Powerful storms rolling through the Chicago area earlier this month did the kind of damage that might readily qualify for federal relief — in less divisive times.
Homes and commercial buildings lost roofs. Basements flooded. Trees and branches were taken out, and live wires went down. Some houses were leveled.
By official count, at least 17 tornadoes smacked into northern Illinois and northwest Indiana, leaving a trail of damage across the region. Those same storms produced tornadoes in other parts of Illinois as well. The damage is still being calculated.
Meanwhile, the federal government isn’t rushing in to help. After similarly severe storms hit Illinois last summer, President Donald Trump denied requests for disaster aid, leaving thousands of stricken households high and dry.
A recent analysis by Politico’s E&E News reveals strong evidence that Trump is using disaster declarations to retaliate against political foes like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
As outlined in the June 14 Tribune story, Trump approved just 23% of disaster funding requests from Democrat-led blue states in his first 14 months since returning to office, vs. 89% from his fellow Republicans. He also took more than 80 days to decide on the requests from Democrats, more than twice as long as he did for those from his GOP supporters.
Some requests from blue states were turned down even after federal officials agreed the damage met the usual criteria for financial assistance. And the White House has regularly boasted about delivering aid to so-called “patriots” in red states, while linking approvals in blue states to unrelated political concessions, such as support for its immigration dragnets.
More Top Picks Best Migraine Glasses Under 100
The conflict isn’t new. Election-year politics and a state’s influence in Congress have affected disaster declarations and the flow of federal aid in the past. But the partisanship is especially overt under Trump.
A big part of the problem is a confusing, fragmented system that gives presidents total discretion. Some 30 agencies ranging from the Small Business Administration to the Agriculture Department are supposed to help coordinate aid after tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and other perils.
But the system is grossly inefficient and the criteria for how much money to hand out is arbitrary. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plays the most important role in providing grants for temporary housing, home repairs and other critical relief after disaster strikes. But under Trump, layoffs and one-sided leadership have weakened FEMA.
The result is a nation poorly prepared for what could be a long summer of catastrophes. Illinois, especially, stands to come out on the losing end.
The Land of Lincoln is a “donor state” that pays more federal taxes than it receives back in federal spending. The biased distribution of disaster aid under Trump is making matters worse.
A recent analysis by the Place + Resilience newsletter shows that only California and Ohio receive less disaster aid relative to the tax payments they contribute than Illinois. Topping the list of states receiving way more money than they pay in are deep-red Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi.
Legislation to bring about reforms has stalled, despite bipartisan support, as differing agendas compete for attention inside the Beltway. Under an executive order published shortly after he took office last year, the president established a FEMA Review Council to recommend reforms. The council took more than a year to make recommendations, mainly aimed at shifting costs and responsibilities onto state and local governments.
On a different track, a key House committee approved FEMA reform legislation in a 57-3 vote last year, but it failed to advance, as GOP lawmakers waited for the president’s council to make a move.
Both the council and Congress have floated some good ideas for streamlining disaster assistance, reducing administrative burdens and improving uneven recovery capabilities among states.
One of the most contentious but necessary reforms focuses on thresholds for disaster declarations and the criteria used to determine eligibility for federal dollars.
As a practical matter, Trump should not be a roadblock. Reforms are unlikely to be fully implemented until beyond his final term, and future presidents would retain considerable discretion.
It’s time to break the logjam and at least get started on making the current mess more efficient and equitable. Politics will always play a role in federal spending, but when disaster strikes, especially when people get forced out of their homes, help should be available no matter whom they vote for.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].