Fortune52%

Analysis: Trump approves 80% of GOP disaster aid  and 60% for Democrats 35%

By David A. Lieb42% M.K. Wildeman44% The Associated Press65%

7/16/2026, 12:38:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 180 hits. Analysis detected 1,423 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,049 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43% and a BS Rank of 35% (13,330 of 20,516 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

When major disasters strike, Americans are routinely waiting weeks  or even months  to receive presidential approval for aid. 
And if they live in a state that didn’t support President Donald Trump, chances are greater that aid will be denied. 
Since taking office last year, Trump has approved about 65 requests for major disaster declarations and denied more than two dozen others from states, tribes or territories seeking federal financial assistance following hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and fires. 
Trump has taken longer on average to approve disaster requests than any other president, according to an Associated Press analysis of data dating back to 1989, when a federal law setting new parameters for disaster determinations was implemented. 
And no other president has such a disparity in denials between states that supported him politically and those that did not. 
The delays and denials come as Trump’s administration contemplates a makeover of the Federal Emergency Management Agency , which administers disaster aid. 
Major disaster declarations are intended for events that are beyond the resources of state and local governments. 
Trump is saying yes to Republicans more than Democrats 
During his second term, Trump has denied a greater percentage of disaster requests than any president dating to 1989. 
Those denials have not been evenly distributed among states. 
Trump has approved 80% of the disaster requests from Republican governors but only about 60% from Democratic governors, according to the AP’s analysis of FEMA data. 
The discrepancy is even more apparent when analyzing major disaster declarations based on presidential elections. 
Trump has approved more than three-fourths of the requests from states that voted for him in the 2024 election but less than half the requests from states that did not. 
Although there are federal criteria for disaster aid, decisions ultimately are at the president’s discretion. 
A batch of denials earlier this month included four Democratic states  Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island  seeking federal aid for a February snowstorm. 
“The President’s denial is part of a pattern of extreme partisanship as he tries to shift a heavier economic burden onto blue states. 
Disaster aid should be merit-based, not politicized,” Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. 
Senate and House members said in a joint statement. 
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that “there is no politicization to the President’s decisions on disaster relief.” 
During his first term, Trump actually approved a greater share of requests from states that had opposed him than those that supported him. 
Yet no other president had such a wide partisan divide in disaster declarations as currently exists under Trump. 
Obama approved 87% of the disaster requests from Democratic governors during his second term and 79% from Republican governors, but Obama’s approval rate was identical for states that voted for and against him. 
When requests are denied, individuals, insurers and local governments are left to shoulder the costs themselves. 
Trump is waiting longer to declare disasters 
Since Trump assumed office last year, it’s taken him an average of a month and a half to approve major disaster declarations after receiving a request from the governor or chief executive of a state, territory or tribe, the AP found. 
Because it can take several weeks after a disaster for officials to inspect the damage and submit a request, the total wait time often has exceeded two months. 
By comparison, Trump approved major disaster requests in an average of about three weeks during his first term, a pace similar to President Joe Biden. 
Their predecessors  Presidents Barack Obama, George W. 
Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. 
Bush  all had average disaster approval times of less than two weeks. 
All presidents have taken longer to approve some requests. 
But that’s become the norm in Trump’s second term. 
Of Trump’s approvals, 70% have taken at least a month  up from about one-quarter of requests during Trump’s first term and Biden’s administration, and fewer than 10% under their predecessors. 
Jackson said that Trump conducts a more thorough review than any administration before him, “ensuring American tax dollars are used appropriately and efficiently by the states to supplement  not substitute  their obligation to respond to and recover from disasters.” 
The longer the approval process takes, the longer people must wait to receive federal aid for daily living expenses, temporary lodging and home repairs. 
Delays in major disaster declarations also can hamper recovery efforts by local officials uncertain whether they will receive federal reimbursement for cleaning up debris and rebuilding infrastructure. 
FEMA nominee is pledging faster decisions 
FEMA has had four different temporary leaders since Trump took office in January 2025. 
One of those, Cameron Hamilton , is awaiting Senate confirmation as the agency’s permanent director. 
During a Senate committee hearing last month, Hamilton said he would try to speed up disaster declaration decisions and reimbursements. 
He also pledged to ensure that FEMA is objective, fair and reasonable in reviewing disaster declaration requests and making recommendations to the president. 
Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, had been fired as FEMA’s acting director in May 2025 after publicly disagreeing with Trump’s idea of dismantling the agency. 
His reemergence signals that Trump now may support changes to FEMA instead of an outright elimination of the agency. 
Panel’s recommendations could lead to more denials 
A council appointed by Trump has recommended a series of changes to FEMA that would shift greater responsibility to states, potentially reducing the number of major disaster declarations and the amount of federal money paid out. 
The council suggested revised criteria to qualify for presidential declarations, including a prerequisite of annual minimum expenditures by states, territories and tribes. 
Another recommendation, which would require congressional approval, would reduce the federal government’s share of the disaster aid from a minimum of 75% to 50% of the costs, leaving state and local governments more to cover. 
For governments approved for assistance, federal funding could get there quicker  within 30 days of a federal disaster declaration, instead of waiting months or years for reimbursements that are based on proof of expenditures. 
For individuals, the council recommended consolidating several different types of aid into one payment targeted for those whose homes are uninhabitable. 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%David A. Lieb: 3.8%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.8%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%David A. Lieb: 1.9%Fortune: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.8%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.5%Fortune: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%David A. Lieb: 8.0%Fortune: 6.8%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 4.9%David A. Lieb: 3.2%Fortune: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Fortune: 3.2%Optimism Bias8.0%This article: 0.7%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.7%This article: 10.0%David A. Lieb: 6.4%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias10.0%This article: 8.1%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Fortune: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.0%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.4%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 2.0%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Fortune: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 1.4%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.4%This article: 2.2%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.2%David A. Lieb: 5.1%Fortune: 4.9%Appeal to Authority17.2%This article: 9.2%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Fortune: 2.1%False Dilemma9.2%This article: 0.7%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%David A. Lieb: 3.7%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%David A. Lieb: 2.5%Fortune: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 3.4%David A. Lieb: 1.7%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 8.2%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.5%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division2.5%This article: 2.7%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%David A. Lieb: 1.5%Fortune: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%David A. Lieb: 0.7%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 2.0%David A. Lieb: 1.6%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 1.6%David A. Lieb: 1.4%Fortune: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Fortune: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Fortune: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1049 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers13%attributed speech910writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCameron Hamilton • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCameron Hamilton • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words24% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+67.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members: 67.6%67.6%Politically Right Leaning -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.