FEMA cuts could devastate Louisiana
Louisiana, Texas and Florida could face the greatest financial burdens in a world with less federal relief assistance, a new analysis finds.
Why it matters: President Trump earlier this year floated"fundamentally overhauling or reforming" FEMA, or "maybe getting rid" of it entirely — fueling concerns that U.S. disaster relief could be thrown into chaos just a few months before Atlantic hurricane season starts.
The big picture: The tropics have been the focus of the National Hurricane Conference that's happening in New Orleans this week.
The gathering comes during uncertain times in the meteorological world, with cuts and changes being made to NOAA and its agencies, including the National Weather Service.
Advocates are voicing concerns about reduced forecasting abilities.
Between the lines: NOAA and FEMA officials typically attend the conference, but they didn't this year due to travel restrictions, according to The Times-Picayune.
Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order last month that empowers state and local governments to handle disaster readiness and relief.
FEMA and other federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, already funnel billions of dollars to individuals and communities.
It's unclear how or whether Trump's order might change that, or if it would result in fewer federal dollars for disaster-wracked states.
Some FEMA reform advocates call for giving states "block grants" of relief money to spend as they see fit, rather than to meet specific needs — but others worry that would lead to fraud and abuse, or that many states lack the resources and expertise to rebuild without help.
By the numbers: Certain states — many of them red — would be hit especially hard by reductions in federal relief funding, per a new analysis from the Carnegie Disaster Dollar Database.
Louisiana, for example, received an average of about $1.4 billion annually in FEMA and HUD relief funding from 2015 to 2024, covering 14 disasters.
That's equal to 6.3% of the state's approximately $21.9 billion in overall spending in fiscal 2023.
Florida received $2.1 billion a year on average during that time, equal to 2.8% of the state's 2023 spending.
And Texas got $1.4 billion, equal to 1.8% of its 2023 spending.
What they're saying: "Up to now, when there is a disaster, the government responds. They clean up the debris, they rebuild the schools, they run shelters, they clean the drinking water," says Sarah Labowitz of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who led this analysis.
"All of that is supported by a federal disaster relief ecosystem that spreads the risk around the country, spreads the costs around the country. And if we stop spreading the costs around the country, then it's going to fall on states, and it's going to fall on states really unevenly."
State of play: "I think we're all in agreement about [FEMA] reform, but let's do it smartly and be able at the same time to complete the mission," Pete Gaynor, who ran FEMA for about two years during Trump's first term, tells Axios.
Part of FEMA's utility, Gaynor says, is directing not just money but people, including relief experts who can be dispatched to states as needed after disaster strikes.
But he's concerned about an exodus of FEMA staffers, in part tied to Trump's broader purge of federal workers. More than 200 of FEMA's 20,000-plus staffers have been fired, NPR reports.
"Where does this goal of reform stop before it's too late and you lose these capabilities that have been critical over time?" Gaynor says.
"There has been and will continue to be a departure of [senior leaders] that have been at FEMA for 25-30 years, experts at everything — they leave, and you have a freeze on hiring, or you instill fear into the workforce, that's going to hurt."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
GOP Senator Ron Johnson says he's 'trying to force reality' on DC
When it comes to the nation's federal government, GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is "not a fan." He believes that it "causes or exacerbates more problems than it actually solves," telling Fox News Digital during an interview on Wednesday that the bulk of his oversight is "to expose how awful government is" in order to obtain "public support for reducing it, limiting its size, limiting its cost, limiting its influence over our lives." "As our federal government grows, our freedoms recede," he said. "You see what the federal government does, how it wastes money." The national debt has ballooned to the eye-watering sum of more than $36 trillion, with lawmakers and presidents from both parties presiding over the deficit spending that has led the nation to this point. Johnson said he's "trying to force reality" upon everyone in the nation's capital, regardless of whether they want to face that reality. He said for decades the nation has been suffering a "chronic debt crisis," illustrating the dramatic decline in the value of the U.S. dollar by noting that "the dollar you held back in 1998 is now only worth $0.51 cents," while "a dollar you held in … 2019 is only worth $0.80 cents." The senator referred to inflation as "the silent tax." But he's certainly not staying silent. Johnson indicated that the elected leaders are mortgaging the future of American children, but "don't talk about it." "I'm forcing everybody to look at it," he said, noting that his "primary role" is to force "acknowledgment of our problem." But as keenly as Johnson advocates the idea of slashing the sprawling tentacles of the massive federal bureaucracy, right now he's just pushing to pare spending down to pre-pandemic levels. The conservative fiscal hawk has been making headlines for taking a stand against the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that cleared the GOP-controlled House of Representatives last month. But Johnson told Fox News Digital that he actually likes a lot of the measure. "I'm really not critical of the bill as far as it goes," Johnson explained, noting that he's a "big supporter" of much of what's in it, though he noted that has not read all of it — the measure is more than 1,000 pages long. "My main beef is it just doesn't go far enough," he said, noting that after the COVID-19 pandemic Democrats failed to return to pre-COVID spending and deficit levels. The Congressional Budget Office's estimated budgetary impact for the measure indicates that the net effect on the deficit would be a more than $2.4 trillion increase over the fiscal years 2025-2034. But White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has said the measure would decrease deficits. "The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO's one big gimmick--not using a realistic current policy baseline. It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture," Vought said in a post on X. Johnson also noted during the interview that there has not been a "reckoning" regarding the "abuse" at all levels of government during the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted that he does not refer to the COVID-19 jab as a vaccine. Instead, he referred to it as an "injection," asserting that it is "not a vaccine," and that it caused injuries and death. The senator said that he thinks the shots should have "black box warnings." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states that the "CDC recommends a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine for most adults ages 18 and older" and claims that the "vaccine helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death." Johnson, who has served in the Senate since 2011 and won election to a third term in 2022, said he'd prefer not to seek another term in office. "I don't covet this job," he said, noting that he wants to leverage his post to help save America and aid those who are "ignored by the system." While he's not ruling out another run, Johnson, who turned 70-years-old earlier this year, said he'd "be happy" to return to Oshkosh and "live a nice, peaceful life."
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Americans aren't yet sure what to make of Trump's immigration crackdown
The American immigration drama offers a unique Rorschach test for the moment. Do you find the deployment of troops to Los Angeles menacing or comforting? When you see video of a US senator, Democrat Alex Padilla of California, being forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press event, do you wonder what was he thinking or her people were thinking? When you see employees in front of a meatpacking plant in Nebraska trying to block vehicles with masked federal agents driving off with scores of their coworkers, do you question President Donald Trump's dogged push for mass deportation or applaud it? Are you more concerned about ICE raids targeting people who are trying to find work in front of Home Depot stores or who are employed in the garment district — or the protests those raids sparked? When you see Vice President JD Vance posting memes making light of deporting people, do you find it funny or repulsive? When you read that the most-followed person on TikTok, a Senegalese Italian comedian named Khaby Lame who has more than 162 million followers, may have been forced to leave the country a few weeks after attending the Met Gala, do you wonder how that's at all helpful or say good riddance? Do you wonder why the government is charging the respected Los Angeles labor leader David Huerta after he was arrested in Los Angeles protests, or wonder why it wouldn't? There's no question what Trump sees. Rather than seeing a response to ICE raids, he sees professional agitators. Trump has repeatedly said this week, while inflating the danger posed by protests, that protesters themselves are 'insurrectionists' and paid professionals. He's ready to respond across the country. 'When it comes to Los Angeles — or other cities, if we see other cities are gearing up — and these people are agitators,' Trump said Thursday at the White House. 'They're paid. They're professionals. They're insurrectionists. They're troublemakers. They're all of those things. But I believe they're paid, and we're going to find out.' There's no evidence to support the idea of a union of paid protesters, as CNN's Aaron Blake explained. But that hasn't stopped Trump from dispatching Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate. Prev Next If all this sounds familiar, the idea that protesters who oppose Trump are not real protesters has been a theme of his presidencies. Most recently, Elon Musk argued that it was paid protesters picketing outside Tesla dealerships earlier this year. Most of those events were peaceful, but there were instances of destruction, which should clearly be prosecuted along with any looting in Los Angeles. How Americans ultimately view the ramping up of ICE raids and the resulting protests will have a lot to do with how Trump's second presidency proceeds. Will they endorse the arrest of migrants in places like church parking lots and outside schools? And will they approve of the deportation of undocumented people who have been living and working in the US without committing crimes other than the civil offense of their arrival? For now, the public is split over Trump's choice to send the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests in Los Angeles, according to a new one-day survey from the Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School conducted on Tuesday. Forty-four percent oppose Trump's choice to send in the National Guard and Marines, while 41% support it and 15% say they are unsure how they feel about it, although CNN's Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta noted that one-day polls can be subject to larger errors than those conducted over a number of days. One of the poll's noteworthy findings is that political independents break more toward opposition — 48% oppose Trump's actions, compared with 33% who support them and 19% who are unsure. A lot of people are also still making up their minds about the protests themselves. About one-fifth, 21%, said they are unsure if they support or oppose them. Americans aren't yet sure what to make of this.
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'
