vox--2020-05-20--Inspectors general, explained by a former inspector general

Late Friday night , President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick .
It was the fourth abrupt dismissal of an inspector general in about as many weeks , and the latest case in which Trump claimed he ’ d lost confidence in the IG when it very much seemed like something else was going on .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed recommending that Trump fire Linick .
That ’ s an important detail , because it seems Linick — who , as inspector general , was in charge of oversight at the State Department — might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the secretary ’ s alleged use of a political appointee to run his personal errands .
Linick was also reportedly probing the administration ’ s $ 8 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia , which sidestepped Congress .
But Linick is not the first IG to go .
In April , Trump fired Michael Atkinson , the intelligence community ’ s inspector general , who had brought forward a credible whistleblower report about the president ’ s inappropriate phone call with the Ukrainian president that ultimately led to Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in Atkinson , too .
Earlier this month , Trump also moved to replace the acting inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services , who had written a report highlighting shortages of personal protective equipment and coronavirus tests in US hospitals , which Trump called “ wrong.
” And Trump replaced the acting Defense Department inspector general , who ’ d been tasked with overseeing the $ 2 trillion in funds from the coronavirus stimulus package , making him ineligible to oversee pandemic spending .
Trump ’ s purge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ire for these internal watchdogs is not .
Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had testy relationships with inspectors general , whose oversight responsibilities were established in a 1978 law .
Inspectors general are supposed to root out graft , malfeasance , and mismanagement coming from inside the departments they oversee .
That can sometimes mean running afoul of the president or Cabinet secretaries .
President Ronald Reagan fired inspectors general across the government when he first took office in 1981 , looking to put in his own people in the then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced him to rehire a bunch of them .
When George H.W .
Bush assumed the presidency in 1989 , he sent a standard letter to all presidential appointees asking for their resignations .
But the IGs pushed back , citing “ the independence of their office ” — a view Congress backed .
All administrations since have had gripes with their IGs , though Trump may be pushing the norms further than his predecessors .
To better understand the dynamics , I spoke with Clark Ervin , a former inspector general for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general for the Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration .
During his tenure at the DHS , Ervin issued some very critical reports about failures and mismanagement at the new agency .
The Bush administration declined to nominate him for the post permanently , and some questioned whether his rebukes of the agency were the reason .
Ervin explained what IGs do , how their investigations come about , and why aggressive , apolitical oversight of government agencies should matter to all Americans .
Our conversation , edited for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We often refer to inspectors general as “ watchdogs.
” Is that accurate ?
What is the job of an inspector general , exactly ?
I think “ watchdog ” is the right term .
There are 74 or so inspectors general [ in the federal government ] , and it ’ s good to remember that they fall into a couple of buckets .
For the larger agencies , like State and the Department of Homeland Security , where I was the IG , the inspector general is appointed by the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s important because the whole point is for them not to be under the thumb of , or be beholden to , the agency .
The statute says that as the IG , you report to the agency head , and you also report to Congress .
But that ’ s “ report ” in the narrow sense , meaning you are to keep them informed .
You ’ re to keep them aware of what it is you ’ re doing , because what you ’ re doing is looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At smaller agencies , like the Smithsonian Institution , the inspector general is appointed by the agency and does answer to the agency head , and therefore does work that the agency head tells him or her to do .
But purposely , at the larger agencies it ’ s different .
What other protections exist for inspectors general ?
In addition to the presidential nomination and Senate confirmation , there are lots of other institutional protections and enhancements that are given to larger-agency IGs .
For example , they have their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advise them so they ’ re not dependent on the agency ’ s general counsel for legal advice .
You also have your own press shop .
Nowadays , inspectors general have considerable budget authority .
The agency head sends the budget for the whole department , including the IG ’ s budget , to Congress .
But uniquely , the IG can submit its own request and explain to the Congress why it disagrees — if it does — with the lower suggested appropriation the administration ’ s made .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s been focus on this provision in the law that requires the president to give 30 days ’ notice when dismissing an IG and to give reasons for the firing .
That came from reform in 2008 .
The supposition , surely , on the part of Congress at the time was that the 30-day notice , it gives you time to rethink .
And then having to give reasons , that was intended to dissuade presidents from just willy-nilly getting rid of inspectors general for nefarious and overtly political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that inspectors general stay for a long period of time because they really are considered to be apolitical — and most of them think of themselves that way ” You mentioned IG reform in 2008 .
The original inspector general law was passed in the 1970s , correct ?
Exactly , yes , it was 1978 .
It was one of the post-Watergate reforms .
Why did Congress make those tweaks 30 years later , including putting that 30-day provision into the law ?
It was Congress ’ s intention , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to further empower IGs and to dissuade presidents from retaliating .
As a legal matter , everybody [ in the executive branch ] serves at the pleasure of the president , so the president can legally get rid of an IG .
The point is , though , the IG was intended to be an independent authority and distinguishable from other executive-branch people in that regard .
And therefore , let ’ s make sure that IGs aren ’ t gotten rid of willy-nilly by putting this in .
And IGs can serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed ?
It is often the case that inspectors general stay for a long period of time because they really are considered to be apolitical — and most of them think of themselves that way .
So it is frequently the case that an inspector general will be in office for years , and therefore , given how our political cycles work , serve eventually under a president in a party different from that under which he or she was appointed .
I ’ ve often said that if you ’ re an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correctly , and you ’ re one of those inspectors general who wind up serving for quite a long time , then over time , you ’ re going to alienate Democratic administrations and Republican administrations .
You ’ re going to alienate Democrats in Congress and Republicans in Congress .
Eventually you make everybody mad at you , which in my judgment means you ’ re an effective inspector general .
You do what the statute requires you to do , and that is to call things as you see them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves , and the political consequences come what may on that .
How do IG investigations come about ?
There ’ s several sources for that .
One is the inspector general himself or herself .
We ’ ll have ideas — “ I ’ m interested in this , and I want to look at this.
” So they can .
So that ’ s one source .
Each IG office has a whistleblower or hotline kind of mechanism .
You get usually anonymous allegations , and there are people who screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like there ’ s something there that is worth following up on ?
So that ’ s a source .
Congress will also frequently ask the inspector general to look at something .
There are 535 members of Congress , and in theory , all you would do is respond to congressional requests if you got one from everybody .
As inspector general , you ’ re supposed to undertake an audit or investigation if requested by committees of jurisdiction — so whatever the authorizing or appropriating committee is for your agency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee itself , the committee chairman , you ’ re supposed to do that .
Otherwise , my practice was , if I had the resources to do it and I thought it was a worthy thing to do , then I would honor requests from any member of Congress , whether they were in the minority or majority , whether they were on the relevant committee or not .
So that ’ s another source .
And then sometimes — in my view , all too rarely — agency heads will ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I won ’ t be going into government again , I ’ m sure at this point , but I always said I would ’ ve liked to be a Cabinet secretary because I ’ d like to get the relationship between a Cabinet secretary and inspector general off right .
I would make a point of asking inspectors general to look at things .
I never understood why there tends to be this animosity between agency heads and inspectors general , because to me , it ’ s a free internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going on .
Tell me the truth about what ’ s going on in my agency so that I can get after it .
I don ’ t necessarily have to take your word for it , but if you have reported an audit or investigation and it ’ s credible , then I ’ d be crazy not to implement your recommendations .
And I can be a hero for doing so .
“ Eventually you make everybody mad at you , which in my judgment means you ’ re an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , how often as IG do you look into something and say , “ Oh , never mind , nothing to see here ” ?
I can ’ t give a percentage , of course , but yes , that certainly does happen .
I think it ’ s more likely to be the case that something that you think is a big deal at the outset turns out to be less of a big deal once you get into it .
The inspector general community has this system for doing preliminary evaluations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotlines where people anonymously can call or send an email and raise a concern .
Sometimes those are legitimate , and sometimes they ’ re not really .
Other times , there will be an allegation that seems credible and seems important and is certainly within the jurisdiction , but once you do some preliminary digging , you find there ’ s really nothing to it .
That kind of thing happens all the time .
I think it ’ s less likely that something that appears to be a small matter becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work both ways .
What do you say to the common criticism of IGs : that if you dig deep enough , you ’ ll always find something ?
Well , to that I would say that if there is nothing to find , an IG won ’ t find anything .
It should hardly be a criticism of an IG if he or she uncovers wrongdoing ; the onus is on people to do no wrong , in which case there would be nothing to find .
Since IGs are in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to get people to cooperate on IG investigations , particularly in politically charged cases ?
There ’ s two kinds of people under investigation .
The first would be agency employees , and they are legally supposed to cooperate .
They ’ re supposed to submit to interviews by the IG , and those are sworn interviews .
There ’ s the penalty of perjury for lying , and they ’ re supposed to provide documents .
The statute gives the inspector general the power , without subpoena , to compel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That said , sometimes agency employees resist both the interviews and the documents , but you can , ultimately , go to court to get them to enforce what the statute says .
That typically doesn ’ t happen , because even recalcitrant administrations generally accede to that .
I can ’ t think of any instances , at least public ones , where even the Trump administration has resisted that .
For non-federal employees , the hook that gives the IG authority to go after them is their receipt of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractor of the agency , or if you ’ re a grantee of the agency , then the fact that you ’ ve got that money gives the IG the authority to require you to appear to give an interview .
But generally , people will comply .
Most lawyers who have any sense will recognize that it ’ s in their interest for their clients to appear for these interviews .
But there is , as you know , subpoena power to compel the production of documents .
That ’ s generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities .
Does the inspector general have any obligation to be transparent or notify an agency head about what ’ s being investigated ?
If you ’ re going to undertake an audit or an investigation that concerns a hot-button issue that could be read about in a newspaper , I think the general practice is to give the agency head and the appropriate congressional committees a heads-up , so that they know you ’ re looking into this matter and so it doesn ’ t come as this complete surprise once the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice .
When we ’ re talking about a criminal investigation , you ’ re not supposed to keep the agency or Congress involved along the way .
Audits are different ; you can and frequently do get check-ins on that kind of thing .
Inspectors general are supposed to issue public reports of the audits that they do and the other kinds of examinations and reviews , so you often send draft reports .
For example , if you ’ re doing an audit on Customs and Border Protection , you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you finalize it to the head of CBP , or copy the secretary and give them an opportunity to review it for factual accuracy .
Also for their take on it , whether they agree or disagree .
If they point out some things that you agree are factually inaccurate or incomplete , then you should revise the report to reflect that .
If it ’ s simply a matter of disagreement about something , then they ’ re entitled to their opinion , and inspectors general are supposed to include that pushback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s finalized , the Congress and the American people can see the back-and-forth between the inspector general and the agency .
On criminal investigations , those reports are supposed to be kept confidential , and really only the stats from those criminal investigations are supposed to be reported on a semi-annual basis .
Inspectors general have to do a report of all their activities over the course of a six-month period , twice a year .
So you ’ ll say , “ During the six months , we initiated X @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this period , Y indictments , and P convictions.
” That ’ s generally how it works .
I thought IGs could only refer criminal investigations to law enforcement .
What exactly is their role in uncovering criminal allegations ?
As far as law enforcement is concerned , inspectors general are fact-finders .
So if during the course of an investigation , they find evidence of what appears to be criminal wrongdoing , or for that matter civil law-breaking , they are statutorily obliged to refer that to the Department of Justice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ determination whether to pursue .
Sometimes the IG , once they open a case , will work right at the beginning with DOJ and keep the DOJ involved in the fact-finding process .
More often , the whole fact-finding process will be done entirely by the IG , and the DOJ will be contacted only if and when there ’ s evidence that ’ s uncovered .
And then sometimes , Justice will begin an investigation itself and will enlist the inspector general and his or her team of investigators to do fact-finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why do you think there is that tension between the IG and the agency heads ?
It does seem a little bit counterintuitive — as you said before , they ’ re a free consulting service .
Well , it ’ s certainly counterproductive .
I don ’ t know whether it ’ s counterintuitive — it ’ s counterintuitive to me .
But maybe that ’ s just because I was an inspector general .
I think the default tendency is to think that anything that is critical of the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ipso facto , critical of me .
And that ’ s just not right .
If you either explicitly — certainly by denying it — or implicitly endorse whatever deficiencies the inspector general has called out in the reports , then you ’ re complicit in it , if you ask me .
But rather your response should be , “ If this is true , well , thank you for telling me this , let me get to the bottom of it.
” It ’ s not a personal criticism of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism — if that ’ s what it is — of the operation or management of a given program or operation that , generally speaking , takes place at a lower level .
It ’ s not like Cabinet secretaries are running — I don ’ t know , pick a program — they ’ re not sending out Social Security checks , or something .
“ It should hardly be a criticism of an IG if he or she uncovers wrongdoing ; the onus is on people to do no wrong ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads and IGs is not a new phenomenon .
No .
It happens in Republican administrations .
It happens in Democratic administrations .
It happened to me in my administrations .
It happened all the time because it ’ s human nature .
People don ’ t like oversight , regrettably .
They don ’ t really understand .
They don ’ t understand what the role of inspectors general is .
And it ’ s a real shame , really , because they can be such an important force to make government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer .
And I ’ ve been saying a lot in response to inquiries about this , that if any good thing comes out of this , the hope would be that certainly lawmakers , policymakers , but even the average American will have come to learn what inspectors general are , why they ’ re important , and we ’ ll come up with a bipartisan consensus that more needs to be done to empower them and to respect them .
So you know , like I said , maybe some good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been efforts in the HEROES Act , the House legislation from last week — we ’ ll see if it winds up in the next law on the virus — that would require for-cause termination for inspectors general , with cause specified : moral turpitude and malfeasance and felony conviction , that kind of thing .
I think it ’ s obviously open to interpretation .
There ’ s ultimately no way to legislate — how shall I put it ?
— character .
It all depends to some degree on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn , how Congress reacts to it .
You have the law , but if a president does something different and there ’ s no consequences for him doing so , then the law is hollow .
It ’ s the whole tree-falls-in-a-forest thing .
Is there a way to strengthen protections on inspectors general ?
Specifically , what , if anything , could Congress do to beef up protections ?
In addition to that for-cause provision , Congress can use its appropriations power , decide not to fund something that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens from time to time .
That ’ s not really in the IG context , but that is a powerful tool that the House , in particular , has in [ its ] toolbox .
The Senate can put a hold on nominations of importance to the administration .
And hearings , which shines the spotlight .
There have been times when every president , including this one , have backtracked on things they planned to do once there was enough public and bipartisan outrage about it .
And I would just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonpartisan in everything I do and say , and as I ’ m sure you ’ ve seen , in recent days that ’ s happened .
Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) , to his credit , has been a proponent of the IG community for decades .
I worked with him closely when I was the DHS inspector general .
I was Republican ; he was Republican .
And I was being critical .
He was supportive of that , he was supportive of me — he was my number one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lankford ( R-OK ) and Sen .
Rob Portman ( R-OH ) sent that letter to Trump before the Linick firing , urging him to respect the independence of inspectors general .
In light of this Linick development , Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , predictably and commendably , and Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) have expressed some concern .
Is Trump ’ s firing of Linick and these other IGs an unprecedented moment ?
I do think this is materially different — the numbers , the context , the frequency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between an administration , between an agency and inspector general , new ?
Is it unique to this administration ?
Absolutely not .
It ’ s a bipartisan thing that ’ s been going on for decades .
President Barack Obama famously fired the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service right at the beginning of his tenure in 2009 , and that was questioned because the allegation is that the inspector general was retaliated against for having investigated and referred to DOJ for prosecution someone who was politically connected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this happen from time to time in administrations , but as I say , the numbers , the backdrop , the sequencing , the statements , all of that makes it not par for the course .
What do you think , with these current firings , will the fallout be for the inspector general community ?
The concern , of course , is that this could have , and may well have , a chilling effect on existing inspectors general and make them less likely to be independent and aggressive in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steer clear of undertaking audits or investigations or coming to conclusions in those audits or investigations that is likely to draw the ire of the administration .
It is certainly possible to dissuade people from accepting offers to be inspectors general in the future if they see that doing so can put them in the crosshairs of an administration .
There ’ s an effect on existing inspectors general and there can be an effect on inspectors general down the road .
How should we think of IG findings ?
At State , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handpick an IG , and throw an acting IG in there in the meantime .
How might that diminish the work of inspectors ?
Should the public now be more skeptical of their work writ large ?
I think what [ I ] would say is the proof is in the pudding .
Let ’ s see how these successors perform in office , and if they prove themselves to be independent and aggressive , then terrific .
That ’ s great .
If they prove not to be , then obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their having been appointed .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Late Friday night, President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. It was the fourth abrupt dismissal of an inspector general in about as many weeks, and the latest case in which Trump claimed he’d lost confidence in the IG when it very much seemed like something else was going on.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed recommending that Trump fire Linick. That’s an important detail, because it seems Linick — who, as inspector general, was in charge of oversight at the State Department — might have been zeroing in on Pompeo himself, including the secretary’s alleged use of a political appointee to run his personal errands. Linick was also reportedly probing the administration’s $8 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which sidestepped Congress.
Congressional Democrats are now investigating Linick’s firing.
But Linick is not the first IG to go. In April, Trump fired Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, who had brought forward a credible whistleblower report about the president’s inappropriate phone call with the Ukrainian president that ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment.
Trump had “lost confidence” in Atkinson, too.
Earlier this month, Trump also moved to replace the acting inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, who had written a report highlighting shortages of personal protective equipment and coronavirus tests in US hospitals, which Trump called “wrong.” And Trump replaced the acting Defense Department inspector general, who’d been tasked with overseeing the $2 trillion in funds from the coronavirus stimulus package, making him ineligible to oversee pandemic spending.
Trump’s purge of inspectors general is unprecedented. But his ire for these internal watchdogs is not.
Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had testy relationships with inspectors general, whose oversight responsibilities were established in a 1978 law. Inspectors general are supposed to root out graft, malfeasance, and mismanagement coming from inside the departments they oversee. That can sometimes mean running afoul of the president or Cabinet secretaries.
President Ronald Reagan fired inspectors general across the government when he first took office in 1981, looking to put in his own people in the then relatively new executive positions. Congressional outcry forced him to rehire a bunch of them. When George H.W. Bush assumed the presidency in 1989, he sent a standard letter to all presidential appointees asking for their resignations. But the IGs pushed back, citing “the independence of their office” — a view Congress backed.
All administrations since have had gripes with their IGs, though Trump may be pushing the norms further than his predecessors.
To better understand the dynamics, I spoke with Clark Ervin, a former inspector general for the State Department and the first inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration.
During his tenure at the DHS, Ervin issued some very critical reports about failures and mismanagement at the new agency. The Bush administration declined to nominate him for the post permanently, and some questioned whether his rebukes of the agency were the reason.
Ervin explained what IGs do, how their investigations come about, and why aggressive, apolitical oversight of government agencies should matter to all Americans.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Jen Kirby
We often refer to inspectors general as “watchdogs.” Is that accurate? What is the job of an inspector general, exactly?
Clark Ervin
I think “watchdog” is the right term. There are 74 or so inspectors general [in the federal government], and it’s good to remember that they fall into a couple of buckets. For the larger agencies, like State and the Department of Homeland Security, where I was the IG, the inspector general is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. That’s important because the whole point is for them not to be under the thumb of, or be beholden to, the agency.
The statute says that as the IG, you report to the agency head, and you also report to Congress. But that’s “report” in the narrow sense, meaning you are to keep them informed. You’re to keep them aware of what it is you’re doing, because what you’re doing is looking at the performance of their respective agency.
At smaller agencies, like the Smithsonian Institution, the inspector general is appointed by the agency and does answer to the agency head, and therefore does work that the agency head tells him or her to do. But purposely, at the larger agencies it’s different.
Jen Kirby
What other protections exist for inspectors general?
Clark Ervin
In addition to the presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, there are lots of other institutional protections and enhancements that are given to larger-agency IGs. For example, they have their own general counsel — their own lawyer to advise them so they’re not dependent on the agency’s general counsel for legal advice. You also have your own press shop.
Nowadays, inspectors general have considerable budget authority. The agency head sends the budget for the whole department, including the IG’s budget, to Congress. But uniquely, the IG can submit its own request and explain to the Congress why it disagrees — if it does — with the lower suggested appropriation the administration’s made.
And in recent days, with the Linick firing, there’s been focus on this provision in the law that requires the president to give 30 days’ notice when dismissing an IG and to give reasons for the firing. That came from reform in 2008.
The supposition, surely, on the part of Congress at the time was that the 30-day notice, it gives you time to rethink. And then having to give reasons, that was intended to dissuade presidents from just willy-nilly getting rid of inspectors general for nefarious and overtly political purposes.
“It is often the case that inspectors general stay for a long period of time because they really are considered to be apolitical — and most of them think of themselves that way”
Jen Kirby
You mentioned IG reform in 2008. The original inspector general law was passed in the 1970s, correct?
Clark Ervin
Exactly, yes, it was 1978. It was one of the post-Watergate reforms.
Jen Kirby
Why did Congress make those tweaks 30 years later, including putting that 30-day provision into the law?
Clark Ervin
It was Congress’s intention, and there was bipartisan support for it, to further empower IGs and to dissuade presidents from retaliating.
As a legal matter, everybody [in the executive branch] serves at the pleasure of the president, so the president can legally get rid of an IG. The point is, though, the IG was intended to be an independent authority and distinguishable from other executive-branch people in that regard. And therefore, let’s make sure that IGs aren’t gotten rid of willy-nilly by putting this in.
Jen Kirby
And IGs can serve indefinitely once they’re appointed and confirmed?
Clark Ervin
It is often the case that inspectors general stay for a long period of time because they really are considered to be apolitical — and most of them think of themselves that way. So it is frequently the case that an inspector general will be in office for years, and therefore, given how our political cycles work, serve eventually under a president in a party different from that under which he or she was appointed.
I’ve often said that if you’re an inspector general and you do your job correctly, and you’re one of those inspectors general who wind up serving for quite a long time, then over time, you’re going to alienate Democratic administrations and Republican administrations. You’re going to alienate Democrats in Congress and Republicans in Congress.
Eventually you make everybody mad at you, which in my judgment means you’re an effective inspector general. You do what the statute requires you to do, and that is to call things as you see them, let the audits and investigations speak for themselves, and the political consequences come what may on that.
Jen Kirby
How do IG investigations come about?
Clark Ervin
There’s several sources for that. One is the inspector general himself or herself. We’ll have ideas — “I’m interested in this, and I want to look at this.” So they can. So that’s one source.
Each IG office has a whistleblower or hotline kind of mechanism. You get usually anonymous allegations, and there are people who screen those for credibility — does this seem like there’s something there that is worth following up on? So that’s a source.
Congress will also frequently ask the inspector general to look at something. There are 535 members of Congress, and in theory, all you would do is respond to congressional requests if you got one from everybody. As inspector general, you’re supposed to undertake an audit or investigation if requested by committees of jurisdiction — so whatever the authorizing or appropriating committee is for your agency.
If you get a request from the committee itself, the committee chairman, you’re supposed to do that. Otherwise, my practice was, if I had the resources to do it and I thought it was a worthy thing to do, then I would honor requests from any member of Congress, whether they were in the minority or majority, whether they were on the relevant committee or not. So that’s another source.
And then sometimes — in my view, all too rarely — agency heads will ask inspectors general to look into a matter.
I won’t be going into government again, I’m sure at this point, but I always said I would’ve liked to be a Cabinet secretary because I’d like to get the relationship between a Cabinet secretary and inspector general off right. I would make a point of asking inspectors general to look at things.
I never understood why there tends to be this animosity between agency heads and inspectors general, because to me, it’s a free internal consulting service. Tell me what’s going on. Tell me the truth about what’s going on in my agency so that I can get after it. I don’t necessarily have to take your word for it, but if you have reported an audit or investigation and it’s credible, then I’d be crazy not to implement your recommendations. And I can be a hero for doing so.
“Eventually you make everybody mad at you, which in my judgment means you’re an effective inspector general”
Jen Kirby
In your experience, how often as IG do you look into something and say, “Oh, never mind, nothing to see here”?
Clark Ervin
I can’t give a percentage, of course, but yes, that certainly does happen. I think it’s more likely to be the case that something that you think is a big deal at the outset turns out to be less of a big deal once you get into it.
The inspector general community has this system for doing preliminary evaluations, particularly of hotline reports, those hotlines where people anonymously can call or send an email and raise a concern. Sometimes those are legitimate, and sometimes they’re not really.
Other times, there will be an allegation that seems credible and seems important and is certainly within the jurisdiction, but once you do some preliminary digging, you find there’s really nothing to it. That kind of thing happens all the time. I think it’s less likely that something that appears to be a small matter becomes a big one, but it can work both ways.
Jen Kirby
What do you say to the common criticism of IGs: that if you dig deep enough, you’ll always find something?
Clark Ervin
Well, to that I would say that if there is nothing to find, an IG won’t find anything. It should hardly be a criticism of an IG if he or she uncovers wrongdoing; the onus is on people to do no wrong, in which case there would be nothing to find.
Jen Kirby
Since IGs are in a somewhat adversarial role, how hard it is to get people to cooperate on IG investigations, particularly in politically charged cases?
Clark Ervin
There’s two kinds of people under investigation. The first would be agency employees, and they are legally supposed to cooperate. They’re supposed to submit to interviews by the IG, and those are sworn interviews. There’s the penalty of perjury for lying, and they’re supposed to provide documents. The statute gives the inspector general the power, without subpoena, to compel the production of the documents from the agency.
That said, sometimes agency employees resist both the interviews and the documents, but you can, ultimately, go to court to get them to enforce what the statute says. That typically doesn’t happen, because even recalcitrant administrations generally accede to that. I can’t think of any instances, at least public ones, where even the Trump administration has resisted that.
For non-federal employees, the hook that gives the IG authority to go after them is their receipt of government money. If you’re a contractor of the agency, or if you’re a grantee of the agency, then the fact that you’ve got that money gives the IG the authority to require you to appear to give an interview.
But generally, people will comply. Most lawyers who have any sense will recognize that it’s in their interest for their clients to appear for these interviews. But there is, as you know, subpoena power to compel the production of documents. That’s generally the way you catch employees and private entities.
Jen Kirby
Does the inspector general have any obligation to be transparent or notify an agency head about what’s being investigated?
Clark Ervin
If you’re going to undertake an audit or an investigation that concerns a hot-button issue that could be read about in a newspaper, I think the general practice is to give the agency head and the appropriate congressional committees a heads-up, so that they know you’re looking into this matter and so it doesn’t come as this complete surprise once the report issues. I made this a practice.
When we’re talking about a criminal investigation, you’re not supposed to keep the agency or Congress involved along the way. Audits are different; you can and frequently do get check-ins on that kind of thing.
Inspectors general are supposed to issue public reports of the audits that they do and the other kinds of examinations and reviews, so you often send draft reports. For example, if you’re doing an audit on Customs and Border Protection, you will send a draft of that report before you finalize it to the head of CBP, or copy the secretary and give them an opportunity to review it for factual accuracy.
Also for their take on it, whether they agree or disagree. If they point out some things that you agree are factually inaccurate or incomplete, then you should revise the report to reflect that.
If it’s simply a matter of disagreement about something, then they’re entitled to their opinion, and inspectors general are supposed to include that pushback in the report, so that once it’s finalized, the Congress and the American people can see the back-and-forth between the inspector general and the agency.
On criminal investigations, those reports are supposed to be kept confidential, and really only the stats from those criminal investigations are supposed to be reported on a semi-annual basis. Inspectors general have to do a report of all their activities over the course of a six-month period, twice a year. So you’ll say, “During the six months, we initiated X number of criminal investigations that resulted during this period, Y indictments, and P convictions.” That’s generally how it works.
Jen Kirby
I thought IGs could only refer criminal investigations to law enforcement. What exactly is their role in uncovering criminal allegations?
Clark Ervin
As far as law enforcement is concerned, inspectors general are fact-finders. So if during the course of an investigation, they find evidence of what appears to be criminal wrongdoing, or for that matter civil law-breaking, they are statutorily obliged to refer that to the Department of Justice. It’s the DOJ’s determination whether to pursue.
Sometimes the IG, once they open a case, will work right at the beginning with DOJ and keep the DOJ involved in the fact-finding process. More often, the whole fact-finding process will be done entirely by the IG, and the DOJ will be contacted only if and when there’s evidence that’s uncovered.
And then sometimes, Justice will begin an investigation itself and will enlist the inspector general and his or her team of investigators to do fact-finding. So it works three different ways.
Jen Kirby
Why do you think there is that tension between the IG and the agency heads? It does seem a little bit counterintuitive — as you said before, they’re a free consulting service.
Clark Ervin
Well, it’s certainly counterproductive. I don’t know whether it’s counterintuitive — it’s counterintuitive to me. But maybe that’s just because I was an inspector general.
I think the default tendency is to think that anything that is critical of the agency I oversee, is necessarily by definition, ipso facto, critical of me. And that’s just not right.
If you either explicitly — certainly by denying it — or implicitly endorse whatever deficiencies the inspector general has called out in the reports, then you’re complicit in it, if you ask me. But rather your response should be, “If this is true, well, thank you for telling me this, let me get to the bottom of it.”
It’s not a personal criticism of the agency head. It is a criticism — if that’s what it is — of the operation or management of a given program or operation that, generally speaking, takes place at a lower level. It’s not like Cabinet secretaries are running — I don’t know, pick a program — they’re not sending out Social Security checks, or something.
“It should hardly be a criticism of an IG if he or she uncovers wrongdoing; the onus is on people to do no wrong”
Jen Kirby
It sounds like the tension between agency heads and IGs is not a new phenomenon.
Clark Ervin
No. It happens in Republican administrations. It happens in Democratic administrations. It happened to me in my administrations. It happened all the time because it’s human nature. People don’t like oversight, regrettably.
They don’t really understand. They don’t understand what the role of inspectors general is. And it’s a real shame, really, because they can be such an important force to make government work better and on behalf of the taxpayer.
And I’ve been saying a lot in response to inquiries about this, that if any good thing comes out of this, the hope would be that certainly lawmakers, policymakers, but even the average American will have come to learn what inspectors general are, why they’re important, and we’ll come up with a bipartisan consensus that more needs to be done to empower them and to respect them.
So you know, like I said, maybe some good will come out of this. There have been efforts in the HEROES Act, the House legislation from last week — we’ll see if it winds up in the next law on the virus — that would require for-cause termination for inspectors general, with cause specified: moral turpitude and malfeasance and felony conviction, that kind of thing.
I think it’s obviously open to interpretation. There’s ultimately no way to legislate — how shall I put it? — character. It all depends to some degree on how people interpret, enact, and in turn, how Congress reacts to it. You have the law, but if a president does something different and there’s no consequences for him doing so, then the law is hollow. It’s the whole tree-falls-in-a-forest thing.
Jen Kirby
Is there a way to strengthen protections on inspectors general? Specifically, what, if anything, could Congress do to beef up protections?
Clark Ervin
In addition to that for-cause provision, Congress can use its appropriations power, decide not to fund something that’s a priority for the president. That happens from time to time. That’s not really in the IG context, but that is a powerful tool that the House, in particular, has in [its] toolbox. The Senate can put a hold on nominations of importance to the administration.
And hearings, which shines the spotlight. There have been times when every president, including this one, have backtracked on things they planned to do once there was enough public and bipartisan outrage about it.
And I would just note, I really try to be nonpartisan in everything I do and say, and as I’m sure you’ve seen, in recent days that’s happened. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), to his credit, has been a proponent of the IG community for decades. I worked with him closely when I was the DHS inspector general. I was Republican; he was Republican. And I was being critical. He was supportive of that, he was supportive of me — he was my number one supporter in the Senate.
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) sent that letter to Trump before the Linick firing, urging him to respect the independence of inspectors general. In light of this Linick development, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), predictably and commendably, and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) have expressed some concern.
Jen Kirby
Is Trump’s firing of Linick and these other IGs an unprecedented moment?
Clark Ervin
I do think this is materially different — the numbers, the context, the frequency, and the sequence. Is tension between an administration, between an agency and inspector general, new? Is it unique to this administration? Absolutely not. It’s a bipartisan thing that’s been going on for decades.
President Barack Obama famously fired the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service right at the beginning of his tenure in 2009, and that was questioned because the allegation is that the inspector general was retaliated against for having investigated and referred to DOJ for prosecution someone who was politically connected to the Obama administration.
Things like this happen from time to time in administrations, but as I say, the numbers, the backdrop, the sequencing, the statements, all of that makes it not par for the course.
Jen Kirby
What do you think, with these current firings, will the fallout be for the inspector general community?
Clark Ervin
The concern, of course, is that this could have, and may well have, a chilling effect on existing inspectors general and make them less likely to be independent and aggressive in their oversight and [more likely] to steer clear of undertaking audits or investigations or coming to conclusions in those audits or investigations that is likely to draw the ire of the administration.
It is certainly possible to dissuade people from accepting offers to be inspectors general in the future if they see that doing so can put them in the crosshairs of an administration. There’s an effect on existing inspectors general and there can be an effect on inspectors general down the road.
Jen Kirby
How should we think of IG findings? At State, for example, the president now gets to handpick an IG, and throw an acting IG in there in the meantime. How might that diminish the work of inspectors? Should the public now be more skeptical of their work writ large?
Clark Ervin
I think what [I] would say is the proof is in the pudding. Let’s see how these successors perform in office, and if they prove themselves to be independent and aggressive, then terrific. That’s great. If they prove not to be, then obviously that calls into question the motivation for their having been appointed.


vox--2020-05-20--Trump says he’ll cut off funding to states that make it easier to vote

President Trump sent two tweets Wednesday morning threatening financial retaliation against states that are trying to make it easier to cast a ballot during the coronavirus pandemic , saying he will “ hold up ” funds for two swing states encouraging people to vote absentee : Trump is not telling the truth about Michigan ’ s plans .
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson plans to mail an absentee ballot application to voters , not an actual ballot .
Several Republican-led states plan to do the same thing .
( Nevada , by contrast , will provide actual ballots to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are taking steps to make it easier to vote absentee , the two states that Trump singled out are likely to be contested in the 2020 election .
Trump barely won Michigan in 2016 , and he lost Nevada by less than 3 points .
It ’ s also unclear which “ funds ” Trump is threatening to withhold from Michigan and Nevada , but he could be referring to “ Election Security Grants ” provided for in the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The CARES Act appropriated $ 400 million in funds to help states “ prevent , prepare for , and respond to coronavirus , domestically or internationally , for the 2020 Federal election cycle.
” Michigan received $ 11.2 million as its share of those funds , and plans to use some of that money to mail an absentee ballot application to every voter in the state .
Nevada received $ 4.5 million and will use that money to transition to a system where registered voters automatically receive a ballot in the mail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to be using the federal funds for the exact purpose laid out by Congress .
By making it easier for voters to cast a ballot by mail , the states will “ prevent ” the spread of coronavirus at polling sites .
They will “ prepare for ” an election where the coronavirus might otherwise discourage many voters from casting a ballot .
And they will “ respond ” to the unique challenges a pandemic imposes on voters and election officials .
Nevertheless , Trump is threatening to cut funding to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CARES Act funds for the specific purpose laid out by Congress in that act .
Although Trump recently cast a mailed-in ballot in Florida ’ s primary election , he ’ s also criticized mail-in voting because “ Democrats are clamoring for it ” and , he claims , when states make it easy to vote by mail , it “ doesn ’ t work out well for Republicans.
” Cutting off funding to Michigan or Nevada is unconstitutional Congress may offer conditional grants to state governments — appropriating money that states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions on states that take it .
In South Dakota v. Dole ( 1987 ) , however , the Supreme Court ruled that there are constitutional limits on Congress ’ s power to impose such conditions on funding for states .
Among other things , Dole provides that “ if Congress desires to condition the States ’ receipt of federal funds , it ‘ must do so unambiguously ... enabl [ ing ] the States to exercise their choice knowingly , cognizant of the consequences of their participation.
’ ” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new conditions on the funding after a state has already agreed to take it .
Any conditions imposed on federal grants must be clearly stated before the state decides whether to take the money .
The CARES Act does impose some conditions on states that accept Election Security Grants .
States accepting such grants , for example , must “ provide to the Election Assistance Commission ... a report that includes a full accounting of the State ’ s uses of the payment and an explanation of how such uses allowed the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to coronavirus.
” States also must return any money that is “ unobligated on December 31 , 2020.
” Notably , none of these conditions limit the state ’ s ability to spend the money to expand access to mailed-in ballots .
Despite Trump ’ s claims that enhanced access to mailed-in ballots will increase voter fraud , such fraud barely exists .
The state of Oregon , for example , has provided more than 100 million mail-in ballots to voters since 2000 but has only documented about 12 cases of fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Justice ’ s Wendy Weiser and Harold Ekeh , “ an exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012 ” — and billions of votes were cast during that period .
Thus , Weiser and Ekeh write , “ it is still more likely for an American to be struck by lightning than to commit mail voting fraud.
” These negligible examples of voter fraud , moreover , need to be weighed against the potential impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to leave their homes to cast a vote or unwilling to do so due to fears of becoming infected , hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters could be disenfranchised if they are unable to vote by mail .
So even if Trump ’ s warnings of voter fraud are offered in good faith — and not merely as an excuse to reject voting rights policies that , in his own words , do not “ work out well for Republicans ” — the president is proposing that we disenfranchise thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent a small handful of fraudulent ballots from potentially being cast in 2020 .
Michigan ’ s efforts to expand access to absentee ballots may still be challenged in state court All of this said , there is a possibility that Michigan ’ s plans to mail an absentee ballot application to every voter could be struck down by the state ’ s Republican-controlled Supreme Court .
After Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson , a Democrat , announced her plan to mail ballot applications widely , her actions were sharply criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s attack on Benson ’ s plans suggests that the GOP will swiftly unite against those plans .
In 2008 , moreover , a state appeals court ruled against a county election clerk who wanted to mail absentee ballot applications to every voter over the age of 60 .
So that decision could potentially form the basis for a challenge to Benson ’ s plans — although that decision was also handed down several years before the state amended its absentee ballot law to make it much easier for voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the outcome of such a lawsuit is uncertain , it is likely that Republicans will challenge Benson ’ s plans in court .
And with Republicans controlling the state Supreme Court , such a lawsuit could potentially prevail .
Even if state litigation does prevent voters from receiving absentee ballot applications in the mail , however , that will have nothing to do with the CARES Act or any other federal limits on how states conduct their elections .
Michigan ’ s Republican Supreme Court , for better or for worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Michigan state law .
But federal law is quite clear : Trump can not cut off federal assistance to Michigan and Nevada .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Trump sent two tweets Wednesday morning threatening financial retaliation against states that are trying to make it easier to cast a ballot during the coronavirus pandemic, saying he will “hold up” funds for two swing states encouraging people to vote absentee:
Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election. This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 20, 2020
State of Nevada “thinks” that they can send out illegal vote by mail ballots, creating a great Voter Fraud scenario for the State and the U.S. They can’t! If they do, “I think” I can hold up funds to the State. Sorry, but you must not cheat in elections. @RussVought45 @USTreasury — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 20, 2020
Trump is not telling the truth about Michigan’s plans. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson plans to mail an absentee ballot application to voters, not an actual ballot. Several Republican-led states plan to do the same thing. (Nevada, by contrast, will provide actual ballots to voters.)
Yet while several states are taking steps to make it easier to vote absentee, the two states that Trump singled out are likely to be contested in the 2020 election. Trump barely won Michigan in 2016, and he lost Nevada by less than 3 points.
It’s also unclear which “funds” Trump is threatening to withhold from Michigan and Nevada, but he could be referring to “Election Security Grants” provided for in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which he signed into law in March.
The CARES Act appropriated $400 million in funds to help states “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 Federal election cycle.” Michigan received $11.2 million as its share of those funds, and plans to use some of that money to mail an absentee ballot application to every voter in the state. Nevada received $4.5 million and will use that money to transition to a system where registered voters automatically receive a ballot in the mail.
Both states, in other words, appear to be using the federal funds for the exact purpose laid out by Congress. By making it easier for voters to cast a ballot by mail, the states will “prevent” the spread of coronavirus at polling sites. They will “prepare for” an election where the coronavirus might otherwise discourage many voters from casting a ballot. And they will “respond” to the unique challenges a pandemic imposes on voters and election officials.
Nevertheless, Trump is threatening to cut funding to these states — which appear to be using the CARES Act funds for the specific purpose laid out by Congress in that act. Although Trump recently cast a mailed-in ballot in Florida’s primary election, he’s also criticized mail-in voting because “Democrats are clamoring for it” and, he claims, when states make it easy to vote by mail, it “doesn’t work out well for Republicans.”
Cutting off funding to Michigan or Nevada is unconstitutional
Congress may offer conditional grants to state governments — appropriating money that states may elect to take, but with restrictions on states that take it. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), however, the Supreme Court ruled that there are constitutional limits on Congress’s power to impose such conditions on funding for states.
Among other things, Dole provides that “if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it ‘must do so unambiguously ... enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.’” In other words, the federal government may not impose new conditions on the funding after a state has already agreed to take it. Any conditions imposed on federal grants must be clearly stated before the state decides whether to take the money.
The CARES Act does impose some conditions on states that accept Election Security Grants. States accepting such grants, for example, must “provide to the Election Assistance Commission ... a report that includes a full accounting of the State’s uses of the payment and an explanation of how such uses allowed the State to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” States also must return any money that is “unobligated on December 31, 2020.”
Notably, none of these conditions limit the state’s ability to spend the money to expand access to mailed-in ballots.
Voter fraud is a fake problem
Despite Trump’s claims that enhanced access to mailed-in ballots will increase voter fraud, such fraud barely exists. The state of Oregon, for example, has provided more than 100 million mail-in ballots to voters since 2000 but has only documented about 12 cases of fraud.
Similarly, according to the Brennan Center for Justice’s Wendy Weiser and Harold Ekeh, “an exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012” — and billions of votes were cast during that period.
Thus, Weiser and Ekeh write, “it is still more likely for an American to be struck by lightning than to commit mail voting fraud.”
These negligible examples of voter fraud, moreover, need to be weighed against the potential impact of a pandemic. If voters are either unable to leave their homes to cast a vote or unwilling to do so due to fears of becoming infected, hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters could be disenfranchised if they are unable to vote by mail.
So even if Trump’s warnings of voter fraud are offered in good faith — and not merely as an excuse to reject voting rights policies that, in his own words, do not “work out well for Republicans” — the president is proposing that we disenfranchise thousands or even millions of voters in order to prevent a small handful of fraudulent ballots from potentially being cast in 2020.
Michigan’s efforts to expand access to absentee ballots may still be challenged in state court
All of this said, there is a possibility that Michigan’s plans to mail an absentee ballot application to every voter could be struck down by the state’s Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
After Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, announced her plan to mail ballot applications widely, her actions were sharply criticized by her predecessor, Republican Ruth Johnson. Trump’s attack on Benson’s plans suggests that the GOP will swiftly unite against those plans.
In 2008, moreover, a state appeals court ruled against a county election clerk who wanted to mail absentee ballot applications to every voter over the age of 60. So that decision could potentially form the basis for a challenge to Benson’s plans — although that decision was also handed down several years before the state amended its absentee ballot law to make it much easier for voters to obtain such a ballot.
So, while the outcome of such a lawsuit is uncertain, it is likely that Republicans will challenge Benson’s plans in court. And with Republicans controlling the state Supreme Court, such a lawsuit could potentially prevail.
Even if state litigation does prevent voters from receiving absentee ballot applications in the mail, however, that will have nothing to do with the CARES Act or any other federal limits on how states conduct their elections. Michigan’s Republican Supreme Court, for better or for worse, has the final word on questions of Michigan state law.
But federal law is quite clear: Trump cannot cut off federal assistance to Michigan and Nevada.


vox--2020-05-20--The real story behind Rosie the Riveter

The real story behind Rosie the Riveter

Rosie the Riveter is iconic .
But what ’ s the real story behind this image ?
In this episode of Vox Almanac , Vox ’ s Phil Edwards explores the story behind the women riveters of World War II .
During the war , millions of women entered manufacturing and the workforce in general .
How did the labor pool change so dramatically , and so quickly ?
And how does it connect to the familiar poster of Rosie the Riveter that people still love today ?
These riveters came from other industries and outside the workforce , guided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some government agencies .
The US Employment Service helped place men and women in wartime jobs , and the Women ’ s Bureau and War Manpower Commission helped find and train that labor .
The traditional Rosie the Riveter story is not without omissions : White women benefited most from the labor changes , and many of the riveters were already in the labor force before World War II began .
But in a significant way , World War II did change work for women across the United States .
Watch the above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find this video and all of Vox ’ s Almanac series on YouTube .
• Karen Anderson ’ s Wartime Women is the definitive book about women ’ s labor in World War II .
It tells the story of the changing labor pool with extensive research into government , corporate , and union records .
• FRASER , the Federal Reserve ’ s Library , is one of the easiest places to find Women ’ s Bureau records and papers ( it ’ s where the ones in this video were downloaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Riveter by Maureen Honey offers a peek into another aspect of wartime recruitment : propaganda distributed by the government to magazines and newspapers to promote the wartime agenda .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Rosie the Riveter is iconic. But what’s the real story behind this image? In this episode of Vox Almanac, Vox’s Phil Edwards explores the story behind the women riveters of World War II.
During the war, millions of women entered manufacturing and the workforce in general. How did the labor pool change so dramatically, and so quickly? And how does it connect to the familiar poster of Rosie the Riveter that people still love today?
These riveters came from other industries and outside the workforce, guided by the help of private industry and some government agencies. The US Employment Service helped place men and women in wartime jobs, and the Women’s Bureau and War Manpower Commission helped find and train that labor.
The traditional Rosie the Riveter story is not without omissions: White women benefited most from the labor changes, and many of the riveters were already in the labor force before World War II began. But in a significant way, World War II did change work for women across the United States.
Watch the above video to learn more. You can find this video and all of Vox’s Almanac series on YouTube.
Further Reading


vox--2020-05-20--The other plague: Locusts are devouring crops in East Africa and the Middle East

Share All sharing options for : The other plague : Locusts are devouring crops in East Africa and the Middle East Gargantuan swarms of desert locusts with a voracious appetite for staple crops like teff , wheat , and sorghum are sweeping over the Horn of Africa , the Middle East , and South Asia , leaving crops and rangeland destroyed .
A combined 42 million people in Eastern Africa and Yemen were already expected to face acute food insecurity this year , according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) .
The locusts , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people to the brink of starvation .
For countries like Kenya , Somalia , and Ethiopia , the locusts this year have already been the worst in decades , with billions of insects forming swarms that spread over hundreds of thousands of acres .
Swarms have also swept into Yemen , Iran , Pakistan , and India , threatening harvests .
India is also contending with evacuations for millions of people as Cyclone Amphan makes landfall .
And now more ravenous insects are on their way .
The recent swarms have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some areas .
At times , locust swarms have become so dense that they ’ ve even forced aircraft to divert .
Officials in Iran reported that a layer of dead locusts piled up 6 inches high after they sprayed afflicted areas with pesticides .
“ I have a lot of experience with locusts , but this is my first time to see such a size of a swarm , ” said Mehari Tesfayohannes , chief information and forecasting officer for the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa .
Locust swarms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without them .
But weather and climate conditions over the past year converged to create the perfect conditions for a boom of these ravenous insects .
They are landing at an especially tenuous moment for many countries dealing with longstanding conflicts , resource shortages , and now a pandemic .
A humanitarian crisis could lie ahead .
“ Locust ” refers to several species of short-horned grasshoppers that can radically change how they look and behave under the right circumstances .
Out of roughly 7,000 species of grasshoppers , about 20 are considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found on every continent except Antarctica , though in many places they rarely gather enough numbers to swarm .
The species behind the recent swarms in Africa and Asia is the desert locust , Schistocerca gregaria .
It ’ s normally an introvert , leading a solitary life .
But every now and then , ideal environmental conditions cause a population explosion .
In prolonged close company , these introverts become what scientists call “ gregarious.
” They begin to move and act in sync rather than as haphazard individuals .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change ; the desert locust changes color from a green or mottled brown to a vivid yellow .
They change shape , too : Their body sizes are smaller and their brains are larger than in its solitary phase .
The changes in behavior can occur in just a few hours , while the physical changes take longer .
After they transition into their gregarious phase , locusts form swarms with roughly 150 million individuals per square kilometer , or 600,000 per acre .
Those 150 million locusts eat as much food as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has seen swarms spreading over as much as 2,400 square kilometers , nearly 600,000 acres , according to the FAO .
Once airborne , locust swarms can travel more than 100 miles in a day as they ride the wind , devouring almost all vegetation in their path .
Together , the scale , speed , and destruction of locust swarms make them an international danger to agriculture .
“ Locusts do not honor political boundaries and can easily invade other adjacent countries , ” said Hojun Song , an entomologist at Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email .
Weather and climate conditions fueled the enormous locust swarms this year Rainfall led to the recent population explosion in these insects , particularly in East Africa and the Middle East .
That was due in part to the changes in the Indian Ocean Dipole , a pattern of changing temperature gradients in the Indian Ocean .
“ The western side of the Indian Ocean was unusually warm as compared to the eastern side , ” said Muhammad Azhar Ehsan , a researcher at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Earth Institute .
“ So when the western side was warm , we had a lot of evaporation happening over there , and that evaporation turned into a rainfall.
” In 2019 , the Indian Ocean Dipole was at near-record strength with a temperature gradient not seen in decades .
This led to torrential rainfall in East Africa , Yemen , and India , some of the heaviest in two decades .
The rains caused floods and forced hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes .
When the waters receded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lush greenery .
The sudden bounty caused locusts to congregate and breed far more rapidly than they would when food is scarce , particularly in areas that are normally dry and bare .
The insects gathered , ate , mated , and laid eggs .
The rain also triggered dormant locust eggs to hatch , some that were laid years ago .
These offspring were born into a world of abundance , with fields of fresh , juicy plants like grasses and shrubs to nourish them .
This early stage in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as “ hoppers ” or “ nymphs , ” also presents the most important opportunity for preventing them from forming swarms .
Since they don ’ t yet have mature wings , they tend not to venture very far .
“ The key is to detect the sign of population increase early on when locusts are aggregating as nymphs , ” said Texas A & M ’ s Song .
“ When they are nymphs ( immatures that have not yet developed wings ) , it is easier to control .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s very difficult to control.
” These post-hopper , young adult locusts are often the most damaging because they are mobile and famished .
“ I like to say they ’ re like hungry teenagers , ” said Keith Cressman , senior locust forecasting officer at the FAO .
“ They ’ re very active and they ’ re very voracious.
” Once the local cuisine , be it native vegetation or crops , is devoured , the locusts take flight and look for their next meal .
About a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to lay eggs .
Then exponentially more locusts hatch , up to a 20-fold increase each generation .
The cycle continues , one that ’ s hard to break .
How governments are fighting back against locusts amid a pandemic Locusts have been a threat to humanity for thousands of years , but anticipating them remains tricky .
And with years , if not decades , passing between major swarm outbreaks , it ’ s easy for countries to lose sight of the threat .
The first signs of a pending locust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so surveillance is a key part of a locust control strategy .
“ There ’ s not people around watching , particularly in places that don ’ t typically have a lot of rainfall , ” said John Furlow , deputy director for humanitarian and international development at IRI .
“ So you may get them breeding and multiplying in places and not be aware of it , and then once they reach a certain population , it ’ s too big to manage.
” Once a potential swarm is identified , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground vehicles or aircraft .
The chemicals used are “ ultra-low volume , ” meaning a very small amount of pesticide is being used to do the job .
But for it to work effectively , it has to actually come in contact with the locusts .
Simply spraying crops or vegetation at a distance won ’ t work ; it requires finding locusts and targeting them .
However , because decades have passed since the last major swarms landed in places like Kenya in East Africa , national and local governments don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That can leave countries without the tools or institutional knowledge to quickly respond .
International organizations are trying to provide funding , equipment , technical support , but that takes time to scale up .
“ It ’ s like a fire in a country that has no fire department , ” Cressman said .
Some , but not all , of this has been complicated by the coronavirus pandemic .
Cressman said teams had largely gotten the necessary equipment — things like pesticide and sprayers — on the ground by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries began instituting lockdown measures .
They ’ ve also tried to diversify sources for things like pesticides , to avoid pressures on the global supply chain , but some disruption is unavoidable .
“ It went well with ground and aerial control operations ” for locusts in East Africa , said Tesfayohannes of the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa .
“ Even though there were some restrictions due to the virus.
” However , providing technical support and training is still tricky in the age of social distancing ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground or hire people to help control the locusts or gather all the stakeholders ( literally ) in one room .
Teams trying to control these locust swarms have been deemed essential services in many of these countries , but they are still subject to quarantine curfews in some areas .
In Kenya , for example , a 7 pm curfew can limit the extent of control operations in the afternoon , Cyril Ferrand , the resilience team leader in Eastern Africa for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization who ’ s on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Locusts are also active in wide swaths of East Africa and the Middle East , where fragile governments or outright conflict zones are complicating control efforts .
The security situation in places like Yemen or Southern Somalia — both currently threatened by locust swarms — prevents local forecasters and control teams from operating on the ground .
That can make it extraordinarily difficult to prevent swarms or to even know what ’ s going on .
It also puts these already vulnerable areas are at greater risk for food insecurity or famine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inability to control swarms in one place means that an entire region remains under threat .
Yemen , according to Ferrand , is particularly concerning right now , where the locusts are currently in their “ hopper ” stage , and where the ongoing conflict has complicated control efforts .
“ And this is really worrisome because our control capacity there is limited — but we need to control there .
If we don ’ t control now , these hopper bands will turn to swarm , and this swarm , at some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said , referring to East Africa .
In this way , the locusts are a bit like the coronavirus : A rapid and effective response in one place can be undermined by failures elsewhere .
But beyond spraying pesticides , there are few options for limiting their spread .
“ There is no lockdown for desert locusts , ” Ferrand said .
Then there ’ s Mother Nature .
The same climate shifts and weather patterns that supercharged this locust need to lessen .
That might mean a break from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winds that send the locusts to a location that ’ s much less favorable to their survival .
None of that is really happening right now .
“ For the last two years we have not seen any single break in the weather for desert locusts , ” Cressman said .
“ It ’ s just been phenomenally favorable to them.
” Locust swarms and the coronavirus are threatening to cause a humanitarian crisis The disaster caused by locusts is both impossibly quick and lasting .
A dark cloud descends on a farm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire season ’ s crop in an afternoon .
But their reproductive cycles , and their ability to take their destructive appetites on the road , means that crisis can repeat itself over and over again .
Countries in East Africa — parts of Somalia , Kenya , and Ethiopia — are bracing for the next wave of this crisis now through June , when the new swarms will start to form .
If conditions remain favorable , and if control operations falter , another wave could devastate the region from September through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long term , climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme Indian Ocean Dipole events , meaning that the downpours that helped drive the recent swarms could become more frequent .
So giant locust swarms could also arise more often in the years ahead .
For now , famine and food insecurity remain the biggest threat : More than 20 million people in the East African region already faced severe food insecurity in 10 countries , according to the FAO .
Climate shocks and other natural disasters , conflict , and displacement have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis .
The World Food Program has said the pandemic could cause famine worldwide , pushing an additional 130 million people close to starvation , on top of the 135 million already on the brink .
Locusts will make this worse in places like East Africa and Yemen , where each bug can eat its weight in a day .
If control operations can spare farmers ’ crops , or the grass that herders depend on , that will prevent the most acute crises .
If the locusts return later in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
But if those crops and vegetation can ’ t all be saved , people will exhaust their food supplies , pushing another 2.5 million to the brink of hunger in East Africa .
Countries like Yemen already have about 17 million people on the brink of famine due to conflict and drought .
Locusts are now eroding its already faltering agriculture system .
The locusts themselves have become a food source .
So far , the FAO says it has saved about 720,000 tonnes of cereal across 10 affected countries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people .
The UN agency is still seeking additional funds , primarily for livelihood support for farmers and herders who ’ ve lost their crops or food source .
The organization will launch a new international appeal , starting Thursday .
Food and resource scarcity are also increasing tensions and violence in some of these regions .
Some seeking to graze their herds of cattle , for example , may be displaced to other pastures , igniting potential conflict over diminishing natural resources .
“ There will be an increase in resource-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas where there will be grass .
We need to prepare for conflict , ” Josephine Ekiru , a Turkana pastoralist and peace-builder for the Northern Rangelands Trust in Kenya , told the Guardian this week .
The coronavirus pandemic could also make the humanitarian crisis more fraught .
Many who see their crops destroyed or fields torn up might seek work elsewhere , likely in big cities .
Quarantine , curfews , and travel restrictions in some of these countries may make that extraordinarily difficult .
The economic pressures of lockdowns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , may also make labor opportunities scarce .
Some governments are focusing their limited resources within their own borders to control the spread of the virus .
However , controlling locusts will require countries to work together , and it will take a sustained effort to fight this ancient plague , even among modern conflicts and a global pandemic .
“ Our gains have been significant , ” said Qu Dongyu , director general of the FAO , in a statement .
“ But the battle is long and is not yet over.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: The other plague: Locusts are devouring crops in East Africa and the Middle East
Gargantuan swarms of desert locusts with a voracious appetite for staple crops like teff, wheat, and sorghum are sweeping over the Horn of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, leaving crops and rangeland destroyed.
A combined 42 million people in Eastern Africa and Yemen were already expected to face acute food insecurity this year, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The locusts, and now the novel coronavirus, could push more people to the brink of starvation.
For countries like Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia, the locusts this year have already been the worst in decades, with billions of insects forming swarms that spread over hundreds of thousands of acres.
Swarms have also swept into Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, and India, threatening harvests. India is also contending with evacuations for millions of people as Cyclone Amphan makes landfall. And now more ravenous insects are on their way.
The recent swarms have already devoured almost 100 percent of crops in some areas. At times, locust swarms have become so dense that they’ve even forced aircraft to divert. Officials in Iran reported that a layer of dead locusts piled up 6 inches high after they sprayed afflicted areas with pesticides.
“I have a lot of experience with locusts, but this is my first time to see such a size of a swarm,” said Mehari Tesfayohannes, chief information and forecasting officer for the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa.
Locust swarms are an irregular phenomenon, with years passing without them. But weather and climate conditions over the past year converged to create the perfect conditions for a boom of these ravenous insects. They are landing at an especially tenuous moment for many countries dealing with longstanding conflicts, resource shortages, and now a pandemic. A humanitarian crisis could lie ahead.
Why locusts form swarms
“Locust” refers to several species of short-horned grasshoppers that can radically change how they look and behave under the right circumstances. Out of roughly 7,000 species of grasshoppers, about 20 are considered to be true locusts. They are found on every continent except Antarctica, though in many places they rarely gather enough numbers to swarm.
The species behind the recent swarms in Africa and Asia is the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria. It’s normally an introvert, leading a solitary life. But every now and then, ideal environmental conditions cause a population explosion.
In prolonged close company, these introverts become what scientists call “gregarious.” They begin to move and act in sync rather than as haphazard individuals. And it’s not just their personalities that change; the desert locust changes color from a green or mottled brown to a vivid yellow. They change shape, too: Their body sizes are smaller and their brains are larger than in their solitary phase. The changes in behavior can occur in just a few hours, while the physical changes take longer.
After they transition into their gregarious phase, locusts form swarms with roughly 150 million individuals per square kilometer, or 600,000 per acre. Those 150 million locusts eat as much food as 35,000 people every day. This year has seen swarms spreading over as much as 2,400 square kilometers, nearly 600,000 acres, according to the FAO.
Once airborne, locust swarms can travel more than 100 miles in a day as they ride the wind, devouring almost all vegetation in their path.
Together, the scale, speed, and destruction of locust swarms make them an international danger to agriculture. “Locusts do not honor political boundaries and can easily invade other adjacent countries,” said Hojun Song, an entomologist at Texas A&M University, in an email.
Weather and climate conditions fueled the enormous locust swarms this year
Rainfall led to the recent population explosion in these insects, particularly in East Africa and the Middle East. That was due in part to the changes in the Indian Ocean Dipole, a pattern of changing temperature gradients in the Indian Ocean.
“The western side of the Indian Ocean was unusually warm as compared to the eastern side,” said Muhammad Azhar Ehsan, a researcher at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “So when the western side was warm, we had a lot of evaporation happening over there, and that evaporation turned into a rainfall.”
In 2019, the Indian Ocean Dipole was at near-record strength with a temperature gradient not seen in decades. This led to torrential rainfall in East Africa, Yemen, and India, some of the heaviest in two decades. The rains caused floods and forced hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes.
When the waters receded, however, there was a surge in lush greenery. The sudden bounty caused locusts to congregate and breed far more rapidly than they would when food is scarce, particularly in areas that are normally dry and bare.
The insects gathered, ate, mated, and laid eggs. The rain also triggered dormant locust eggs to hatch, some that were laid years ago. These offspring were born into a world of abundance, with fields of fresh, juicy plants like grasses and shrubs to nourish them. This early stage in the locust life cycle, when they are known as “hoppers” or “nymphs,” also presents the most important opportunity for preventing them from forming swarms. Since they don’t yet have mature wings, they tend not to venture very far.
“The key is to detect the sign of population increase early on when locusts are aggregating as nymphs,” said Texas A&M’s Song. “When they are nymphs (immatures that have not yet developed wings), it is easier to control. Then they become adults and airborne, then it’s very difficult to control.”
These post-hopper, young adult locusts are often the most damaging because they are mobile and famished. “I like to say they’re like hungry teenagers,” said Keith Cressman, senior locust forecasting officer at the FAO. “They’re very active and they’re very voracious.”
Once the local cuisine, be it native vegetation or crops, is devoured, the locusts take flight and look for their next meal. About a month into this stage, the locusts are ready to lay eggs. Then exponentially more locusts hatch, up to a 20-fold increase each generation. The cycle continues, one that’s hard to break.
How governments are fighting back against locusts amid a pandemic
Locusts have been a threat to humanity for thousands of years, but anticipating them remains tricky. And with years, if not decades, passing between major swarm outbreaks, it’s easy for countries to lose sight of the threat.
The first signs of a pending locust swarm often arise in remote areas, so surveillance is a key part of a locust control strategy.
“There’s not people around watching, particularly in places that don’t typically have a lot of rainfall,” said John Furlow, deputy director for humanitarian and international development at IRI. “So you may get them breeding and multiplying in places and not be aware of it, and then once they reach a certain population, it’s too big to manage.”
Once a potential swarm is identified, the main response is pesticides, sprayed from ground vehicles or aircraft. The chemicals used are “ultra-low volume,” meaning a very small amount of pesticide is being used to do the job. But for it to work effectively, it has to actually come in contact with the locusts. Simply spraying crops or vegetation at a distance won’t work; it requires finding locusts and targeting them.
However, because decades have passed since the last major swarms landed in places like Kenya in East Africa, national and local governments don’t always have robust locust-control programs. That can leave countries without the tools or institutional knowledge to quickly respond. International organizations are trying to provide funding, equipment, technical support, but that takes time to scale up.
“It’s like a fire in a country that has no fire department,” Cressman said.
Some, but not all, of this has been complicated by the coronavirus pandemic. Cressman said teams had largely gotten the necessary equipment — things like pesticide and sprayers — on the ground by the time the pandemic really exploded, and countries began instituting lockdown measures. They’ve also tried to diversify sources for things like pesticides, to avoid pressures on the global supply chain, but some disruption is unavoidable.
“It went well with ground and aerial control operations” for locusts in East Africa, said Tesfayohannes of the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa. “Even though there were some restrictions due to the virus.”
However, providing technical support and training is still tricky in the age of social distancing; it’s harder to help on the ground or hire people to help control the locusts or gather all the stakeholders (literally) in one room.
Teams trying to control these locust swarms have been deemed essential services in many of these countries, but they are still subject to quarantine curfews in some areas. In Kenya, for example, a 7 pm curfew can limit the extent of control operations in the afternoon, Cyril Ferrand, the resilience team leader in Eastern Africa for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization who’s on the ground in Nairobi, said.
Locusts are also active in wide swaths of East Africa and the Middle East, where fragile governments or outright conflict zones are complicating control efforts. The security situation in places like Yemen or Southern Somalia — both currently threatened by locust swarms — prevents local forecasters and control teams from operating on the ground. That can make it extraordinarily difficult to prevent swarms or to even know what’s going on. It also puts these already vulnerable areas are at greater risk for food insecurity or famine.
And since locusts can move, the inability to control swarms in one place means that an entire region remains under threat. Yemen, according to Ferrand, is particularly concerning right now, where the locusts are currently in their “hopper” stage, and where the ongoing conflict has complicated control efforts. “And this is really worrisome because our control capacity there is limited — but we need to control there. If we don’t control now, these hopper bands will turn to swarm, and this swarm, at some point will come to our region,” he said, referring to East Africa.
In this way, the locusts are a bit like the coronavirus: A rapid and effective response in one place can be undermined by failures elsewhere. But beyond spraying pesticides, there are few options for limiting their spread. “There is no lockdown for desert locusts,” Ferrand said.
Then there’s Mother Nature. The same climate shifts and weather patterns that supercharged this locust need to lessen. That might mean a break from the rains, or cooler temperatures, or winds that send the locusts to a location that’s much less favorable to their survival. None of that is really happening right now.
“For the last two years we have not seen any single break in the weather for desert locusts,” Cressman said. “It’s just been phenomenally favorable to them.”
Locust swarms and the coronavirus are threatening to cause a humanitarian crisis
The disaster caused by locusts is both impossibly quick and lasting. A dark cloud descends on a farm, and a swarm can devour an entire season’s crop in an afternoon. But their reproductive cycles, and their ability to take their destructive appetites on the road, means that crisis can repeat itself over and over again.
Countries in East Africa — parts of Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia — are bracing for the next wave of this crisis now through June, when the new swarms will start to form. If conditions remain favorable, and if control operations falter, another wave could devastate the region from September through December this year.
And over the long term, climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme Indian Ocean Dipole events, meaning that the downpours that helped drive the recent swarms could become more frequent. So giant locust swarms could also arise more often in the years ahead.
For now, famine and food insecurity remain the biggest threat: More than 20 million people in the East African region already faced severe food insecurity in 10 countries, according to the FAO. Climate shocks and other natural disasters, conflict, and displacement have created those conditions, though that predates the coronavirus crisis. The World Food Program has said the pandemic could cause famine worldwide, pushing an additional 130 million people close to starvation, on top of the 135 million already on the brink.
Locusts will make this worse in places like East Africa and Yemen, where each bug can eat its weight in a day. If control operations can spare farmers’ crops, or the grass that herders depend on, that will prevent the most acute crises. If the locusts return later in the year, the crisis can repeat itself. But if those crops and vegetation can’t all be saved, people will exhaust their food supplies, pushing another 2.5 million to the brink of hunger in East Africa.
Countries like Yemen already have about 17 million people on the brink of famine due to conflict and drought. Locusts are now eroding its already faltering agriculture system. The locusts themselves have become a food source.
So far, the FAO says it has saved about 720,000 tonnes of cereal across 10 affected countries, which amounts to food for about 5 million people. The UN agency is still seeking additional funds, primarily for livelihood support for farmers and herders who’ve lost their crops or food source. The organization will launch a new international appeal, starting Thursday.
Food and resource scarcity are also increasing tensions and violence in some of these regions. Some seeking to graze their herds of cattle, for example, may be displaced to other pastures, igniting potential conflict over diminishing natural resources.
“There will be an increase in resource-based conflict … people will be moving towards areas where there will be grass. We need to prepare for conflict,” Josephine Ekiru, a Turkana pastoralist and peace-builder for the Northern Rangelands Trust in Kenya, told the Guardian this week.
The coronavirus pandemic could also make the humanitarian crisis more fraught. Many who see their crops destroyed or fields torn up might seek work elsewhere, likely in big cities. Quarantine, curfews, and travel restrictions in some of these countries may make that extraordinarily difficult. The economic pressures of lockdowns, which are affecting countries rich and poor, may also make labor opportunities scarce. Some governments are focusing their limited resources within their own borders to control the spread of the virus.
However, controlling locusts will require countries to work together, and it will take a sustained effort to fight this ancient plague, even among modern conflicts and a global pandemic. “Our gains have been significant,” said Qu Dongyu, director general of the FAO, in a statement. “But the battle is long and is not yet over.”