Pracheth Sanka
November
In Rutherford County, surrounded by demolished towns, downed trees and upturned roads in the wake of late September’s Hurricane Helene, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials had a new concern: a gun-wielding group of Western North Carolinians out for their blood. It was not just the aid that concerned them now; it was also their lives. At the command of the National Guard and FEMA administration, they were forced to evacuate the county, halting progress in their distribution of necessary material in a post-Helene North Carolina.
Ultimately, only one person was arrested in connection to the report and the threat was not as dire as it first seemed. It shows, however, the startling and worrying distrust and menace some Americans hold toward their government. Even during an emergency, which is supposed to be a time of peace, coordination, and unity, disaster relief can become the catalyst for radicalism and resentment.
As this case shows, hurricane response is a hotbed for political games, aid mismanagement and misinformation in the United States. Hit by two major storms in the fall of 2024, the American South is still reeling from Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene. Both wrought extensive and costly damage, especially to Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. As of late October, FEMA has approved more than $2 billion for those affected by the storms. This money aids in house and personal property replacement, as well as in opening Disaster Centers that provide meals and housing to those in need. These are all ostensibly helpful programs, so why is there so much distrust coming from storm-affected Americans?
Part of the reason lies in politics. Former President and now President-Elect Donald Trump and other high-profile Republicans have been very openly critical of the federal response, even at points lying about to whom and to where monetary aid went. Trump falsely stated that most of FEMA money was going to illegal immigrants, a continuation of his largely xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose state was directly impacted by Helene, made the ridiculous claim that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency tasked with weather forecasting and monitoring, had directed the storm toward conservative-leaning areas to disrupt the upcoming presidential election. Her claims were aided by the real data that showed Republican districts and Trump strongholds being disproportionately hit compared to liberal areas. Far-right and Trump-aligned internet conspiracy theorists also posited that FEMA would use storm response as a facade to bulldoze and replace rural towns, which they saw as an expansion of the central state.
Instances of real political discrimination also stoke the fire of skepticism towards FEMA. In November, a FEMA worker from Florida was fired after directing employees to withhold aid from houses that displayed support for Trump. Their action was strongly condemned by Governor Ron DeSantis, who himself has distanced the state from federal assistance. DeSantis notably skipped a meeting with President Joe Biden, stating that a state-led response would move much more quickly than the Biden administration could. Trump also added fuel to the political fire by criticizing Democratic North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, falsely asserting that Cooper’s administration deliberately blocked aid to the western part of the state, an area that was left in ruin by Helene-related flooding and which has historically leaned Republican.
The politicization of what should have been an apolitical response highlights how the growing partisan divide and spread of misinformation creates mistrust toward the federal government. Conservatives, who are typically wary of large central states, now see FEMA’s disaster response as another possible means for government overreach, or in the eyes of some conspiracy theorists, a real means of harm. Liberals thus see Republican outrage as a hindrance to disaster response, further separating the two groups.
But this politicization is by no means a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to just natural disasters.
Take for instance the Covid-19 pandemic. Americans signaled a marked decrease in trust in the Centers for Disease Control, which is responsible for pandemic regulation and guidance. Confidence in the organization dropped amongst all groups, but the most notable drop occurred amongst conservatives and Trump voters. Government trust was not the only political shift that was noted. Leaders of Democratic states complained that under the Trump administration, typically Republican states were given more favorable aid due to their electoral support. Analysts also raised concerns that Trump would use pandemic-era subsidies to farmers in important swing states in an attempt to gain voters.
Trump is not shy about using federal aid as a political tool. He famously threatened Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom by promising to withhold federal aid until he was told how many people in certain California counties voted for him. Trump also tried to leverage future wildfire disaster aid to get Newsom to sign a favorable freshwater drainage plan, though Newsom did not buckle. This has forced California to create its own disaster aid plans to “Trump-proof” the state, which is prone to severe wildfires, earthquakes, and floods.
In a world of increasingly violent and frequent natural disasters, the nation is following a similar trajectory. Political storms and partisan divides mar the should-be peaceful process of relief and aid distribution. Two decades ago, the most extreme reaction to federal disaster response came when Kanye West, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, appeared on television to proclaim that then-President George W. Bush “doesn’t care about black people.” Now, with armed militias and conspiracy theories rampant, West’s statement would be a politically tame and almost neutral response.
As divided as the United States is now, polarization and political threats as a response to tragedy and disaster are likely to become much more radical and extreme. Both with administrative actions, like that of Trump’s, and individual instigators, like Rutherfordton’s armed militia, tensions between political actors and government agencies can have lasting consequences and could cost people their lives. These ramifications have no immediate solution and require long-term easing of the country's struggle. For her sake, the citizens of the United States should hope they can unite once again, facing disasters as the threat they are, not as pawns in a political game.