US earthquake safety relies on federal employees' expertise

Earthquakes and the damage they cause are apolitical. Collectively, we either prepare for future earthquakes or the population eventually pays the price. The earthquakes that struck Myanmar on March 28, 2025, collapsing buildings and causing over 2,000 deaths, were a sobering reminder of the risks and the need for preparation.
In the U.S., this preparation hinges in large part on the expertise of scientists and engineers in federal agencies who develop earthquake hazard models and contribute to the creation of building codes designed to ensure homes, high-rises and other structures won't collapse when the ground shakes.
Local communities and states decide whether to adopt building code documents. But those documents and other essential resources are developed through programs supported by federal agencies working in partnership with practicing engineers and earthquake experts at universities.
This essential federal role is illustrated by two programs that we work closely with as an earthquake engineer and a disaster management expert whose work focuses on seismic risk.
First, seismologists and earthquake engineers at the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, produce the National Seismic Hazard Model. These maps, based on research into earthquake sources such as faults and how seismic waves move through the earth's crust, are used to determine the forces that structures in each community should be designed to resist.
A steering committee of earthquake experts from the private sector and universities works with USGS to ensure that the National Seismic Hazard Model implements the best available science.
Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, supports the process for periodically updating building codes. That includes supporting the work of the National Institute of Building Sciences' Provisions Update Committee, which recommends building code revisions based on investigations of earthquake damage.
More broadly, FEMA, the USGS, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation work together through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to advance earthquake science and turn knowledge of earthquake risks into safer standards, better building design and education. Some of those agencies have been threatened by potential job and funding cuts under the Trump administration, and others face uncertainty regarding continuation of federal support for their work.
It is in large part because of the National Seismic Hazard Model and regularly updated building codes that U.S. buildings designed to meet modern code requirements are considered among the safest in the world, despite substantial seismic hazards in several states.
This paradigm has been made possible by the technical expertise and lack of political agendas among the federal staff. Without that professionalism, we believe experts from outside the federal government would be less likely to donate their time.
The impacts of these and other programs are well documented. We can point to the limited fatalities from U.S. earthquakes such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco, the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles and the 2001 Nisqually earthquake near Seattle. Powerful earthquakes in countries lacking seismic preparedness, often due to lack of adoption or enforcement of building codes, have produced much greater devastation and loss of life.
These programs and the federal agencies supporting them have benefited from a high level of staff expertise because hiring and advancement processes have been divorced from politics and focused on qualifications and merit.
This has not always been the case.
For much of early U.S. history, federal jobs were awarded through a patronage system, where political loyalty determined employment. As described in 'The Federal Civil Service System and The Problem of Bureaucracy,' this system led to widespread corruption and dysfunction, with officials focused more on managing quid pro quo patronage than governing effectively. That peaked in 1881 with President James Garfield's assassination by Charles Guiteau, a disgruntled supporter who had been denied a government appointment.
The passage of the Pendleton Act by Congress in 1883 shifted federal employment to a merit-based system. This preference for a merit-based system was reinforced in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. It states as national policy that 'to provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest, and productive workforce … and to improve the quality of public service, Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with merit system principles.'
The shift away from a patronage system produced a more stable and efficient federal workforce, which has enabled improvements in many critical areas, including seismic safety and disaster response.
While the work of these federal employees often goes unnoticed, the benefits are demonstrable and widespread. That becomes most apparent when disasters strike and buildings that meet modern code requirements remain standing.
A merit-based civil service is not just a democratic ideal but a proven necessity for the safety and security of the American people, one we hope will continue well into the future. This can be achieved by retaining federal scientists and engineers and supporting the essential work of federal agencies.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jonathan P. Stewart, University of California, Los Angeles and Lucy Arendt, St. Norbert College
Read more:
If FEMA didn't exist, could states handle the disaster response on their own?
Acapulco was built to withstand earthquakes, but not Hurricane Otis' destructive winds – how building codes failed this resort city
What causes earthquakes? A geologist explains where they're most common and why
Jonathan P. Stewart has received funding from NSF and USGS. He is the chair of the Steering Committee for the National Seismic Hazard Model, a member of the National Institute of Building Sciences' Provisions Update Committee, and a member of the federal Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazard Reduction (ACEHR). His contributions to this article draw upon his experience and do not reflect the views of the Steering Committee, Provisions Update Committee, or ACEHR.
Lucy Arendt has received funding from NSF and the Applied Technology Council. She is a member and current chair of the federal Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazard Reduction (ACEHR). Her contributions to this article reflect her professional expertise and do not reflect the views of ACEHR.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

26 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Iran has little choice but to retaliate against US - as Russia faces urgent decision on how to back Tehran

Donald Trump's decision to attack Iran could trigger a wider regional or even global war, but much will hinge on how Russia and China - Tehran's most powerful allies - respond. Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, said he will hold "serious consultations" with Vladimir Putin on Monday morning in Moscow. His country is also in contact with Beijing. Israel-Iran live: 'Incredible success' of US strikes on Iran hailed by Hegseth Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are regarded by Western allies as a new axis of authoritarian powers, increasingly aligned and supportive of each other. Donald Trump, though, has broken ranks from his country's traditional democratic partners to forge a closer relationship with Mr Putin than any other US leader in recent years. How much that might affect the Kremlin's calculations, as Moscow weighs up how to respond to his actions in Iran, adds a new layer of unpredictability to the crisis. Another limiting factor is the Russian military's physical capacity - should it wish - to bolster Iran with military support given its war in Ukraine. Unlike the NATO alliance, there is no formal agreement between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang to come to each other's assistance in a crisis. However, the weakening of one member of the quartet would impact on the vital national interests of the other three, making it mutually beneficial to help each other out - including with military force or at the very least by supplying weapons. Iran has little choice but to retaliate directly against the United States after three of its main nuclear facilities were struck overnight. But its ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones has been severely degraded by waves of Israeli strikes since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to war with Iran a week and a half ago. Read more: What are Iran's options? US bases, warships, and aircraft across the region are well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, but the Pentagon has significantly strengthened its air defences in anticipation of an Iranian counterattack. There are plenty of softer targets, though, such as American embassies or other diplomatic missions. Iran could also choose to mine the Strait of Hormuz - a move that would have global ramifications by disrupting the flow of large amounts of oil and gas, as well as other trade. In addition, the military assets of American allies could be viewed as legitimate targets. The UK has said it played no part in the US attack. But Britain's Ministry of Defence has further increased "force protection" measures for its military bases and personnel in the Middle East to their highest level in the wake of the US strikes, it is understood. What was hit in US attack? In an operation that has been in the planning for years, American B-2 stealth bombers dropped enormous bunker-busting bombs - the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator - on the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, around 70 miles (110km) southwest of Tehran. It was built under a mountain - about 80 to 90 metres beneath the ground - to be beyond the reach of Israel's armed forces. Only the US Air Force carries munitions large enough to penetrate the rock, earth and concrete to inflict meaningful damage. Also targeted with the enormous munitions was Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, 155 miles (250km) southeast of the Iranian capital. In addition, US submarines launched TLAM cruise missiles against Natanz and at a site outside the city of Isfahan, which is 260 miles (420km) south of Tehran. Near-bomb-grade nuclear fuel is thought to be stored here. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, however, said the six buildings at Isfahan that were hit contained little or no nuclear material. Mr Trump has said he ordered the attack to destroy Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a level that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. Tehran has always insisted its nuclear programme is purely for civilian purposes. Analysts warn, though, that it would be very difficult to stop the Iranian nuclear programme through military action alone and that such a move may spur Iran to accelerate efforts to make a bomb if it has managed to protect key components. The Russian foreign ministry on Sunday strongly condemned the American strikes against Iranian nuclear sites as a "dangerous escalation" that could further undermine "regional and global security". "The risk of an escalation of conflict in the Middle East already beset by multiple crises, has increased significantly," it said in a statement. Last week, the Russian government warned the US against joining Israel's war in Iran, saying this "would be an extremely dangerous step with truly unpredictable negative consequences". The remarks came after Mr Putin held a call with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. It means the Russian government in particular - given Tehran's military support to Moscow in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - faces an urgent decision about how to support Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, whose very existence is under threat from Israel.

Fox News

26 minutes ago

• Fox News

AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran

Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.

Buzz Feed

27 minutes ago

• Buzz Feed

MAGA Weighs In On Trump Bombing Iran

Last night, President Donald Trump announced that the US military had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran in a planned attack. Trump also took to Truth Social to congratulate the US military on the strike and announced that "now is a time for peace." Well, MAGA supporters are not holding back their frustrations and voting regrets about Trump's decision to involve the US in another war in the Middle East. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit. Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X, stating, "This is not our fight." "I trusted you. I'm done with MAGA and all your bullshit." "I fully regret voting for this shit." "You betrayed us, your MAGA base. I voted for you three times." "Trump needs to be impeached." "Donald Trump has completely failed us." "No More Wars!!!" "I regret my vote, and I couldn't apologize more for voting for this." "More than disappointed with this action." "He's betrayed the vast majority of his voter base." Latino for Trump voter: "You promised us NO War, and you just started one." "If the United States enters war with Iran, as appears to be the case, I will regret my vote." "Very disappointed in President Trump." "I wish I never voted for @realDonaldTrump." And finally, "I trusted Trump to put America have been betrayed." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.