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
north carolina
'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
'This Should Make Your Blood Boil': Top NC Court Blocks Certification of Democratic Justice's Win
One journalist warned that the state court "laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election" in favor of Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs' GOP challenger, Jefferson Griffin.
Jan 07, 2025
Democracy defenders across the United States on Tuesday responded with alarm to Republicans on the North Carolina Supreme Court blocking certification of incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs' November victory to review GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin's attempt to toss out over 60,000 votes.
Over 5.5 million people voted in the election, and after two recounts, Riggs is ahead by just 734 votes. Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, has been contesting the results for weeks. The North Carolina State Board of Elections moved the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II—an appointee of Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—sent it back to the state judicial system on Monday.
Although the board notified the North Carolina Supreme Court that it intended to appeal Myers' decision—and it did so later Tuesday—four of the five Republican justices still granted the temporary stay and wrote in their order that "in the absence of a stay from federal court, this matter should be addressed expeditiously because it concerns certification of an election."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs."
Riggs did not participate in the Tuesday decision due to her involvement with the case. The court's only other Democrat, Justice Anita Earls, dissented—arguing that Griffin's motion is "procedurally improper," and even if it were not, his request "should be denied because he has failed to meet the standard for granting preliminary relief."
"Griffin seeks to retroactively rewrite the rules of the election to tilt the playing field in his favor. His filings amount to a broadside legal attack, raising a laundry list of statutory and constitutional objections to long-established election laws," Earls wrote, calling out the high court's "indulgence of this sort of fact-free post-election gamesmanship."
Republican Justice Richard Dietz also dissented, citing "our state's corollary to a federal election doctrine known as the 'Purcell principle'" and warning that "permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state's election rules—and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules—invites incredible mischief."
Attorneys, journalists, Democratic leaders, and political observers in North Carolina and across the country were similarly critical.
With its stay and schedule for filings over the next few weeks, "the state's highest court laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election and handing the seat to Riggs' GOP challenger," wrote Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent.
Berman also laid out some long-term and national impacts of this battle:
Riggs' victory would give Democrats a shot at retaking the court's majority after 2028. That would allow them to oversee the state's redistricting process in 2031. That is particularly consequential because the current majority on the court upheld heavily gerrymandered maps drawn by the Republican-controlled state Legislature that allowed Republicans to pick up three U.S. House seats in November—just enough to maintain control of the chamber and ensure one-party rule in D.C.
Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias declared on social media Tuesday that "the GOP is mounting the largest, most brazen post-election disenfranchisement effort since Trump's frivolous litigation in 2020. This time, however, they may get away with it and the legacy media is largely asleep."
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is now chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the state court's actions "alarming" and stressed that "the vote is the voice and the power of the people. It is not for a court to decide the outcome of an election. In a functioning democracy the will of the people—as expressed in an election—prevails."
"Should the North Carolina Supreme Court throw out lawful ballots, it could potentially overturn the results of a free and fair election—achieving the same goal as those who perpetuated a violent coup attempt on our nation's capitol just four years ago," he said, referring to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. "This must not be tolerated."
"I am concerned that the very recent actions of the court presage a continued diminution of a democracy already under attack in North Carolina," he added. "The arrogant, anti-democracy move to stop the certification of a free and fair election while this court considers whether or not to throw out 60,000 lawfully cast ballots underscores that."
The News & Observer reported Tuesday that "the vast list of challenged voters ensnared people from assistants to state lawmakers to Riggs' own parents."
According to the North Carolina newspaper:
A News & Observer analysis of the challenges found that Black voters were twice as likely to have their votes challenged as white voters.
The challenge that affected the largest number of voters was Griffin's argument that voters who did not have a driver's license number or Social Security number on file should not have been allowed to vote.
State election officials say there are myriad reasons a voter may not have those numbers in the database—many of which are no fault of their own. But Griffin argued it could lead to ineligible voters being able to cast a ballot.
Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who left office earlier this month after two terms, said Tuesday that "Riggs won and the recount confirmed it. Republicans want to toss thousands of legal votes in the trash because they don't like the outcome. This shouldn't be about party politics—this should be about making sure every vote counts and that our elections still mean something."
The battle over the North Carolina Supreme Court is part of what The New York Timesdescribed as "the bar-fight nature of politics in the state," where voters in November also elected Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to succeed term-limited Cooper and ended the GOP supermajority in the General Assembly—leading to last-minute attempts by Republican lawmakers to limit Stein's power.
Vowing that the North Carolina Democratic Party "will continue to fight for justice," its chair, Anderson Clayton, said in a Tuesday statement that Riggs "won her seat fair and square" and "deserves her certificate of election."
"We are only in this position due to Jefferson Griffin refusing to accept the will of the people," Clayton added. "He is hell-bent on finding new ways to overthrow this election but we are confident that the evidence will show, like they did throughout multiple recounts, that she is the rightful winner in this race."
The outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Jaime Harrison, also weighed in, blasting "what has become a monthslong, anti-democratic campaign at taxpayers' expense against Justice Allison Riggs."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs," he said. "Make no mistake—these craven attacks on North Carolina voters are an affront to this country's foundational values of democracy and the rule of law."
Harrison also pointed to Trump supporters' deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol in 2021, saying that "one day after the four-year anniversary of January 6, Republicans are once again attempting to overturn an election in plain sight."
Ben Wikler, who is running to be the next DNC chair, said Tuesday that "the crisis of democracy didn't end with Trump's victory—it got worse. When North Carolina's state Supreme Court is blocking certification of a state Supreme Court election, the house is on fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic': NC Gov. Cooper Commutes 15 Death Sentences
Calling Cooper "courageous," executive director of the state's ACLU noted that with this decision, the Democrat "has commuted more death sentences than any governor in North Carolina's history."
Jan 01, 2025
Death penalty abolitionists are praising former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for one of his final actions in office: The Democrat on Tuesday commuted the sentences of 15 men on death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Term-limited Cooper—who passed the torch to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein on Wednesday after eight years in office—announced the decision following a campaign by racial justice advocates and outgoing President Joe Biden's decision last week to commute the sentences of 37 people on federal death row to counter an expected killing spree under President-elect Donald Trump.
Although no executions have occurred in North Carolina in nearly two decades due to ongoing litigation, Cooper received clemency petitions from 89 of the 136 people on death row in the state, according to his office. After reviewing each case, the governor—who previously served as the state's attorney general for 16 years—granted 15.
"These reviews are among the most difficult decisions a governor can make, and the death penalty is the most severe sentence that the state can impose," Cooper said in a statement. "After thorough review, reflection, and prayer, I concluded that the death sentence imposed on these 15 people should be commuted, while ensuring they will spend the rest of their lives in prison."
Big news in North Carolina: Governor Cooper, on his final day in office, commuted the sentences of 15 people on death row. (That's roughly 10% of the state's row.) www.npr.org/2024/12/31/g... We had reported last year on the urgent campaign to get Cooper to commute on his way out:
[image or embed]
— Taniel ( @taniel.bsky.social) December 31, 2024 at 7:35 PM
Welcoming the announcement, Chantal Stevens, executive director of ACLU of North Carolina, said that "with this action, Gov. Cooper has commuted more death sentences than any governor in North Carolina's history and joins the ranks of a group of courageous leaders who used their executive authority to address the failed death penalty."
"We have long known that the death penalty in North Carolina is racially biased, unjust, and immoral, and the governor's actions today pave the way for our state to move towards a new era of justice," Stevens continued. "This historic decision, following President Biden's decision to commute the sentences of 37 people on federal death row, reflects growing recognition that the death penalty belongs in our past, not our future."
"With 121 people still on death row in our state, we know there is much more work to be done to realize that vision, and the ACLU of North Carolina will continue to advocate for the end of the death penalty once and for all," she added.
Thank you Gov. Roy Cooper for sparing 15 lives from the death penalty. The carceral system should not be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to put people to death – it's the cruelest and only irreversible punishment. #ncpol www.cbs17.com/news/north-c...
[image or embed]
— Prison Policy Initiative ( @prisonpolicy.bsky.social) December 31, 2024 at 4:32 PM
Stevens' group as well as the national ACLU's Capital Punishment Project, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation (CDPL), the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Durham attorney Jay H. Ferguson have represented Hasson Bacote, who brought the lead case challenging the death penalty under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act (RJA).
Bacote, a 38-year-old Black man convicted of first-degree murder in Johnston County in 2009, was among those who had their sentences commuted on Wednesday. According to Cooper's office, the other 14 men are:
- Iziah Barden, 67, convicted in Sampson County in 1999;
- Nathan Bowie, 53, convicted in Catawba County in 1993;
- Rayford Burke, 66, convicted in Iredell County in 1993;
- Elrico Fowler, 49, convicted in Mecklenburg County in 1997;
- Cerron Hooks, 46, convicted in Forsyth County in 2000;
- Guy LeGrande, 65, convicted in Stanly County in 1996;
- James Little, 38, convicted in Forsyth County in 2008;
- Robbie Locklear, 52, convicted in Robeson County in 1996;
- Lawrence Peterson, 55, convicted in Richmond County in 1996;
- William Robinson, 41, convicted in Stanly County in 2011;
- Christopher Roseboro, 60, convicted in Gaston County in 1997;
- Darrell Strickland, 66, convicted in Union County in 1995;
- Timothy White, 47, convicted in Forsyth County in 2000; and
- Vincent Wooten, 52, convicted in Pitt County in 1994.
"We are thrilled for Mr. Bacote and the other... people on death row who had their sentences commuted by Gov. Cooper today," said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project. "This decision is a historic step towards ending the death penalty in North Carolina, but the fight for justice does not end here. We remain hopeful that the court will issue a ruling under the state's Racial Justice Act in Mr. Bacote's case that we can leverage for relief for the many others that still remain on death row."
The North Carolina General Assembly passed the RJA, which barred seeking or imposing the death penalty based on race, in 2009. Although state legislators then repealed the law in 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that those who had already filed claims under it should still receive hearings.
Bacote's evidentiary hearing began last February, and the court heard closing arguments in August. LDF senior counsel Ashley Burrell noted Tuesday that "the RJA hearing demonstrated that racial bias infiltrates all death penalty cases in North Carolina, not just Mr. Bacote's and those in Johnston County."
Shelagh Kenney, deputy director of the Durham-based CDPL, similarly said that "Mr. Bacote brought forth unequivocal evidence, unlike any that’s ever been presented in a North Carolina courtroom, that the death penalty is racist."
"Through years of investigation and the examination of thousands of pages of documents, his case revealed a deep entanglement between the death penalty and North Carolina's history of segregation and racial terror," Kenney added. "We are happy Mr. Bacote got the relief he deserves, and we hope Gov. Cooper's action will be a step toward ending North Carolina's racist and error-prone death penalty for good."
NC Newslinereported that "the commutations came as inmates in North Carolina face a ticking clock on the death penalty, which has been on hold for nearly 20 years amid challenges to the punishment's legality. Should the courts in North Carolina rule against those challenges, executions could resume with haste, as dozens of the state's death row inmates have exhausted all other avenues for appeal."
Separately on Tuesday, Cooper announced commutations for 54-year-old Brian Fuller, who has served 27 years after being convicted of second-degree murder in Rockingham County, and 63-year-old Joseph Bromfield, 63, who has served 34 years after being convicted of first-degree murder in Cumberland County. They will both become parole eligible immediately.
Cooper also pardoned 43-year-old Brandon Wallace, who was convicted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and marijuana in Lee County in 2007, and 53-year-old John "Jack" Campbell, who was convicted of selling cocaine in Wake County in 1984
The decisions capped off Cooper's two terms as governor, during which he often had to contend with Republicans' veto-proof legislative majorities. Due to that experience, the Democrat frequently faces speculation that he may pursue federal office.
"If you're going to run for public office again, you must have your heart and soul in it, you must have the fire in the belly," Cooper
toldThe Associated Press in December, explaining that he plans to spend the next few months considering his future. "I'm going to think about how I can best contribute to the things that I care about."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular