Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Would Trump Gut FEMA and NOAA? -- The American Prospect [View all]
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2025-06-04-why-would-trump-gut-fema-and-noaa/Robert Kuttner
Destroying American weather science will create a perfect storm of disaster.
Not perverse - just profiteering and destroying the country.
June 1 marked the beginning of hurricane season, a period whose existence was news to Trumps head of FEMA, David Richardson, who had no prior experience managing disaster relief. Richardson was appointed to replace FEMA acting chief Cameron Hamilton, who was fired summarily after telling a congressional subcommittee that he didnt think FEMA should be shut down.
Trumps attack on FEMA goes beyond even the Project 2025 design, which proposed to cut FEMA and turn some of its functions over to the states. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in March that she wanted FEMA shut down entirely (she later backpedaled and spoke of shrinking and reforming it). But most states have nothing like FEMAs capacity or experience, and dont want FEMA reduced or closed.
. . .
This is occurring as FEMAs much-depleted sister agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is predicting as many as 19 hurricanes this summer and fall, including three to five major ones likely to cause massive damage. To add injury to insult, Trump has rejected bipartisan requests to continue the Biden policy of covering 100 percent of the costs of relief and recovery operations after major disasters. The usual split is 75 percent federal, matched by 25 percent state.
. . .
Cutting funding for NOAAs forecasting and research is perverse policy, but at least it has ideological logic. Having private companies sponge off of public expertise financed by taxpayers and claim superior efficiency is the standard Republican playbook.
As our colleague Gabrielle Gurley points out in this piece, companies like AccuWeather have nothing like NOAAs in-depth expertise, and profit by packaging and selling what NOAA provides for free. At one point, AccuWeather was lobbying to prohibit NOAA from providing weather forecasts at no charge. And in Trumps first term, he appointed the CEO of AccuWeather, Barry Myers, to head NOAA. But NOAA is such a valuable public good that it has survived basically intactuntil Trump II.
FEMA is a whole other story. When the first major hurricane hits, and a depleted FEMA is not equal to the task, Trump will get the political blameand most hurricane-prone areas are in red states. So the gutting of FEMA makes no political sense. But then, that describes most of Trumps savaging of governments valuable services.
Trumps attack on FEMA goes beyond even the Project 2025 design, which proposed to cut FEMA and turn some of its functions over to the states. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in March that she wanted FEMA shut down entirely (she later backpedaled and spoke of shrinking and reforming it). But most states have nothing like FEMAs capacity or experience, and dont want FEMA reduced or closed.
. . .
This is occurring as FEMAs much-depleted sister agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is predicting as many as 19 hurricanes this summer and fall, including three to five major ones likely to cause massive damage. To add injury to insult, Trump has rejected bipartisan requests to continue the Biden policy of covering 100 percent of the costs of relief and recovery operations after major disasters. The usual split is 75 percent federal, matched by 25 percent state.
. . .
Cutting funding for NOAAs forecasting and research is perverse policy, but at least it has ideological logic. Having private companies sponge off of public expertise financed by taxpayers and claim superior efficiency is the standard Republican playbook.
As our colleague Gabrielle Gurley points out in this piece, companies like AccuWeather have nothing like NOAAs in-depth expertise, and profit by packaging and selling what NOAA provides for free. At one point, AccuWeather was lobbying to prohibit NOAA from providing weather forecasts at no charge. And in Trumps first term, he appointed the CEO of AccuWeather, Barry Myers, to head NOAA. But NOAA is such a valuable public good that it has survived basically intactuntil Trump II.
FEMA is a whole other story. When the first major hurricane hits, and a depleted FEMA is not equal to the task, Trump will get the political blameand most hurricane-prone areas are in red states. So the gutting of FEMA makes no political sense. But then, that describes most of Trumps savaging of governments valuable services.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It will just mean that the understaffed NWS and National Hurricane Center staffs will be fired
LiberalArkie
Jun 2025
#17
Well it worked with the new Russia when they transitioned from the Soviet Union. Made a lot of oligarchs.
LiberalArkie
Jun 2025
#25
Not really, since Reagan the GOP has wanted to sell NWS and all the other NOAA departments
LiberalArkie
Jun 2025
#22
That's also part of it. The transfer of power and duties from a unified federal government to individual states.
dameatball
Jun 2025
#19
Death and destruction are trump's favorite words... he doesn't care where it happens or to whom. nt
slightlv
Jun 2025
#16
You are over rationalizing. This isn't rational. This is Kleptocracy 101. GIMME!
erronis
Jun 2025
#24