logo
FEMA Is Not Prepared

FEMA Is Not Prepared

The Atlantic2 days ago

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Who manages the disaster if the disaster managers are the disaster?
That's a question that the people of the United States may have to answer soon. As hurricane season begins in the U.S., the Federal Emergency Management Agency is in disarray.
Reuters reported yesterday that acting FEMA head David Richardson suggested during a meeting with employees that he was unaware of the very existence of a hurricane season. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security dismissed the report: 'Despite meanspirited attempts to falsely frame a joke as policy, there is no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season.' The spokesperson added, 'FEMA is shifting from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens.'
FEMA employees, and Americans at large, might be forgiven for having doubts. Richardson has only been on the job since early May, when his predecessor was abruptly fired after telling Congress he did not believe that FEMA should be eliminated, as President Donald Trump has contemplated. Richardson is a Marine veteran who had been leading the DHS office that seeks to prevent attacks on the U.S. involving weapons of mass destruction, but he has no experience with disaster management. The Wall Street Journal reported that he had expressed surprise at how broad FEMA's remit is. (The last time FEMA was led by an administrator whose profession was not emergency management was the mid-2000s, under Michael Brown. If you don't know how that turned out, I recommend my colleague Vann R. Newkirk II's award-winning podcast on Hurricane Katrina, Floodlines.)
But Richardson surely is aware of hurricane season. In mid-May, CNN obtained an internal document warning that FEMA was badly behind schedule. 'As FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood, thus FEMA is not ready,' it read. (DHS, which oversees FEMA, said the information was 'grossly out of context.') To calm worries at the agency, Richardson held a conference call. 'I would say we're about 80 or 85 percent there,' he told staff, according to ABC News. 'The next week, we will close that gap and get to probably 97 to 98 percent of a plan. We'll never have 100 percent of a plan.'
That was not the most reassuring answer, and it looks worse now. The Journal reports that in the same meeting yesterday where Richardson suggested unfamiliarity with hurricane season, he also said the agency would return to its 2024 hurricane-preparedness strategy. How that will work is anyone's guess, given that FEMA has already slashed programs and staff since last year's hurricane season. (FEMA responded to my request for comment with DHS's statement, but did not answer specific questions or make any official available for an interview.)
FEMA is not a large part of the federal government by budget or staff, but it is an important one because it directly affects the lives of ordinary Americans in their worst moments. Washington can seem distant and abstract, but disasters are not, and as Hurricane Helene last year demonstrated, even people living in supposed ' climate havens ' are susceptible to extreme weather.
In the aftermath of Helene, Trump grasped the widespread public fury at FEMA, which storm victims felt was not responsive enough, fast enough. (Major disasters are major, and even the best-managed response is going to be slower than anyone wants, but no one seems to think this was the best-managed response.) As a candidate, he was quick to say that the Biden administration should do more, but since becoming president again, he has taken steps to ensure that FEMA can and will do less.
FEMA is also making recovery harder for the victims of past disasters. In April, the agency declined to declare a major disaster in Washington State, which would free up funding for recovery from a bomb cyclone in November 2024; the state's entire congressional delegation pleaded with him to reconsider. DHS also denied North Carolina more funding for cleanup after Helene, which Governor Josh Stein estimated would cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The president also refused individual federal assistance to nine Arkansas counties struck by tornadoes in March, only reversing the decision after Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who served as press secretary in Trump's first administration, called the president directly.
In the post-FEMA future that Trump has floated, states would be responsible for all disaster recovery. Some conservatives have long argued that states need to shoulder more responsibility for smaller disasters, but most states (and territories such as Puerto Rico) simply don't have the resources to respond to large-scale disasters like Helene. This is, after all, one reason the 13 colonies united in the first place: for mutual aid and protection. The federal government has much greater resources and, unlike most states, is not required to balance its budget annually. That makes it a crucial financial backstop. As Brock Long, who led FEMA during Trump's first term, told me last year, 'All disasters are locally executed, state managed, and federally supported.'
FEMA has not, generally, been a partisan agency. Administrators may have different political views, but they try to provide help without consideration for politics. I've spoken with several administrators over the years, and they are consistently professional, don't take wildly differing approaches to their work, and are dedicated to emergency response. When an employee at FEMA was caught telling workers not to help people with Trump signs in their yards, it was rightly a scandal. Yet in his first term, Trump himself reportedly withheld or delayed disaster funds in multiple cases based on partisanship. His reversal on assistance for Arkansas residents raises the specter of a future in which only states whose governors are close to Trump can hope to obtain relief.
And yet if FEMA isn't prepared for hurricane season, doesn't have sufficient staff, and is laboring under a president who would like to see it gone, the problem may not be that only the president's allies can get help from the federal government—but rather that no one can.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the family of the man accused of Sunday's attack at a Colorado demonstration for Israeli hostages has been taken into ICE custody.
Elon Musk posted on X calling President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act a 'disgusting abomination.'
Mount Etna, an active volcano in eastern Sicily, erupted. No injuries resulted.
Dispatches
Work in Progress: Derek Thompson explains the No. 1 rule for understanding Donald Trump.
More From The Atlantic
Evening Read
Nutrition Science's Most Preposterous Result
By David Merritt Johns
From 2023
Last summer, I got a tip about a curious scientific finding. 'I'm sorry, it cracks me up every time I think about this,' my tipster said.
Back in 2018, a Harvard doctoral student named Andres Ardisson Korat was presenting his research on the relationship between dairy foods and chronic disease to his thesis committee. One of his studies had led him to an unusual conclusion: Among diabetics, eating half a cup of ice cream a day was associated with a lower risk of heart problems. Needless to say, the idea that a dessert loaded with saturated fat and sugar might actually be good for you raised some eyebrows at the nation's most influential department of nutrition.
Culture Break
Watch. Our writers and editors recommend five movies they could watch over and over again.
P.S.
Professional emergency managers are some of the most impressive people I've interviewed. To succeed, they have to be extremely practical, very creative, and totally unflappable. In 2015, while reporting an article on ' maximums of maximums '—the biggest hypothetical catastrophes the nation could face—I asked some sources what their nightmare was. 'What keeps me up is another form of a pandemic, respiratory transmitted, highly lethal virus,' Anthony Fauci told me. (Good prediction, doc.) But when I asked Craig Fugate, then FEMA's administrator, what kept him up at night, he answered in the way that only a veteran of many disasters could: 'Nothing.'
— David
Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How many abomination-supporting Arizona congressmen will Elon pay to defeat?
How many abomination-supporting Arizona congressmen will Elon pay to defeat?

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How many abomination-supporting Arizona congressmen will Elon pay to defeat?

Donald Trump and Republicans loved it when Elon Musk pumped what analysists say was at least $288 million into the 2024 election campaigns of Trump and others. I wonder if Arizona Republican U.S. Reps. David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Paul Gosar, Abe Hamadeh and Juan Ciscomani are worried that he might spend something close to that amount going after them and others in 2026. Because if Elon is a guy who still puts his money where his mouth is, he will. Musk got bamboozled into believing the Republicans he bankrolled actually wanted to cut federal spending and reduce the deficit. HA! Instead, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' will hand out trillions in tax cuts (to people like Elon) while raising the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the decade and leaving nearly 11 million more Americans without health insurance. The 215 House Republicans who voted to advance the bill thought a billionaire like Elon would love the idea that he'll be getting to keep even more of his billions. Instead, Elon came out on social media and said, 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He kept going, saying the bill would saddle Americans with 'crushingly unsustainable debt.' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Musk's criticism was 'very disappointing.' It must have really spooked him when Musk also said, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' Yes! The big bill passed the House with Republican support only. In our case, it was supported by all of Arizona's GOP congressmen. Although, Rep. David Schweikert actually said that, while he supported the bill, he was so tired he 'slept' through the vote. (Not sure which is worse. Supporting the bill or sleeping through a monumental vote.) Opinion: Biggs' coronation rally wasn't really about him One of only three Republicans who didn't support the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky, is encouraging Musk to spend money defeating the bill's supporters. He said, 'I just think he made one mistake — he said take them out in November. I would take them out in primaries if I were Elon Musk.' Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs need not worry. He is getting out of Dodge by running for governor. But his GOP cohorts in Congress — Schweikert, Crane, Gosar, Hamadeh and Ciscomani — are still there, still giving tax breaks to billionaires, raising the debt and tossing people off insurance rolls. They loved Musk when he was shoveling mounds of cash into Trump's campaign. How will they feel, I wonder, if he starts shoveling cash onto their political graves? Reach Montini at Like this column? Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Elon Musk's new 'kill the bill' target: Arizona congressmen | Opinion

Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses
Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses

Congress can use the budget reconciliation bill to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees who, instead of doing their jobs, are doing business for their unions. Through a practice known as 'official time,' union agents can draw a government salary even when they are off lobbying Congress, or spending 100 percent of their time working for a labor union. In 2019, the year before President Joe Biden ordered the Office of Personnel Management to stop tracking and reporting official time, employees across the federal government were paid $135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while 'on the clock' at their government jobs. These are the last people who deserve taxpayer money. Despite being paid with tax dollars, these government union bosses are blatantly partisan. They're so used to being above the law that they see no reason to represent the views of most Americans. That's why their contributions to candidates favor Democrats 20 to 1. And of course, government employee unions have staged massive protests in Washington to combat the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy. Even though unions are third-party, nongovernmental organizations with strong political biases, federal officials are required by law to negotiate with them over their agencies' staffing policies. Public policy should be made by representatives elected by the American people. It is undemocratic for those policies to instead be made through forced 'negotiations' between elected officials and unelected union bosses. Union officials should never have been given control over the government workforce. So it's good that President Trump signed an executive order ending union bargaining at several federal agencies. If Congress won't ban federal unions altogether, it can deal a significant blow to these groups by taking away the massive taxpayer subsidies that help fund their operations. The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), forces unions to pay back the official time they consume, plus the value of other perks they receive, such as free government office space. If union bosses want to set up shop in government buildings, and use government employees as union organizers and lobbyists, they should do it on their own dime. Reversing the flow of taxpayer money into union coffers is a revenue decision, making Ernst and Perry's language eligible for the budget reconciliation bill, which, unlike most legislation, can pass the Senate with just 51 votes. The language should be included in the reconciliation bill, but union bosses have allies in government, so its inclusion is in jeopardy. It suffered an early defeat after Rep. Perry introduced an amendment in the House Oversight Committee that would have placed his language in the budget. A majority of the committee's members joined with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who said that she opposed Perry's amendment because she believes that campaigning for candidates like herself is an appropriate activity for government workers. 'Making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected … as far as I'm concerned, that is agency business,' she explained. Crockett is wrong. Government employees should not be in the business of deciding who should serve in a congressional seat and campaigning to elect that person. House and Senate leaders should insist that the language in the Protecting Taxpayer Wallets Act be added to the budget reconciliation bill, so that the public no longer has to fund the political activity of union bosses. Jace White is the director of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

House Oversight GOP shoots down Democratic attempt to subpoena Musk
House Oversight GOP shoots down Democratic attempt to subpoena Musk

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House Oversight GOP shoots down Democratic attempt to subpoena Musk

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shot down an attempt by the panel's Democrats to subpoena Elon Musk, seeking answers about his short stint in the Trump administration. The surprise move from Democrats to compel Musk to testify before the panel sought to examine government service that, while brief, was impactful and marred by controversy. Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), the acting top Democrat on the panel, shifted the tune of a hearing on artificial intelligence by bashing the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head, saying President Trump created 'disaster and danger … by turning our government over to his biggest campaign donor.' 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides to red states and blue states,' he said. 'Musk may say he has stepped away from his role in the federal government, but his recklessness will continue to have devastating consequences for America for years, possibly decades to come,' Lynch continued. Republicans, very few of whom were in the room when the hearing began, suspended the hearing to give GOP colleagues more time to arrive and vote down the measure, delaying the hearing for more than 20 minutes. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who was overseeing the hearing, mocked Democrats, telling them they 'looked good' for social media clips as her Democratic colleagues sat before blown up photos of Musk. Lynch and other Democrats pressed Mace to move forward with a vote as the wait stretched on. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) criticized the delay, noting that 'it has historically never taken this long for the clerk to call roll.' The Thursday push was the second time the panel's Democrats have pushed to subpoena Musk, though the first since the DOGE leader has left government following the end of his term as a special government employee. His departure also came amid reports about Musk's alleged drug use, which he has denied. Lynch said Musk was given 'free rein to terrorize our civil servants and drive more than 275,000 federal employees from their jobs serving the American people' and said he was among those in the Trump administration who are 'more interested in self enrichment than public service.' Musk officially announced his departure from the Trump administration last week, bringing to a close a tumultuous four months in government for the Tesla CEO. The tech billionaire's role leading DOGE has been highly controversial, prompting numerous lawsuits challenging Musk and his staffers' authority and creating headaches for his business empire. The move comes amid a four-way race to determine the next top Democrat on the panel, replacing the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.). Lynch has thrown his hat in the ring, as have Crockett and Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store