Trump is taking longer to approve disaster aid and denying Democratic states more frequently 53%

By David A. Lieb42% M.k. Wildeman45%

7/16/2026, 9:55:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 1,286 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,014 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,346 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.70% of the article peer group.

When major disasters strike, Americans are routinely waiting weeks  even months  to receive presidential approval for aid. 
And if they live in a state that didn’t support President 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 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. 
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 fewer 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. 
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 Biden. 
Their predecessors  Presidents Obama, George W. 
Bush, 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 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. 
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. 
Lieb and Wildeman write for the Associated Press. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%David A. Lieb: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%David A. Lieb: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic3.7%This article: 3.9%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 2.3%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.3%This article: 1.9%David A. Lieb: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias1.9%This article: 6.3%David A. Lieb: 8.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 5.0%David A. Lieb: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.9%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%David A. Lieb: 6.4%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias13.9%This article: 2.1%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%David A. Lieb: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.9%David A. Lieb: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority16.9%This article: 5.5%David A. Lieb: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 3.6%David A. Lieb: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.2%David A. Lieb: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.4%David A. Lieb: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 2.3%David A. Lieb: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question2.3%This article: 11.7%David A. Lieb: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%David A. Lieb: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%David A. Lieb: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.4%David A. Lieb: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 2.3%David A. Lieb: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David A. Lieb: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1014 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech909writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 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% coverageWriter's voice • 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 • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 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 • 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 • 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 • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Abigail Jackson

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words59% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Abigail Jackson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Abigail Jackson: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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