Connect with us

Business

Federal Bureau of Prisons has a $3 billion repair backlog. Now it’s expected to reopen Alcatraz too

Published

on



Eleven inmate deaths in less than two months. More than 4,000 staff vacancies. A $3 billion repair backlog.

And now, a stunning directive from President Donald Trump for the crisis-plagued federal Bureau of Prisons to “REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!” — the notorious penitentiary on an island in San Francisco Bay that last held inmates more than 60 years ago.

Even as the Bureau of Prisons struggles with short staffing, chronic violence and crumbling infrastructure at its current facilities, Trump is counting on the agency to fulfill his vision of rebooting the infamously inescapable prison known in movies and pop culture as “The Rock.”

Trump declared in a social media post Sunday that a “substantially enlarged and rebuilt” Alcatraz will house the nation’s “most ruthless and violent Offenders.” It will “serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Newly appointed Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III said Monday that the agency “will vigorously pursue all avenues to support and implement the President’s agenda” and that he has ordered “an immediate assessment to determine our needs and the next steps.”

“USP Alcatraz has a rich history. We look forward to restoring this powerful symbol of law, order, and justice,” Marshall said in a statement, echoing Trump’s post. “We will be actively working with our law enforcement and other federal partners to reinstate this very important mission.”

Alcatraz was once an exemplar

Alcatraz, a 22-acre (8.9 hectare) islet with views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco skyline, was once the crown jewel of the federal prison system and home to some of the nation’s most notorious criminals, including gangsters Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly.

But skyrocketing repair and supply costs compelled the Justice Department to close the prison in 1963, just 29 years after it opened, and the Bureau of Prisons has long since replaced Alcatraz with modern penitentiaries, including a maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado.

The former and perhaps future penitentiary is now a popular tourist attraction and a national historic landmark. It’s controlled by the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, meaning the Bureau of Prisons could be in for an interagency tug of war if it tries to wrest away control of the island.

Trump’s Alcatraz directive is yet another challenge for the Bureau of Prisons as it struggles to fix lingering problems while responding to the president’s priorities on incarceration and immigrant detention. The agency’s mission, as redefined under Trump, includes taking in thousands of immigration detainees under an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security.

The problems at the Bureau of Prisons transcend administrations and facilities.

An ongoing Associated Press investigation has uncovered deep, previously unreported flaws within the Bureau of Prisons over the last few years, including widespread criminal activity by employees, dozens of escapes, the free flow of guns, drugs and other contraband, and severe understaffing that has hampered responses to emergencies.

Last year, then-President Joe Biden signed a law strengthening oversight of the agency. It remains the Justice Department’s largest agency, with more than 30,000 employees, 155,000 inmates and an annual budget of about $8 billion, but the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures have eliminated some pay bonuses that were credited with retaining and attracting new staff.

That has resulted in long overtime shifts for some workers and the continued use of a policy known as augmentation, where prison nurses, cooks, teachers and other workers are pressed into duty to guard inmates.

Infrastructure is buckling, too. A Bureau of Prisons official told Congress at a hearing in February that more than 4,000 beds within the system — the equivalent of at least two full prisons — are unusable because of dangerous conditions like leaking or failing roofs, mold, asbestos or lead.

Deaths have plagued the federal prison system

Since mid-March, 11 federal prison inmates have died. They include David Knezevich, a 37-year-old Florida businessman who was found dead April 28 in a suspected suicide at a federal jail in Miami. He was awaiting trial on charges he kidnapped and killed his estranged wife in Spain.

And on April 24, inmate Ramadhan Jaabir Justice was killed in a fight at the federal penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana, where he was serving a nearly 11-year sentence for a conviction related to an armed robbery.

As Trump was ordering Alcatraz’s reopening Sunday, correctional officers at the same Miami jail were fighting to curb the spread of tuberculosis and COVID-19, isolating inmates after they tested positive for the diseases. Last month, immigration detainees at the facility ripped out a fire sprinkler and flooded a holding cell during a lengthy intake process.

Meanwhile, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of Alcatraz, the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, has sat idle for more than a year after the Bureau of Prisons cleared it of inmates in the wake of rampant sexual abuse by employees, including the warden.

In December, the agency made the closure permanent and idled six prison camps across the country to address “significant challenges, including a critical staffing shortage, crumbling infrastructure and limited budgetary resources.”

While Trump hails Alcatraz as a paragon of the federal prison system’s cherished past, other facilities stand as reminders of its recent troubles.

They include the federal jail in Manhattan, which remains idle after Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide there in 2019 exposed deep flaws in its operations, and a troubled federal lockup in Brooklyn, where 23 inmates have been charged in recent months with crimes ranging from smuggling weapons in a Doritos bag to the stabbing last month of a man convicted in the killing of hip-hop legend Jam Master Jay.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Doctor: A ‘cure’ for aging is getting closer but society isn’t ready

Published

on

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Genesys CEO: How empathetic AI can scale our humanity during economic uncertainty

Published

on



In light of the U.S. tariff announcements and rising economic uncertainty, I believe companies will instinctively turn to efficiency measures to weather potential disruption. And while efficiency is critical, it’s empathy—together with operational rigor—that will determine who thrives.

In an era increasingly shaped by AI, the most memorable customer experiences harness the power of “and”—they are fast and human, automated and deeply personal. Being seen and understood isn’t at odds with scale. It’s what elevates it. 

From transactions to trust

Over the past decade, organizations have invested in technology to make customer service faster, more consistent, and less reliant on human intervention.

While automated chatbots and self-service tools have become commonplace, many experiences still feel impersonal and often frustrating. That’s because they were built for efficiency, not empathy.

But business is shifting from a service economy, where value is measured by speed and volume, to an experience economy, where value is created through emotional resonance, trust, and personalization. 

This concept of the “experience economy” was first introduced by B. Joseph Pine II and James H. Gilmore, who argued that we are moving into an era where the primary offering is not a product or a service, but rather the experience itself. In their words, “work is theatre and every business a stage.” That framing may sound dramatic, but it’s more relevant now than ever. Consumers aren’t just buying outcomes. They’re buying how those outcomes feel.

It’s a shift that’s easy to see in our daily lives. We’ll choose a coffee shop not just for the quality of the coffee, but for how the space makes us feel. We’ll return to a brand that remembers our preferences. We’ll tell friends about the airline that made a frustrating delay easier to navigate with clarity. These experiences create differentiation in a world where many services have become commoditized. In fact, according to a survey we conducted in 2024, 30% of consumers say they have stopped using a brand after a negative experience in the past year.

The five levels of experience

Technology has historically lagged behind this evolution, but that’s changing, too. Artificial intelligence is now capable of understanding sentiment, adapting to behavior in real time and personalizing every interaction. This evolution requires more than incremental upgrades. It calls for a new approach—one where conversations across channels, moments, and touchpoints are designed to feel seamless, personalized, and emotionally intelligent.

To understand how organizations are navigating this shift, we developed a five-level maturity model that maps progress from basic transactions to fully orchestrated, emotionally intelligent experiences.

Levels 1 and 2: Rely on rigid, rules-based systems like legacy phone trees or entry-level chatbots to handle simple customer requests. These interactions are often siloed, reactive, and limited in their ability to adapt. 

Level 3: Integrates predictive and generative AI to personalize interactions in real time. Virtual assistants don’t just answer questions—they start to anticipate needs, resolve problems proactively, and adapt based on context.

Agentic AI is the bridge to the highest levels of experience orchestration, enabling systems to take initiative, make decisions, and coordinate actions across channels to pave the way for emotionally intelligent and fully orchestrated experiences.

Level 4: AI will begin to reflect emotional intelligence. It will detect tone and sentiment, respond with appropriate empathy, and even switch communication styles based on the customer’s preferences or language. This will enable systems to handle more complex, emotionally charged conversations like resolving a billing dispute or managing a delayed flight without losing the human touch.

Level 5: Universal orchestration. This is an aspirational frontier. AI will be adaptive and predictive, and capable of acting as a kind of personalized virtual concierge that understands individuals holistically across time and channels. For many industries, it is poised to become a competitive imperative.

The economic value of empathy

There’s no doubt that automation and augmentation drive real value. Businesses that implement AI-driven tools to handle routine customer interactions and provide real-time employee assistance often see meaningful improvements in efficiency, cost savings, and scalability, while also driving increases in employee engagement and customer satisfaction.

But the real prize lies beyond efficiency, in loyalty.

When businesses invest in empathetic AI that can personalize experiences, optimize journeys, and foster trust, they unlock a new level of potential economic impact. Consider a regional bank with a thousand customer service agents. By layering empathetic AI capabilities into its operations, it could not only reduce churn and improve employee retention but also create new top-line opportunities through more effective upselling, cross-selling, and long-term customer loyalty.

Empathy, in a very real way, can pay.

Empathy by design

Empathy is often thought of as a uniquely human trait. But in the context of AI, it becomes both a design challenge and a philosophical one.

Building emotionally intelligent systems requires training models to recognize more than just words. They must interpret tone, pace, hesitation, and sentiment. They must connect disparate data points to understand context, like why a customer is calling, how they’re feeling, and what they’ve experienced before, then adjust their response accordingly.

Some of the more advanced systems now match customers with agents based on emotional state and skill compatibility, offer proactive help before an issue escalates, and adjust tone in real time. They’re also capable of continuous learning, using journey data to refine interactions and ensure the experience gets better over time.

This is a new kind of intelligence. This is empathy by design. 

The human future of AI

As we move further into the experience economy—during times of macroeconomic tailwinds or headwinds—one thing is clear: Being human is a business advantage. In fact, a Forrester analysis shows that companies that improve CX can drive significant revenue growth. 

The most valuable experiences in life, and in business, are those that make us feel seen, understood, and valued. They help turn customers into loyalists, and brands into beacons. Empathy isn’t a feature. It’s the future. And AI, when built with that truth at its core, can help us deliver something truly powerful: technology that scales service and scales humanity.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The U.S. trade deficit: It’s time to dump do-it-yourself economics and go back to basics

Published

on



Since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, it seems that many people—particularly the chattering classes—have suddenly become experts in international trade. Mr. Trump’s tariffs have spawned a litany of what economist David Henderson termed “do-it-yourself economics.” These are economic ideas that reflect the intuitive notions of laypeople and owe nothing to the ideas generated by trained economists and the economics profession. Not surprisingly, Henderson concluded that the gap between the notions of do-it-yourself economics and orthodox economics is widest in the sphere of international trade.

This gap is evident in the current brouhaha over trade and tariffs, particularly in the two opposing camps: those responsible for formulating the administration’s trade agenda (Mr. Trump and his cabinet) and those critiquing it (primarily commentators and journalists). The result of this dynamic is not only that the Trump administration has enacted wrongheaded trade policies, but also that the opposition to these policies is largely ineffective or irrelevant. Both camps are engaged in do-it-yourself economics.

The misconceptions emanating from both camps stem from one common oversight: Neither Mr. Trump nor his detractors have familiarized themselves with the savings-investment identity, a basic yet crucial mechanism that governs the magnitude of a country’s trade balance. Indeed, by definition, a country’s trade balance is governed entirely by the gap between its domestic saving and domestic investment. If a country’s domestic saving is greater than its domestic investment, like China’s, it will register a trade surplus. Likewise, if a country has a savings deficiency, like the United States, it will register a trade deficit. The United States’ negative trade balance, which the country has registered every year starting in 1975, is “made in the USA,” a result of its savings deficiency. To view the trade balance correctly, the focus should be on the domestic economy.

As it turns out, one of us, Hanke, analyzed the United States’ large and persistent trade deficits and found that they are primarily driven by its large and persistent fiscal deficits at the federal, state, and local government levels. In other words, in the aggregate, there is a savings deficiency in the United States, and this savings deficiency comes from the public sector—the U.S. private sector actually generates a savings surplus. This aggregate gap between savings and investment is filled by foreign imports of goods and services, resulting in an easy-to-finance capital inflow surplus and a trade deficit.

Armed with the basic truth of the savings-investment identity, we now turn to Mr. Trump’s camp. Mr. Trump and his advisors believe that the United States’ trade deficit is the result of foreigners ripping off and taking advantage of the United States. Indeed, Uncle Sam is characterized as being a victim of unfair trade practices. This characterization is clearly wrong on two counts. First, the trade deficit is not caused by foreigners; rather, it is homegrown, the result of choices made by Americans (in the aggregate) to invest beyond what they save.

Second, the trade deficit is not necessarily harmful. It instead appears to be a privilege extended to Americans by foreigners willing to invest in U.S. assets. This is a symbiotic relationship: Americans get cheap access to capital, while foreign governments and institutions get a safe place to park their money and earn a return.

When it comes to trade policy, the Trump administration’s detractors are just as lost as the White House. A recent high-profile article in the New York Times—Totally Silly.’ Trump’s Focus on Trade Deficit Bewilders Economists,” contains an indicative summary of what journalists and commentators have to say about trade deficits. There’s just one little problem with the article and its respondents: No one ever explicitly mentions the true source of the trade deficit, which is elucidated by one of the most basic identities in economics. The identity tells us that if savings are less than investment, the gap must be filled by a trade deficit.

Both Mr. Trump’s cabinet and those criticizing his policies have a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives the U.S. trade deficit. As a result, the trade debate has turned into a futile filibuster, highlighting the dangers of do-it-yourself economics. It’s time to go back to the basics.

Steve H. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at the Johns Hopkins University and the author, with Leland Yeager, of Capital, Interest, and Waiting. Caleb Hofmann is a research scholar at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.