SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for economic and policy research
'Absolutely Insane': Trump Teases Killing FEMA While Touring Disaster Zones
"If we abolish federal funding for disaster assistance, municipalities and states wouldn't be able to cover these types of catastrophic emergencies and people would be left to fend on their own," one expert warned.
Jan 24, 2025
With trips to North Carolina and California on Friday, Republican U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his threat to the federal disaster assistance agency, drawing swift rebukes from climate campaigners, experts, and members of Congress.
Trump was sworn in on Monday and took aim at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during a Wednesday interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. He echoed those comments on Friday after landing at Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina, to visit a region devastated by Hurricane Helene in September.
During his first trip since Inauguration Day, Trump declared that he will "be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA."
"I think, frankly, FEMA's not good," he said. "I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go, and whether it's a Democrat or Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA."
"FEMA's turned out to be a disaster," the president added. "I think we're gonna recommend that FEMA go away and we pay directly, we pay a percentage to the state, but the state should fix this."
While attempting to kill FEMA could be legally complicated due to a federal law passed after Hurricane Katrina, Trump's comments sparked concern and criticism. According toCNN:
Officials with FEMA scrambled to understand his comments in North Carolina Friday, with personnel nationwide calling and texting one another, trying to figure out what his statements meant for the agency's future and work on the ground, according to a source familiar.
Trump's desire to eliminate or curtail FEMA could have chilling effects on emergency response even at state levels, former FEMA Chief Deanne Criswell told CNN.
"We need to take him at his word, and I think state emergency management directors should be concerned about what this means for spring tornado season" and the coming hurricane season, said Criswell, who served under former President Joe Biden. "Do they have the resources to protect their residents?"
Responding to Trump's remarks on social media, the think tank Carolina Forward said that "if you were upset at how FEMA responds to natural disasters, just wait until they don't exist at all. (Trump obviously won't do this—he can't, after all—but he'll very likely make a lot of noise about it and then not actually do anything, as usual)."
Congresswoman Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) also weighed in on X, saying that "FEMA has been a crucial partner in our fight to recover from Hurricane Helene. I appreciate President Trump's concern about Western N.C., but eliminating FEMA would be a disaster for our state."
Matt Sedlar, climate analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), noted in a Friday statement that "before he took office, some wondered whether Trump would actually deny federal disaster aid to states he considered politically unfriendly. The unpleasant truth is that in theory he could—and right now he appears willing to test that idea in reality."
"Trump is already setting the stage for a significant reduction in federal disaster aid and mitigation funding," warned Sedlar, who also published an article on CEPR's website that highlights how Trump's attacks on the agency relate to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025. "He has made repeated demands that would tie California's aid to specific policy changes he would like to see, and has even begun discussing the possibility of overhauling FEMA—if not eliminating it entirely."
"States cannot absorb the costs of these disasters, and they don't have the money to prevent them either," he stressed. "The federal government agencies that aim to make the U.S. climate resilient are already chronically underfunded as it is. If Trump truly wanted to make America great again, he would prioritize funding for aid and mitigation. Instead, he is making incoherent political demands and setting Americans up for four years of uncertainty and suffering."
Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, released a similar statement on Friday.
"The president is suggesting eliminating FEMA. My question is: Should we also ban hospitals? Both are a means to recovery," Udvardy said. "This latest comment stretches the boundaries of reality. If we abolish federal funding for disaster assistance, municipalities and states wouldn't be able to cover these types of catastrophic emergencies and people would be left to fend on their own."
After visiting North Carolina on Friday, Trump took off for the Los Angeles area, which has been ravaged by recent wildfires. As of press time, the Hughes Fire was only 56% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Sharing a video of Trump's Friday remarks on social media, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said that "as someone who's actually been on the ground in LA, people are grateful for FEMA and want more help—not less."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, said in a Friday statement that "the people of Los Angeles are suffering. They need and deserve help. Wildfires fueled by high winds and climate change-fueled drought have destroyed 12,000 homes and killed 27 people in the area so far."
"Rather than playing the traditional presidential role of 'comforter in chief,' Donald Trump's visit to the area is performative, using the tragedy to advance his personal agenda: changing state water management policy to help his Los Angeles private golf club," Alt suggested. "Trump's threat to withhold disaster aid to benefit his golf club seems, unfortunately, to be par for the course when it comes to his presidency. But the people of Los Angeles deserve better, and quickly."
"Wildfires like these will only get worse and more frequent if we don't address the climate crisis that is intensifying these disasters and other extreme weather including flooding, extreme heat, drought, and more that we are experiencing across the U.S. and the world," she added. "It is unconscionable to threaten to withdraw federal support to Americans suffering the effects of this crisis because of where they live or whom they may have voted for. The climate crisis won't spare anyone."
Alt argued that "the only acceptable course of action for Trump and the Republican majority in Congress is to stop playing politics with people's lives. They must ensure that FEMA has the resources it needs, and need to stop cutting programs designed to help mitigate climate pollution and pushing for more of the fossil fuels responsible for making this crisis worse."
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Friday statement that "if Donald Trump cared even one bit about the communities being ravaged by climate change, he wouldn't hold disaster aid hostage to his political whims, dismiss the climate crisis as a hoax, or pander to his Big Oil donors."
"Instead, he'd tackle the carbon pollution driving these catastrophes and support U.S. clean energy dominance to lower energy costs for families," he added. "But from day one, Trump's priority has been rewarding his corrupt fossil fuel donors and sabotaging America's clean energy future. Now, he's exploiting the suffering caused by extreme weather to peddle his political agenda—proving once again he's all in for polluters and all out for the American people."
This isn't the first time Trump—who was previously president from 2017-21—has come under fire related to disaster response. As
The Associated Pressreported Friday:
The last time Trump was president, he visited numerous disaster zones, including the aftermath of hurricanes and tornadoes. He sometimes sparked criticism, like when he tossed paper towels to survivors of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
Trump tapped Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL with limited experience managing natural disasters, as FEMA's acting director.
Reporting on Hamilton's position,
The New York Timesnoted Wednesday that "since Hurricane Katrina, when the federal response was severely criticized, FEMA has been led by disaster management professionals who have run state or local emergency management agencies, or were regional administrators at FEMA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Far Too Little, Far Too Late,' Say Critics as Biden Finally Removes Cuba From Terror List
"Seriously? You wait until six days before leaving office to do what you promised to do during your 2020 campaign?" said one observer.
Jan 14, 2025
In a move likely to be reversed by the incoming Trump administration, President Joe Biden on Tuesday notified Congress of his intent to remove Cuba from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, a designation that critics have long condemned as politically motivated and meritless.
Noting that "the government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism" and has "provided assurances" that it will not do so in the future, the White House said in a memo that the Biden administration is moving to rescind the first Trump administration's January 2021 addition of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list and take other measures to ease some sanctions on the long-suffering island of 11 million inhabitants.
Cuba's SSOT designation was based mostly on the socialist nation's harboring of leftist Colombian rebels and several U.S. fugitives from justice for alleged crimes committed decades ago, even though no other country has been placed on the SSOT list for such a reason and despite right-wing Cuban exile terrorists enjoying citizenship—and even heroic status—in the United States.
"Despite its limited nature, it is a decision in the right direction and in line with the sustained and firm demand of the government and people of Cuba, and with the broad, emphatic, and repeated call of many governments, especially Latin America and the Caribbean, of Cubans living abroad, political, religious and social organizations, and numerous political figures from the United States and other countries," the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
"It is important to note that the economic blockade and much of the dozen coercive measures that have been put into effect since 2017 remain in force to strengthen it, with full extraterritorial effect and in violation of international law and human rights of all Cubans," the ministry added.
For 32 straight years, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted for resolutions condemning the U.S. blockade of Cuba. And for 32 years, the United States, usually along with a small handful of countries, has opposed the measures. Last year's vote was 187-2, with Israel joining the U.S. in voting against the resolution.
Cuba followed Biden's move by announcing it would "gradually" release 553 political prisoners following negotiations with the Catholic Church, The New York Timesreported.
Many progressives welcomed Biden's shift. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Cuba's SSOT designation "has only worsened life for the Cuban people without advancing U.S. interests" and "has made it harder for Cubans to access humanitarian aid, banking services, and the ability to travel abroad."
"It has also deepened food and medicine shortages and worsened the island's energy crisis, especially after Hurricane Rafael," she added. "These hardships have driven an unprecedented wave of migration, leading to the largest exodus in Cuba's history."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called Biden's move "a long overdue action that will help normalize relations with our neighbor."
"This is a step toward ending decades of failed policy that has only hurt Cuban families and strained diplomatic ties," Omar added. "Removing this designation will help the people of Cuba and create new opportunities for trade and cooperation between our nations. I look forward to continuing the work to build bridges between our countries and supporting policies that benefit both the American and Cuban people."
David Adler, the co-general coordinator at Progressive International, called the delisting "far too little, far too late."
"POTUS removing Cuba's SSOT designation in the final days of his presidency only means one thing: He knew—from day one—that the designation was simply an excuse to punish the Cuban people," Adler added. "But he maintained it anyway. Sickening."
The peace group CodePink released a statement welcoming Biden's shift, but adding that "it is unacceptable that it took this administration four years to address these injustices."
"President Biden made the inhumane decision every single day to not alleviate the suffering of millions of Cubans by keeping this designation in place," the group added. "As we mark this overdue progress, we can only hope that the Trump administration does not reverse these crucial steps towards justice and diplomacy."
Trump's nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the son of Cuban immigrants and a fierce critic of Cuba's socialist government. In 2021, Rubio introduced legislation aimed at blocking Cuba's removal from the SSOT list. Trump has also tapped Mauricio Claver-Carone—a staunch supporter of sanctioning Cuba—as his special envoy for Latin America.
Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Tuesday that "while this decision, which comes years after 80 members of Congress urged Biden to reverse Trump's 'total pressure' approach should have been made long ago, it is better late than never."
"Sixty years of failed policy should be more than enough, and hopefully the new administration will have the wisdom and the courage to pursue a new course, one that's in the best interest of both the U.S. and the Cuban people," Main added.
Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982 amid an ongoing, decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorism, attempted subversion, failed assassination attempts, economic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.
In stark contrast, Cuba has not committed any terrorism against the United States.
Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the SSOT in 2015 during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when Trump took office for the first time in 2017.
"Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic war, the interference programs, and the disinformation and discredit operations financed each year with tens of millions of dollars from the United States federal budget," the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. "It will also remain ready to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and noninterference in the internal affairs of both, despite differences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fed 'Waited Too Long' But Finally Cut Interest Rates
"The Fed must continue to cut rates aggressively in the coming months to prevent a slowing labor market and provide much-needed relief to people who are bearing the brunt of high interest rates," said one economist.
Sep 18, 2024
Economists and working-class people across the United States on Wednesday welcomed the Federal Reserve's decision to cut its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point as an incredibly overdue and necessary move.
In line with signals from Fed Chair Jerome Powell's speech last month, the Federal Open Market Committee lowered the federal funds rate by half a percentage point to 4.74-5%, the first cut "since March 2020 when Covid-19 was hammering the economy," as The Associated Pressnoted. Additional cuts are expected over the next two years.
"Finally," wrote Kenny Stancil, a senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and former Common Dreams staff writer, in a blog post. "The Fed should have provided interest rate relief months ago. While this overdue move is welcome, we must reiterate that Powell's deferral of interest rate cuts has hurt the clean energy transition and inflicted other economic harms."
Lawmakers and experts, including Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Rakeen Mabud, have long called for rate cuts and highlighted the harms of refusing to pursue them.
"Today's rate cut is a step in the right direction, but only a first step," said Mabud in a statement Wednesday. "The Fed must continue to cut rates aggressively in the coming months to prevent a slowing labor market and provide much-needed relief to people who are bearing the brunt of high interest rates."
Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist Dean Baker also welcomed that the Fed is changing course, saying: "This is a belated recognition that the battle against inflation has been won. Contrary to the predictions of almost all economists, including those at the Fed, this victory was won without a major uptick in unemployment."
"Unfortunately, the Fed waited too long to make this turn," Baker continued. "As a result, the unemployment rate has drifted higher. While there is little basis for concerns about a recession, if the unemployment rate is 0.5 percentage points higher than it needs to be, that translates into 800,000 people out of work who want jobs."
"It is good that the Fed has now recognized the weakening of the labor market and responded with an aggressive cut," he added. "Given there is almost no risk of rekindling inflation, the greater boost to the labor market is largely costless. Also, it will help to spur the housing market where millions of people have put off selling homes because of high mortgage rates."
Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US similarly stressed the benefits, saying that "while it should have come sooner, the Fed's interest rate cut will ease some burden for many Americans that found it simply too expensive to buy new homes or cars."
"Fortunately, the Fed's aggressive interest rate strategy defied odds and did not spur a recession as the economy continues to grow hundreds of thousands of jobs every month while wages are rising," she said. "Persistently high interest rates were never going to get at the root of the corporate price gouging epidemic that has needlessly kept prices high on many necessities—a problem that is on Congress to fix."
Some members of Congress who have been pushing for rate cuts also applauded the belated action—including Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), chair of the Joint Economic Committee.
"Let's be clear: Today's decision is a big win for families across the country," he declared. "Lower rates mean that more families will be able to buy a home or a car without high interest payments looming over them, and their credit card bills will go down."
"But there is still work to be done," he said. "I will continue to work with my colleagues to fight for policies that raise wages, strengthen our economy, create new jobs, and lower prices for families in New Mexico and across the country."
Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, has also criticized the central bank's refusal to cut rates and praised the Wednesday reversal.
"We've made significant progress on inflation, but House Democrats know there is more to be done to bring down the cost of everyday goods and take on corporate price gouging," Boyle said, nodding to the November election in which former Republican President Donald Trump is facing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
"While House Republicans continue trying to inflict higher costs and higher taxes on the middle class with Trump's Project 2025 agenda," he added, "House Democrats will never stop fighting to deliver an economy that works for working families."
Harris similarly applauded the "welcome news for Americans who have borne the brunt of high prices" while acknowledging that more must be done and vowing that "my focus is on the work ahead to keep bringing prices down."
"I know prices are still too high for many middle-class and working families, and my top priority as president will be to lower the costs of everyday needs like healthcare, housing, and groceries. That is why I am proposing plans to cut taxes for more than 100 million working and middle-class Americans, pass the first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries, and make housing more affordable by building 3 million new homes and giving more Americans down payment assistance," she said.
The Democrat also took aim at Trump's intentions, warning that "while proposing more tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations, his plan would increase costs on families by nearly $4,000 a year by slapping a Trump Tax on goods families rely on, like gas, food, and clothing. He wants to repeal the law I cast the tie-breaking vote to pass that caps the costs of prescription drugs for seniors, including insulin at $35. He would end the Affordable Care Act and erase the progress we have made to lower premiums for millions of Americans by hundreds of dollars a year."
"Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists say his plan would increase inflation, and a Moody's report found it would cause a recession by the middle of next year," she noted. "This election is about whether we are going to finally build an opportunity economy that gives every American a shot not just to get by, but to get ahead. As president, that will be my priority every day."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular