Trump is taking longer to approve disaster aid and denying Democratic states more frequently 21%

By David A. Lieb42% M.k. Wildeman The Associated Press0%

7/16/2026, 4:12:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 890 faulty-reasoning hits from 966 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.8% and a BS Rank of 21% (16,919 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.80% 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. 
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. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%David A. Lieb: 3.8%Welland Tribune: 2.1%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.8%Welland Tribune: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.9%Welland Tribune: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.7%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Welland Tribune: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.5%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%David A. Lieb: 8.0%Welland Tribune: 6.2%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 1.7%David A. Lieb: 3.2%Welland Tribune: 2.1%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%David A. Lieb: 6.4%Welland Tribune: 4.2%Negativity Bias5.3%This article: 10.1%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Welland Tribune: 5.2%Self-Serving Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.0%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%David A. Lieb: 2.0%Welland Tribune: 2.5%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Welland Tribune: 1.3%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Welland Tribune: 0.7%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Ad Hominem2.6%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.1%David A. Lieb: 5.1%Welland Tribune: 3.8%Appeal to Authority15.1%This article: 1.1%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Welland Tribune: 0.6%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 0.7%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Welland Tribune: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%David A. Lieb: 3.7%Welland Tribune: 3.3%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 2.5%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.7%Welland Tribune: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.5%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Welland Tribune: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.5%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.9%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Welland Tribune: 0.7%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%David A. Lieb: 1.5%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%David A. Lieb: 0.7%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Unattributed Quote2.4%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.6%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.2%David A. Lieb: 1.4%Welland Tribune: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 1.1%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Welland Tribune: 0.6%Indoctrination1.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Welland Tribune: 3.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Welland Tribune: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

966 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers20%attributed speech771writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% 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% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRhode Island's Democratic U.S. • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 21 words • 0.0% 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% coverageAssociated Press • 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 • 14 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% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words5.6% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rhode Island's Democratic U.S.: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Rhode Island's Democratic U.S.: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Rhode Island's Democratic U.S.: 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.