By Kean Huy Alado
In times where natural disasters rampage the country and disrupt settlements, many organizations work to recover, mitigate, or prevent the harm done. Out of all of them, one stands taller above them all: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For all its done, its efficacy and intentions are being put into question with threats from President Trump’s second term to axe the organization.
Starting off 2025, in the morning of Jan. 7 there was a catastrophic wildfire in California called the Palisades Fire, followed by another in the evening called the Eaton Fire. Within four days, the Palisades Fire turned from a bushfire into 22,660 acres of scorched land, while the Eaton fire consumed 14,021 acres after igniting from utility sparks. In both cases, residents were forced to abandon their homes and seek refuge further inland. The Palisades fire caused the death of 12 people, while Eaton brought 17 more fatalities. This was only the start to many more fires to follow that same month.
To combat natural disasters, such as these fires, FEMA provides disaster relief funds and other services to victims. Through FEMA, crucial support and assistance before, during, and after natural disasters, is available for those who are at risk of being affected and those who are affected.
Despite this, the re-elected U.S. President Donald Trump criticized FEMA for its unfamiliarity with the disaster sites. He pointed to FEMA’s rules as being neither efficient or effective on coordinating the actions of natural disaster assistance crews compared to local officials. This reasoning led Trump to conclude that, “FEMA has turned out to be a disaster,” when he visited survivors of Hurricane Helene and floods in North Carolina on January 24. He followed up with the statement that, “If it was up to me right now, I’d end it [FEMA] right now.”
Despite these comments, in Fletcher, North Carolina, during a briefing, Trump claimed that he would be signing an executive order that would, “begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe even getting rid of FEMA.” So far Trump has begun clawback demands to recover funds that they believe FEMA uses inadequately.
For Barry University students, they expressed serious concerns about Trump’s intentions toward FEMA. Sophia Setlock, a junior with a Marine Biology major said, “I believe his [Trump’s] decision to reconstruct and possibly eliminate FEMA is not pragmatic. Climate change will only increase natural disasters, individuals may have insurance, and states may have their personal disaster relief funds, but what happens when that’s not enough?”
Setlock continued to report that, “In 2000, there were only five natural disasters in the United States which totaled $15.5 billion, in disaster costs; but 2023 had our highest record with 28 disasters and $95.3 billion in disaster costs,” which she sourced from NOAA.
“We will never be able to predict the amount of disasters that will take place, all we can do is have the funds to be able to repair from the events,” she said.
Overall, Trump’s proposition toward FEMA holds major implications. On Feb. 12, he seized $80 million dollars in funding provided by FEMA to New York City immigrants. Thus, there is uncertainty on Trump improving the current system. Ultimately, it is a gamble that could fail and harm more Americans or succeed and provide them with a safer and supportive force in the face of natural disasters.
コメント