Hurricane season is ramping up, leaving many Americans concerned about the next big storm, and the impacts of climate change on natural disasters. And there’s a new worry. One big question in 2025 is not whether the U.S. government will step in to aid in disaster recovery efforts, but how the government will respond. Is the Trump administration fully prepared to tackle the challenges of hurricanes and flooding? Will the administration’s response focus on saving lives and rebuilding communities damaged by disasters – or look to score political points?
In 2025, federal agencies with expertise on responding to crises – including FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency – have been weakened, politicized, and stripped of their independence. The danger in the weeks ahead comes not only from inclement weather, but also from a federal-level crisis response apparatus that has been commandeered to serve the incumbent’s political agenda.
Presidents control the declaration of a natural disaster
The first step in coordinating a federal response to a natural disaster in the United States is for the president to issue a formal disaster declaration. Presidents have broad and unilateral control over this decision, which is designed to direct federal resources to areas hit by disasters. Governors may request assistance after a disaster, and FEMA conducts a damage assessment. Ultimately, however, it’s the president’s decision to formally declare a disaster.
This unilateral presidential power makes disaster declarations an ideal tool for exerting control over government resources. Unlike other areas of federal policymaking, there are virtually no checks on the presidential power to declare disasters. If the president does declare a disaster, billions of dollars in federal resources can flow to affected areas. If not, states are largely left on their own to clean up and help citizens rebuild. This power over resources offers presidents an easy way to reward political allies and ignore or punish political adversaries.
Playing politics with disasters
Why politicize a disaster? Presidents may be tempted to play politics because voters tend to reward or punish incumbents at the polls – based on how they handle natural disasters. That gives presidents an incentive to declare disasters in parts of the country where small shifts in election returns can meaningfully affect their reelection chances – or help their party’s other candidates. A small bump in electoral returns might just be enough to carry the state in the Electoral College, or flip a congressional seat.
In fact, U.S. presidents have frequently used disaster declarations politically. Political science research has found that distributive choices, like declaring disasters, tend to increase in election years and send resources disproportionately to battleground states. Presidents do not make disaster declarations without weighing their political and electoral ramifications.
Earlier this summer, for example, President Trump rejected Maryland’s request for disaster assistance, following major flooding. Only 34% of Marylanders voted for Trump in the 2024 election. This suggests a small uptick in Republican vote share in Maryland is of little political use to Trump or the Republican Party.
This is not an isolated episode. In his first term, Trump withheld aid from Puerto Rico, after Hurricane Maria. A Washington Post article reported that Trump wanted the funds to go to Texas and Florida. And earlier this year Trump acknowledged that his ongoing feud with Governor Gavin Newsom could threaten federal disaster aid to address recovery efforts after wildfires in Southern California destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures.
U.S. government agencies, in theory, can withstand political pressures
FEMA and other agencies exist, in part, to constrain such presidential impulses. Federal agencies employ subject matter experts who provide unbiased information to the White House – so the president can make decisions in the best interest of the country. At times, government agencies have been able to resist or moderate a president’s impulse to politicize responses to national emergencies.
Here’s an example. In March 2020, Congress approved $8.3 billion in emergency funding to fight covid-19. Trump signed the bill, which included funds for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC then distributed the first round of covid-19 relief money directly to the states, according to population, not partisan loyalty – in part because agency professionals designed the formula.
But keeping essential bureaucracies insulated from the political whims of elected officials only works if politicians respect expertise and independence. Trump has demonstrated an unwillingness to be persuaded by expertise, or defer to bureaucratic independence. He views himself as the sole national representative and therefore entitled to substitute his political judgments for neutral competence.
Trump has no issue ignoring experts
All politicians may face the temptation to play politics when distributing public resources, but Trump has supercharged the playbook. First, critics point out, he is far less constrained by norms against overt favoritism. Other elected officials often offer a pretext of needs-based resource allocation. Instead, Trump proudly rewards allies and punishes adversaries.
Second, Trump has made it a priority to centralize power in the White House, and wrest control from federal agencies like FEMA. Rather than defer to bureaucratic expertise, Trump views U.S. government agencies as instruments of his own political authority. That combination suggests the White House is more likely than ever to distribute federal disaster resources according to Trump’s priorities.
FEMA quickly became a target
FEMA, specifically, has become one of Trump’s political targets. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the agency “bloated,” suggesting it should be downsized significantly. In May, the Trump administration fired the FEMA acting director after he defended the agency’s work. Both Trump and Noem have argued that states – not the federal government – should have primary responsibility for disaster relief.
Morale at the agency, reportedly, has plummeted. Over 180 FEMA employees signed an open letter denouncing the lack of experienced leadership at the agency, warning that the administration’s approach undermines FEMA’s capacity to respond to emergencies. Rather than heed the warnings from the disaster experts, Trump placed dozens of the signatories on leave. His message seemed clear: Loyalty to the president matters more than expertise.
FEMA now appears weaker – and less able to act as a neutral counterweight to presidential control, or respond to America’s next emergency. Communities this fall may find themselves battered both by hurricanes and the president’s political maneuvers.
