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

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less