Connect with us

The Conversation

Civil servants brace for a second Trump presidency

Published

on

theconversation.com – Jaime L Kucinskas, Associate Professor of Sociology, Hamilton College – 2025-01-16 09:07:00

Government workers worry they may not know where the perils lie as they do their jobs.
z_wei/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Jaime L Kucinskas, Hamilton College

On the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president of the United States, some people who work for the federal government are concerned.

Trump and his allies have repeatedly promised to dismantle the administrative state and fire those they perceive as disloyal. Trump’s former – and likely future – director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, for example, has threatened to “put bureaucrats in trauma.” That includes the possibility of weakening rules meant to protect public servants from political interference.

Amid these threats and loyalty tests used to vet potential appointees, many career civil servants fear that they may end up in ethical binds, caught between the instructions of their bosses and their duty to serve the American people.

During the first Trump presidency, I spoke with 66 career civil servants working across agencies, including in some of the most contested parts of the government. I tracked their experiences and challenges over the course of the administration from 2017 until 2020, doing 116 interviews in all. These form the basis for my forthcoming book, “The Loyalty Trap.” This work identified some of the ways longtime government workers managed to stay sane, keep their jobs and continue to serve the American people.

Maintaining quality work

As happened during Trump’s first term, government employees are being advised by experienced colleagues to “stay calm and keep their head down,” as The Washington Post reported. Some are already trying to protect potentially politicized work. For instance, they are trying to revise job titles that use terms such as diversity or climate. They aim to use words less likely to be targeted by the incoming administration, referring more obliquely to climate change and civil and human rights protections.

A person standing on a signpost with two arrows, surrounded by confusing arrows on the ground.
In the first Trump administration, federal workers said they had trouble discerning clear instructions from the political appointees they served under.
erhui1979/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

This pressure is real: During Trump’s first presidency, a number of federal civil servants I talked to described their mental health declining, and declining morale, productivity and innovation at work.

Among a sizable proportion of the people I spoke with, the pressures at work became too much; about a quarter of those I spoke with quit during the first Trump administration.

Those who stayed faced Trump appointees’ suspicion, threats of political retribution and sidelining of expert guidance. Many reported feeling quite alone. Nearly all sought to remain loyal to serving the presidential administration. But in the face of leadership’s threats and conflicting advice, some of which they said they believed could be potentially illegal, and without clear guidance from above, some workers became unable to do their jobs.

As one middle-aged midlevel manager told me when a senior employee in his agency was removed from her position after some Trump allies publicly criticized work in the agency, “They found someone to punish. And that obviously had a very chilling effect on everyone.” The manager said it’s “terrifying” to see people who may have lost their jobs simply because they did those jobs properly.

Under these conditions, he said, helping appointees sometimes meant “just doing little, quite frankly … just doing what’s necessary, and it means waiting to help educate folks about what their options are as we go forward, as opposed to getting too fired up about things. Because it’s safer.”

He also noted the binds midlevel employees faced as appointees fought over policy agendas levels above them. The appointees, he said, “want things which are in direct contradiction of each other … and so I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t know what all this stuff means.”

Being stuck in such chaotic situations made this employee feel trapped between choosing to be “a slick salesman and come out of it looking good,” but then facing “unintended consequences down the line.” Or, “You could also be not a slick salesman, have trouble now, but maybe no unintended consequences down the line. So take your pick, and neither of them sound very great.”

Some career civil servants avoided sharing their woes and challenges with each other, not wanting to burden others facing difficult situations as well or fail to uphold their own professional standards. As one lawyer working in international affairs told me, “There’s no point in really commiserating – everybody has their particular burden to carry – and a lot more just frustration that normal processes just aren’t working.”

Yet, even among those who felt most alone, I found they had many experiences in common with others who also felt isolated in trying to walk a precarious moral and ethical tightrope between their desire to faithfully serve the elected president – under chaotic leadership and insufficient and sometimes questionably legal guidance – and do quality work upholding the law and benefiting the nation and the American public.

A person standing with many items flying in circles around them.
Federal workers reported their mental health declined amid chaos at work.
VectorMine/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Keeping government functioning

Some civil servants said they tried to keep their departments running smoothly by doing their work as they had been doing before the Trump administration. In light of conflicts between appointees, Trump family members, the president and other Trump allies with unspecified roles, some waited to receive formal orders from authorized supervisors. Fearing retribution, they waited rather than anticipating guidance – as they might have done under leaders with more clear directives who fostered more workplace trust, communication and adhered to organizational structures.

Civil servants also emphasized the importance of documenting illegal behavior and other gross ethical transgressions witnessed at work, even if they chose not to share their records at the time. When they felt that they were in more psychologically safe working conditions under different leadership, or that they could help hold others accountable for illegal or inappropriate behavior, some reported them to official channels such as their department’s inspector general’s office or to congressional oversight committee staff.

Some of those in the most politicized parts of the government emphasized trying to maintain islands of functioning even in seas of disarray. One senior leader spoke of trying to maintain the “overall footprint of the program” and “strong staff,” even as he adhered to instructions from the administration to reduce the scale of their work.

Those who seemed to manage the best, in the most chaotic and politicized locations in the government, reported having strong interpersonal connections within their units, as well as outside the government. They reported being able to maintain their moral and ethical integrity at work thanks to support from supervisors, mentors and colleagues with shared commitments to the public, democracy, agency missions, the law and the Constitution. Some reported the importance of maintaining their personal moral compass by doing local volunteer work, through support from their families and friends, and participation in religious organizations.

When their values and commitments contrasted with the first Trump administration’s agenda, some civil servants reported trying to speak up to superiors and elicit more feedback before decisions were made. A few reported slow-walking work they thought was harmful to the public or to the nation’s best interests. In general, though, after appointees made decisions, civil servants said they did their best to respect and support them and the elected president.The Conversation

Jaime L Kucinskas, Associate Professor of Sociology, Hamilton College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Civil servants brace for a second Trump presidency appeared first on theconversation.com

The Conversation

If FEMA didn’t exist, could states handle the disaster response alone?

Published

on

theconversation.com – Ming Xie, Assistant Professor of Emergency Management and Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore County – 2025-02-10 07:45:00

If FEMA didn’t exist, could states handle the disaster response alone?

Hurricane Ian caused widespread damage in Florida in 2022, estimated at over $112 billion. This scene was once a shopping center.
Giorgio Veira/AFP via Getty Images

Ming Xie, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Imagine a world in which a hurricane devastates the Gulf Coast, and the U.S. has no federal agency prepared to quickly send supplies, financial aid and temporary housing assistance.

Could the states manage this catastrophic event on their own?

Normally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as FEMA, is prepared to marshal supplies within hours of a disaster and begin distributing financial aid to residents who need help.

However, with President Donald Trump questioning FEMA’s future and suggesting states take over recovery instead, and climate change causing more frequent and severe disasters, it’s worth asking how prepared states are to face these growing challenges without help.

What FEMA does

FEMA was created in 1979 with the job of coordinating national responses to disasters, but the federal government has played important roles in disaster relief since the 1800s.

During a disaster, FEMA’s assistance can begin only after a state requests an emergency declaration and the U.S. president approves it. The request has to show that the disaster is so severe that the state can’t handle the response on its own.

FEMA’s role is to support state and local governments by coordinating federal agencies and providing financial aid and recovery assistance that states would otherwise struggle to supply on their own. FEMA doesn’t “take over,” as a misinformation campaign launched during Hurricane Helene claimed. Instead, it pools federal resources to allow states to recover faster from expensive disasters.

During a disaster, FEMA:

  • Coordinates federal resources. For example, during Hurricane Ian in 2022, FEMA coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Defense and search-and-rescue teams to conduct rescue operations, organized utility crews to begin restoring power and also delivered water and millions of meals.

  • Provides financial assistance. FEMA distributes billions of dollars in disaster relief funds to help individuals, businesses and local governments recover. As of Feb. 3, 2025, FEMA aid from 2024 storms included US$1.04 billion related to Hurricane Milton, $416.1 million for Hurricane Helene and $112.6 million for Hurricane Debby.

  • Provides logistical support. FEMA coordinates with state and local governments, nonprofits such as the American Red Cross and federal agencies to supply cots, blankets and hygiene supplies for emergency shelters. It also works with state and local partners to distribute critical supplies such as food, water and medical aid.

The agency also manages the National Flood Insurance Program, offers disaster preparedness training and helps states develop response plans to improve their overall responses systems.

What FEMA aid looks like in a disaster

When wildfires swept through Maui, Hawaii, in August 2023, FEMA provided emergency grants to cover immediate needs such as food, clothing and essential supplies for survivors.

The agency arranged hotel rooms, rental assistance and financial aid for residents who lost homes or belongings. Its Direct Housing Program has spent $295 million to lease homes for more than 1,200 households. This comprehensive support helped thousands of people begin rebuilding their lives after losing almost everything.

FEMA also helped fund construction of a temporary school to ensure that students whose schools burned could continue their classes. Hawaii, with its relatively small population and limited emergency funds, would have struggled to mount a comparable response on its own.

A man wearing a T-shirt with the state seal of Hawaii speaks with reporters, standing next to a woman with 'FEMA' on her cap and shirt with ocean and burned properties behind them.
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, center, and then-FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell speak to reporters in Lahaina, Hawaii, on Aug. 12, 2023, while assessing the wildfire damage there.
AP Photo/Rick Bowmer

Larger states often need help, too. When a 2021 winter storm overwhelmed Texas’ power grid and water infrastructure, FEMA coordinated the delivery of essential supplies, including water, fuel, generators and blankets, following the disaster declaration on Feb. 19, 2021. Within days, it awarded more than $2.8 million in grants to help people with temporary housing and home repairs.

Which states would suffer most without FEMA?

Without FEMA or other federal support, states would have to manage the disaster response and recovery on their own.

States prone to frequent disasters, such as Louisiana and Florida, would face expensive recurring challenges that would likely exacerbate recovery delays and reduce their overall resilience.

Smaller, more rural and less wealthy states that lack the financial resources and logistical capabilities to respond effectively would be disproportionately affected.

“States don’t have that capability built to handle a disaster every single year,” Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, told Stateline in an interview. Access to FEMA avoids the need for expensive disaster response infrastructure in each state.

States might be able to arrange regional cooperation. But state-led responses and regional models have limitations. The National Guard could assist with supply distribution, but it isn’t designed to provide fast financial aid, housing or long-term recovery options, and the supplies and the recovery effort still come at a cost.

A National Guard member walks in front of search and rescue vehicles.
Members of the National Guard and a FEMA search-and-rescue team work together in the disaster response after Hurricane Florence pounded Wilmington, N.C., in September 2018.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Wealthier states might be better equipped to manage on their own, but poorer states would likely struggle. States with less funding and infrastructure would be left relying on nonprofits and community-based efforts. But these organizations are not capable of providing the scope of services FEMA can.

Any federal funding would also be slow if Congress had to approve aid after each disaster, rather than having FEMA already prepared to respond. States would be at the mercy of congressional infighting.

In the absence of a federal response and coordinating role, recovery would be uneven, with wealthier areas recovering faster and poorer areas likely seeing more prolonged hardships.

What does this mean?

Coordinating disaster response is complex, the paperwork for federal assistance can be frustrating, and the agency does draw criticism. However, it also fills an important role.

As the frequency of natural disasters continues to rise due to climate change, ask yourself: How prepared is your state for a disaster, and could it get by without federal aid?The Conversation

Ming Xie, Assistant Professor of Emergency Management and Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post If FEMA didn’t exist, could states handle the disaster response alone? appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Here’s how researchers are helping AIs get their facts straight

Published

on

theconversation.com – Lu Wang, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan – 2025-02-10 07:44:00

Here’s how researchers are helping AIs get their facts straight

AI chatbots need help learning to give accurate answers.
CreativaImages/iStock via Getty Images

Lu Wang, University of Michigan

AI has made it easier than ever to find information: Ask ChatGPT almost anything, and the system swiftly delivers an answer. But the large language models that power popular tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude were not designed to be accurate or factual. They regularly “hallucinate” and offer up falsehoods as if they were hard facts.

Yet people are relying more and more on AI to answer their questions. Half of all people in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 22 now use AI to get information, according to a 2024 Harvard study. An analysis by The Washington Post found that more than 17% of prompts on ChatGPT are requests for information.

One way researchers are attempting to improve the information AI systems give is to have the systems indicate how confident they are in the accuracy of their answers. I’m a computer scientist who studies natural language processing and machine learning. My lab at the University of Michigan has developed a new way of deriving confidence scores that improves the accuracy of AI chatbot answers. But confidence scores can only do so much.

Popular and problematic

Leading technology companies are increasingly integrating AI into search engines. Google now offers AI Overviews that appear as text summaries above the usual list of links in any search result. Other upstart search engines, such as Perplexity, are challenging traditional search engines with their own AI-generated summaries.

The convenience of these summaries has made these tools very popular. Why scour the contents of multiple websites when AI can provide the most pertinent information in a few seconds?

AI tools seem to offer a smoother, more expedient avenue to getting information. But they can also lead people astray or even expose them to harmful falsehoods. My lab has found that even the most accurate AI models hallucinate in 25% of claims. This hallucination rate is concerning because other research suggests AI can influence what people think.

YouTube video
It bears emphasizing: AI chatbots are designed to sound good, not give accurate information.

Language models hallucinate because they learn and operate on statistical patterns drawn from a massive amount of text data, much of which comes from the internet. This means that they are not necessarily grounded in real-world facts. They also lack other human competencies, like common sense and the ability to distinguish between serious expressions and sarcastic ones.

All this was on display last spring, when a user asked Google’s AI Overviews tool to suggest a way to keep cheese from sliding off a pizza. The tool promptly recommended mixing the cheese with glue. It then came to light that someone had once posted this obviously tongue-in-cheek recommendation on Reddit. Like most large language models, Google’s model had likely been trained with information scraped from myriad internet sources, including Reddit. It then mistakenly interpreted this user’s joke as a genuine suggestion.

While most users wouldn’t take the glue recommendation seriously, some hallucinated information can cause real harm. AI search engines and chatbots have repeatedly been caught citing debunked, racist pseudoscience as fact. Last year, Perplexity AI stated that a police officer in California was guilty of a crime that he did not commit.

Showing confidence

Building AI systems that prioritize veracity is challenging, but not impossible. One way AI developers are approaching this problem is to design models that communicate their confidence in their answers. This typically comes in the form of a confidence score – a number indicating how likely it is that a model is providing accurate information. But estimating a model’s confidence in the content it provides is also a complicated task.

YouTube video
How confidence scores work in machine learning.

One common approach to making this estimate involves asking the model to repeatedly respond to a given query. If the model is reliable, it should generate similar answers to the same query. If it can’t answer consistently, the AI is likely lacking the information it needs to answer accurately. Over time, the results of these tests become the AI’s confidence scores for specific subject areas.

Other approaches evaluate AI accuracy by directly prompting and training models to state how confident they are in their answers. But this offers no real accountability. Allowing an AI to evaluate its own confidence leaves room for the system to give itself a passing grade and continue to offer false or harmful information.

My lab has designed algorithms that assign confidence scores by breaking down a large language model’s responses into individual claims that can be automatically cross-referenced with Wikipedia. We assess the semantic equivalence between the AI model’s output and the referenced Wikipedia entries for the assertions. Our approach allows the AI to quickly evaluate the accuracy of all its statements. Of course, relying on Wikipedia articles, which are usually but not always accurate, also has its limitations.

Publishing confidence scores along with a model’s answers could help people to think more critically about the veracity of information that these tools provide. A language model can also be trained to withhold information if it earns a confidence score that falls below a set threshold. My lab has also shown that confidence scores can be used to help AI models generate more accurate answers.

Limits of confidence

There’s still a long way to go to ensure truly accurate AI. Most of these approaches assume that the information needed to correctly evaluate an AI’s accuracy can be found on Wikipedia and other online databases.

But when accurate information is just not that easy to come by, confidence estimates can be misleading. To account for cases like these, Google has developed special mechanisms for evaluating AI-generated statements. My lab has similarly compiled a benchmarking dataset of prompts that commonly cause hallucinations.

But all these approaches verify basic facts – there are no automated methods for evaluating other facets of long-form content, such as cause-and-effect relationships or an AI’s ability to reason over text consisting of more than one sentence.

Developing tools that improve these elements of AI are key steps toward making the technology a source of trustworthy information – and avoid the harms that misinformation can cause.The Conversation

Lu Wang, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Here’s how researchers are helping AIs get their facts straight appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Why the price of your favorite chocolate will continue to rise

Published

on

theconversation.com – Narcisa Pricope, Professor of Geography and Land Systems Science and Associate Vice President for Research, Mississippi State University – 2025-02-10 07:44:00

Why the price of your favorite chocolate will continue to rise

Chocolate prices spiked amid very dry conditions in Africa.
Chuck Fishman/Getty Images

Narcisa Pricope, Mississippi State University

Valentine’s Day often conjures images of chocolates and romance. But the crop behind this indulgence faces an existential threat.

Regions like northeastern Brazil, one of the world’s notable cocoa-producing areas, are grappling with increasing aridity – a slow, yet unrelenting drying of the land. Cocoa is made from the beans of the cacao tree, which thrives in humid climates. The crop is struggling in these drying regions, and so are the farmers who grow it.

This is not just Brazil’s story. Across West Africa, where 70% of the world’s cacao is grown, and in the Americas and Southeast Asia, shifting moisture levels threaten the delicate balance required for production. These regions, home to vibrant ecosystems and global breadbaskets that feed the world, are on the frontlines of aridity’s slow but relentless advance.

A man in a baseball cap reaches for a large pod on a tree.
A farmer in Colombia holds a cacao pod, which holds the key ingredients for chocolate.
©2017CIAT/NeilPalmer, CC BY-NC-SA

Over the past 30 years, more than three-quarters of the Earth’s landmass has become drier. A recent report I helped coordinate for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification found that drylands now cover 41% of global land, an area that expanded by nearly 1.7 million square miles (4.3 million square kilometers) over those three decades — about half the size of Australia.

This creeping dryness is not just a climate phenomenon. It’s a long-term transformation that may be irreversible and that carries devastating consequences for ecosystems, agriculture and livelihoods worldwide.

What causes aridity?

Aridity, while often thought of as purely a climate phenomenon, is the result of a complex interplay among human-driven factors. These include greenhouse gas emissions, land use practices and the degradation of critical natural resources, such as soil and biodiversity.

These interconnected forces have been accelerating the transformation of once-productive landscapes into increasingly arid regions, with consequences that ripple across ecosystems and economies.

Greenhouse gas emissions: A global catalyst

Human-induced climate change is the primary driver of rising aridity.

Greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, increase global temperatures. Rising temperatures, in turn, cause moisture to evaporate at a faster rate. This heightened evaporation reduces soil and plant moisture, exacerbating water scarcity – even in regions with moderate rainfall.

Aridity began accelerating globally in the 1950s, and the world has seen a pronounced shift over the past three decades.

This process is particularly stark in regions already prone to dryness, such as Africa’s Sahel region and the Mediterranean. In these areas, reduced precipitation – combined with increased evaporation – creates a feedback loop: Drier soils absorb less heat, leaving the atmosphere warmer and intensifying arid conditions.

Charts show dryness in recent years and increasing populations in dry areas.
The number of people living in dryland regions has been rising in each region in recent years. Years 1971-2020. Scales vary.
UNCCD

Unsustainable land use practices: A hidden accelerator

Aridity is also affected by how people use and manage land.

Unsustainable agricultural practices, overgrazing and deforestation strip soils of their protective vegetation cover, leaving them vulnerable to erosion. Industrial farming techniques often prioritize short-term yields over long-term sustainability, depleting nutrients and organic matter essential for healthy soils.

For example, in cocoa-producing regions like northeastern Brazil, deforestation to make room for agriculture disrupts local water cycles and exposes soils to degradation. Without vegetation to anchor it, topsoil – critical for plant growth – washes away during rainfall or is blown away by winds, taking with it vital nutrients.

These changes create a vicious cycle: Degraded soils also hold less water and lead to more runoff, reducing the land’s ability to recover.

A woman holds two vegetables in her hands while standing in a dry, sparsely populated field with small houses in the distance.
Aridity can affect the ability to grow many crops. Large parts of the country of Chad, shown here, have drying lands.
United Nations Chad, CC BY-NC-SA

The soil-biodiversity connection

Soil, often overlooked in discussions of climate resilience, plays a critical role in mitigating aridity.

Healthy soils act as reservoirs, storing water and nutrients that plants depend on. They also support biodiversity below and above ground. A single teaspoon of soil contains billions of microorganisms that help cycle nutrients and maintain ecological balance.

However, as soils degrade under aridity and mismanagement, this biodiversity diminishes. Microbial communities, essential for nutrient cycling and plant health, decline. When soils become compacted and lose organic matter, the land’s ability to retain water diminishes, making it even more susceptible to drying out.

In short, the loss of soil health creates cascading effects that undermine ecosystems, agricultural productivity and food security.

Global hot spots: Looming food security crises

Cocoa is just one crop affected by the encroachment of rising aridity.

Other key agricultural zones, including the breadbaskets of the world, are also at risk. In the Mediterranean, Africa’s Sahel and parts of the U.S. West, aridity already undermines farming and biodiversity.

By 2100, up to 5 billion people could live in drylands – nearly double the current population in these areas, due to both population growth and expansion of drylands as the planet warms. This puts immense pressure on food systems. It can also accelerate migration as declining agricultural productivity, water scarcity and worsening living conditions force rural populations to move in search of opportunities.

A map shows large dry areas across the western U.S., Africa, Australia, Asia and parts of South America.
A map shows average aridity for 1981-2010. Computer simulations estimate that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities caused a 1.2% larger increase in the four types of dry regions combined for the periods between 1850 and 1981–2010 than simulations with only solar and volcanic effects considered.
UNCCD

Aridity’s ripple effects also extend far beyond agriculture. Ecosystems, already strained by deforestation and pollution, are stressed as water resources dwindle. Wildlife migrates or dies, and plant species adapted to moister conditions can’t survive. The Sahel’s delicate grasslands, for instance, are rapidly giving way to desert shrubs.

On a global scale, economic losses linked to aridification are staggering. In Africa, rising aridity contributed to a 12% drop in gross domestic product from 1990 to 2015. Sandstorms and dust storms, wildfires and water scarcity further burden governments, exacerbating poverty and health crises in the most affected regions.

The path forward

Aridity is not inevitable, nor are its effects completely irreversible. But coordinated global efforts are essential to curb its progression.

Countries can work together to restore degraded lands by protecting and restoring ecosystems, improving soil health and encouraging sustainable farming methods.

Communities can manage water more efficiently through rainwater harvesting and advanced irrigation systems that optimize water use. Governments can reduce the drivers of climate change by investing in renewable energy.

Continued international collaboration, including working with businesses, can help share technologies to make these actions more effective and available worldwide.

So, as you savor chocolate this Valentine’s Day, remember the fragile ecosystems behind it. The price of cocoa in early 2025 was near its all-time high, due in part to dry conditions in Africa. Without urgent action to address aridity, this scenario may become more common, and cocoa – and the sweet concoctions derived from it – may well become a rare luxury.

Collective action against aridity isn’t just about saving chocolate – it’s about preserving the planet’s capacity to sustain life.The Conversation

Narcisa Pricope, Professor of Geography and Land Systems Science and Associate Vice President for Research, Mississippi State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Why the price of your favorite chocolate will continue to rise appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

Trending