During a visit to western North Carolina two weeks before the election last year, Donald Trump witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by Tropical Storm Helene and the resulting public discontent with Washington. He pledged that, if elected, his administration would handle future crises more effectively, learning from the hurricane’s destruction on Sept. 27.
Trump stated that while the power of nature is uncontrollable, his administration would assemble a more capable team to improve the White House’s response, criticizing its previous performance. This promise was made during a two-day visit to a state that subsequently voted for Trump in as many elections.
However, now back in office, his Administration isn’t actively supporting the recovery efforts in that Appalachian region, where 95 people died and approximately 185,000 homes were damaged or destroyed in North Carolina alone. Instead, it’s reducing federal aid to the region and requiring states to shoulder more of the financial burden for future storms, just as hurricane season begins.
Despite having the opportunity to maintain full government funding, Trump is declining, diverging from his predecessors’ approaches to major crises. North Carolina’s estimated recovery costs from Helene are around $60 billion. In contrast, Gov. Josh Stein’s proposed budget in March allocated nearly $34 billion for all state programs, indicating a reliance on significant federal assistance for the recovery.
Trump intends to shift the financial responsibility back to the Governors. This shortfall is especially concerning as hurricane season commences this weekend, with most experts—including those within the Federal Emergency Management Agency—warning of inadequate federal preparedness. An estimated $8 billion in disaster costs will remain unfunded when the new federal budget begins in October, and the White House appears willing to let the states handle these expenses.
This outcome aligns with Trump’s established pattern. The disparity between his campaign promises and his actions in the White House is a defining characteristic of his governance. When given the opportunity to make sweeping promises, Trump’s salesmanship takes over. The prospect of targeting a political adversary further reinforces this tendency.
Trump told a crowd in Butler, Penn., on Oct. 5, that the situation there is dire, with people whose homes were destroyed being offered only $750, reiterating debunked claims that the Biden Administration was limiting rebuilding funds and instead allocating resources to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. He contrasted this with the tens of billions of dollars sent to unfamiliar foreign countries, emphasizing the devastation experienced by the affected people.
However, Trump has chosen to curtail the flow of funds that Biden had previously allocated to the State. Stein noted that this reduction will cost the state an additional $200 million in federal funds for debris removal and emergency measures to protect remaining infrastructure.
To clarify, FEMA remains active on the ground and will likely continue to be for months. Federal rebuilding programs often take years to complete. However, instead of the federal government covering the full cost of cleanup, as has been the norm after major storms that exceed a state’s capacity to reopen roads and clear debris from devastated areas, the federal share will decrease to 90% of the cost. While still better than the typical 75% reimbursement rate for other disasters, Stein had advocated for maintaining the 100% level for at least an additional 180 days. This request is not unprecedented, as Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, and Ike received 100% coverage during previous crises that required extensive cleanup efforts.
The reduction in federal cover to 90% occurred in March, but Stein and the congressional delegation lobbied the Trump team to reconsider. Stein requested a review from FEMA at the time but was denied. His appeal was unsuccessful in April. In a letter dated May 22, FEMA reaffirmed its position that North Carolina must cover at least 10 cents of every dollar spent on clearing away the remaining damage.
This decision reflects Trumpism’s broader effort to reduce Washington’s involvement in areas that the President believes should be the responsibility of others. FEMA, in particular, has been a target of criticism. During his first trip outside of Washington in his second term, he visited North Carolina and expressed his desire to eliminate FEMA. He established a task force to explore ways to reduce FEMA’s scope and work has begun. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated last week that “our goal is that states should manage their emergencies and we come in and support them,” suggesting that a rebranding of FEMA might be beneficial.
This has led Governors to seek exemptions. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former spokesperson, successfully lobbied Trump for a second review after his administration initially rejected an emergency declaration following tornadoes in her state, although it caused significant frustration. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe faced similar challenges after a tornado struck St. Louis, eventually securing assistance after Sen. Josh Hawley questioned Noem during a hearing last week. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves also faced difficulties after tornadoes hit his state.
Relying on state governments to match the resources of the federal government—including cash, expertise, and overall capacity—is an inefficient allocation of funds, as most states are required to maintain balanced budgets and cannot use debt for operational expenses such as complete rebuilding efforts. This, however, does not seem to concern Trump. But as hurricane season intensifies, it may soon become everyone else’s concern.
“`
