Connect with us

Business

‘Grant purgatory’ is a growing risk to crisis response, and the government shutdown isn’t helping

Published

on



State officials on the front lines of preparing for natural disasters and responding to emergencies say severe cuts to federal security grants, restrictions on money intended for readiness and funding delays tied to litigation are posing a growing risk to their ability to respond to crises.

It’s all causing confusion, frustration and concern. The federal government shutdown isn’t helping.

“Every day we remain in this grant purgatory reduces the time available to responsibly and effectively spend these critical funds,” said Kiele Amundson, communications director at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

The uncertainty has led some emergency management agencies to hold off on filling vacant positions and make rushed decisions on important training and purchases.

Experts say the developments complicate state-led emergency efforts, undermining the Republican administration’s stated goals of shifting more responsibility to states and local governments for disaster response.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Homeland Security said the new requirements were necessary because of “recent population shifts” and that changes to security grants were made “to be responsive to new and urgent threats facing our nation.”

A new wrinkle tied to immigration raids

Several DHS and FEMA grants help states, tribes and territories prepare for climate disasters and deter a variety of threats. The money pays for salaries and training, and such things as vehicles, communications equipment and software.

State emergency managers say that money has become increasingly important because the range of threats they must prepare for is expanding, including pandemics and cyberattacks.

FEMA, a part of DHS, divided a $320 million Emergency Management Performance Grant among states on Sept. 29. But the next day, it told states the money was on hold until they submitted new population counts. The directive demanded that they omit people “removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States” and to explain their methodology.

The amount of money distributed to the states is based on U.S. census population data. The new requirement forcing states to submit revised counts “is something we have never seen before,” said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, a group representing emergency managers. “It’s certainly not the responsibility of emergency management to certify population.”

With no guidance on how to calculate the numbers, Hawaii’s Amundson said staff scrambled to gather data from the 2020 census and other sources, then subtracted he number of “noncitizens” based on estimates from an advocacy group.

They are not sure the methodology will be accepted. But with their FEMA contacts furloughed and the grant portal down during the federal shutdown, they cannot find out. Other states said they were assessing the request or awaiting further guidance.

In its statement, DHS said FEMA needs to be certain of its funding levels before awarding grant money, and that includes updates to a state’s population due to deportations.

Experts said delays caused by the request could most affect local governments and agencies that receive grant money passed down by states because their budgets and staffs are smaller. At the same time, FEMA also reduced the time frame that recipients have to spend the money, from three years to one. That could prevent agencies from taking on longer-term projects.

Bryan Koon, president and CEO of the consulting firm IEM and a former Florida emergency management chief, said state governments and local agencies need time to adjust their budgets to any kind of changes.

“An interruption in those services could place American lives in jeopardy,” he said.

Grant programs tied up by litigation

In another move that has caused uncertainty, FEMA in September drastically cut some states’ allocations from another source of funding. The $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program is supposed to be based on assessed risks, and states pass most of the money to police and fire departments.

New York received $100 million less than it expected, a 79% reduction, while Illinois saw a 69% reduction. Both states are politically controlled by Democrats. Meanwhile, some territories received unexpected windfalls, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, which got more than twice its expected allocation.

The National Emergency Management Association said the grants are meant to be distributed based on risk and that it “remains unclear what risk methodology was used” to determine the new funding allocation.

After a group of Democratic states challenged the cuts in court, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order on Sept. 30. That forced FEMA to rescind award notifications and refrain from making payments until a further court order.

The freeze “underscores the uncertainty and political volatility surrounding these awards,” said Frank Pace, administrator of the Hawaii Office of Homeland Security. The Democratic-controlled state received more money than expected, but anticipates the bonus being taken away with the lawsuit.

In Hawaii, where a 2023 wildfire devastated the Maui town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people, the state, counties and nonprofits “face the real possibility” of delays in paying contractors, completing projects and “even staff furloughs or layoffs” if the grant freeze and government shutdown continue, he said.

The myriad setbacks prompted Washington state’s Emergency Management Division to pause filling some positions “out of an abundance of caution,” communications director Karina Shagren said.

A series of delays and cuts disrupts state-federal partnership

Emergency management experts said the moves have created uncertainty for those in charge of preparedness.

The Trump administration has suspended a $3.6 billion FEMA disaster resilience programcut the FEMA workforce and disrupted routine training.

Other lawsuits also are complicating decision-making. A Manhattan federal judge last week ordered DHS and FEMA to restore $34 million in transit security grants it had withheld from New York City because of its immigration policies.

Another judge in Rhode Island ordered DHS to permanently stop imposing grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement, after ruling in September that the conditions were unlawful — only to have DHS again try to impose them.

Taken together, the turbulence surrounding what was once a reliable partner is prompting some states to prepare for a different relationship with FEMA.

“Given all of the uncertainties,” said Sheets, of the National Emergency Management Association, states are trying to find ways to be “less reliant on federal funding.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Australia will start banning kids from social media this week

Published

on



Starting this Wednesday, many Australian teens will find it near impossible to access social media. That’s because, as of Dec. 10, social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram must bar those under the age of 16, or face significant fines. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the pending ban “one of the biggest social and cultural changes our nation has faced” in a statement.

Much is riding on this ban—and not just in Australia. Other countries in the region are watching Canberra’s ban closely. Malaysia, for example, said that it also plans to bar under-16s from accessing social media platforms starting next year. 

Other countries are considering less drastic ways to control teenagers’ social media use. On Nov. 30, Singapore said it would ban the use of smartphones on secondary school campuses. 

Yet, governments in Australia and Malaysia argue a full social media ban is necessary to protect youth from online harms such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and financial scams.

Tech companies have had varied responses to the social media ban. 

Some, like Meta, have been compliant, starting to remove Australian under-16s from Instagram, Threads and Facebook from Dec. 4, a week before the national ban kicks in. The social media giant reaffirmed their commitment to adhere to Australian law, but called for app stores to instead be held accountable for age verification.

“The government should require app stores to verify age and obtain parental approval whenever teens under 16 download apps, eliminating the need for teens to verify their age multiple times across different apps,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Others, like YouTube, sought to be excluded from the ban, with parent company Google even threatening to sue the Australian federal government in July 2025—to no avail.

However, experts told Fortune that these bans may, in fact, be harmful, denying young people the place to develop their own identities and the space to learn healthy digital habits.

“A healthy part of the development process and grappling with the human condition is the process of finding oneself. Consuming cultural material, connecting with others, and finding your community and identity is part of that human experience,” says Andrew Yee, an assistant professor at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.

Social media “allows young people to derive information, gain affirmation and build community,” says Sun Sun Lim, a professor in communications and technology at the Singapore Management University (SMU), who also calls bans “a very rough tool.”

Yee, from NTU, also points out that young people can turn to platforms like YouTube to learn about hobbies that may not be available in their local communities. 

Forcing kids to go “cold turkey” off social media could also make for a difficult transition to the digital world once they are of age, argues Chew Han Ei, a senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in the National University of Singapore (NUS).

“The sensible way is to slowly scaffold [social media use], since it’s not that healthy social media usage can be cultivated immediately,” Chew says.

Enforcement

Australia plans to enforce its social media ban by imposing a fine of 49.5 million Australian dollars (US$32.9 million) on social media companies which fail to take steps to ban those under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.

Malaysia has yet to explain how it might enforce its own social media ban, but communications minister Fahmi Fadzil suggested that social media platforms could verify users through government-issued documents like passports. 

Though young people may soon figure out how to maintain their access to social media. “Youths are savvy, and I am sure they will find ways to circumvent these,” says Yee of NTU. He also adds that young may migrate to platforms that aren’t traditionally defined as social media, such as gaming sites like Roblox. Other social media platforms, like YouTube, also don’t require accounts, thus limiting the efficacy of these bans, he adds.

Forcing social media platforms to collect huge amounts of personal data and government-issued identity documents could also lead to data privacy issues. “It’s very intimate personally identifiable information that’s being collected to verify age—from passports to digital IDs,” Chew, from NUS, says. “Somewhere along the line, a breach will happen.”

Moving towards healthy social media use

Ironically, some experts argue that a ban may absolve social media platforms of responsibility towards their younger users. 

“Social media bans impose an unfair burden on parents to closely supervise their children’s media use,” says Lim of SMU. “As for the tech platform, they can reduce child safety safeguards that make their platforms safer, since now the assumption is that young people are banned from them, and should not have been venturing [onto them] and opening themselves up to risks.”

And rather than allow digital harms to proliferate, social media platforms should be held responsible for ensuring they “contribute to intentional and purposeful use”, argues Yee.

This could mean regulating companies’ use of user interface features like auto-play and infinite scroll, or ensuring algorithmic recommendations are not pushing harmful content to users.

“Platforms profit—lucratively, if I may add—from people’s use, so they have a responsibility to ensure that the product is safe and beneficial for its users,” Yee explains. 

Finally, conversations on safe social media use should center the voices of young people, Yee adds.

“I think we need to come to a consensus as to what a safe and rights-respecting online space is,” he says. “This must include young people’s voices, as policy design should be done in consultation with the people the policy is affecting.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jimmy Kimmel signs ABC extension through 2027

Published

on



Kimmel’s previous, multiyear contract had been set to expire next May, so the extension will keep him on the air until at least May 2027.

Kimmel’s future looked questionable in September, when ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for remarks made following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Following a public outcry, ABC lifted the suspension, and Kimmel returned to the air with much stronger ratings than he had before.

He continued his relentless joking at the president’s expense, leading Trump to urge the network to “get the bum off the air” in a social media post last month. The post followed Kimmel’s nearly 10-minute monologue on Trump and the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Kimmel was even on Trump’s mind Sunday as the president hosted the Kennedy Center Honors in Washington.

“I’ve watched some of the people that host,” Trump said. “I’ve watched some of the people that host. Jimmy Kimmel was horrible, and some of these people, if I can’t beat out Jimmy Kimmel in terms of talent, then I don’t think I should be president.”

Kimmel has hosted the Oscars four times, but he’s never hosted the Kennedy Center show.

Just last week, Kimmel was needling Trump on the president’s approval ratings. “There are gas stations on Yelp with higher approval ratings than Trump right now,” he said.

Kimmel will be staying longer than late-night colleague Stephen Colbert at CBS. The network announced this summer it was ending Colbert’s show next May for economic reasons, even though it is the top-rated network show in late-night television.

ABC has aired Kimmel’s late-night show since 2003, during a time of upheaval in the industry. Like much of broadcast television, late-night ratings are down. Viewers increasingly turn to watching monologues online the day after they appear.

Most of Kimmel’s recent renewals have been multiyear extensions. There was no immediate word on whose choice it was to extend his current contract by one year.

Bill Carter, author of “The Late Shift” and veteran chronicler of late-night TV, cautioned against reading too much into the length of the extension. Kimmel, at age 58, knows he’s getting close to the end of the line, Carter said, but when he leaves, he doesn’t want it to appear under pressure from Trump or anyone.

“He wants to make sure that it’s on his terms,” Carter said.

Kimmel has become one of the leading voices resisting Trump. “I think it’s important for him and for ABC that they are standing up for him,” Carter said.

Following Kirk’s killing, Kimmel was criticized for saying that “the MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The Nexstar and Sinclair television ownership groups said it would take Kimmel off the air, leading to ABC’s suspension.

When he returned to the air, Kimmel did not apologize for his remarks, but he said he did not intend to blame any specific group for Kirk’s assassination. He said “it was never my intention to make the light of the murder of a young man.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says he’ll allow Nvidia to sell advanced chips to ‘approved customers’ in China

Published

on



President Donald Trump said Monday that he would allow Nvidia to sell an advanced type of computer chip used in the development of artificial intelligence to “approved customers” in China.

There have been concerns about allowing advanced computer chips to be sold to China as it could help the country better compete against the U.S. in building out AI capabilities, but there has also been a desire to develop the AI ecosystem with American companies such as chipmaker Nvidia.

The chip, known as the H200, is not Nvidia’s most advanced product. Those chips, called Blackwell and the upcoming Rubin, were not part of what Trump approved.

Trump said on social media that he had informed China’s leader Xi Jinping about his decision and “President Xi responded positively!”

“This policy will support American Jobs, strengthen U.S. Manufacturing, and benefit American Taxpayers,” Trump said in his post.

Nvidia said in a statement that it applauded Trump’s decision, saying the choice would support domestic manufacturing and that by allowing the Commerce Department to vet commercial customers it would “strike a thoughtful balance” on economic and national security priorities.

Trump said the Commerce Department was “finalizing the details” for other chipmakers such as AMD and Intel to sell their technologies abroad.

The approval of the licenses to sell Nvidia H200 chips reflects the increasing power and close relationship that the company’s founder and CEO, Jensen Huang, enjoys with the president. But there have been concerns that China will find ways to use the chips to develop its own AI products in ways that could pose national security risks for the U.S., a primary concern of the Biden administration that sought to limit exports.

Nvidia has a market cap of $4.5 trillion and Trump’s announcement appeared to drive the stock slightly higher in after hours trading.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.