It’s safe to assume that Donald Trump’s second administration will pursue many of the same climate policies as the first Trump administration. Last time around, Trump dismantled major climate policies and regulations around clean air, water, and the disposal of toxic chemicals, abandoned international climate commitments like the Paris Agreement, and reduced the size of national monuments to open federal land to oil and gas exploration.

During the recent campaign, Trump regularly spoke of his desire to encourage more fossil fuel drilling in the US — even though the Biden administration oversaw record high levels of crude oil production. Trump also talked about undercutting the Inflation Reduction Act – a law that, among other things, has spurred unprecedented investments in clean energy and related infrastructure. Much of that new activity is happening in Republican-leaning areas, so Republican lawmakers might not be eager to support policies that would undermine local job creation and economic growth.

Beyond that, there are also concerns about how the federal government will respond to climate-fueled disasters like the devastating Southern California wildfires. Calls within the Republican Party to reduce funding for critical federal agencies such as FEMA indicate that climate adaptation, mitigation, and even managed retreat efforts will be an uphill struggle for many at-risk communities.

Disaster recovery became highly politicized under the first Trump administration. In 2018 the president initially refused to grant federal aid to California because of the state’s Democratic leanings. There’s no reason to think things will be different the second time around; just a few months ago, Trump suggested withholding aid to California until the state changed certain water policies.

Is it possible that Trump could actually follow through on such threats? The short answer is yes, he can deny aid. The long answer involves the minutiae of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, a federal law that determines the steps for initiating such funding. Under that process, FEMA and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security make recommendations to the president based on set guidelines, such as the severity of the event and the capacity of local and state governments to handle the disaster. It is something of a black box, as any communication between FEMA, DHS, and the president is protected under executive privilege. The president can then grant or deny any requests from an affected state’s governor, regardless of FEMA’s recommendations.

In other words, the Stafford Act does not protect states from partisan politics or an administration that is fixated on punishing its political opponents. This is understandably concerning for western states and local governments in areas that experience devastating wildfires and voted to elect Democrats. As the frequency and severity of natural disasters increase, the intersection of politics, disaster management, and legal accountability will become increasingly critical. Given that part of the Trump campaign’s message included openly promising to penalize those who deems his enemies, there are real concerns about how this might play out.