Trump Intensifies Threats Against FEMA And All Aspects Of Disaster Relief As Calamities Continue To Mount

President Trump wants to get rid of FEMA and let
states handle disasters on their own, but that
could further harm the people he claims to champion.

President Trump on Friday doubled down on his idea to get rid of FEMA as he toured disaster sites in North Carolina and California. 

He also continued to float other ideas that will make life much harder for victims of weather disasters, which are increasing in number and scope due to climate change and increasing populations in the way of such calamities. 

Trump said instead, the federal government could provide money directly to the states, but I'm unsure how exactly it would work. 

Though all states have emergency plans for disasters, simply throwing money at states without resources in place to deal with the immediate aftermath of an emergency is dangerous. 

FEMA is rightly criticized for its performance with long term recovery that is supposed to kick in after the immediate emergency has passed.  Disaster victims deal with long waits and a miserable bureaucracy trying to get aid to rebulld homes, businesses and infrastructure. 

Where FEMA usually shines is during and in the hours and days immediately after a catastrophe like a flood, hurricane or wildfire.  Sure, local and state resources immediately respond in a disaster, but if the emergency is huge, states would be left scrambling with short supplies and manpower when time is of the essence.

The sooner and more complete a response happens in a disaster, the more lives are saved. Trump is threatening to upend all of that initial response. 

Also, disasters often cover wide areas, often multiple states at once. These emergencies create a whole bunch of issues that need involvement from federal agencies.  The Army Corp of Engineers might need to step in with debris removal. The Environmental Protection Agency might have to deal with toxic debris and residue after a disaster. 

What if more planes, trucks and emergency vehicles are needed than a local government or state has?  This is where FEMA comes in to help. 

Disbanding FEMA would probably hurt the working class that Trump tries to champion, as people with low and moderate incomes are far less likely to easily recover from disasters than people with more cash lying around. 

Contrary to probably his own beliefs, Trump can't just erase FEMA with the wave of his magic wand.  Congress would have to vote to disband the agency. 

Since an increasing number of disasters are hitting both blue and red states, there is bipartisan support for FEMA, regardless of any real or alleged flaws, as the Washington Post reminds us. 

OTHER TRUMP ISSUES

As expected, Trump has not been kind to weather and climate disasters and issues since he took office this month. 

California Aid

While Trump contemplates getting rid of FEMA, he's still on his kick to attach strings to any aid to recover from the horrific wildfires there. 

As The Hill reports, Trump wants to force California to institute Voter ID before it gets disaster aid. Never mind that Voter ID has nothing to do with the disaster and several other states lack this law.  Trump is also demanding California turn on this mysterious spigot that would allow lots of water to flow to southern California.

Such a big giant spigot does to exist. 

There's actually plenty of water stored in southern California reservoirs at the moment. Hydrants did go dry in the Palisades wildfire because so much water was being used all at once. Sounds like the hydrant system needs to be redesigned and improved, but that can be done without any fictitious spigots. 

Paris Climate Accord

This wasn't a surprise, but Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, just as he did during his first term. (President Biden got us back into the accord during his term).

Under the Paris agreement, nations around the world agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming. Trump keeps saying the Paris accord burdens the U.S. economy. 

For their part, reports NPR:

"Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and an architect of the Paris Agreement, said in a statement that the U.S. pulling out of the deal is unfortunate. But, she said, international climate action 'has proven resilient and is stronger than any single country's politics and policies."

Exiting the agreement will probably harm the United States more than it harms the world as a whole.

NPR again, quoting David Waskow, who leads international climate policy and politics at the World Resources Institute: 

"Leaving the accord could prove damaging, Waskow said, by potentially sidelining the U.S. from some clean energy and and green tech markets and reducing leverage with other countries. That could hamper some of Trump's broader economic goals for the U.S."

Other Ideas

Trump has always been obsessed with wind turbines. He hates 'em.  The theory is they installed turbines off the coast of Scotland offshore from one of his golf courses and he thinks they're ugly. So he hates 'em all. Anyway, Trump has imposed a moratorium on new wind projects on all federal lands. So far, Trump hasn't been able to do anything about turbines on private land. 

Trump might hate offshore wind turbines, but he loves offshore oil drilling, despite the obvious environmental dangers.  

Finally, Trump figures if he somehow makes information about an issue go away, the issue itself goes away. Case in point: A page on the White House that dealt with climate change has disappeared now that Trump is in office.