
Good luck, states and localities — Trump is abandoning disaster relief
At 2:35 p.m. on a rainy Saturday, the Really Big One hits: A 9.1-magnitude Cascadia subduction earthquake rips a 600-mile-long gash in the earth's crust from Vancouver to the California state line, pancaking freeways and igniting gas lines.
Metro Seattle is devastated; emergency services are overwhelmed. Nobody knows who's in charge.
The White House Briefing Room is tense as drone footage fills the screens — dazed families wandering through ruined streets.
A reporter yells: 'Mr. President — what are we doing to help them?'
At the podium, the president leans into the microphone: 'We are following the plan we laid out in my executive order of Mar. 18. We are relying on the state.'
Fortunately, this scenario is fictional. The executive order, however, is all too real. It is the Trump's attempt to offload responsibility for disasters to state and local governments, seeking to 'inject common sense into decisions that make our communities resilient.'
We shall see how common this common sense is in the early hours of the Really Big One, as the multitude of white-hot issues, obstacles and unmet needs arising from the catastrophe roll right back up to the president's desk.
Professional crisis managers have a simple but powerful, imperative — three words that define our mission: 'Own the job.' In a catastrophic disaster, every second counts and accountability isn't just a bureaucratic ideal — it's the foundation of an effective, ethical and life-saving response.
Trump is attempting to shift this ownership to state and local governments. Who can blame him? After all, large-scale disasters overwhelm us, affecting everyone in the same way at the same time. They ignore political boundaries, sowing chaos and demanding information and resources way beyond what is immediately available.
Federal emergency managers have always disowned them, telling their president that 'all disasters are local' and that their role is limited to launching relief supplies, like bottled water and emergency power generators, into the field.
Time after time, those presidents, from George H.W. Bush (Hurricane Andrew) to George W. Bush (Hurricane Katrina) to Trump (Hurricane Maria) gazed at televised images of suffering children and families while their agencies sat back, waiting for the 'all disasters are local' policy to kick in.
Those disasters weren't just political failures — they were systemic failures. The U.S. had the resources and the expertise. What we didn't have was anyone on the hook to take charge and make things happen.
That is exactly where we stand today, with a national disaster system consisting of 50 states and territories duct-taped together, each with its own structures, capabilities and methods. They have no obligation to help each other, and when they do, the process is slow and ad hoc.
Relationships between states shift with political winds and so, amid catastrophe, each state is left to fend for itself. If the Really Big One hit today, would we be ready? The answer is no.
The president has established a FEMA review council to propose ways to overhaul the agency. Rather than dismantling FEMA, the council must reimagine it as an elite federal agency capable of managing the increasingly complex and severe disasters of a turbulent age.
A refocused and empowered FEMA would forge strong public-private partnerships, driving a response that is government-led but not government-centric. It would become the national disaster machine we so desperately lack — fast, focused, relentless — bringing governors together in a supercharged mutual aid system that operates beyond politics and goodwill.
We need a 21st-century crisis management system built not on slogans or hope, but on readiness, coordination and command. The president's executive order exposes the fatal weakness at the heart of our response doctrine: the absence of true ownership. If no one owns the job, no one does the job.
Believe me when I tell you that the next catastrophe will start suddenly and with great intensity, with its biggest problems and greatest needs coming in its earliest hours. Those early hours — the so-called golden hours — will be a time of maximum chaos.
The actions we take now will determine our fate.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.