Connect with us

Business

An Algorithm Told Police She Was Safe. Then Her Husband Killed Her.

Published

on

An Algorithm Told Police She Was Safe. Then Her Husband Killed Her.

In a small apartment outside Madrid on Jan. 11, 2022, an argument over household chores turned violent when Lobna Hemid’s husband smashed a wooden shoe rack and used one of the broken pieces to beat her. Her screams were heard by neighbors. Their four children, ages 6 to 12, were also home.

Ms. Hemid’s husband of more than a decade, Bouthaer el Banaisati, regularly punched and kicked her, she later told the police. He also called her a “whore,” “disgusting” and “worthless,” according to the police report.

Before Ms. Hemid left the station that night, the police had to determine if she was in danger of being attacked again and needed support. A police officer clicked through 35 yes or no questions — Was a weapon used? Were there economic problems? Has the aggressor shown controlling behaviors?to feed into an algorithm called VioGén that would help generate an answer.

VioGén produced a score:

low risk Lobna Hemid

Advertisement

2022 Madrid

The police accepted the software’s judgment and Ms. Hemid went home with no further protection. Mr. el Banaisati, who was imprisoned that night, was released the next day. Seven weeks later, he fatally stabbed Ms. Hemid several times in the chest and abdomen before killing himself. She was 32 years old.

A photo of Lobna Hemid on the phone of a friend. She was killed by her husband in 2022.

Ana Maria Arevalo Gosen for The New York Times

Advertisement

Spain has become dependent on an algorithm to combat gender violence, with the software so woven into law enforcement that it is hard to know where its recommendations end and human decision-making begins. At its best, the system has helped police protect vulnerable women and, overall, has reduced the number of repeat attacks in domestic violence cases. But the reliance on VioGén has also resulted in victims, whose risk levels are miscalculated, getting attacked again — sometimes leading to fatal consequences.

Spain now has 92,000 active cases of gender violence victims who were evaluated by VioGén, with most of them — 83 percent — classified as facing little risk of being hurt by their abuser again. Yet roughly 8 percent of women who the algorithm found to be at negligible risk and 14 percent at low risk have reported being harmed again, according to Spain’s Interior Ministry, which oversees the system.

At least 247 women have also been killed by their current or former partner since 2007 after being assessed by VioGén, according to government figures. While that is a tiny fraction of gender violence cases, it points to the algorithm’s flaws. The New York Times found that in a judicial review of 98 of those homicides, 55 of the slain women were scored by VioGén as negligible or low risk for repeat abuse.

How the Risk Levels of 98 Women Were Classified

Extreme

Advertisement

High

Medium

Low

Negligible

Advertisement

Source: Spanish General Council of the Judiciary Note: Data from 2010 to 2022. Data from 2016 to 2018 is unavailable. By Alice Fang

Spanish police are trained to overrule VioGén’s recommendations depending on the evidence, but accept the risk scores about 95 percent of the time, officials said. Judges can also use the results when considering requests for restraining orders and other protective measures.

“Women are falling through the cracks,” said Susana Pavlou, director of the Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies, who coauthored a European Union report about VioGén and other police efforts to fight violence against women. The algorithm “kind of absolves the police of any responsibility of assessing the situation and what the victim may need.”

Spain exemplifies how governments are turning to algorithms to make societal decisions, a global trend that is expected to grow with the rise of artificial intelligence. In the United States, algorithms help determine prison sentences, set police patrols and identify children at risk of abuse. In the Netherlands and Britain, authorities have experimented with algorithms to predict who may become criminals and to identify people who may be committing welfare fraud.

Few of the programs have such life or death consequences as VioGén. But victims interviewed by The Times rarely knew about the role the algorithm played in their cases. The government also has not released comprehensive data about the system’s effectiveness and has refused to make the algorithm available for outside audit.

Advertisement

VioGén was created to be an unbiased tool to aid police with limited resources identify and protect women most at risk of being assaulted again. The technology was meant to create efficiencies by helping police prioritize the most urgent cases, while focusing less on those calculated by the algorithm as lower risk. Victims classified as higher risk get more protection, including regular patrols by their home, access to a shelter and police monitoring of their abuser’s movements. Those with lower scores get less support.

In a statement, the Interior Ministry defended VioGén and said the government was the “first to carry out self-criticism” when mistakes occur. It said homicide was so rare that it was difficult to accurately predict, but added it was an “incontestable fact” that VioGén has helped reduce violence against women.

Since 2007, about 0.03 percent of Spain’s 814,000 reported victims of gender violence have been killed after being assessed by VioGén, the ministry said. During that time, repeat attacks have fallen to roughly 15 percent of all gender violence cases from 40 percent, according to government figures.

“If it weren’t for this, we would have more homicides and gender-based violence,” said Juan José López Ossorio, a psychologist who helped create VioGén and works for the Interior Ministry.

Juan José López Ossorio, a government official who helped create the VioGén system.

Advertisement

Ana Maria Arevalo Gosen for The New York Times

Yet victims and their families are grappling with the consequences when VioGén gets it wrong.

“Technology is fine, but sometimes it’s not and then it’s fatal,” said Jesús Melguizo, Ms. Hemid’s brother-in-law, who is a guardian for two of her children. “The computer has no heart.”

‘Effective but not perfect’

Advertisement

VioGén started with a question: Can police predict an assault before it happens?

After Spain passed a law in 2004 to address violence against women, the government assembled experts in statistics, psychology and other fields to find an answer. Their goal was to create a statistical model to identify women most at risk of abuse and to outline a standardized response to protect them.

Some initial designs and research strategies for what became VioGén, including a decision tree and calibration techniques for predicting intimate partner homicides.

Ana Maria Arevalo Gosen for The New York Times

Advertisement

“It would be a new guide for risk assessment in gender violence,” said Antonio Pueyo, a psychology professor at the University of Barcelona who later joined the effort.

The team took a similar approach to how insurance companies and banks predict the likelihood of future events, such as house fires or currency swings. They studied national crime statistics, police records and the work of researchers in Britain and Canada to find indicators that appeared to correlate with gender violence. Substance abuse, job loss and economic uncertainty were high on the list.

Then they came up with a questionnaire for victims so their answers could be compared with historical data. Police would fill in the answers after interviewing a victim, reviewing documentary evidence, speaking with witnesses and studying other information from government agencies. Answers to certain questions carried more weight than others, like if an abuser displayed suicidal tendencies or showed signs of jealousy.

These are some of the questions answered by women

6. In the last six months, has there been an escalation of aggression or threats?

YesNoN/A

Advertisement

26. Has the aggressor demonstrated addictive behaviors or substance abuse?

YesNoN/A

34. In the last six months, has the victim expressed to the aggressor her intention to sever their relationship?

Advertisement

YesNoN/A

The system produced a score for each victim: negligible risk, low risk, medium risk, high risk or extreme risk. A higher score would result in police patrols and the tracking of an aggressor’s movements. In extreme cases, police would assign 24-hour surveillance. Those with lower scores would receive fewer resources, mainly follow-up calls.

Predictive algorithms to address domestic violence have been used in parts of Britain, Canada, Germany and the United States, but not on such a national scale. In Spain, the Interior Ministry introduced VioGén everywhere but in the Catalonia region and Basque Country.

Law enforcement initially greeted the algorithm with skepticism, police and government officials told The Times, but it soon became a part of everyday police business.

Advertisement

Before VioGén, investigations were “based on the experience of the policeman,” said Mr. Pueyo, who remains affiliated with the program. “Now this is organized and guided by VioGén.”

VioGén is a source of impartial information, he said. If a woman attacked late at night was seen by a young police officer with little experience, VioGén could help detect the risk of future violence.

“It’s more efficient,” Mr. Pueyo said.

Over the years, VioGén has been refined and updated, including with metrics that are believed to better predict homicide. Police have also been required to conduct a follow-up risk assessment within 90 days of an attack.

But Spain’s faith in the system has surprised some experts. Juanjo Medina, a senior researcher at the University of Seville who has studied VioGén, said the system’s effectiveness remains unclear.

Advertisement

“We’re not good at forecasting the weather, let alone human behavior,” he said.

Francisco Javier Curto, a commander for the military police in Seville, said VioGén helps his teams prioritize, but requires close oversight. About 20 new cases of gender violence arrive every day, each requiring investigation. Providing police protection for every victim would be impossible given staff sizes and budgets.

“The system is effective but not perfect,” he said, adding that VioGén is “the best system that exists in the world right now.”

Francisco Javier Curto, a commander for the military police in Seville who oversees gender violence incidents in the province. VioGén is “the best system that exists in the world right now,” he said.

Ana Maria Arevalo Gosen for The New York Times

Advertisement

José Iniesta, a civil guard in Alicante, a southeastern port city, said not enough of the police are trained to keep up with growing case loads. A leader in the United Association of Civil Guards, a union representing officers in rural areas, he said that outside of big cities, the police often must choose between addressing violence against women or other crimes.

Sindicato Unificado de Policía, a union that represents national police officers, said even the most effective technology cannot make up for a lack of trained experts. In some places, a police officer is assigned to work with more than 100 victims.

“Agents in many provinces are overwhelmed,” the union said in a statement.

When attacks happen again

Advertisement

The women who have been killed after being assessed by VioGén can be found across Spain.

One was Stefany González Escarraman, a 26-year-old living near Seville. In 2016, she went to the police after her husband punched her in the face and choked her. He threw objects at her, including a kitchen ladle that hit their 3-year-old child. After police interviewed Ms. Escarraman for about five hours, VioGén determined she had a negligible risk of being abused again.

negligible risk Stefany González Escarraman

2016 Seville

Advertisement

The next day, Ms. Escarraman, who had a swollen black eye, went to court for a restraining order against her husband. Judges can serve as a check on the VioGén system, with the ability to intervene in cases and provide protective measures. In Ms. Escarraman’s case, the judge denied a restraining order, citing VioGén’s risk score and her husband’s lack of criminal history.

Stefany González Escarraman, who was killed in 2016 by her husband. VioGén had scored her as negligible risk.

About a month later, Ms. Escarraman was stabbed by her husband multiple times in the heart in front of their children. In 2020, her family won a verdict against the state for failing to adequately measure the level of risk and provide sufficient protection.

“If she had been given the help, maybe she would be alive,” said Williams Escarraman, Ms. Escarraman’s brother.

Advertisement

In 2021, Eva Jaular, who lived in Liaño in northern Spain, was slain by her former boyfriend after being classified as low risk by VioGén. He also killed their 11-month-old daughter. Six weeks earlier, he had jabbed a knife into a couch cushion next to where Ms. Jaular sat and said, “look how well it sticks,” according to a police report.

low risk Eva Jaular

2021 Liaño

Since 2007, 247 of the 990 women killed in Spain by a current or former partner were previously scored by VioGén, according to the Interior Ministry. The other victims had not been previously reported to the police, so were not in the system. The ministry declined to disclose the VioGén risk scores of the 247 who were killed.

Advertisement

The Times instead analyzed reports from a Spanish judicial agency, released almost every year from 2010 to 2022, which included information about the risk scores of 98 women who were later killed. Of those, 55 had been classified as negligible risk or low risk.

In a statement, the Interior Ministry said that analyzing the risk scores of homicide victims doesn’t provide an accurate picture of VioGén’s effectiveness because some homicides happened more than a year after the first assessment, while others were committed by a different partner.

Why the algorithm incorrectly classifies some women varies and isn’t always clear, but one reason may be the poor quality of information fed into the system. VioGén is ideally suited for cases when a woman, in the moments after being attacked, can provide complete information to an experienced police officer who has time to fully investigate the incident.

That does not always happen. Fear, shame, economic dependency, immigration status and other factors can lead a victim to withhold information. Police are also often squeezed for time and may not fully investigate.

Elisabeth, a lawyer, is a survivor of gender violence who now advocates for other victims who face institutional mistreatment in Spain.

Advertisement

Ana María Arévalo Gosen for The New York Times

“If we already enter erroneous information into the system, how can we expect the system to give us a good result?” said Elisabeth, a victim who now works as a gender violence lawyer. She spoke on the condition her full name not be used, for fear of retaliation by her former partner.

Luz, a woman from a village in southern Spain, said she was repeatedly labeled low risk after attacks by her partner because she was afraid and ashamed to provide complete information to the police, some of whom she knew personally. She got her risk score increased to extreme only after working with a lawyer specializing in gender violence cases, leading to round-the-clock police protection.

extreme risk Luz

Advertisement

2019 Southern Spain

“We women keep a lot of things silent not because we want to lie but out of fear,” said Luz, who spoke on the condition her full name not be used for fear of retaliation by her attacker, who was imprisoned. “VioGén would be good if there were qualified people who had all the necessary tools to carry it out.”

Luz, with her son, said she was labeled lower risk because she was afraid and ashamed to provide complete information about her partner’s abuse to police.

Ana María Arévalo Gosen for The New York Times

Advertisement

Victim groups said that psychologists or other trained specialists should lead the questioning of victims rather than the police. Some have urged the government to mandate that victims be allowed to be accompanied by somebody they trust to help ensure full information is given to authorities, something that is now not allowed in all areas.

“It’s not easy to report a person you’ve loved,” said María, a victim from Granada in southern Spain, who was labeled medium risk after her partner attacked her with a dumbbell. She asked that her full name not be published for fear of retaliation by him.

medium risk María

2023 Granada

Advertisement

Ujué Agudo, a Spanish researcher studying the influence of artificial intelligence on human decisions, said technology has a role in solving societal problems. But it could reduce the responsibility of humans to approving the work of a machine, rather than conducting the necessary work themselves.

“If the system succeeds, it’s a success of the system. If the system fails, it’s a human error that they aren’t monitoring properly,” said Ms. Agudo, a co-director of Bikolabs, a Spanish civil society group. A better approach, she said, was for people “to say what their decision is before seeing what the A.I. thinks.”

Spanish officials are exploring incorporating A.I. into VioGén so it can pull data from different sources and learn more on its own. Mr. Ossorio, a creator of VioGén who works for the Interior Ministry, said the tools can be applied to other areas, including workplace harassment and hate crimes.

The systems will never be perfect, he said, but neither is human judgment. “Whatever we do, we always fail,” he said. “It’s unsolvable problems.”

Advertisement

This month, the Spanish government called an emergency meeting after three women were killed by former partners within a 24-hour span. One victim, a 30-year-old from central Spain, had been classified by VioGén as low risk.

At a news conference, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, the interior minister, said he still had “absolute confidence” in the system.

‘Always cheerful’

A memorial of roses and eucalyptus adorns a lamppost at the entrance to the street where Ms. Hemid lived.

Ana Maria Arevalo Gosen for The New York Times

Advertisement

Ms. Hemid, who was killed outside Madrid in 2022, was born in rural Morocco. She was 14 when she was introduced at a family wedding to Mr. el Banaisati, who was 10 years older than her. She was 17 when they married. They later moved to Spain so he could pursue steadier work.

Ms. Hemid was outgoing and gregarious, often seen racing to get her children to school on time, friends said. She learned to speak Spanish and sometimes joined children playing soccer in the park.

“She was always cheerful,” said Amelia Franas, a friend whose children went to the same school as Ms. Hemid’s children.

Few knew that abuse was a fixture of Ms. Hemid’s marriage. She spoke little about her home life, friends said, and never called the police or reported Mr. el Banaisati before the January 2022 incident.

Advertisement

VioGén is intended to identify danger signs that humans may overlook, but in Ms. Hemid’s case, it appears that police missed some clues. Her neighbors told The Times they were not interviewed, nor were administrators at her children’s school, who said they had seen signs of trouble.

Family members said Mr. el Banaisati had a life-threatening form of cancer that made him behave erratically. Many blamed underlying discrimination in Spain’s criminal system that overlooks violence against immigrant women, especially Muslims.

Police haven’t released a copy of the assessment that produced Ms. Hemid’s low risk score from VioGén. A copy of a separate police report shared with The Times noted that Ms. Hemid was tired during questioning and wanted to end the interview to get home.

A few days after the January 2022 attack, Ms. Hemid won a restraining order against her husband. But Mr. el Banaisati largely ignored the order, family and friends said. He moved into an apartment less than 500 meters from where Ms. Hemid lived and continued threatening her.

Mr. Melguizo, her brother-in-law, said he appealed to Ms. Hemid’s assigned public lawyer for help, but was told the police “won’t do anything, it has a low risk score.”

Advertisement

The day after Ms. Hemid was stabbed to death, she had a court date scheduled to officially file for divorce.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Help! I Couldn’t Take My Tall-Ship Voyage, and I Want My Money Back.

Published

on

Help! I Couldn’t Take My Tall-Ship Voyage, and I Want My Money Back.

Last summer, I booked a five-day sailing trip with Tall Ship Experience, a company based in Spain. For 1,350 euros, or $1,450, I would be a volunteer on the crew of the Atlantis, sailing between two ports in Italy. But eight days before, I had a bad fall that resulted in multiple injuries, including eight stitches to my face that doctors said I could not expose to sun or water. The Tall Ship Experience website clearly states that I could cancel for a full refund up to seven days before the trip. But the company revealed it was just an intermediary and the Dutch organization actually running the trip, Tallship Company, had different rules, under which I was refunded 10 percent. I offered to take credit for a future trip, to no avail. Finally, I disputed the charges with my credit card issuer, American Express. But Tall Ship Experience provided a completely different set of terms to Amex, saying I canceled one day in advance. The charges were reinstated. Can you help? Martha, Los Angeles

This story reads like a greatest-hits playlist of travel industry traps: a middleman shirking responsibility, terms and conditions run amok, a credit card chargeback gone wrong, and the maddening barriers to pursuing justice against a foreign company. However, the documentation you sent was so complete and the company’s website so confusing that I was sure Tall Ship Experience would quickly refund you.

Tallship Company did not respond to requests for comments, but did nothing wrong. It simply followed its own terms and conditions that Tall Ship Experience, as a middleman, should have made clear to you. When you canceled, Tallship Company sent back a 10 percent refund to Tall Ship Experience to then send to you.

That’s why I was surprised that the stubborn (though exceedingly polite) Tall Ship Experience spokeswoman who responded to me on behalf of the Seville-based organization argued repeatedly that although she regretted your disappointment, Tall Ship Experience was not at fault. At one point she suggested you should have purchased travel insurance, even as the company scrambled to adjust and update its website as we emailed.

Before the changes, the site contained two distinct and contradictory sets of terms and conditions: one for customers who purchased via the website’s English and French versions, and another on the Spanish version. (Confusingly, both documents were in Spanish.)

Advertisement

The English/French version — the one you had seen — promised customers a full refund for trips canceled more than seven days in advance. The Spanish one is vastly more complex, offering distinct cancellation terms for each ship. The Atlantis offered customers in your situation only 10 percent back.

Enter the stubborn spokeswoman: “The terms and conditions in Spanish correctly reflected the cancellation policy of the ship in the moment the client made the reservation,” she wrote via email. “We are conscious that at the time, the English version of the terms was not updated, which may have generated confusion. However, the official terms of the reservation were applied correctly.”

In other words, customers should somehow know to ignore one contract and seek out another on a different part of the site, both in a language they may not read.

But I am no expert in Spanish consumer law, so I got in touch with two people who are: Marta Valls Sierra, head of the consumer rights practice at Marimón Abogados, a law firm based in Barcelona; and Fernando Peña López, a professor at the Universidade da Coruña in A Coruña.

They examined the documentation and each concluded independently that Tall Ship Experience had violated basic Spanish consumer statutes. When I passed along their convincing points to the spokeswoman and alerted her that you were considering taking the company to Spanish small-claims court, she finally said it would refund you the remaining €1,215.

Advertisement

I felt a bit sheepish about exerting so much pressure on this small company — actually, an arm of the nonprofit Nao Victoria Foundation, which operates several replicas of historic ships — but the company should have taken much more care when it set up its website, Ms. Valls Sierra told me.

“If in your terms and conditions you say that up until seven days before departure you have the right to cancel,” she said in an interview, “and a consumer comes and says, ‘I want to cancel,’ you have to cancel their trip and return their money. They can’t use ‘Sorry, we forgot to put it on one web page, but we put it on another web page’ as an excuse.”

It is a principle of consumer law, she added, that confusing or contradictory contracts are interpreted in favor of the consumer.

The other troubling issue with the website is that you had no way of knowing that your trip was not operated by Tall Ship Experience. There was no such mention I could find on the website, which relies on marketing copy like this: “On board you will learn everything you need to know that will allow you to become one of our crew.”

Dr. Peña López, the law professor, wrote me in an email that “Tall Ship Experience is obligated to inform the consumer about the service it provides in an accessible and understandable manner, clearly indicating whether it is an intermediary.” He added that Tall Ship Experience “clearly” presented itself as the ship’s operator in this case.

Advertisement

As I mentioned, Tall Ship Experience did begin updating its site almost as soon as I got in touch, calling itself a “marketplace” for experiences and posting the correct terms and conditions (in the correct languages) on its English and French pages.

But Tall Ship Experience agreed to a refund only after I sent the company a compilation of the two experts’ legal analyses. “We are dedicated to creating experiences aboard unique boats, and not to legal matters,” came the spokeswoman’s response. “Regardless of which party is correct in this case, we would like to refund the full amount. We look forward to putting this to rest and to focus on continuing to improve customer experiences.”

You also said that American Express had let you down, by taking the company’s word over yours when you contested the charge. It is true that the document Tall Ship Experience sent to Amex (which forwarded it to you, who forwarded it to me), is wildly inaccurate, including only the terms favorable to the company and saying you canceled only one day in advance.

A spokeswoman for American Express emailed me a statement saying that the company “takes into account both the card member and the merchant perspectives.” But travelers should not mistake credit card issuers for crack investigators who will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of travel justice. A chargeback request works best when the problem is straightforward — you were charged more than you agreed to pay, or you never agreed to pay at all. Asking your card issuer to do a deep dive into terms and conditions is a much longer shot.

And as we’ve seen before (and might be seeing in this case) such chargeback requests often anger the companies involved to the point that they refuse to deal with you further.

Advertisement

If all else had failed, as I told you before the company gave in, you could have requested a “juicio verbal,” Spain’s version of a small-claims-court proceeding, via videoconference. It would not have been easy, said Dr. Peña López. Cases under €2,000 do not require a lawyer, but they do require you to have a Foreigner Identification Number, to fill out forms in legal Spanish (A.I. might help) and to find an interpreter to be by your side.

When I finally told you — in our 39th email! — you’d get a refund, you told me you had been “almost looking forward to a Spanish small-claims experience.” I admire your spirit, although I suspect it would have been quickly broken by bureaucratic and linguistic barriers.

If you need advice about a best-laid travel plan that went awry, send an email to TrippedUp@nytimes.com.


Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

In dizzying reversal, Trump pauses tariffs on most Mexican products

Published

on

In dizzying reversal, Trump pauses tariffs on most Mexican products

In a dizzying turn, President Trump said Thursday that the U.S. would temporarily reverse the sweeping tariffs it imposed just days ago on most Mexican products.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he would delay for one month the imposition of 25% taxes on Mexican imports that fall under a free trade agreement that he negotiated during his last term.

His remarks follow comments from U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who on Thursday said in a television interview that Trump was “likely” to temporarily suspend 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for most products and services, widening an exemption that was granted Wednesday only to vehicles.

Lutnick told CNBC that the one-month delay in the import taxes “will likely cover all USMCA-compliant goods and services,” a reference to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, the North America free trade pact Trump negotiated in his last term. Lutnick said around half of what the U.S. imports from Mexico and Canada would be eligible.

Lutnick said the reprieve will last only until April 2, when the Trump administration has said it will impose reciprocal tariffs on countries to match the ones they have on U.S. exports. Later, he said that if Canada and Mexico don’t do enough to stop fentanyl from entering the United States, the 25% tariffs could be reapplied in a month as well.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, the U.S. began placing duties of 25% on imported goods from Mexico and Canada, with a 10% rate on Canadian energy products. It also began imposing a new 10% tax on all imports from China.

Trump has said the tariffs are punishment because the three countries haven’t done enough to stop the flow of immigrants without proper documentation and drugs into the United States — and are an attempt to lure manufacturing back to the United States.

China and Canada responded forcefully, both imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum had said that Mexico would also respond with counter tariffs, and had planned to announce them Sunday at a public rally in Mexico City’s central square.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he welcomed news that the U.S. would delay, but said Canada’s imposition of retaliatory tariffs will remain in place for now. “We will not be backing down from our response tariffs until such a time as the unjustified American tariffs [on] Canadian goods are lifted,” he said.

Trudeau told reporters that the U.S. and Canada are “actively engaged in ongoing conversations in trying to make sure these tariffs don’t overly harm” certain sectors and workers.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s Cuts to Federal Work Force Push Out Young Employees

Published

on

Trump’s Cuts to Federal Work Force Push Out Young Employees

About six months ago, Alex Brunet, a recent Northwestern University graduate, moved to Washington and started a new job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an honors paralegal. It was fitting for Mr. Brunet, 23, who said he had wanted to work in public service for as long as he could remember and help “craft an economy that works better for everyone.”

But about 15 minutes before he was going to head to dinner with his girlfriend on the night before Valentine’s Day, an email landed in his inbox informing him that he would be terminated by the end of the day — making him one of many young workers who have been caught up in the Trump administration’s rapid wave of firings.

“It’s discouraging to all of us,” Mr. Brunet said. “We’ve lost, for now at least, the opportunity to do something that matters.”

Among the federal workers whose careers and lives have been upended in recent weeks are those who represent the next generation of civil servants and are now wrestling with whether they can even consider a future in public service.

The Trump administration’s moves to reduce the size of the bureaucracy have had an outsize impact on these early career workers. Many of them were probationary employees who were in their roles for less than one or two years, and were among the first to be targeted for termination. The administration also ended the Presidential Management Fellows Program, a prestigious two-year training program for recent graduates interested in civil service, and canceled entry-level job offers.

Advertisement

The firings of young people across the government could have a long-term effect on the ability to replenish the bureaucracy with those who have cutting-edge skills and knowledge, experts warn. Donald F. Kettl, a former dean in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, says that young workers bring skills “the government needs” in fields like information technology, medicine and environmental protection.

“What I am very afraid of is that we will lose an entire generation of younger workers who are either highly trained or would have been highly trained and equipped to help the government,” Mr. Kettl said. “The implications are huge.”

The administration’s downsizing could have a lasting impact, deterring young workers from joining the ranks of the federal government for years, Mr. Kettl said.

About 34 percent of federal workers who have been in their roles for less than a year are under the age of 30, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. The largest single category of federal workers with less than a year of service are 25- to 29-year-olds.

The federal government already has an “underlying problem” recruiting and retaining young workers, said Max Stier, the president of the Partnership for Public Service. Only about 9 percent of the 2.3 million federal workers are under the age of 30.

Advertisement

“They’re going after what may be easiest to get rid of rather than what is actually going to make our government more efficient,” Mr. Stier said.

Trump administration officials and the billionaire Elon Musk, whom the president has tasked with shrinking the federal government, have defended their efforts to cut the work force.

“President Trump returned to Washington with a mandate from the American people to bring about unprecedented change in our federal government to uproot waste, fraud and abuse,” Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said in a statement.

Mr. Trump has vowed to make large-scale reductions to the work force, swiftly pushing through drastic changes that have hit some roadblocks in court.

Last week, a federal judge determined that directives sent to agencies by the Office of Personnel Management calling for probationary employees to be terminated were illegal, and the agency has since revised its guidance. Still it is unclear how many workers could be reinstated.

Advertisement

The abrupt firings that have played out across the government so far came as a shock to young employees.

They described being sent curt messages about their terminations that cited claims about their performance they said were unjustified. There was a frantic scramble to download performance reviews and tax documents before they were locked out of systems. Some said they had to notify their direct supervisors themselves that they had just been fired.

On the morning of Feb. 17, Alexander Hymowitz sat down to check his email when he saw a message that arrived in his inbox at 9:45 p.m. the night before. An attached letter said that he had not yet finished his trial period and was being terminated from his position as a presidential management fellow at the Agriculture Department. It also said that the agency determined, based on his performance, that he had not demonstrated that his “further employment at the agency would be in the public interest.”

Mr. Hymowitz, 29, said he was dumbfounded. “My initial thought was, obviously something is wrong,” he said. “How could I get terminated for performance when I’ve never had a performance review?”

Mr. Hymowitz, who had worked on antitrust cases and investigations in the poultry and cattle markets for about six months, said he was not given many further instructions. The next day, he decided to walk into the office and drop off his work equipment. “I just assumed that’s what people do when they get fired,” he said.

Advertisement

Around 8 p.m. on Feb. 11, Nicole Cabañez, an honors attorney at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, found out that she had been terminated after she realized she could not log into her work laptop. Ms. Cabañez, 30, worked in the agency’s enforcement division for about four months, investigating companies that violated consumer financial laws.

“I was prepared to help make the world better,” Ms. Cabañez said. “It’s honestly very disappointing that I never got that chance.”

During her first year at Yale Law School, Ms. Cabañez said she originally planned to work at a large law firm, where she would have defended companies and made a lucrative income after graduation. But she said she wanted to work in public service to help people get relief through the legal system.

Ms. Cabañez said she was now applying for jobs with nonprofits, public interest law firms and local governments. But she said she worried that the job market, especially in Washington, would be “flooded with public servants.” She said she could not file for unemployment benefits for three weeks because her agency had not sent her all of the necessary documents until recently.

The impacts have stretched beyond Washington, reaching federal workers across the country, including in Republican-led states.

Advertisement

At 3:55 p.m. on Feb. 13, Ashlyn Naylor, a permanent seasonal technician for the U.S. Forest Service in Chatsworth, Ga., received a call from one of her supervisors who informed her that she would be fired after working there for about nine months. Ms. Naylor said she initially wanted to stay at the agency for the rest of her career.

“It was where I have wanted to be for so long, and it was everything that I expected it to be from Day 1,” Ms. Naylor said.

Ms. Naylor, 24, said she felt a mixture of anger and disbelief. She said her performance evaluations showed she was an “excellent worker,” and she did not understand why she was fired. Although she said she was devastated to lose her job, which primarily involved clearing walking trails in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, she was not sure if she would return to the agency in the future.

“It would be really hard to trust the federal government if I were to go back,” Ms. Naylor said. She said she was considering enrolling in trade school and possibly becoming a welder since she is still “young enough” to easily change her career.

Although some said their experiences have discouraged them from pursuing jobs with the federal government again, some said they were intent on returning.

Advertisement

Jesus Murillo, 27, was fired on Valentine’s Day after about a year and a half working as a presidential management fellow at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he helped manage billions of dollars in economic development grants. After standing in countless food bank lines and working in fields picking walnuts to help his family earn additional income growing up, Mr. Murillo said he wanted to work in public service to aid the lowest income earners.

“I’ve put so much into this because I want to be a public leader to now figure out that my government tells me that my job is useless,” Mr. Murillo said. “I think that was just a smack in the face.”

Still, he said he would work for the federal government again.

“For us, it’s not a partisan thing,” Mr. Murillo said. “We’re there to carry out the mission, which is to be of service to the American public.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending