Without any doubt, the unfolding events in the Texas Hill Country (a place dear to my heart, I would note) are truly awful. As of my writing of this piece, the death toll stands at over 80, with at least 40 still missing.
All of this has happened in the context of ongoing concerns about the effects of climate change on extreme weather events and the DOGE cuts to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the NWS (the National Weather Service), and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). These facts alone make the discussion political, the same way that mass shootings are inherently political and partisan.
Ironically, or sadly presciently, the Texas Observer published the following opinion piece by Henry D. Jacoby* on July 3, the day before the disaster in the Hill Country: Trump’s DOGE Cuts Are a Texas-Sized Disaster.
Federal resources for managing climate-augmented weather disasters are being wiped out, and crucial information about future risks is being destroyed or degraded. Meanwhile, state leaders stand by while denying the seriousness of climate change as a driver of these events—and the threat this poses to the state economy.
It is not exactly breaking news that Texas is vulnerable to extreme weather, with recent hurricanes and wildfires fresh in mind, nor is the well-documented effect of a warming climate in magnifying severe weather. Just look to the growing count of billion-dollar natural disasters (severe storms, drought, flood, wildfires, severe cold). For example, from 2020 to 2024 Texas suffered 68 of these costly events, with Florida second at 34.
By upending the federal status quo around disaster relief, states like Texas could be left without a paddle. The largest federal program directed to the threat is Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster aid, followed by companion assistance for damaged homes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and help for impacted businesses from the Small Business Administration. A breakout by state of aid from these federal agencies since 2017 shows that Texas and Florida, each receiving about $18 billion, account for almost a third of the 50-state total.
DOGE already cut roughly 20 percent of FEMA’s staff and moved to freeze its funds. And Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled his interest in shifting disaster relief responsibilities entirely to the states. On June 11, he made that threat more concrete by saying that his administration would start phasing out FEMA after this current hurricane season ends in November. “We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said. “A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.”
I say all of this to make sure the context for this discussion is clear. Trump has a history of making disaster relief political, and he has definitely damaged the federal government’s capacity to predict and respond to natural disasters. As someone who lives close enough to the coast for tropical weather to be an issue (and really, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes), this is not comforting.
Having noted all of this, based on what I have read and seen to this point, it seems like we cannot blame the DOGE cuts on this specific outcome. It would appear that appropriate forecasts about flash flooding were made, but that the severity of the event was not predictable. I agree more or less with Scott Lemieux from LGM on this (here and here) insofar as it appears NWS did its job, and that communication may have been the real problem.
On the communication front, and speaking as someone who, again, lives in an area that gets constant severe thunderstorm, tornado, and flood watches and warnings (not to mention what feels like increased drama by TV weather folks over the last decade or so), it is far too easy to ignore these warnings, especially when it is 3 am and you are asleep.
This is not to get anyone off of hook who might deserve to be there, but these are factors that are worth remembering (or perhaps even just having a basic understanding of–these aren’t the kinds of things that, say, people in California** are used to dealing with). Further, the reasons things like this end up as disasters are that they are a surprise, if not unprecedented.
Still, there are very real and very important political issues here. Some are policy-specific, while others have broader implications.
First, policy.
Ultimately, I think Noah Belartsky at Public Notice has the basis outline of the situation correct.
Did Trump’s cuts cause excess deaths in Texas? It will probably be some time before we have a definitive answer to that question, if we ever do at all. We do know two things now, though.
First, Trump’s administration has worked to destroy the safety net, which makes all kinds of disasters — extreme weather, earthquakes, contagious disease, individual health events — much more likely to be much more deadly.
And, second, Trump has made these cuts in such a way that whenever there is a disaster, people are going to link the results to the policies of one Donald Trump.
In short, we really don’t know for sure how much the cuts matter (and we need to find out), and that Trump has made all of this a serious policy debate and political fair game.
Second, there’s Trump’s broader influence on our politics.
It seems worth noting, too, that when a major figure (and Trump qualifies) heavily practices the politics of us versus them, it infects the entire system, not just the administration and its followers. So, one of the responses we are seeing in this tragic event is a lot of people who oppose Trump leaping to wanting to use this event as a way to attack him. Further, it has led to some diminishment of sympathy for the victims because they are from (or, at least were in) a heavily Republican state, and some of them were at a Christian girls camp that, if I were to guess, was populated mainly by families who voted for Trump.
If they are victims of what they voted for, this can simply create more us/them divisions in our minds.
So, at a time when we should all be setting aside partisan thoughts, because they shouldn’t be relevant, we can’t help but see us and them.
Trump is not the originator of the partisan divide in the country. We could look back at political reactions to mass shootings, and some of this is present (to include very extreme examples like the way Alex Jones reacted to Sandy Hook). But he has deeply and constantly cultivated us versus them.
Note this example from last week.
This is not what a leader who cares about the country would say. It is not the right message.
Finding additional examples isn’t hard.
- Quid Pro Quo Federalism
- A Fascistic and Authoritarian Response
- In Front of Our Noses: Holiday “Greetings”
If a political leader and two-time president, whose rhetorical influence is now over a decade old, is constantly trying to divide us into us versus them, that has effects on both the Trumpist “us” and also on the anti-Trumpist “them.” He is pitting us against one another, and it is not just making the MAGA types more rabid; it is making all of us more angry and callous.***
I am not writing this to chastise people for seeing politics in the Texas floods, although I will caution about over-reading into these events and to also remind us all that getting too excited about finding FAFO moments can be viscerally satisying on one level, that perhaps a deep breath can be a good idea as well. This is a massive tragedy, regardless of how Texas voted, and we should remember that.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that, as per the above, the long-term effects of the cuts to NOAA and the NWS, as well as what may yet happen to FEMA, as foolish and wrong-headed. And I also think the events like the one in Texas will remind some people that, in fact, government can be a very good thing.
But, of course, as Berlatsky reminds us, there are some long-standing ideological issues on the table here.
It might seem obvious that a botched disaster would implicate Trump. And yet, for some 50 years, Republicans have been trying to convince people that government only harms and never helps.
Ronald Reagan famously sneered at federal disaster relief efforts, joking in 1986, “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help,” even as his homophobic administration ignored the AIDS crisis. Trump has pushed a similar line, claiming he plans to phase out FEMA aid after 2025, leaving states to struggle and their people to die horribly in future disasters.
And yet, the very viciousness and arbitrariness of Trump’s cuts has helped the make the federal role in managing disasters more salient and more visible. Even before the final vote last Friday to pass Trump’s horrific reconciliation bill that slashes $1.1 trillion from Medicaid, a hospital in rural southwest Nebraska announced it was closing because of the funding precariousness caused by the bill.
So, yes, hold the Trump administration to task as it slashed needed programs without much thought to consequences, But still, also, deep breaths before reacting too emotionally that just deepens us versus them without actually making anything better. I hope that those who have a real public platform will be smart about pointing out the clear implications of the cuts that have taken place and why things like diverting huge sums of federal dollars to ICE and their camps is perhaps not making us safer while cutting things like NOAA, NWS, and FEMA will demonstrably make us less safe.
Remember that a lot of the source of our current willingness to reduce fellow Americans to belonging to either the us camp or the them camps is Donald Trump, and adjust your willingness to participate accordingly.
Please note that I am not suggesting that Trump voters don’t share in the general responsibility for his policy choices. I am just cautioning about the impulse to make immediate/emotional judgments through the us/them lens.
*He is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, emeritus, in the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and founding co-director of the M.I.T. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. So he knows of what he speaks.
**The running joke about the weather in LA Story was on point, especially given my experiences at the time I saw the film with both SoCal and Texas weather.
***Note: anyone who would like to contest that Trump is a major purveyor of “us v. them” politics is welcome to do so, if they can make a cogent argument and bring receipts. Whataboutism or claims that other politicians do it to are not welcome unless it is done in a way that attacks the actual thesis about Trump. Finding an example of a Democrat saying something partisan doesn’t fit.
I’ll even help. When HRC talked about a “basket of deplorables,” that was certainly divisive language. But 1) in context, the statement wasn’t wrong (see J6 as a manifestation that proves the point) and 2) it was not a blanket statement of hatred for the totality of the opposition. It was also not a central, ongoing theme of her politics. I am sure it insulted some people, and has been politically inadvisable, but it simply isn’t the same thing as a systematic and deeply thematic rhetorical and policy-oriented politics of us versus them as perpetrated by Trump. The volume, consistency, and nature are key to the analysis.
Other possible examples might include Obama’s “clinging to guns” bit and Romney’s 47% comment. All of these do put Americans into different categories, but they are qualitatively different from Trumpian rhetoric.
Being partisan and speaking in terms of different sides is one thing. Expressing ongoing hatred and contempt is another.
Note, too, that the issue is not what some rando on X, Blukesky, Facebook, or Instagram said. It’s about what the most powerful American says on a daily basis for a decade.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Steven L. Taylor
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.outsidethebeltway.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
