwood. That individual is Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd), who, as revealed in the final season of The Handmaid’s Tale, transitioned from a ruthless enforcer of the regime to a covert operative for the resistance.Below, Atwood discusses the show’s themes of rebellion and its commentary on traditional wife culture.Ann Dowd and Chase Infiniti in 'The Testaments' —Courtesy of HuluTIME: You’ve stated you wrote The Testaments to illustrate what happens when a totalitarian regime collapses from within. What can the book—and now the TV show—teach us about organized rebellion?Atwood: There is extensive literature on resistance movements and people actively involved in them. One of the major narratives of the 20th century—and likely one of the defining stories of the 21st century—involves double agents or individuals working from within to dismantle corrupt systems. That’s exactly what Aunt Lydia becomes.In one episode, we learn how Lydia transformed into the most influential Aunt turned mole within Gilead. Do you view her as an anti-hero or a villain?Oh, “this is good,” “that’s bad”—it’s rarely so black-and-white. Most of us exist somewhere in between. It’s also true that well-intentioned actions can lead to harmful consequences.The story focuses on girls being groomed to become wives of Gilead’s most powerful men. They’re taught how to appear prim and proper while serving the perfect cup of tea. Are you familiar with the online subculture of trad wives?Oh yes. But when someone refers to a “trad wife,” they’re not talking about women in the 19th century. Back then, if you were a farmer, you needed a wife—someone to cook, garden, raise chickens, quilt. These were modest roles, requiring practical skills like repurposing every scrap of fabric. That’s very different from what modern self-identified trad wives believe they’re doing.How would you describe what they’re doing today?Well, it’s rather like Marie Antoinette pretending to be a milkmaid—it’s not authentic rural life. While some trad wives do engage in certain domestic tasks, they are far removed from running a 19th-century household. Most trad wives live comfortably in financially stable families; otherwise, they couldn’t afford the lifestyle.The message of The Testaments is that “there’s nothing more powerful than a teenage girl.” Yet most women don’t fully grasp their own power during adolescence until later in life. Is there something you wish you had known as a teenager that you learned only later?I don’t know. Many of the choices I made, a sensible person wouldn’t have made them. Deciding at age 16 to become a writer—especially in Canada, where no visible writers existed at the time—was unusual. So where did that drive come from? I think ignorance often protects you: if I’d known how difficult it could be or what the odds were, I probably wouldn’t have pursued it.Maybe ignorance truly is bliss.It can be. Willful ignorance differs from simply not knowing things—a common phase of adolescence, when you test ideas to see if they fit. The notion that you can be anything you want isn’t accurate. I couldn’t have been a ballerina—I get dizzy just turning.What’s the best part about being in your 80s?Friends and family. One important piece of advice: cultivate younger friendships. A lot of your older friends will pass away—they won’t be around forever. If you don’t make new, younger connections, you’ll end up quite alone. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

(SeaPRwire) -—Photo-Illustration by Nadia Radic for TIME This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Pope Leo XIV attends the weekly general audience at St. Peter's Square in Vatican City on May 6, 2026. —Massimo Valicchia––NurPhoto/Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - Pope Leo has rebuffed recent criticisms from President Donald Trump, asserting that neither he nor the Catholic Church endorses nuclear armaments, and urged his detractors to maintain honesty in their remarks.The American-born pontiff made these comments following President Trump’s claim that the Pope’s position regarding the war in Iran is “endangering Catholics and a lot of people.”“But I guess it's up to the Pope. He thinks it's just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” the President stated during a Monday interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.However, while departing the papal retreat at Castel Gandolfo on Tuesday evening, Leo countered the White House, stating that the “mission of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel, to preach peace.”“If someone wants to criticize me for proclaiming the Gospel, let him do so truthfully,” he remarked.“For years, the Church has spoken out against all nuclear weapons, so there is no doubt on that point,” he added.The Pope reiterated the necessity of prioritizing dialogue over the escalation of conflict.“I always believe that it is much better to enter into dialogue, than to look for arms, and to support the arms industry, which gains billions and billions of dollars each year,” he said.Leo has been a vocal opponent of Trump’s war with Iran, consistently advocating for a strategy rooted in diplomacy and communication.These critiques have provoked Trump’s frustration, with the President labeling the pontiff “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy” after Leo advocated for a peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict.Steve Millies, a professor of Public Theology at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, noted to TIME that Leo’s perspective carries significant weight as the first American-born Pope.“Pope Leo has poked at the vulnerability of this Administration's argument for the war in Iran. Everyone in the world can see that the Administration didn't really make the case before the war. We can see that the war does not satisfy the criteria for a just war,” he stated.Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with the Holy See on May 7 at the Vatican to address various topics, including the Middle East conflict.When asked on Tuesday if the visit was intended to mend relations with the Pope following Trump’s remarks, Rubio denied the claim.“No, I mean, it’s a trip we had planned from before,” Rubio stated during a White House press briefing.Regarding Trump’s assertion that the pontiff was “endangering Catholics,” Rubio maintained that the President was not targeting the Pope personally.“What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics, and Christians, and others,” Rubio explained.Millies noted that the visit is crucial for preserving ties between Washington and the Holy See.“As a general matter, a new Administration always wants to make sure that this relationship is intact,” he explained. “The Holy See doesn't have a lot of physical power, it can't wage a war, it doesn't command an enormous amount of money, but the Church is everywhere, and diplomatically, the Holy See is very important even for a power like the United States.”Trump’s criticism of the Pope, alongside a now-removed AI-generated image portraying himself in a Jesus-like manner, has sparked backlash among conservatives and Christians.U.S. President Donald Trump and an AI-generated picture he posted on his Truth Social platform, seemingly depicting himself as Jesus Christ. —Mandel Ngan—Getty ImagesA survey conducted in late April revealed that 87% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s post, while 66% expressed support for Leo’s calls for a peaceful resolution.Millies suggests that Trump likely believes many Catholic voters—a group he won by 12 points in the 2024 Presidential election—will remain politically loyal despite the friction with the Pope.“I do think there are Catholics for whom that's going to work, but for most Catholics, having the President of the United States attack the Pope over and over in this pointed way, pushes a button. It excites a reaction, and the reaction is not one that's going to play well for President Trump or for the Republican Party,” he said.Leo, who celebrates his first anniversary as Pope this Friday, expressed hope that his meeting with Rubio would foster “a good dialogue,” conducted “with trust and openness,” to facilitate mutual understanding.Millies also highlighted that the visit serves as a political opportunity for Rubio, who is widely considered a potential Republican Presidential candidate for 2028.“Rubio's performance on this trip is something to watch closely, not only as the role of Secretary of State in trying to turn the temperature down and making it a little easier for Catholics to line up with the Republican Party," he noted. "But also important, from Rubio's point of view, to note the contrast with how JD Vance pedantically lectured the Pope about theology.” This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

(SeaPRwire) -Hailey Bieber, founder and chief creative officer of Rhode, photographed on March 30, 2026. —Kanya Iwana for TIME This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

(SeaPRwire) - In 2016, Sundar Pichai informed his employees that Google would become an “AI-first company.” At the time, the announcement seemed either insignificant or overly ambitious, especially since Google’s core business centered on internet search and advertising, where AI investments appeared disconnected from its primary operations. However, by 2022, when OpenAI launched a highly publicized chatbot and Anthropic soon followed, Google again appeared behind the curve. The initial outcomes of Pichai’s strategy to close that gap were, frankly, disappointing.This January, Alphabet—Google’s parent company—achieved a market capitalization of $4 trillion, making it only the fourth company in history to reach that milestone. Gemini, Google’s flagship AI product, now accounts for approximately one-quarter of global AI traffic, up from nearly 6% at the beginning of 2025. What initially appeared to be a misstep ultimately became a defining chapter in the narrative Pichai began outlining over a decade ago.This sixth edition of TIME100 Companies—led by Emma Barker Bonomo; our largest list yet, featuring 205 companies across 20 sectors—explores this kind of transformative storytelling. A central theme running through this year’s selections is the power of narrative: the capacity of both a company and its leader to present a vision compelling enough to inspire others, and to sustain that message long enough for the broader world to fully embrace it.The three leaders featured on our covers exemplify this principle.Click here to buy your copy of this issueFor Pichai, success stemmed from unwavering conviction—a bold long-term bet that persisted until the industry finally recognized its value. For Hailey Bieber, founder of Rhode, the act of crafting stories was itself the product. Before even launching a single skincare product, she established a media platform on YouTube, programming her channel with the same strategic approach as a traditional network, according to collaborator Michael D. Ratner. Shortly after Rhode’s sale to E.l.f. Beauty in mid-2025—a deal valued up to $1 billion—the brand secured Sephora’s most significant debut in North America and the U.K. “We emphasize storytelling,” Bieber says. “We invite you into an entire universe.” As for Jimmy Donaldson—better known as MrBeast on YouTube—his ability to construct engaging narratives forms the foundation of his business model. Beast Industries, now valued at over $5 billion, employs more than 750 people and is expanding into a TV show, a payments platform, a snack line, and additional ventures. His team is positioning him as a modern-day Walt Disney fused with Mickey Mouse; Donaldson believes this comparison may actually undersell his ambitions: “If I shared some of the projects I hope to pursue 10 or 20 years from now, people would think I’m completely out of my mind.”While the companies on this list differ greatly in size, age, and sector, they share one common trait: the ability to convey a story persuasive enough to attract followers and supporters.Our focus on corporate leadership has intensified since we first introduced TIME100 Companies. Today, through newsletters such as In the Loop and Future Proof With Justin Worland, interview series like The Leadership Brief, and initiatives including TIME100 Philanthropy, we continue to engage with business leaders because they are increasingly shaping the direction of our world.As we identify the next generation of companies poised to reshape daily life, we will not overlook the critical role of effective storytelling.See the full list hereRead about the TIME100 Companies: Industry Leaders here:The 10 Most Influential New Frontier Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Hardware Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential AI Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Software Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Health Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Wellness Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Media and Communications Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Food and Drink Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Retail Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Finance Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Entertainment Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Fashion and Beauty Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Travel and Tourism Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Transportation Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Energy Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Education Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Sustainability Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Design and Build Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Manufacturing and Logistics Companies of 2026The 10 Most Influential Social Good Companies of 2026 This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

—Boris Zhitkov—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - AI large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini are rapidly advancing at synthesizing medical information, and consumers are flocking to them for health advice. Amazon Health AI now offers Prime members personalized guidance that can interpret labs. And in Utah, a startup called Doctronic has been cleared to autonomously renew prescriptions via an AI bot—a first.These tools help fill a real gap left by physician shortages and long waits for specialist care. That makes two things worth knowing: how to choose an AI tool, and how to use it well.First, a word on privacy. When you type symptoms into an AI chatbot, you hand over health information to a company not bound by the medical privacy laws your doctor’s office follows. Symptoms combined with your IP address and account details can create identifiable health information, but when entered into a chatbot, those data are typically governed by the company’s privacy policy rather than HIPAA. That is the fundamental trade: privacy risk in exchange for fast, personalized advice. Go in with eyes open, and avoid full names, birthdates, and street addresses; change your age slightly; and for clinical trial searches, an adjacent ZIP code will do.Start with the tool itself. The major consumer chatbots are not interchangeable. A 2025 Duke study graded ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and Perplexity on its advice about a common back-pain condition against clinical practice guidelines and found meaningful variation among them. Similar gaps appear across other medical tasks and domains. AI bots purpose-built for answering health queries, such as OpenEvidence, ChatGPT Health, and Amazon Health AI, may provide more evidence-based answers than a free chatbot.Once you have settled on a tool, here are five tips to get the most out of your query.Stress test the answerAsk about any controversies or conflicting findings around its advice. Researchers have shown that language models are sycophantic by nature, often agreeing with whatever framing you feed them. A worried patient gets reassured; a self-diagnosing patient gets validated. Push back the way a good doctor pushes back on a colleague. If the chatbot says your symptoms are probably nothing, reply: “I am still worried. Give me two alternative explanations, and explain why each is plausible.” A good tool will generate a real differential diagnosis—the same kind your physician runs through silently during a visit.Ask for two high-impact articles or consensus guidelinesRequest references from a clinical guideline, expert consensus statement, or systematic review published in a top-tier medical journal like the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or the Lancet—then paste each title into a search engine to confirm the paper is real, recent, and says what the chatbot claims. Rigorous studies have shown that LLMs occasionally fabricate plausible-sounding citations, a failure mode called hallucination. An AI answer that does not cite credible sources is not one to act on.Ask the same question three different waysThese models are probabilistic, not deterministic; the answer to a question depends on exactly how you asked it. A study on osteoarthritis found that LLM recommendations varied widely with minor changes in prompt phrasing. Vary how you describe your symptoms (“fever” becomes “running a temperature”) and time course. If advice is consistent across framings, trust it more; if it swings wildly, bring the question to a clinician. A recent Oxford study made this vivid: two participants described the same condition, but one used the phrase “the worst headache ever” and was told to go to the ER, while the other who described a “terrible headache” was told to take aspirin and stay home.Be complete and honest, just as you would with your doctorThe quality of the AI bot's advice depends on the level of detail you input, and chatbots, like clinicians, are not mind readers. The more information you include on your medical history, lab tests, medications, and lifestyle habits, the more personalized the answer will be. Do not minimize and do not embellish, or you risk getting a confident-sounding but suboptimal answer.Use it to prepare for your doctorEnd your session by asking, “What are the three most important questions I should ask my doctor at my next visit?” That turns the chatbot from a substitute for care into something that augments the therapeutic alliance between you and your care team. Print out a summary of its responses. Patients who come in prepared get more out of their 15-minute appointments, and most doctors are grateful for a patient with clear questions of their own.If you can use these tools smartly, there are real benefits, including 24/7 access to vast information, greater agency in your own care, less embarrassment or stigma, and better quality of care.Regardless, no matter how satisfied you are with AI's answers, bear in mind that AI bots are not (yet) proven to substitute for an expert doctor's care. Equally important, a chatbot does not worry about your wellbeing the way a doctor might—which is important, since the best healers combine technical skills with moral judgment and empathy. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

Ted Turner speaking at the 2nd Annual Social Good Summit in New York city on Sept. 19, 2011. —Najlah Feanny - Corbis via Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - Ted Turner, who revolutionized television news by launching CNN as the world's first 24-hour cable news network, passed away at the age of 87.His death was confirmed through a statement issued by Turner Enterprises, which revealed that he died surrounded by his family. “He charmed people he met with his warmth and general lack of conceit, despite his many successes and celebrity,” the statement read. “Ted was an intensely involved and committed leader, intrepid, fearless and always willing to back a hunch and trust his own judgment,” said CNN CEO Mark Thompson on Wednesday. “He was and always will be the presiding spirit of CNN.”President Donald Trump described the CNN founder as “one of the greats of all time” in a post on Truth Social following the announcement. The President called Turner “a friend of mine. Whenever I needed him, he was there, always willing to fight for a good cause.”Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1938, Turner relocated with his family to Georgia, where he later established CNN in Atlanta. During a period of global change, CNN broadcast major events including the collapse of the Soviet Union and the First Gulf War, earning Turner TIME’s Man of the Year in 1991 for “influencing the dynamic of events and turning viewers in 150 countries into instant witnesses of history.”Turner founded the network in 1980 and expanded with more channels, including CNN Headline News, CNN International, and Cartoon Network, in the years that followed. The media giant also launched TBS and TNT, which continue to have international audiences today. Turner suffered from Lewy body dementiaIn 2018, Turner disclosed in an interview with CBS that he was battling Lewy body dementia, a progressive brain disorder that affects memory and other cognitive functions, and which impacts over 1 million Americans. In January of last year, Turner was hospitalized with a mild case of pneumonia.Beyond his contributions to the media industry, the philanthropist also established the Turner Foundation, dedicated to environmental conservation and described by Turner Enterprises as being focused on “safeguarding habitats, bettering communities, sustainable living, and environmental protection.”Building on his dedication to conservation, Turner owned approximately 2 million acres of land, making him one of the largest landowners in North America. Across ranches throughout the U.S., Turner implemented sustainable water and timber management practices, as well as fishing, hunting, and the reintroduction of native species. In 1998, the media mogul founded the United Nations Foundation, an independent charity collaborating with the U.N. on global initiatives. The previous year, he had pledged $1 billion to the U.N. to support its programs. This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at The Villages Charter School in The Villages, Florida, on May 1, 2026 —Roberto Schmidt—Getty Images(SeaPRwire) - President Donald Trump announced that the United States would suspend its mission to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz just one day after its launch, aiming to facilitate ongoing peace negotiations with Iran.The initiative, known as "Project Freedom," oversaw the passage of two commercial vessels out of the Strait on Monday. This occurred amid renewed hostilities between the warring nations despite a fragile cease-fire. The U.S.-Iran cease-fire, originally set to expire two weeks after beginning on April 8, was indefinitely extended on April 21. Iran had previously warned that any U.S. interference in the Strait would constitute a violation of the cease-fire agreement.Since early March, Iran has militarized the Strait in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli military operations, permitting only vessels with its authorization to pass through. This restriction has disrupted global shipping, causing oil and gas prices to surge and increasing commodity costs worldwide. The situation is expected to persist, especially as Iran intends to maintain control over the Strait beyond the conflict. More than 20,000 sailors aboard approximately 1,600 vessels remain stranded in the region. According to the International Maritime Organization, at least 10 sailors have been killed since the start of the war."Based on the request of Pakistan and other countries, the tremendous military success we have achieved during our campaign against Iran, and the significant progress made toward a comprehensive and final agreement with Iranian representatives, we have mutually agreed that while the blockade will remain fully effective, Project Freedom (the movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be temporarily paused to determine whether an agreement can be finalized and signed," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday.Trump's announcement followed a suspected Iranian attack that damaged a South Korean cargo ship. The U.S. military reported sinking seven Iranian patrol boats. The United Arab Emirates and Oman also alleged Iranian strikes on their territories on Monday, with the UAE intercepting additional attacks on Tuesday. Iranian state media denied U.S. claims of destroying Iranian vessels and instead accused the U.S. of attacking civilian ships and killing five civilians in the Strait. Iran stated its forces fired "warning shots" at U.S. vessels in the Strait but did not publicly confirm attacks on the South Korean ship or Oman. Iran also denied striking the UAE but warned that any future actions against Iranian islands and ports based on false statements would result in a severe and crushing response from the Iranian Armed Forces.Trump 'wants a deal'Trump administration officials appear determined to prevent further escalation with Iran that could deepen U.S. involvement in the Middle East. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated the cease-fire remains "not over," while Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared the conclusion of the two-month-long military operation dubbed Operation Epic Fury. Rubio indicated the U.S. has now transitioned to a "defensive" posture focused on restoring shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.Earlier on Tuesday, Trump declined to specify what Iranian actions would violate the cease-fire. "They know what to do," he said, "and more importantly, they know what not to do." On Monday, Trump reportedly threatened that Iran would be "blown off the face of the Earth" if it attacked U.S. ships, echoing his previous threats to destroy an entire civilization if Iran refused to open the Strait.It remains unclear whether the U.S. has alternative plans to reopen the Strait while "Project Freedom" is suspended. However, Trump confirmed the weeks-long naval blockade of Iranian ports will continue. This blockade has significantly impacted Iran's energy exports, which are crucial to its economy already weakened before the war. Millions of Iranians are experiencing soaring inflation and lost income as jobs are eliminated or temporarily halted."Project Freedom" reportedly replaced a more aggressive strategy previously considered by Trump to forcefully reopen the Strait and resume full-scale war if Iran retaliated against Gulf countries, as it appears to have done. However, Trump ultimately chose what officials described as a defensive "humanitarian" approach to "guide" commercial vessels by stationing U.S. Navy ships "in the vicinity" rather than directly escorting them through the Strait."The president wants action," an American official told Axios. "He doesn't want to sit still. He wants pressure. He wants a deal."The U.S. and Iran have been engaged in indirect negotiations since the first round of marathon talks collapsed and a subsequent in-person meeting stalled. Key unresolved issues include the U.S. demand for Iran to abandon its nuclear program and Iran's insistence on maintaining control over the Strait. Iran previously cited Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon as justification for keeping the Strait closed.While Trump has indicated progress in negotiations, U.S. officials told Axios the outcome remains uncertain."There are talks. There are offers. We don't like theirs. They don't like ours. We still don't know the status of the [Supreme Leader]," an official said. "And they're carrying messages by hand to caves or wherever he or whoever is hiding. It slows the process down. It's either we're looking at the real contours of an achievable deal soon, or he's going to bomb the hell out of them." This article is provided by a third-party content provider. SeaPRwire (https://www.seaprwire.com/) makes no warranties or representations regarding its content. Category: Top News, Daily News SeaPRwire provides global press release distribution services for companies and organizations, covering more than 6,500 media outlets, 86,000 editors and journalists, and over 3.5 million end-user desktop and mobile apps. SeaPRwire supports multilingual press release distribution in English, Japanese, German, Korean, French, Russian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more.