Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Thoughts on Gathering Storms

Opinion

Thoughts on Gathering Storms

Category 4 Major Hurricane Helene approaching the Big Bend of Florida. At the same time the Pacific Category 3 Hurricane John making landfall on southwestern Mexico.

Getty Images, FrankRamspott

The North American hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30. The season, therefore, is hard upon us, even as the federal government is not prepared for what it may bring.

For the past 45 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been responsible for planning and providing national emergency relief to areas in the path of or affected by catastrophic storms the season often brings. The National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both of which are embedded in FEMA, provide critical information that FEMA used in its storm preparation process.


By now, the necessary planning and deployment of emergency equipment should have been well underway. But it isn’t.

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he intends to eliminate FEMA in its entirety. He is serious. Indeed, acting FEMA administrator Cameron Hamilton was recently fired after he told a Congressional committee that he did not believe that FEMA should be eliminated. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees FEMA, has also vowed to eliminate the agency. Accordingly, she recently told lawmakers at a Capitol Hill hearing, “There is no formalized plan” for how FEMA will handle future disasters.

An internal FEMA document prepared at the direction of Acting FEMA Director David Richardson, a Marine combat veteran and martial arts instructor with no prior experience in the kind of disaster preparation that FEMA provides, says that “the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood” and “[t]hus FEMA is not ready.” Unlike the slash-and-burn approach used by DOGE to uproot undesired components of the Federal government, it appears that the plan for FEMA is simply to let it wither away.

The assault on FEMA appears to have begun with the authors of Project 2025 who manifested unhappiness with the National Flood Insurance Program that FEMA manages. In their view, FEMA provides flood insurance “at prices lower than the actual actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance.” That “subsidy,” in turn, “only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both [the flood insurance program] and the taxpayer.”

But the flood insurance program has been in existence since 1968 when Congress created it to provide affordable insurance for those who live in areas of danger from storm-created floods. Eleven years later, at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, Congress created FEMA and thus broadened the range of available Federal disaster assistance.

Beyond that, the idea that individuals and businesses are going to build houses and employment centers in the middle of a flood zone is preposterous, assuming, as it does, risk taking of near suicidal proportions. Moreover, the authors’ approach completely overlooks the structures, housing, and others, that were built in areas that became flood zones because of environmental changes that occurred after the structures were built.

The current assault on FEMA is particularly harmful when viewed against the backdrop of last year’s storms. Hurricane Beryl, which lasted from June 28th to July 11, contained maximum sustained winds of more than 160 miles per hour, produced severe flooding across Southeast Texas and damages of $7.2 billion. Later that year, Hurricane Milton, with sustained winds of 120 miles per hour, landed in Florida with 18 inches of rainfall, 10 feet of storm surge, and spawned more than 40 tornadoes. Those hurricanes and last year’s other tropical storms produced economic losses of approximately $500 billion.

Federal help with local disasters like those has existed since 1803 when Congress provided economic assistance to Portsmouth, New Hampshire merchants who had been devastated by a fire that sprang up in their midst. Thereafter, the federal government frequently aided regions and communities that had been affected by hurricanes, floods, and other calamities.

Since its creation, FEMA has been the principal federal agency responsible for dealing with natural disasters of all kinds. It provides temporary shelters for those displaced by floods and other storms, assists with cleanup and recovery after storms have occurred, and assists in preparation for storms that have yet to occur. It is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program which, as the name suggests, provides insurance available to those in areas of danger from storm-created floods.

It is conceivable that a case can be made for dramatically reframing the services provided by FEMA or for replacing FEMA with a completely different form of disaster readiness. It is even conceivable, though highly doubtful, that disaster relief should be left to the states. But it is simply not acceptable to decide, as the President and his cohorts apparently have, that, without warning and as the hurricane season begins, everyone is essentially on their own.

That result, like many of the sudden firings and grant terminations in which this administration has engaged, is simply a cruel and shameful exercise of power. And it falls well beneath the values and motivations we have the right to expect from the leaders of this great Nation and the obligation they have had since the Nation’s founding to “provide for the general Welfare.”

James F. McHugh is a retired Massachusetts Appeals Court justice, a former board member, and a current volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less
An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less