How Trump’s disaster aid delays and FEMA cuts could galvanize the ‘movable middle’ in the 2026 elections

Dealing with disasters should not be politicized

Dana R. Fisher, American University

Rhode Island was one of the states Trump
 turned down

When Hurricane Isaias hit the Florida Panhandle on Oct. 9, 2026, it was just the latest weather disaster for Americans in a year that continues to break records.

The hottest U.S. summer on record left millions of Americans facing life-threatening heat waves. Extreme heat and drought set the stage for wildfires. Flooding from powerful storms and days of heavy rainfall inundated communities in several states. And now a “Super El Niño,” on top of already rising temperatures and sea levels, is expected to make extreme events worse, at least into spring 2027.

In the past, states relied heavily on federal aid and expertise to respond quickly to disasters. But in communities across the U.S., people recovering from floods, storms and wildfires in 2025 and 2026 have been left waiting much longer for federal aid – if it arrives at all.

Will there be political consequences in the midterm elections for the slow aid and lack of government assistance?

The answer to that question runs through the ways the Trump administration has changed disaster response and federal disaster aid. As a professor who has written for years about civic engagement and climate policy, I have reason to believe that voters’ frustration with slow disaster aid may show up at the polls.

Cuts to FEMA hobbled federal disaster help

Even though the United States is experiencing more disasters as the climate changes, the federal programs meant to help Americans recover are being diminished.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has faced significant cuts to funding and staff since the Trump administration took office in January 2025. The administration initially talked about abolishing the agency, arguing that states and communities could deal with disasters on their own. It created a plan to cut FEMA’s staffing by 50%, but in September 2026, a judge found that plan to be unlawful.

FEMA lost over 17% of its trained staff members in 2025 alone, including hundreds of people who were on call to respond to disasters. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin continues to defend the administration’s goal of a leaner workforce at the agency.

As always, be careful out there

Why you pay taxes

The Nor'easter IS coming: be prepared for high winds, power outages and lots of rain

 National Weather Service forecast: 

WPRI's forecast:

Potential rainfall totals:

Trump screws Rhode Island again by denying FEMA funding to cover state costs for historic blizzard

McKee calls FEMA’s denial of Rhode Island’s blizzard relief request ‘a new low’

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Gov. Dan McKee and Rhode Island’s congressional delegation are blasting the Trump administration after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) again rejected the state’s request for $19 million to cover recovery costs associated with February’s historic blizzard.

McKee’s office appealed FEMA’s initial denial of the state’s April request for funding relief  under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act on July 15. The law allows governors to either request support for disasters caused by severe weather or if “the situation is beyond the capability of the state.”

In a letter to McKee on Wednesday, FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton wrote the agency reviewed Rhode Island’s initial request and appeal only to determine financial aid was not warranted for the hurricane-strength blizzard that buried the state in over 3 feet of snow.

Hamilton’s letter did not explain why Rhode Island failed to meet the criteria for federal aid. But in a post on X around 5 p.m. Wednesday, he elaborated on the denial, which also applied to similar requests from New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

“Winter weather is not new to the Northeast,” Hamilton wrote. “Federal disaster aid is not a backstop for routine state & local budgeting.”

FEMA Downsizing Exacerbates Longstanding Problems, Imperils Disaster Response, Federal Watchdog Says

Hope we get lucky and no major storm makes landfall

By Amy Green, Kate Waxman

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

A widespread downsizing of the Federal Emergency Management Agency during the second Trump administration has exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges there and imperiled its response to disasters, a congressional watchdog warns. 

More than 4,300 employees resigned or were let go from the agency last fiscal year, representing some 17 percent of its workforce, according to a report released Tuesday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent nonpartisan federal agency. A hiring freeze also began in January 2025 and was in effect until this past May.

The reductions have resulted in a loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel and were not conducted based on any analysis of the workforce or forecasted needs, the report said. Meanwhile FEMA also rescinded its strategic plan, leaving the federal agency with no direction when it comes to workforce planning. 

FEMA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The GAO raised concerns about the changes at a time when disasters are intensifying and growing more frequent as the global climate warms. For instance, the double-blow of hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024, which affected the Southeast within two weeks of one another, prompted the deployment of some 13,500 FEMA employees, the largest in the agency’s history. The effort included workers from outside the affected region and those who were not fully trained for the situation.

Things that used to be fine

 

Trump rejects Rhode Island’s request for blizzard relief.

McKee vows to appeal.

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Gov. Dan McKee has vowed to appeal last week’s decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) denying Rhode Island’s request for disaster aid after February’s record-setting blizzard buried the state in over 3 feet of snow.

On July 2, President Donald Trump denied requests from both Rhode Island and New York for federal funding to recover from the historic storm while granting disaster aid relief for red and purple states, along with blizzard recovery help for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts.

“The Trump Administration’s denial of Rhode Island’s disaster declaration appears to be yet another case of the White House putting politics ahead of people,” McKee, a Democrat, said Monday in a statement. “Despite the significant documented damage and our state’s compelling case for federal assistance, Rhode Island and our communities are being denied the support we deserve.”

McKee’s office officially submitted the request under the federal Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act on April 7. The federal law allows governors to either request support for disasters caused by severe weather or if “the situation is beyond the capability of the state.”

The governor specifically sought out a declaration with public assistance, which provides reimbursements to state and local governments for storm-related expenses.

Rhode Island’s Emergency Management Agency received an email from FEMA denying the application a little after 11:30 a.m. July 2, according to records obtained by Rhode Island Current. 

An attached letter from acting FEMA Administrator Robert J. Fenton offered no specific reason for the decision, saying only that “based on our review of all of the information available, it has been determined that supplemental federal assistance under the Stafford Act is not warranted.”

“Therefore, I must inform you that your request for a major disaster declaration is denied,” he wrote.

Over 3 feet of snow fell across many parts of Rhode Island, with 37.9 inches of snow recorded at Rhode Island T.F. Green International Airport when the blizzard hit on Monday, Feb. 23. 

Heat wave peaks today. Hot? Charlestown cooling centers open

Heat and bad air can kill. So can wildfires. Be careful out there.

Charlestown cooling centers:

Federal flood insurance carries 2 moral hazards – which you face depends largely on how wealthy you are

The high costs of climate risk

Ivis García, Texas A&M University

Anyone who has been through a flood or hurricane knows the scene: waterlogged furniture piled on curbs, gutted homes with mold creeping up the walls, families displaced for months. But the recovery isn’t the same for everyone.

While federal flood insurance subsidizes risky coastal and waterfront development for wealthier homeowners by lowering the cost of living in these areas, many low-income households in flood-prone areas remain stuck with risky properties and little help.

As a disaster recovery researcher, I’ve witnessed how perverse incentives create different cycles of vulnerability across income levels. The problem with federal disaster insurance today isn’t just about subsidizing wealthier coastal homeowners – it’s equally about leaving low-income households systematically underinsured without resources to either protect themselves or leave.

Federal flood insurance’s moral hazards

The National Flood Insurance Program was established by Congress in 1968 to provide affordable flood insurance to the public while encouraging floodplain management.

Communities that participate in the program are required to adopt regulations to reduce flood risk in their areas for their residents to qualify. The insurance policies, around 4.7 million today, are purchased either through the program or insurance companies but administered and underwritten by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the nation’s disaster response agency. When the policy cost is lower than the risk, the property is being subsidized by the federal program.

The National Flood Insurance Program did succeed in providing accessible insurance for many people, but it also produced a “moral hazard,” where people take on risk without bearing its full consequences. What’s less well understood is that this operates differently by income level.

FEMA is currently working to adjust flood insurance prices to more closely match each property’s actual risk. The program’s Risk Rating 2.0 changes, which began in 2021, aimed to transition policies to full-risk pricing for everyone. The annual premium increases are capped by law at 18% for primary residences, so full-risk pricing won’t be fully reached until around 2037, according to federal estimates.

But there’s another, less visible problem: Federal flood insurance already wasn’t affordable for many people.

In low-income neighborhoods, more than 90% of households are estimated to be underinsured, and their uninsured losses when they experience flooding often exceeds 20% of their annual income.

Many families are unable to afford federal flood insurance premiums – only 37% of all policyholders pay less than $1,000 per year, according to FEMA. Instead, homeowners may skip insurance, gambling that disasters won’t strike. When floods do occur, these households can face catastrophic uninsured losses.

Homeowners and renters may also choose federal flood insurance plans with lower premiums but that provide less coverage in a disaster, and even those plan costs can be high.

Because the federal flood insurance program doesn’t specifically help those who cannot afford premiums, this creates a structural trap: Wealthier homeowners receive government-subsidized insurance support for risky properties, while many lower-income households fall outside the system entirely.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Last year, Cathy and I received two homeowner insurance cancellations because of climate risk. A final carrier agreed to cover us on the condition we also buy federal flood insurance even though we are up on the tip of the moraine north of Route 1. That added an additional $1200 to the high premium charged by the new carrier.  - Will Collette

Richmond Takes Action on Climate Resilience

Climate change-driven storms threaten more than the coast

By Jonmaesha Beltran / ecoRI News staff

As climate-fueled disasters rise, municipalities are no longer asking if a catastrophe will strike but whether their communities will be prepared when it does. 

In Richmond, where a little more than 8,000 people live, Town Councilor Daniel Madnick is working to close gaps that recent wildfires and brushfires across the state revealed in the town’s environmental planning. 

Bottom of Form

Madnick proposed creating an environmental resiliency commission to prepare the town for threats, including drought, flooding, hurricanes and wildfires, while monitoring its hazard mitigation plan.

“We don’t have a board or commission that their sole focus is to make sure that we are prepared for any environmental issues that come,” he said during a May 19 town council meeting. 

The proposal is modeled after the Charlestown Climate Resilience Commission, which was established in 2021 and worked with state Rep. Megan Cotter, D-Exeter, Hopkinton, and Richmond, on forest management and fire prevention.

Cotter, who serves on the Northeastern Forest Fire Prevention Commission, urged the commission to reach out to Charlestown landowners with five acres or more to connect them with resources and federal funding available for private land management.

The High Cost of Climate Change Inaction

We're already paying the price and it's going higher 

By Gina-Marie Cheeseman 

Key Takeaways

• The Trump administration underestimates climate change, leading to significant economic damage estimated at $10.2 trillion since 1990.
• Climate-related disasters could shrink U.S. GDP by 10% by 2050, with poorer communities bearing the brunt of the costs.
• Climate change has already cost the U.S. economy over $750 billion in the last five years due to weather disasters.
• The impact of climate change on households includes rising costs from property damage, healthcare, and insurance gaps, disproportionately affecting minority communities.
• A 2023 EPA report highlighted that underserved communities, particularly Black individuals, face the highest risks and costs associated with climate change.

From the first day of Donald Trump’s second term, he has made it clear his administration does not take climate change seriously. 

That is a very costly mistake, as a recently published study shows. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 have caused $10.2 trillion in global economic damage, with U.S. carbon emissions the largest source.

 Almost $3 trillion in damage from U.S. emissions occurred within the U.S.

Major hurricanes in the Northeast are rare.

Could climate change make them common?

By Jeff Masters, Yale Climate Connections

Figure 1. The storm surge of the 1938 Long Island Express hurricane washes away a home in Westport, Massachusetts. (Image credit: Westport Historical Society, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Landfalling major hurricanes in the northeast U.S. are a rare breed, with only five having been observed since settlers arrived in the early 1600s — an average of just over one such storm per century. And despite warmer sea surface temperatures in the past 30 years, the northeast U.S. has avoided a major hurricane landfall since Carol in 1954. Yet research suggests these storms may become more likely as the climate continues to change.

Since accurate records began in 1851, only two other major hurricanes made landfall in the Northeast U.S.: the 1938 Long Island Express Hurricane and an unnamed 1869 storm that hit Rhode Island (though there’s reason to be skeptical of the second one; in an email, historical hurricane expert Cary Mock said, “I doubt it would intensify that far north as a Cat 3.”) 

What about before accurate record-keeping began? Severe hurricanes that hit Long Island and then Connecticut in 1635 and 1815 were likely major hurricanes. A 2014 paper, Estimation of Hurricane Wind Speed Probabilities: Application to New York City and Other Coastal Locations, estimated that major hurricane wind speeds should occur about once every 300 years on Long Island and once every 700 years in New York City. 

Note that by” major hurricane," we mean one with sustained winds of at least 111 mph, making it a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. 

A large, west-angling hurricane like 2012's Sandy – discussed below – can deliver a catastrophic storm surge to the Northeast even if its winds decrease below the major-hurricane threshold just before landfall.

As the climate warms, at least four factors might increase the risk of a major hurricane in the northeast U.S.:

1. Ocean warming is causing the strongest hurricanes to get stronger.
2. A poleward shift in which hurricanes reach their peak intensity farther north (primarily because of warming sea surface temperatures)
3. More hurricanes are forming close to the U.S. coast as a result of ocean warming.
4. More Greenland blocking (a “stuck” jet stream pattern that increases the risk of a Northeast U.S. landfall)

One factor that might decrease risk: a tendency toward slower-moving storms, which would result in more weakening as they cross the cold waters offshore of the Northeast.

My hunch: these competing factors may act to modestly increase the major hurricane risk to the Northeast, so that a one-in-100-year storm of the 20th century would be roughly a one-in-75-year storm during the 2026-2050 period.

Rep. Tina Spears named 2026 Environmental Legislative Champion by Clean Water Action

Congratulations, Tina!

From a Clean Water Action press release:

Clean Water Action announced their 2026 awardees to be honored at the organization’s 24th Annual Breakfast of Champions, happening on Friday, May 22nd at 9:30 am at the Edgewood Yacht Club in Cranston.

“When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When Trump gave us anti-environment headwinds, Rhode Island built wind power,” said Emily Howe, Clean Water Action’s RI Director. “Now more than ever, it’s important to celebrate our victories and honor the advocates who make those wins happen!”

WTF is Van Slyke talking about?

CCA Town Council mouthpiece warns spending emergency money on an emergency will decrease the amount in Charlestown’s emergency fund

By Will Collette

Joined at the hip

After years of trying to make sense out of the nonsensical, maybe I should quit trying. After all, no amount of fact-checking and debunking seems to stop the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA’s) only Town Council member, Bonnita Van Slyke from making foolish remarks.

Her latest nonsense is a critique of Charlestown’s proposed budget, due for a vote on June 1 to take effect July 1. In it, she argues that the town should defer major spending to repair significant winter storm damage to Town Hall until the Town’s 5-year capital improvement plan is adopted.

She criticized an April 27 decision by the Town Council majority to transfer $650,000 from the town’s bloated emergency fund (a.k.a. Unassigned Fund Balance) to deal with short-term costs exceeding the town’s Capital Maintenance account.

To understand why this gives Van Slyke agita, remember that the CCA holds as a sacred principle that we must accumulate a very large, unassigned fund balance – their goal seems to set a target of 100% of town operating costs– to deal with unforeseen emergencies.

Apparently, the extensive, costly damage done to Town Hall by our recent brutal winter doesn’t qualify as “unforeseen” and thus does not warrant drawing down emergency funds. As Van Slyke puts it:

The Town Council cannot draw down Unassigned Fund Balance year after year to lower/maintain a relatively low tax rate without jeopardizing services and /or without, eventually, services being reduced or the tax rate increased substantially. [Emphasis is Van Slyke’s]

During the Charlestown Citizens Alliance decade of control of the Town Council and Planning Commission, the unassigned fund balance was often used to fund over-priced land acquisitions by the CCA’s de facto leader, Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner. 

They would pay cash so they could argue that paying way over assessed value for Ruthie's deals was somehow offset by not paying interest on voter-approved $2 million Open Space bond. Also, Platner could keep buying land using the excuse that there was still leftover open space bond money even though that was a fiction.

The open space bond fund is still a sore subject for Platner and the CCA, especially after Town Council President Deb Carney moved to correct the misuse of funds. Carney’s motion directed that just over one million dollars be transferred from the open space account back to the unassigned fund balance.

That’s the amount the CCA lifted from the unassigned fund balance to fund Ruth’s shady land deals instead of using the bond fund the way voters intended. But OMG, you would think that someone pissed on Platner’s petunias! Oh the horror!

Other than that, Van Slyke’s and presumably her master’s voice Ruth Platner, haven’t got much to say about the substance of the budget. Expenses are increasing modestly, requiring 2.5% more tax revenue. Despite that, the Budget Commission projects that our tax rate will actually DROP from the current $5.93 to an estimated $5.07.

Van Slyke asks the obvious question: how can expenses go up and the tax rate go down? For once, she actually gives the accurate answer: the tax base, i.e. property values, went way up.

There was a time when all the CCA cared about was the tax rate. They took credit for Charlestown’s comparatively low rate even though actual taxes people paid during their reign constantly increased. 

Now that the Town Council is controlled by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) and tax rates have dropped dramatically, the CCA no longer cares about tax rates.

It’s an election year and you can be sure the CCA will make another run at regaining control of the Town Council. But they haven’t got much to go on when it comes to local issues.

Their main theme so far this year seems to be “local control over zoning,” a flawed local campaign issue for two reasons. First, it’s a dispute between Ruth Platner and the state legislature. Second, there’s no one arguing AGAINST local control in zoning although the subject is not as black and white as Platner and Van Slyke would have you believe.

We still have a while to see whether voters care as much about zoning as Platner hopes they will.

Managed Retreat Can be an Opportunity to Start Fresh

Sooner or later, the ocean will win

By Rep. Terri Cortvriend and Sen. Victoria Gu / R.I. General Assembly

No matter how rich you are, you can't stop the ocean

In 2023, our state took a big step to enshrine Rhode Islanders’ right to the shoreline: up to 10 feet above the last high-tide line. But what happens as sea level rise pushes the high-tide line up to homeowners’ and businesses’ seawalls?

Our beaches and shoreline are fragile ecosystems that naturally migrate upland as sea levels rise. But as homeowners and businesses increasingly put up rock walls and fortify their property, the beach has nowhere to go. When that sandy beach disappears, there goes one of our greatest natural assets, and the tourism economy on which Rhode Island’s economy relies erodes along with it.

Bottom of Form

Even seawalls, however, are not a permanent defense for property in some places as sea levels rise and storm severity and frequency continue to grow. On our coast and inland, several neighborhoods — most recently some along the Pocasset River in Cranston and Johnston — in our state have experienced such severe and frequent flooding that they qualified for federal funding for buyouts. In those situations, both the government and the property owners agree that the dangers and costs of continuing to live in those areas are simply too high.

Planning to prevent disaster, however, is always safer and less costly than responding to it.

“Managed retreat” is a planned effort to identify disaster-prone areas and relocate homes, businesses, and infrastructure there to safer places before they are destroyed.

Managed retreat can often protect other areas nearby, since the removal of human-made structures can help reduce erosion and flooding, and the restored area becomes a natural place for water to go.

Here's the Trump administration's not so subtle hint you're on your own in the next natural disaster

Trump’s Budget Proposes Massive Cuts for Climate and Environmental Programs

The budgets of the EPA, NOAA and FEMA would all be slashed, as would incentives for renewable energy.

By Dylan Baddour

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Donald Trump’s annual budget request to Congress continues his administration’s defunding of climate change programs, environmental protection and renewable energy, slashing the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

The spending plan for fiscal 2027 “builds on the President’s vision by continuing to constrain non-defense spending,” wrote Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in a foreword to the 92-page document, which includes an historic, $1.5 trillion defense budget, an increase of 44 percent.

EPA spending would be cut in half under Trump’s proposal, released Friday, and grants from the agency would be slashed by $1 billion. Congress rejected a similar budget request from the president last year. 

An Inside Climate News analysis of federal workforce data released by the Office of Personnel Management shows that EPA lost more than 4,000 employees in the first year of Trump’s second term, reducing its workforce to 12,849, its lowest level since the 1980s. The 24 percent reduction was more than double the rate of losses across the entire federal government.

Kristi Noem all but killed FEMA.

Will her departure save it?

Jake Bittle, Staff Writer

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

During the year she spent leading the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, Kristi Noem faced a torrent of criticism. Lawmakers from both parties assailed her for lying about the shooting of protestors in Minneapolis and spending millions of dollars on television commercials. Government audits concluded that she “systematically obstructed” investigations and created security risks at airports.

Now she has become the first cabinet-level official fired by President Donald Trump during his second term. After a combative hearing this week, during which Noem seemed to mislead Congress about whether Trump approved her ad spending, the president fired her.

As DHS secretary, Noem also raised eyebrows for an unprecedented degree of control over staffing and spending at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. She paused most FEMA payments, leading to extensive delays for disaster recovery, and sought to slash the agency’s on-call workforce by thousands of employees. She also expressed a desire to downsize or eliminate the agency entirely, shifting the burden of disaster relief onto the states.

A growing number of critics and experts believe that Noem’s interference with FEMA may well have been illegal. This week, two Senate Democrats released a report alleging that Noem’s blanket freeze on FEMA payments violated federal law. At the same time, lawyers for a federal workers’ union argued to a federal judge in California that Noem’s workforce cuts also violated the law. In both cases, critics pointed to legislation passed after Hurricane Katrina, which prohibits DHS from interfering with FEMA.

Humberto the Bomb Cyclone beats the Blizzard of '78's snowfall record

Next question: Will Trump approve request for federal assistance?

By Christopher Shea and Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current

Snowed in for the duration (photo by Will Collette)

Stay off the roads (at least until noon today).

That was Gov. Dan McKee’s message to all Rhode Islanders as a nor’easter with “peak blizzard conditions” shut down the state Monday. 

The National Weather Service office in Norton, Massachusetts, announced at 7 p.m. that total snow accumulation of 37.9 inches was at Rhode Island T. F. Green International Airport in Warwick. Before Monday, the greatest single snowstorm on record was 28.6 inches on Feb. 6-7, 1978.

The daily snowfall of 35.5 inches broke the record one–day snowfall, which was 19.0 inches set during the blizzard of Jan. 8, 1996.

“I was around in the Blizzard of ’78  — this is a remarkable difference,” McKee told reporters gathered at the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency’s Cranston headquarters Monday afternoon. “This is the biggest snowstorm that we have ever seen.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: According to one website offering snow estimates by address, Humberto dumped two feet, eight inches of snow on my backyard. Cathy and I rode out the Blizzard of '78 in Providence and will no doubt ride this one out, too. - Will Collette