Thomas: Hey everyone, welcome back to the podcast! Today, we're diving into a story that's probably affecting your life way more than you realize: it’s all about how government “actually” works, or, you know, what happens when it…doesn’t. Grace: Exactly. Think about this: what if your safety depended on someone qualified inspecting a nuclear plant or giving you a heads-up about a tornado, but instead, the job went to, I don't know, someone who barely glanced at the training manual? Scary, right? That's where Michael Lewis’s The Fifth Risk comes in. Thomas: Yeah, this book is like a peek behind the curtain of the Trump administration's presidential transition. It's a process that's “always” high-pressure and time-sensitive, but this time around it was just… chaotic, and honestly, pretty reckless. Lewis really highlights the vital work that federal agencies do, and the dedicated civil servants who keep things running, even when the leadership seems, well, uninterested, or even tries to undermine them. Grace: So, in this episode, we're going to unpack three big things. First, the craziness of that Trump transition – a real example of how “not” to hand over power. Then, we'll be celebrating those unsung heroes, the people doing the crucial work behind the scenes. And finally, we're getting into weather science – yes, weather science – where data meets real-world action, with, like, life-or-death stakes. Thomas: It’s a really compelling look at how fragile democracy can be, how important expertise is to making it work, and what happens when, you know, that expertise is ignored. So, let’s jump in!

Thomas: So, Grace, let's dive into this “fragile machine” we were talking about. Where did things start to unravel with the Obama-to-Trump transition? Grace: Yeah, where did it all go wrong? Lay it on me. Thomas: Well, presidential transitions are supposed to be these meticulously planned handoffs, right? Think of it like passing a baton in a relay race. Except, if this baton gets dropped, it's not just the race you lose; the whole damn track crumbles, you know? And with Trump's team taking over, that baton basically hit the ground before they even got to the starting line. Grace: So, by "dropped," we're talking less "oops, butterfingers" and more "deliberately chucked it in the trash while yelling, 'Batons are for losers!'"? Thomas: Pretty much, yeah! Let's start with Chris Christie. He was initially in charge of Trump's transition, and he actually did what he was supposed to do: raised money, drew up candidate lists, developed plans for filling all those critical government roles. But here’s the twist: Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, held a serious grudge against Christie. Years back, Christie, as a prosecutor, had sent Jared's dad to prison for fraud. So, fast forward to 2016, and that old beef was enough to get Christie booted from the transition. Grace: Wait a second. You're telling me something as crucial as a presidential transition, something that impacts the entire country, got torpedoed by...family vendettas? Is this governance or an episode of Succession? Thomas: I know, right? It definitely had its dramatic moments. But the consequences were very real. With Christie out, the transition descended into chaos. His carefully vetted lists of potential appointees were basically ignored. Instead, loyalty to Trump became the only thing that mattered for hiring. Grace: And we’re not just talking about filling some empty cubicles here, right? These are critical positions related to national security and public safety. Thomas: Exactly! One of the clearest examples of this lack of readiness was at the Department of Energy, or DOE. They oversee everything from nuclear safety to environmental cleanup and renewable energy innovation. They'd spent months putting together briefing books for the incoming team, detailed risk assessments outlining major threats to national security, like mishandling nuclear materials or failing to respond to environmental disasters. Grace: Let me guess, those books gathered dust? Thomas: You got it. The Trump transition team barely showed up. Experienced DOE staff, trying to ensure a smooth handover of essential information, were met with…well, nothing, or a complete lack of interest. One official described it like presenting a doctoral thesis to people who hadn’t even bothered looking at the title. Grace: That's beyond alarming. If these are the people who are supposed to be steering the ship, the least they could do is learn where the lifeboats are, right? Thomas: Right! And it wasn't just the DOE. Across various agencies, this lack of preparation created a domino effect of risks. Max Stier, a guy who specializes in transitional governance, pointed out that a delayed or chaotic transfer doesn’t just mean a few days of confusion. It creates long-term weaknesses, programs stall, institutional knowledge disappears, and the whole machinery of government grinds to a halt at the worst possible time. Grace: Let’s zoom in on those long-term vulnerabilities, because it's not just about getting the right people in the right seats. It's about what happens when those seats are empty—or worse, filled with people who have no clue what’s at stake. Thomas: Absolutely. Take the Food and Drug Administration, for example. In a poorly managed transition, critical work like safety inspections or drug reviews gets delayed. Now, multiply that across dozens of agencies—NASA, the CDC, FEMA—and pretty soon, every part of the government is less able to serve the public. Grace: Don’t forget the human cost of this mess. It’s easy to see these agencies as abstract entities, but behind every delayed policy or ignored briefing, there's a real impact on people's lives and their communities. Thomas: Exactly, Grace. That's what Michael Lewis does so well in The Fifth Risk. He doesn’t just talk about the theoretical consequences of bad leadership; he makes it personal. By showing these dedicated civil servants who spent their careers quietly keeping the country running, he really highlights what's at risk. Grace: So, to recap: The Trump transition was more than just a dropped baton; it was a completely derailed race. And the price wasn't just inefficiency; it was a direct blow to the systems that are supposed to protect us. Why such crucial work would be left to chance—or worse, to inflated egos—that’s the real question.

Thomas: And this highlights the super important, but often overlooked, role of career public servants in keeping our government running. They’re the ones who step in during times of transition, ensuring things don't fall apart when leadership changes, you know? Grace: Exactly! So, after the chaotic handover we just talked about, these are the people waiting to grab the baton and say, "Don't worry, I've got this!" They're not seeking fame or anything, are they? Most people probably have no idea who they are. Thomas: Precisely. They’re the unsung heroes of stability, providing the institutional memory and expertise that prevents total chaos, even as administrations come and go. Grace: It's kind of mind-blowing when you think about it; they don't have these fancy campaigns or PR, but they're the backbone of governance. I mean, who are these people, and how do they keep going when they're often ignored or even bashed, to be honest? Thomas: That’s where someone like Max Stier comes in. He leads the Partnership for Public Service, and he's all about celebrating and protecting these civil servants. Stier calls the federal government, "one of the most fascinating institutions in the world," because it tackles such a huge range of issues – cybersecurity, public health, everything! Grace: So, Stier is trying to get people to join the government... in a world where most people think of it as some bureaucratic nightmare, right? Thomas: Pretty much. Stier believes that negativity is part of the problem. He admits the system needs fixing – outdated practices, inefficiencies – but his solution is to attract top talent to fix it. His Partnership has invested a lot in getting skilled people into federal jobs and keeping them there. Grace: So, he’s selling federal service as... the Silicon Valley of governance, maybe? Thomas: Sort of. He's saying, look, the government deals with the world’s most complex, pressing problems. If you want to make a real difference, this is where it happens. It’s not just red tape; it’s the front lines of innovation and problem-solving. Grace: He’s got a point. I mean, take Frazer Lockhart, that Department of Energy guy who cleaned up a nuclear site way ahead of schedule and saved $30 billion – that's huge! Thomas: Exactly! Lockhart’s success shows what happens when skilled professionals are given the resources and freedom to act. Cleaning up the site was just one part of it – he also protected the public from environmental and health risks and saved taxpayers a ton of money. Grace: Okay, fair enough. But let's shift gears for a sec. Big wins like that are great, but what about the everyday stuff? The achievements that don’t make headlines but still impact millions of lives? Thomas: Good question. One example that comes to mind is Eileen Harrington, a civil servant at the Federal Trade Commission, who went after those super annoying telemarketing calls. She created the Do Not Call Registry, protecting millions of Americans from unwanted and, frankly, irritating phone calls. Grace: Wait, Eileen Harrington is responsible for that? Okay, she deserves a statue! Or at least some kind of honorary award for bringing peace to our homes. Thomas: Absolutely! And that’s why Max Stier emphasizes telling these stories. People see government work as dull or ineffective, but these things – from mitigating nuclear risks to protecting consumers or responding to disasters – happen because of dedicated civil servants working hard behind the scenes. Grace: So, why do we still struggle to appreciate these people? If someone in the private sector saved $30 billion or built a major platform, they'd be celebrated. But civil servants just... quietly move on to the next thing. Thomas: A lot of it is about public perception and, sadly, politics. Federal employees are often portrayed as "the bureaucracy" or blamed for the system’s flaws. And that’s on top of budget cuts, outdated tools, and heavy workloads. It’s hard to attract talented people when the image of government service is so negative. Grace: And on top of everything, they have to navigate political transitions. Like we discussed, when a new administration ignores or downplays the expertise of these career professionals, it’s not just rude – it’s dangerous. Thomas: Precisely. Stier says it best: when institutional knowledge is dismissed, “all the bad things are more likely to happen and the good things less likely." The Trump administration's lack of engagement during the 2016 transition wasn’t just a breach of protocol – it actively pushed aside people who could have reduced risks and ensured smooth operations. Grace: It’s like swapping out an air traffic controller mid-flight and pretending everything will be okay. Thomas: Exactly. And this gets to the broader consequences of neglecting civil servants. Besides the immediate chaos, there are long-term effects – underfunded programs, unaddressed risks, and a decline in public trust in government. Grace: Which, ironically, makes their jobs even harder. If the public doesn’t recognize their value, and budgets keep shrinking, how can these career public servants keep doing their jobs well? Thomas: That’s the key. Stier argues that we need to rebuild public trust. Highlighting success stories, modernizing systems, and giving government workers the resources they need is crucial for them to keep doing the work that keeps society running, for real. Grace: So, next time we complain about inefficiency – or wonder why things “just work” despite everything – maybe we should pause and think about the civil servants behind the scenes. Because, without them, things would grind to a halt. Thomas: Exactly! The next time you don't get another spam call, remember: someone made that happen. Or when you flip a switch and there's no nuclear disaster – civil servants are the ones making sure of that.

Thomas: So, this really sets the stage for diving into how tech and bureaucracy depend on, well, the people nobody “really” thinks about. And that leads us right into one of the most interesting parts of The Fifth Risk: where technology and human behavior meet when it comes to managing risk. It's all about understanding that advances in knowledge and forecasting are only as good as the level of trust and decision-making on both sides, from the people creating the tools to those using them. Grace: Right, because even the fanciest tools are useless if people just ignore them, misunderstand them, or don't trust them. It's like handing someone the keys to the future, and they're like, "Nah, I'm good. I'll just wing it." Thomas: Exactly. And one of the best examples of that is ensemble weather forecasting. It's “really” changed the game in terms of predicting disasters, not just because it’s more accurate, but because it helps leaders and communities make smart, proactive decisions. Grace: Ah yes, the "cone of uncertainty." Which, let's be honest, sounds like either a bad sci-fi movie or the moment when every news anchor pulls out their markers during hurricane season. Thomas: Okay, funny, but that cone actually represents all the potential paths a storm could take when there's still uncertainty about its direction or impact. Before ensemble forecasting, predictions were much more basic, usually relying on single models or someone's gut feeling. That limited both their accuracy and how far in advance warnings could be given. Grace: Then Louis Uccellini comes along, right? The meteorologist betting everything on computer models and chaos theory? Tell me about his 1993 "hold my coffee" moment. Thomas: Uccellini is a legend among meteorologists for exactly that. During the Waco siege, he accurately predicted a massive weather event—hail, tornadoes, everything—just based on what the computer models were showing. At the time, that was almost unheard of. His forecast didn’t just happen to be right; it went against old forecasting habits and embraced chaos theory and statistical modeling on a scale people weren't ready to trust yet. Grace: So, did everyone immediately jump on board, or was it more of a, "Thanks, Louis, but we'll just stick to staring at the clouds" kind of situation? Thomas: Well, there was definitely skepticism at first, but the results spoke for themselves. By the early 2000s, ensemble forecasting was widely adopted, thank goodness, and "totally" transformed how we understand extreme weather events. Uccellini even pointed out that history could have been very different if this technology had existed sooner. Like, in 1900, a hurricane devastated Galveston with absolutely no warning. Proper forecasting could have saved thousands of lives. Grace: It's humbling, “really”. I'll never look at those "spaghetti models" the same way again. But as precise as we've gotten with predicting storms, there's still the wildcard—people. What good is a forecast if nobody trusts it or acts on it in time? Thomas: And that's where the behavioral side of risk management comes in, which is honestly, both fascinating and frustrating. A case in point is the Joplin tornado in 2011. NOAA issued a warning a full 19 minutes before the tornado hit. That gave people time, but they didn't fully use it. Grace: Wait, most people ignored it? Was it disbelief? Panic? A "We've seen worse storms, we're fine" kind of thing? Thomas: It was a bunch of things. Kathy Sullivan, who led NOAA’s public communications then, described it as a psychological hurdle. Many residents hesitated because they'd experienced false alarms before, which made them less sensitive to tornado warnings. Plus, the sirens didn’t “really” get across the severity immediately, so people waited for visual confirmation. By the time they realized this tornado was different, it was too late for many. Grace: Okay, that's both heartbreaking and infuriating. And this disconnect—between scientific innovation and how people respond—it's not just a one-off thing, is it? Thomas: Unfortunately, no. It “really” highlights the bigger problem of how scientists, agencies, and governments communicate risk. It’s not enough to just have super-accurate forecasts. The messaging has to be crystal clear, consistent, and, most importantly, trusted. After the Joplin disaster, NOAA brought everyone involved together to ask some tough questions. Sullivan's line, "Is anyone here happy about the outcome?" wasn't just a question. It was a challenge to "totally" rethink how weather warnings were designed and delivered. Grace: And I bet trust plays a massive role here. If people don’t trust NOAA, FEMA, or whoever’s issuing the warning, they’re going to assume it’s either overblown hype or just another false alarm in a world of constant threats. Thomas: Exactly. Trust is key. Kathy Sullivan and her team realized that creating a "Weather-Ready Nation" wasn't just about developing better models; it was about building public confidence in those warnings. That's why NOAA shifted its focus to developing communication strategies tailored for specific communities, all in an effort to close that gap. Grace: Which brings us to David Friedberg, right? Going from tornado sirens to agricultural tech seems like a leap, but it’s the same core idea—data, trust, and behavioral change. Thomas: Absolutely. David Friedberg’s work with The Climate Corporation is another great example of how weather prediction isn’t just about safety, it’s about reshaping entire industries. His team took NOAA data—decades of temperature and rainfall records—and turned it into predictive models for farmers. Grace: So instead of "Here's today's weather," it's more like, "Here's how you should adjust this season's crops for maximum yield, and here's some insurance just in case the weather doesn't cooperate"? Thomas: Exactly. It made agriculture a little less of a gamble. Friedberg gave farmers tools that replaced gut-based decisions with data-driven precision. With reliable forecasts and insurance to back them up, farmers could finally make proactive choices, like adjusting irrigation systems before a drought or delaying planting after a surprise frost. Grace: No pitchfork-wielding farmers shouting "witchcraft!" then? Thomas: Quite the opposite. Farmers embraced it because it worked. Friedberg proved how public data from a government agency like NOAA could be translated into private-sector solutions, reinventing agricultural risk management in the process. It’s a perfect example of how government and innovation can work together—if we let them. Grace: Fair point. But Friedberg's success doesn't erase the mountain we're still climbing: public trust. Whether it's farmers trusting NOAA's data or people in Joplin trusting warnings, it feels like trust is the final frontier in risk management. Thomas: You’re absolutely right. The Fifth Risk doesn’t just celebrate technological advancements; it “really” grapples with how fragile those advancements become without public buy-in. Whether we’re talking about hurricanes, droughts, or even nuclear safety, Lewis makes it crystal clear: technology is only as effective as the human infrastructure around it.

Thomas: Okay, so to bring our discussion to a close, we've really touched on three key areas from “The Fifth Risk”. First, that chaotic transition period for the Trump administration. It really showed us how neglecting institutional knowledge and basic preparation can throw essential systems into disarray. Grace: Yeah, that was pretty eye-opening. Thomas: Absolutely, and second, we shone a light on the absolutely crucial role of career public servants. These are the people who keep things running smoothly, day in and day out, often without getting the credit or resources they deserve. Grace: Totally those unsung heroes, right? Thomas: Exactly! And finally, we explored how technology and human behavior intersect, like how advancements in weather forecasting run up against the challenges of public trust and effective decision-making. Grace: Right. So, if you had to boil it down to one key takeaway from all that, what would it be? Thomas: I'd say that governance isn't just about laws or who's in charge, it's about this intricate network of expertise, dedication, and, crucially, trust, that really underpins everything. Lewis makes a really strong argument that the "fifth risk" isn't some big, scary external threat. It's our own tendency to become complacent, to assume that things will just tick along nicely without us actively paying attention or caring. Grace: Complacency, huh? So, it's like we're passengers on a bus, assuming the driver knows where he's going and not bothering to check the map ourselves. Thomas: Exactly! The risks Michael Lewis highlights aren't the obvious, attention-grabbing kind. They're quiet, but they have huge implications. And they remind us to really value the people and the systems that are protecting us, even when we don't see them in action. Grace: So, what's the call to action here? Are we saying everyone should suddenly run for office? Thomas: No, not at all! I think we need to rethink how we view public service in general. It's not just some faceless bureaucracy—it's the bedrock of everything from national security to the simple daily conveniences we take for granted. Grace: Okay, I get that. So maybe the next time we benefit from something that's just “there”, like flipping on a light switch or getting a severe weather alert on our phones, we should take a moment and think about the people behind the scenes making it all possible. Thomas: Spot on. Think of it as a silent thank you! Grace: A silent, invisible thank you to the machine. Thomas: And maybe, just maybe, we can find ways to actively support the infrastructure and the people who are making all this happen. Whether it's through advocacy, funding, or simply acknowledging their worth, it's our collective responsibility to ensure they can keep doing this invaluable work. Grace: Well said, Thomas. I think that's a perfect spot to bring it home. Democracy doesn't run on autopilot. We've all got to pay attention, appreciate expertise, and keep the machine well-oiled. Thanks for tuning in, folks. We'll catch you next time.