Here's how federal assistance might work after the ice storm
A snapped-off utility pole lays by the side of the road in Bear Creek Township on March 31, 2025. (Photo: Michael Livingston/IPR News)
This coverage is made possible through a partnership between IPR and Grist, a nonprofit environmental media organization.
Last week, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer requested an emergency declaration from President Donald Trump for the state, 12 counties and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians following the historic ice storm that hit northern Michigan.
If granted, up to $5 million from the federal government would be made available to help northern Michigan clean up and recover.
Local, tribal and state entities and utilities have been responding to the storm for weeks, clearing roads, cleaning up debris and repairing power lines. Whitmer also called in the National Guard to help. The state estimates that costs for responding to the storm already exceed $7 million.
Officials have said federal assistance is central to recovery in the region. U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman, a Republican, and Sens. Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, both Democrats, supported that request.
In a news release from the governor's office, Col. James F. Grady II, director of the Michigan State Police, said approval of the emergency request 'would bring critical federal resources to support local response operations that are still ongoing. This is a necessary step while we work toward the broader disaster declaration that will bring additional relief.'
But how does the process actually work?
After a disaster hits, local, tribal and state governments will typically be the first to respond. If they don't have enough resources to deal with the aftermath, governors and tribal governments can request assistance from the federal government, which the president has to sign off on.
Disaster declarations are structured through a law called the Stafford Act.
'There are incidents that obviously the state needs help dealing with, because no state or community can take care of it on their own, and that's when federal aid is designed to kick in,' said Anna Weber, a senior policy analyst for climate adaptation at the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.
Weber spent a decade working on federal contracts related to water infrastructure and environmental health.
There are two types of federal disaster declarations. One is an emergency declaration, which the president decides on and which doesn't have to meet any threshold.
The other is a major disaster declaration, which often requires a damage assessment to determine if an area is eligible. (In situations where it's clear that federal assistance will be required, officials don't have to wait for a damage assessment to request federal assistance.)
The state of Michigan will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and the Small Business Administration to assess whether the region is eligible for that assistance.
It's up to President Trump to decide whether or not to grant that relief, which usually goes to local entities to help with cleanup and recovery.
In an emailed statement to IPR, White House spokesman Kush Desai said, 'The Trump administration is closely tracking the situation and is working with state and local officials to assess what next steps are needed.'
Emergency declarations are typically processed pretty quickly because they don't need to meet any specific criteria. The goal is to get aid to the area quickly.
And that can also be a stopgap to give FEMA time to assess the damage to see if more assistance is needed.
If that is the case, the governor can request a major disaster declaration which would unlock additional federal dollars.
And unlike the initial emergency declaration, in a major disaster declaration FEMA considers a range of criteria, such as a state's financial capacity and resources.
Those assessments begin next week.
'There'll actually be people out there driving around to areas that they can reach, you know, going looking at things with clipboards, writing down the kinds of damages that we've seen in these areas, how much money it costs and how many additional resources the state might need in order to address it,' Weber said.
If the region is eligible for major disaster relief, other forms of aid can then come into play — such as cash payments to individuals and public assistance for more long term recovery like repairing infrastructure.
Rep. Bergman is urging counties to assist in those assessments.
'For us to have a chance at securing Individual Assistance and Public Assistance, we need to take an all-hands-on-deck approach,' he wrote in a newsletter from his office on Thursday. 'I encourage our leaders in all 12 counties to support this effort as we work together to secure help for our communities.'
These relief efforts kick in after events like the ice storm, but federal hazard mitigation grants have also aimed to reduce the impact of future disasters.
Uncertainty surrounds FEMA amid the Trump administration's efforts to cut costs and reshape the federal government. Trump and those in his administration have said they want to drastically reduce – or even eliminate — the agency.
The situation has been constantly changing, but Weber said there have been concrete impacts: 'What we have seen is that staff and programs at FEMA are being eliminated, and aid is being slower to arrive even if it's already been approved.'
Those cuts have reached efforts to prepare for disasters as well. For example, Grist reported earlier this month that FEMA plans to dismantle a program, passed under the first Trump administration, to help communities prepare for disasters before they hit.
FEMA didn't respond directly to IPR's questions this week about criteria for a major disaster declaration in northern Michigan or what the damage assessment consists of.
Still, Weber said the big takeaway is that federal aid is meant to supplement what's already being done, so people can look to local governments and organizations for information and help.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal. Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor. However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal. 'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.' The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections. Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections. However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments. 'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.' Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.' 'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said. GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect. 'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.' House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal. However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time. Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers. The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Rep. Mikie Sherrill wins Democratic nomination for NJ governor
Democrats chose Rep. Mikie Sherrill as their nominee for governor of New Jersey, as the party attempts to defy odds by holding onto the governorship for a third term in a row. The Associated Press called the race just under an hour after polls closed. The four-term member of Congress prevailed in the crowded Democratic primary field on Tuesday to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy. She'll face Republican Jack Ciattarelli, setting up a high-stakes battle of two party establishment favorites. Both sides acknowledge that November's election will be competitive. Although the electorate does favor Democrats, it's been decades since Democrats have won the governorship three terms in a row in the Garden State. But in recent history, the candidate of the party opposite of the one that controls the White House typically wins the race for governor. Still, Republicans are emboldened by President Donald Trump's closer-than-expected loss in New Jersey last November, as well as the gains they've made to cut into Democrats' voter registration advantage. And Republicans argue it helps that they have a candidate with high name ID: Ciattarelli ran for governor two times prior and narrowly lost to Murphy in 2021.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg
President Donald Trump made a series of false claims to members of the military on Tuesday in a partisan and combative speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Trump lied again about the 2020 election. He repeated a long-debunked story about a Minnesota National Guard deployment in 2020. He again distorted the history of his first administration's fight against the ISIS terror group. He revived a fictional tale about immigration during former President Joe Biden's administration. And he exaggerated the military's recruiting challenges under Biden. In addition, Trump made a series of vague assertions about the protests in Los Angeles for which he presented no evidence. Here is a fact check of some of his checkable false claims from the speech – plus a false claim he made in remarks about California at the White House earlier in the day. The 2020 election: Trump repeated his long-debunked lie that the 2020 election 'was rigged and stolen.' Trump legitimately lost a free and fair election to Biden. The National Guard and Minneapolis: While bashing Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Trump revived a false story that CNN debunked nearly five years ago. Trump wrongly claimed that it was him, not Walz, who sent the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 amid the civil unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump said: 'I'll never forget in Minnesota: that city was burning down, Minneapolis, it was burning down, it was gonna burn to the ground, and he wouldn't call the guard. And I waited for a long time, and I called the guard, and I saved it.' In reality, publicly available evidence proves that Walz first deployed the Minnesota National guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the guard himself. While Walz was criticized by many Republicans and some Democrats for not sending in the guard faster, it is indisputable that Walz, not Trump, was the person who deployed the guard. You can read more here. Trump and the battle against ISIS: Trump repeated his regular false claim that even though 'they said it would take five years to defeat ISIS, we did in four weeks, four weeks.' The so-called ISIS 'caliphate' was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump's presidency, in 2019, not 'in four weeks.' Military recruiting under Biden: Trump, boasting of the military's recruiting performance during his second administration, falsely claimed, 'Just think of this: six months ago, we couldn't recruit anybody to join the military. Nobody wanted to join. That was six months ago.' Even granting that words like 'nobody' can be used less than literally, it's simply not true that 'nobody wanted to join' the military at the end of the Biden administration. The ongoing uptick in recruiting actually began under the Biden administration. The Defense Department announced in October 2024, before Trump's second victory, that recruitment was up more than 12% in the 2024 fiscal year compared with the previous fiscal year; reported in October 2024: 'After years of negative recruiting news and headlines, all the military branches managed to eke out wins this year and meet their recruiting goals – largely aided by new programs and policies that allowed them to sign up recruits who would have been disqualified in previous years.' The Army, for example, added just over 55,000 recruits, up substantially from just under 45,000 in fiscal year 2022. Migrants, prisons and mental institutions: Trump made his frequent assertion that foreign countries deliberately placed prisoners and people with mental illnesses in the US as migrants during Biden's presidency. 'Many of them came out of prisons and jails – the most heinous people, they came from all over the world. They came from the Congo in Africa, they came from Asia, they came from the prisons of these places, they were put into the United States and allowed to stay here,' Trump said at one point. At another, he said, 'Their countries would bus them or drive them right to our border and say, 'Go in there. If you ever come back, we're going to kill you.'' Trump has never presented any evidence of any foreign government transporting their criminals to the US border under Biden. Nor has he corroborated his stories about foreign governments deliberately emptying prisons and mental health facilities to somehow facilitate migration to the US, which even his 2024 presidential campaign could not prove. His allegations about prisons in 'the Congo' have been rejected as baseless by independent experts, human rights organizations, and the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. California, fires and water: At the White House earlier on Tuesday, Trump again wrongly asserted that the January wildfires in Los Angeles 'started because they wouldn't allow water into LA, they wouldn't allow water into California' – and added that he then turned water 'around,' and 'now we have billions of gallons of water flowing down.' None of this is true. First, nobody has broadly refused to allow water into Los Angeles or into California as a whole. Second, experts on California water policy and firefighting have repeatedly explained that there is no basis for Trump's claims that the January wildfires were caused by water being used for environmental protection in northern California rather than being sent to Los Angeles. Third, Trump did not actually send water to Los Angeles earlier this year. Rather, in what experts widely described as a waste and a stunt, he had about two billion gallons of fresh water sent from one part of California's Central Valley to another part of the valley in late January and early February.