The Trump administration, spearheaded by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has launched a new investigation into FEMA, claiming widespread political bias during the Biden years. This move comes despite an earlier, multi-agency probe clearing the agency, fueling concerns that critical disaster relief is being politicized and potentially undermined for a long-term goal of dismantling FEMA as it currently exists.
In the high-stakes final month of the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump ignited a significant controversy by falsely claiming that FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene was politically motivated, accusing the agency of ignoring Republican areas and diverting funds to undocumented immigrants. A central assertion was that Republican residents were being denied aid due to their political affiliation, a claim that resonated widely among his supporters.
This political firestorm intensified after Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina. Trump’s accusations led to threats and hostility against FEMA workers in disaster zones, with some teams pulled for safety reasons. Weeks later, Hurricane Milton struck Florida, further stretching FEMA teams and leading to widespread harassment fueled by Trump’s persistent claims.
Amidst this volatile environment, FEMA field supervisor Marn’i Washington issued a now-infamous directive to her staff in Florida: “avoid homes advertising Trump.” While Washington initially stated her supervisors had issued the order due to concerns about abuse from Trump supporters, a subsequent investigation determined it was her own interpretation to protect her team. Biden administration FEMA leadership swiftly fired Washington, denounced her actions, and redirected staff to the potentially skipped homes. Then-Administrator Deanne Criswell condemned the directive to Congress, referring the case for further investigation.
An Initial Investigation Clears FEMA, But DHS Demands Another Look
An extensive, four-month investigation involving FEMA’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel thoroughly examined the incident and broader agency culture. This probe, which spanned both the Biden and Trump administrations, found no evidence of a systemic effort to deny aid based on politics. It did, however, highlight Washington’s actions as illegal and improper.
Trump’s acting FEMA administrator, Cameron Hamilton, informed lawmakers that three additional staffers were fired in connection with the Washington incident, primarily for poor supervision or misleading investigators, as reported by Hamilton’s letter to Congress. He emphasized that politics rarely arose in disaster zones, stating, “We found there was no reasonable evidence to authenticate a statement that denial of aid or assistance occurred based upon political bias from FEMA leadership.” This initial probe formally cleared Criswell and FEMA, leading Florida to settle its lawsuit with no damages paid, as detailed by Politico.
However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees FEMA, and its leadership, including Secretary Kristi Noem, remained unsatisfied. Within weeks of the first probe concluding, they ordered a new, separate investigation.
The DHS-Ordered Probe: A Different Narrative Emerges
Roman Jankowski, the new head of DHS’s Privacy Office and an alum of the Heritage Foundation, spearheaded this second review. His approach differed significantly, focusing on whether FEMA aid workers violated privacy laws by recording political beliefs and if this information could have been used to withhold aid. This expanded review covered all four years of the Biden administration, not just the 2024 hurricane season.
Jankowski’s team released its 22-page report last week. It concluded that FEMA canvassers going door-to-door repeatedly violated—or may have violated—privacy laws by collecting information on survivors’ political beliefs. In a handful of cases, the report suggested, homes were bypassed based on these notes.
However, more than a dozen current and former FEMA officials vehemently argue that this evidence does not support claims of a systemic problem. They point out that canvassers referenced “Trump” just 15 times in tens of thousands of reports over four years. Former FEMA chief of staff Michael Coen noted that such a small number “doesn’t demonstrate that people were discriminated against in a systematic way.” Officials also stated that these “freeform notes” were primarily for safety, particularly references to gun signage, especially after Trump’s rhetoric led to threats against workers.
Despite the nuanced findings and objections from agency insiders, Secretary Noem was definitive in her public announcement. She stated that the DHS probe found “for years, FEMA employees under the Biden Administration intentionally delayed much-needed aid to Americans suffering from natural disasters on purely political grounds,” calling it “textbook political discrimination” against Trump supporters. She vowed to refer the issue to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, aligning with her ongoing public attacks on FEMA and calls for its reform or abolition.
The Irony of Politicized Aid and Erosion of Trust
Ironically, while the Trump administration scrutinizes FEMA for political bias, Trump himself faces criticism for politicizing disaster aid. He has repeatedly posted on Truth Social about directing millions to states that supported him. Last week, he announced $2.5 million for Missouri after discussions with its Republican governor, despite FEMA recommending denial because the damage fell below the agency’s federal aid threshold.
In stark contrast, Democratic-led states like Maryland and Washington have reportedly been denied disaster aid by the president, even when their damage significantly exceeded FEMA’s thresholds and approval was recommended. The Trump administration had also previously fast-tracked FEMA money to Missouri while emergency funds for other states remained frozen, as reported by CNN.
This politicization has consequences. Current and former FEMA officials warn that Noem’s relentless attacks continue to erode public trust in an agency responsible for aiding disaster survivors during their most vulnerable moments. Michael Coen stated, “It’s dangerous. The faith in FEMA has declined. When people lose their trust in the federal government in a time of need, they’re going to feel more helpless.”
The Future of FEMA: Reforms, Abolition, and DHS Consolidation
Kristi Noem has clearly positioned herself as Trump’s point person to fulfill his promise to dismantle FEMA, stating the goal is to eliminate FEMA “as it exists today” by “cleaning house” and asserting control. Her efforts come as a new FEMA Review Council prepares to present recommendations for reforms, though Trump has vaguely vowed to phase out the agency after hurricane season.
Behind the scenes, DHS has consolidated power at FEMA. This includes filling leadership roles with political appointees, pushing out career experts, subjecting staff to polygraph tests, and publicly firing employees. More than a quarter of FEMA’s full-time workforce, including dozens of senior leaders, has departed through layoffs and buyouts, raising serious concerns about the agency’s operational capacity and institutional knowledge.
The Broader Implications for Disaster Preparedness
The continuous political attacks and the active dismantling efforts against FEMA raise critical questions about the future of disaster preparedness and response in the United States. If public trust in the agency declines and its core expertise is eroded, the ability to effectively respond to natural disasters could be severely compromised. The politicization of aid, rather than its efficient and equitable distribution, threatens the fundamental mission of an agency designed to protect all Americans in times of crisis.
