TROY, Mich. (AP) — Police in a northern suburb of Detroit confirmed Thursday there has been a shooting at a local hospital, calling it an isolated incident.

The Troy Police Department said in a message posted on social media that the shooting occurred at Corewell Health Beaumont Troy Hospital and the suspect was not in custody. Police asked the public to avoid the area. There was a large police presence at the facility, which includes multiple structures.

In a post on X, Corewell Health said “one person is in the emergency department of medical treatment,” with no further explanation.

The message from Troy police did not say whether there were any injuries or fatalities. A police dispatcher said she could not provide any further information.

Local residents received an emergency message on their phones Thursday morning, alerting them about an active shooter and advising them to avoid the area around the hospital and to shelter in place. WXYZ-TV interviewed one woman who was sheltering on the first floor of the hospital with other patients who were scheduled to get mammograms.

A city of more than 87,000, Troy is located about 22 miles north of Detroit.

Last month, in York, Pennsylvania, a man armed with a pistol and carrying zip ties took hospital staff in the intensive care unit hostage before he was killed by police in a shootout that also left an officer dead, officials said. The shooter, identified as 49-year-old Diogenes Archangel-Ortiz, apparently intentionally targeted the hospital after he was in contact with the intensive care unit earlier in the week for medical care involving someone else, according to the York County district attorney.

Such violence at hospitals is on the rise, often in emergency departments but also maternity wards and intensive care units, hospital security consultant Dick Sem said. In hospital attacks, unlike random mass shootings elsewhere, the shooter is often targeting somebody, sometimes resentful about the care given a relative who died, he added.

Lisa Garcia, a former regional administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency,  spoke to City Limits about how plans for a new wave of federal cuts could trickle down to New York.

Brooklyn’s historically polluted Coney Island Creek. Expected EPA cuts could curtail testing efforts for local waterways, former Regional Administrator Lisa Garcia says. (Photo by Adi Talwar).

When word spread this week that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, EPA former Regional Administrator Lisa Garcia knew New York would feel the blow.

The move, Garcia explains, has the potential to nix critical public data that helps New Yorkers track air quality through an app called Air Now. It could curtail water and soil testing after floods or storms—when leaks from local power plants, chemical facilities or waste storage sites can contaminate lands or waterways. 

And it may also endanger $15 billion set aside to help all states, including New York, remove hazardous lead pipes from the service lines that connect buildings to the underground water supply.

“These cuts are not strategic and they are not protecting public health,” Garcia told City Limits. 

The environmental lawyer served as an EPA administrator from 2021 until President Donald Trump stepped into office. She was responsible for overseeing the agency’s agenda in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and eight Indian Nations.

“The whole suite of work, tools and resources that we as citizens depend on is not functioning because it’s slowly being dismantled, [they are] slowly getting rid of people. And the people who remain are working in fear,” Garcia added.

A plan for the cuts, which the EPA reportedly presented to White House officials on Friday, would gut the scientific department known as the  Office of Research and Development and get rid of up to 75 percent of its personnel. And the EPA plans to slash 65 percent of its overall budget, White House officials said at the end of February .

An EPA spokesperson told The New York Times that they sought to make “organizational improvements” and affirmed the agency is committed to delivering “clean air, water and land for all Americans.”

“While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure the E.P.A. is as up to date and effective as ever,” the agency said, according to the Times.

The head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, took to social media Wednesday to back up the agency’s work with Trump’s newly established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. 

“Loving the exceptional partnership EPA has had with Elon Musk and the entire DOGE team to pursue every efficiency possible as we end wasteful spending and practices,” Zeldin said on X. 

Garcia talked to City Limits about what’s going on behind the scenes at the EPA right now, and how cuts to the agency’s funding could reach New York.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

What was it like at the EPA when you were there, and what is it like now?

It’s just amazing when you show up and meet all the experts that work at EPA. To be able to do this work you need geologists, physicists, lawyers, people who do community outreach and policy work. For me, it was really great to see all the work that goes into making sure that a community is protected or that policies are implemented. 

The EPA isn’t only about reducing the emissions from methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. It’s also about the work that can be done on the ground. So some of the grants that we gave out were for tree canopies, like how to make sure that we can plant more trees. 

What’s happening now, unfortunately, is that they’re putting staff on administrative leave, because they’re terminating staff. Not much work is being done because they’re so worried and preoccupied [with the cuts]. 

It’s a real shame because the EPA staff is there to serve the public and to protect public health and the environment, but now you just see morale is down. The work isn’t really getting done as much or as quickly. And if you actually reduce the number of people doing the work, it definitely won’t get done because you won’t have enough people doing it.

The whole suite of work, tools and resources that we as citizens depend on is not functioning because it’s slowly being dismantled, [they are] slowly getting rid of people. And the people who remain are working in fear. 

How are these EPA cuts on the federal level trickling down and impacting people in New York?

When you think about the wildfires from Canada that turned New York’s skies orange [in June of 2023], the first thing that people wanted to know was: how is this impacting my health? Should I go outside? What should my kids do? 

To get those answers we rely on data that the EPA is monitoring. They say whether [the air quality] is severe, moderate or good.

Or when there was an incident in Wappinger Falls, where we thought that there may be lead coming from the cable lines onto a playground in upstate New York. The first thing people ask is: how is this impacting my health? They want the scientists on the ground with their tools and resources making sure that there is no lead. If there is lead: what do we do? How are you going to protect us? What’s the protocol for removing it anyway? The EPA provides those answers.

They are the experts on the ground making sure that people can drink the water after a hurricane. They help people figure out, if they clean up their basement after a flood, does it have mold? 

That’s the type of information getting impacted with these cuts. So I think it’s a terrible move. It’s very short sighted. 

Smoke from wide fires in Canada blurring the New York City skyline in 2023. (Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

There is also a specific pot of funding for lead pipe removal that could get impacted by the cuts. Is that correct? 

The Biden administration, through Congress, got billions of dollars to focus on clean water [through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act]. 

And part of that funding would be used to get lead out of the pipes that connect to people’s homes, known as service lines. A rule was solidified that makes a 10-year commitment to replace all lead service lines [nation-wide]. This is important because we know there is no safe level of exposure to lead and it impacts children’s health the most. 

So the pot of money set aside to address that was $15 billion and part of that would come to New York State.

And so it was really an important effort and everyone is nervous that if you reduce that money to the states, they will not be able to meet this commitment of swapping out hazardous lead service lines in 10 years.

What is the reasoning behind these cuts then?

It’s so political that there’s no real analysis and study of what the benefit is to the public. It’s not strategic and it’s not protecting public health.

This administration keeps saying we want clean air, we want clean water, we want clean lands. But if you remove the Office of Research and Development and remove the people doing the work, then you are not achieving clean water, clean soil and clean air, right? 

You can remove the data on environmental justice or vulnerable populations. But that does not change the fact that climate change is impacting vulnerable communities. You cannot change the fact that Black and brown children have higher asthma rates. These are the facts. 

So when I say that these cuts are not strategic, I mean it’s not analytical because you’re missing the facts of what is going on in this country.

Efficiency means doing something better and improving the process, right? If you just cut the numbers, that’s not efficient. That’s a numbers game.

We were on a trajectory to make sure that all communities have the benefit of clean air, clean water and clean lands. And I think that focusing on cutting the numbers and not focusing on the data and health of vulnerable populations is going to set us back. 

Especially when you think about communities of color, low income communities and indigenous populations. 

And it’s a real shame that as much as they say, we want to do this for all people. In reality, they are not going to achieve that by taking down and dismantling the EPA.

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Mariana@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post EPA Cuts Would Strike a Blow to New York, Former Agency Administrator Says appeared first on City Limits.

By EDDIE PELLS, Associated Press National Writer

DENVER (AP) — Perhaps the surest sign that artificial intelligence really is taking over the world will come the day it wins your favorite March Madness bracket pool.

The day could be coming soon.

In an experiment that a) was bound to happen, b) might actually make us all look smarter and c) should probably also scare the daylights out of everyone, a successful CEO-turned-disruptor is running a $1 million March Madness bracket challenge that pits his AI programmers’ picks against those belonging to one of the world’s best-known sports gamblers.

“We’re not a crystal ball,” says Alan Levy, whose platform, 4C Predictions, is running this challenge. “But it’s going to start to get very, very creepy. In 2025, we’re making a million-dollar bet with a professional sports bettor, and the reason we feel confident to do that is because data, we feel, will beat humans.”

Levy isn’t the only one leveraging AI to help people succeed in America’s favorite pick ’em pool — one that’s become even more lucrative over the past seven years, after a Supreme Court ruling led to the spread of legalized sports betting to 38 states.

ChatGPT, a chatbot developed by OpenAI, is hawking its services to help bracket fillers more easily find stats and identify trends. Not surprisingly, it makes no promises.

“With upsets, momentum shifts, and basketball’s inherent unpredictability, consistently creating a perfect bracket may still come down to luck,” said Leah Anise, a spokesperson for OpenAI.

Also making no promises, but trying his hardest, is Sheldon Jacobson, the computer science professor at Illinois who has been trying to build a better bracket through science for years; he might have been AI before AI.

“Nobody predicts the weather,” he explained in an interview back in 2018. “They forecast it using chances and odds.”

$1 million on the line in AI vs. Sean Perry showdown

Levy’s angle is he’s willing to wager $1 million that the AI bracket his company produces can beat that of professional gambler Sean Perry.

Among Perry’s claims to fame was his refusal to accept a four-way split in a pot worth $9.3 million in an NFL survivor pool two years ago. The next week, his pick, the Broncos, lost to New England and he ended up with nothing.

But Perry has wagered and won millions over his career, using heaps of analytics, data and insider information to try to find an edge that, for decades, has been proprietary to casinos and legal sports books, giving them an advantage that allows them to build all those massive hotels.

Levy says his ultimate goal is bring that advantage to the average Joe — either the weekly football bettor who doesn’t have access to reams of data, or the March Madness bracket filler who goes by feel or what team’s mascot he likes best.

“The massive thesis is that the average person are playing games that they can never win, they’re trading stocks where they can never win, they’re trading crypto where they can never win,” Levy said. “4C gives people the chance to empower themselves. It’s a great equalizer. It’s going to level the playing field for everyone.”

But can AI predict the completely unexpected?

It’s one thing to find an edge, quite another to take out every element of chance — every halfcourt game-winner, every 4-point-a-game scorer who goes off for 25, every questionable call by a ref, every St. Peter’s, Yale, FAU or UMBC that rises up and wins for reasons nobody quite understands.

For those who fear AI is leading the world to bad places, Levy reassures us that when it comes to sports, at least, the human element is always the final decider — and humans can do funny and unexpected things.

That’s one of many reasons that, according to the NCAA, there’s a 1 in 120.2 billion chance of a fan with good knowledge of college basketball going 63 for 63 in picking the games. It’s one of many reasons that almost everyone has a story about their 8-year-old niece walking away with the pot because she was the only one who picked George Mason, or North Carolina State, or VCU, to make the Final Four.

“You can’t take the element of fun and luck out of it,” Levy said. “Having said that, as AI develops, it’s going to get creepier and creepier and the predictions are going to get more and more accurate, and it’s all around data sets.”

Levy suggests AI is no three-headed monster, but rather, an advanced version of “Moneyball” — the classic book-turned-movie that followed Oakland A’s GM Billy Beane’s groundbreaking quest to leverage data to build a winning team.

Now, it’s all about putting all that data on steroids, trying to minimize the impact of luck and glass slippers, and building a winning bracket.

“We’ve got to understand that this technology is meant to augment us,” Levy said. “It’s meant to make our lives better. So, let’s encourage people to use it, and even if it’s creepy, at least it’s creepy on our side.”

The AI’s side in this one: Houston to win it all. Perry, the gambler, is going with Duke.