This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Dana R. Fisher is Director of the Center for Environment, Community & Equity and Professor in the School of International Service, American University
When Hurricane Isaias hit the Florida Panhandle on Oct. 9, 2026, it was just the latest weather disaster for Americans in a year that continues to break records.
The hottest U.S. summer on record left millions of Americans facing life-threatening heat waves. Extreme heat and drought set the stage for wildfires. Flooding from powerful storms and days of heavy rainfall inundated communities in several states. And now a “Super El Niño,” on top of already rising temperatures and sea levels, is expected to make extreme events worse, at least into spring 2027.
In the past, states relied heavily on federal aid and expertise to respond quickly to disasters. But in communities across the U.S., people recovering from floods, storms and wildfires in 2025 and 2026 have been left waiting much longer for federal aid – if it arrives at all.
Will there be political consequences in the midterm elections for the slow aid and lack of government assistance?
The answer to that question runs through the ways the Trump administration has changed disaster response and federal disaster aid. As a professor who has written for years about civic engagement and climate policy, I have reason to believe that voters’ frustration with slow disaster aid may show up at the polls.
Cuts to FEMA hobbled federal disaster help
Even though the United States is experiencing more disasters as the climate changes, the federal programs meant to help Americans recover are being diminished.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has faced significant cuts to funding and staff since the Trump administration took office in January 2025. The administration initially talked about abolishing the agency, arguing that states and communities could deal with disasters on their own. It created a plan to cut FEMA’s staffing by 50%, but in September 2026, a judge found that plan to be unlawful.
FEMA lost over 17% of its trained staff members in 2025 alone, including hundreds of people who were on call to respond to disasters. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin continues to defend the administration’s goal of a leaner workforce at the agency.
The Trump administration also withheld billions of dollars meant to help states reduce their disaster risk and protect homes, hospitals and other structures from storm damage. Lawsuits forced the administration to restore some of the funds, but many communities are still struggling on their own.
These changes have tangible effects on how well states are able to recover from disasters and how well they can prepare for the disaster risks ahead as the climate changes.
Slower aid, if it arrives at all
The Trump administration is also taking longer to approve emergency funding after disasters than past administrations did and denying more of those requests.
In 2025 it denied 26% of requests for major disaster declarations, which unlock immediate federal aid. That was up from an average of 15% over the previous two decades.
An independent analysis of FEMA data exposes some clear patterns in funding delays under the Trump administration. The review found that major disaster declarations have taken an average of nearly 10 weeks to be issued during the current Trump administration, up from an average of three weeks or less over the previous two decades.
The administration says it is simply conducting more thorough reviews when governors make these aid requests. But people caught in disasters don’t have time to wait. Major disaster aid includes individual assistance, such as temporary housing, loans and repair grants, that disaster survivors need quickly to recover.
The review also found that about 85% of the requests for federal assistance from states that went for Donald Trump in the 2024 election were eventually approved, while only about half of requests have been approved in states that voted for his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.
A separate Associated Press report in July 2026 noted that no other president had such a sharp partisan divide in approving disaster declaration requests between Republican and Democratic governors since at least 1989, when a federal law set rules for disaster determinations.
Disaster failures can mobilize political moderates
A handful of studies, including mine, have found that people who have experienced a disaster often have higher levels of civic engagement.
In my study, civic engagement included contacting elected officials, signing petitions, attending public meetings, participating in boycotts or joining protests, among other actions. We didn’t look at the connection to voting patterns, but I believe there is good reason to expect our findings to extend to voting as well.
The relationship between experiencing a disaster and level of civic engagement was strongest for political moderates who are sometimes referred to as the “movable middle” – they could swing in either political direction if they have reason to do so.
Given the disasters America has seen in recent years and the sharp drop in federal assistance, I expect that political moderates who become more civically engaged will play a significant role in the midterm elections this year.
How FEMA cuts play out in a crisis
Several recent disasters have shown what happens when the federal government isn’t prepared to respond quickly.
After the devastating July 4 floods that swept through Texas Hill Country in 2025, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, waited three days before approving funding to send federal search-and-rescue teams, a Congressional report confirmed. Other funding approvals took an average of 12 days, leaving local and state programs to fill critical gaps in disaster systems.
In summer 2026, Texas was hit with floods again. The president approved assistance for some of the counties after a seven-week delay. Other requests for assistance were still waiting months later.
FEMA denied individual and statewide assistance to Michigan after severe storms and tornadoes tore up homes across several rural communities in March 2026.
With highly contested Senate races looming in both states, these actions by the Trump administration could color voters’ views or contribute to a lack of enthusiasm for the party in power and even increase support for the opposition.
A survey conducted by Pew Research Center in May 2025 found that the majority of Americans believe that it is a good idea for the federal government to provide financial assistance to help people rebuild after disasters in place at high risk of extreme weather.
These findings are relatively consistent across political parties: 60% of those who identified as Republican or leaning Republican said they believed it was a good idea, as did 68% of those who identified as Democrat or leaning Democrat.
Too little, too late?
Trump recently started announcing disaster aid approvals in states consequential to the control of Congress in the midterm elections, including in Wisconsin and Ohio. In some cases, he coupled his candidate endorsements with disaster funding announcements.
I don’t believe those late announcements will move the needle in his party’s favor at this late date.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
