Lawmakers from both parties looking to mitigate political meddling in disaster assistance hope bipartisan anger over how the last two administrations have overseen federal aid programs will carry their legislation over the finish line this year.
A bill from Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) with several Democratic co-sponsors is a top contender for inclusion in the Senate’s version of the annual defense policy bill. Supporters say it would make it harder for any president to withhold disaster assistance from communities just because they voted against them.
In practice, the Stopping Political Discrimination in Disaster Assistance Act,S. 373, would likely do little to address political interference in disaster assistance, according to emergency management experts and advocates. But lopsided or discriminatory disaster aid determinations during the Biden and Trump administrations have lawmakers pushing for a vote on the bill anyway.
“This is one that sits ready to go, and I don’t think it has a lot of realistic opposition regardless,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), sponsor of the House companion, H.R. 1342.
“I could see this as being one of the things that would be a win for everybody, and something that everybody could claim a victory on,” said Perry, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee with jurisdiction over disaster response and is one of Congress’ staunchest conservatives.
The legislation is riding a wave of momentum fueled by Republican anger over political discrimination by a Federal Emergency Management Agency supervisor in 2024. The worker, who was fired, said avoiding the home of suspected Trump supporters was a safety move amid anti-FEMA sentiment.
Democrats — furious over the Trump administration’s disproportionate rejection of disaster aid for blue states — have also gotten on board with the legislation. The cumulative outrage could give the two-page bill enough heft to ride on one of Congress’ few remaining must-pass bills this year.
But the proposal, which experts say amounts to a messaging bill, ironically represents a political tightrope for Republicans — especially those campaigning for reelection in deep red districts.
While many want to take action on an issue broadly considered a worthy priority, their support could be interpreted as a rebuke of President Donald Trump, whose disaster assistance determinations have snubbed Democratic states to an unprecedented degree, according toa POLITICO analysis.
Those tricky political dynamics make the bill ripe for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act as an amendment. If Senate leaders include the measure in a package of amendments, lawmakers wouldn’t have to vote on the issue individually.
“If we can get it in the NDAA, that makes a big difference,” Lankford said in an interview. “All the key players there — the chairman and ranking member [of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee] — are looking at it.”
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who helps oversee FEMA, did not return a request for comment. Lankford is a senior member of the committee.
Political stakes
The bill would add “political affiliation” to the list of criteria that a president cannot consider when deciding whether to approve disaster assistance for a particular community. Other criteria already on that list include economic status, race, religion, nationality and English proficiency.
Emergency management experts and disaster reform advocates have doubts about the bill’s ability to truly prevent political discrimination in federal disaster aid.
“If Congress truly wants to reduce the politicization of disaster aid, these two words don’t do that,” said Bryan Koon, CEO of the emergency management consulting firm IEM. “They need to fundamentally change the way the system works.”
The bill’s backers on Capitol Hill believe the effort is worthwhile.
Democratic co-sponsors — including Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is in one of the country’s most competitive races — say they want to rein in what they see as politicized disaster approvals from the Trump administration.
They know that branding the legislation as an anti-Trump bill could potentially draw a rebuke from the White House, but they aren’t shying away from making that connection.
If the bill doesn’t pass this session, “it is one more indication that we suffer from a supine Senate and a feckless Republican majority in the Congress that is more accountable to Donald Trump than they are to the people who sent them here to fight for them,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), another co-sponsor.
The White House has rejected the notion that Trump’s disaster determinations are politicized. Spokespeople for the president did not respond to requests for comment on the bill.
Some Republican sponsors have maintained their support for the proposal as they run for reelection or seek election to statewide offices where Trump won in 2024.
Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, for example, is up for reelection in a state where Trump won handily in 2024, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R) is running for Tennessee governor. Perry is facing a tough reelection bid of his own.
‘There’s a big gap’
Lankford first introduced the legislation in the aftermath of hurricanes Helene and Milton, which ravaged parts of the Southeast during the Biden administration.
At the time, a low-level supervisor at FEMA directed some employees in Florida to avoid homes displaying signs in support of Trump, who was running for president at the time and criticizing the federal response to the hurricane.
FEMA leaders fired the employee, and an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security found that she had acted on her own, skirting FEMA guidelines.
Republicans called out the political discrimination and launched oversight investigations. A DHS probe found “numerous instances” of FEMA staff using “irrelevant information to make unfair decisions to bypass homes based on individuals’ freedom of expression.”
“Political affiliation shouldn’t have anything to do with it, nor should aid coming from the federal government,” Perry said, recalling the 2024 controversy. “That should be apolitical, agnostic, bipartisan, nonpartisan, whatever you want to call it.”
In his second term, Trump has approved federal aid for Republican-led states at more than three times the rate of Democratic-led states — a stark departure from the practices of past presidents and the president’s first term. In July, Trump denied assistance to four blue states despite his own agencies determining that they met government thresholds for receiving aid.
“Before, there really wasn’t any discrepancy,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee’s disaster management subcommittee. “Now there’s a big gap, so I’m worried about that right now.”
When asked about the discrepancy, Republicans supporting Lankford’s bill cast doubt on the significance of the pattern or claimed ignorance. Perry called it “partisan conjecture” that amounts to “a lot of hyperbole.” He predicted that Trump would sign the legislation if it passes Congress.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), chair of the Homeland Security Disaster Management Subcommittee and a co-sponsor of the bill, said he does not “have any visibility into why” Trump is approving aid for red states significantly more than for blue states.
More FEMA reforms needed
Disaster reform advocates say the current effort to prevent the politicization of disaster aid is noble, but not enough on its own. The legislation lacks an enforcement mechanism and does not address some of the bigger issues bogging down disaster relief.
Andy Winkler, who manages the Bipartisan Policy Center’s task force on disaster recovery reform, said that while the bill could help combat political discrimination at the individual or household level, “it sidesteps the broader question of which disaster should qualify for federal assistance and certainly doesn’t curtail the president’s power” with regard to approving or denying disaster assistance.
Lankford and Perry’s legislation is one of dozens of disaster bills making their way through Congress. Among the ones advocates are watching most intently is the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act, H.R. 4669, which would make FEMA an independent Cabinet-level agency . It cleared the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with broad bipartisan support but has not gained much traction.
A proposal from Rhode Island Democratic Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, S. 5018, would automatically approve all eligible requests for disaster aid during Trump’s current term.
The bipartisan push to improve — and in some cases completely overhaul — the government’s disaster relief model comes as the administration itself looks to make sweeping changes to FEMA.
Cameron Hamilton, who had been serving as acting FEMA administrator, was sworn in as the agency’s permanent leader on Aug. 10. His promotionempowers him to make reforms at the agency — potentially including those recommended by the administration’s FEMA Review Council. The Trump-appointed group unveiled a 75-page report in May to help guide a revamp of the disaster agency.
Hamilton said during his June confirmation hearing that his “focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent in the approach to how we adjudicate claims and requests for disaster [assistance].”
For most Democrats, Hamilton’s performance was unsatisfying. After all but one Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee opposed his nomination, ranking member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), another co-sponsor of the Lankford bill, told POLITICO that Hamilton had “brushed aside concerns about the administration’s politicization of disaster relief.”
Thomas Frank contributed to this report.
Correction: The 2024 incident referenced in this story in which a FEMA employee instructed workers to avoid homes displaying Trump signs took place in Florida, not North Carolina.
