The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Trump: No more FEMA funds for California fires

by Kent Covington
Posted 1/10/19, 11:00 am

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop sending funds for California wildfires unless the state changes course. “Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for forest fires that, with proper forest management, would never happen,” Trump tweeted. “Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money.”

In his first full day in office, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday co-signed a letter, along with the governors of Oregon and Washington, asking the Trump administration to “double the investment” in forest management. The letter said California has spent more than $100 million to prevent forest fires since 2017, adding that nearly half the work done has been in federally owned forests. Trump has repeatedly criticized California's management of its forests as a major cause of recent wildfires.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • John Kloosterman
    Posted: Fri, 01/11/2019 09:16 pm

    ...what on earth is this even supposed to mean?  Does Trump suppose that Californians like all the wildfires that happen?  That they're deliberately allowing massive property damage year in and out and if we stop sending them aid, suddenly they'll stop having wildfires?

  •  Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Fri, 01/11/2019 09:52 pm

    I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do, either.  On the other hand, the fact that fires destroy millions of dollars of property and hundreds of lives for so many years in a state that borders the largest body of water in the world befuddles me.  I do not blame Pres. Trump for trying to twist some arms.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Fri, 01/11/2019 11:05 pm

    Do Californians want forest fires to destroy their towns?  No of course not. Do they build in places where there is good reason to expect eventual destruction by wildfire?  Yes, perhaps because they expect they will be bailed out if it happens. 

    Look at the Gulf Coast where hurricanes regularly wipe out communities, who then are compensated by disaster funds, and who then rebuild again in the path of the next intense hurricane. 

    Look at California development along known earthquake lines.  I really don’t think you can fix stupid, but you can refuse to give them any more bailouts.