With wildfires in California, flooding in Texas, tornadoes in the Midwest, and the first hurricane of the season heading toward the East Coast, there are serious concerns about the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) responses under Trump. A key issue has been the administration and Congress’s use of the “power of the purse” as a political weapon against states that don’t align with Trump’s political agenda.  Trump has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary states, cities, and counties as part of the administration’s effort to crack down on immigration, and has twice denied aid to Washington state following a bomb cyclone that hit multiple counties last fall. 

But these moves go beyond disrupting state and local programs and services. They have a damaging effect on the country’s highest law: the Constitution.

Going back to a basic high school understanding of federalism embodied in the Constitution, power is divided between the states and the federal government. This setup gives each level of government its sphere of influence, letting local communities make their own decisions and preventing too much power from accumulating in one place. Trump himself has evoked ideas of federalism;  on the issue of abortion, for instance, he stated that instead of a federal ban, states should be able to decide. This stance was also mirrored in a March 19 executive order, where Trump advocated for shifting the responsibility of disaster preparedness to state and local governments.

Reality is far more complex than “Let the states decide.”  With disasters, it has become clear that state and local governments, particularly rural areas with smaller economies, cannot independently manage the financial strain of disasters. The financial strength of the federal government is essential for disaster recovery and prevention — basically, the reason FEMA was created in the first place.

When the federal government strong-arms states with money to push a particular agenda, it violates the states’ autonomy and sovereignty. Instead of federalism, it’s mob-style extortion. 

Some might argue that such federal action primarily serves to advance a national agenda or ensure policy consistency, which is a key aspect of modern federalism. To this point, conditions of aid have been used successfully in programs that require communities to address a problem. For example, FEMA’s Swift Current program, which provides flood mitigation assistance grants, exemplifies how eligibility criteria around properties that have experienced repetitive or severe repetitive loss can effectively prompt communities to address specific issues.

 But Trump’s conditions are extreme, and in many cases not even related to the funding issue. This tactic disregards the federalist principle of distributed power by instead imposing policies on states that may not align with their own. As states vie for this essential funding, it can cause standards, financial independence, and regulations to slip at the local or regional levels. In the end, this relationship ignores what the people want.

The question comes down to this: What is the role of the federal government in disaster preparedness and relief? Progressives may say that the federal government needs to play a larger role, and conservatives may argue that there should be a limited role for the federal government in this area. But Trump’s stance is transactional, with decisions made based on what the administration gets out of the deal. This pattern appears time and time again with issues like tariffs, peace negotiations, and the various rescissions packages placed before Congress. This is a government by Trump, for Trump, and the average American is being left wondering when they’ll get their share.

Thankfully, what’s happening now gives us a clear roadmap for how to prevent it going forward. Future leaders and lawmakers need to set up clear, non-partisan rules for federal disaster help. This means making sure aid goes out based on actual need and established constitutional principles, not because of political alignment or these transactional demands.