Plus, is it different when workers strike against automation in the arts?
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 13 minutes.
Election party.
Mark your calendars: We’re throwing an election watch party in Philly and will be live streaming throughout the night. If you want to come hang out in person, get your tickets here. 65 of the 100 tickets have already been claimed!
Help spread reliable information.
Active on Facebook? You can easily share each new Tangle edition to your family and friends and help share a news outlet doing it right. Follow our page and help spread the word about us online!
Quick hits.
- Law enforcement arrested a man outside of former President Donald Trump’s rally in California on Saturday on state gun charges. Federal authorities are investigating the incident but have not filed any charges, nor found evidence he was planning to kill Trump. (The arrest)
- The Pentagon announced that the United States will send an advanced missile defense system and a crew of U.S. troops to Israel to support its air defenses in anticipation of attacks from Iran. (The announcement)
- China flew a record number of fighter jets and other warplanes around Taiwan during a military drill on Monday a few days after Taiwan’s new president, Lai Ching-te, promised to protect the island’s sovereignty in a speech. (The exercises)
- The Kremlin said former President Trump sent Covid-19 testing devices to Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2020, confirming a report by journalist Bob Woodward. (The comments)
- Boeing plans to lay off 10% of its 170,000 employees in the coming months following a poor financial report for Q3 and an ongoing machinist strike. (The layoffs)
Today's topic.
FEMA funding. Last Wednesday, Hurricane Milton made landfall in Florida as a Category 3 storm, knocking out power to 3.2 million people and killing at least eight. Two weeks earlier, Hurricane Helene ravaged the Southeast, killing more than 250 people and resulting in widespread devastation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which coordinates the federal response to disasters that exceed the capabilities of local and state authorities, has become the target of criticism for its response to these storms — particularly from conservative commentators — pertaining to how it allocates resources, its responsiveness, and its funding.
On October 2, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said FEMA did not have the budget to make it through the rest of this year’s hurricane season. While Congress passed a short-term spending bill in September that included $20 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund, other FEMA programs that reimburse state and local governments for the costs of debris cleanup, first responders, and other needs are quickly running out of money. So far, FEMA has approved $441 million in federal disaster assistance for Hurricane Helene survivors and over $349 million in public assistance funding.
Amid the concerns over FEMA’s funding, many Republican politicians — including former President Donald Trump — and prominent social media accounts have suggested that mismanaged priorities have compromised the agency’s ability to respond to disasters. One of the most common claims is that FEMA is running out of money partially because some of its funds are allocated to services for unauthorized migrants. This criticism centers on FEMA’s Shelter and Services program, which reimburses state and local governments and nonprofits that provide short-term shelters for migrants released by Border Patrol. The program received $650 million from Congress for fiscal year 2024.
FEMA’s disaster relief fund is appropriated separately, receiving more than $20 billion in fiscal year 2024 from the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act and $15.5 billion from the Continuing Appropriations Act. Earlier this month, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) acknowledged that Congress funds these programs separately, but some Republicans, such as Sen. Tom Cotton (AR), have suggested that FEMA could use its transfer authority to move any remaining Shelter and Service funds to disaster relief (though the agency has already awarded all of the program’s grant money as of August).
FEMA also has a Serious Needs Assistance program that offers $750 per household to survivors of disasters to pay for emergency supplies. Some conservative commentators have suggested that this $750 is the only assistance survivors will receive from the federal government. FEMA, though, has stated that Serious Needs Assistance is just one of several programs offering aid to disaster survivors. Disaster victims can apply for FEMA’s Individual Assistance program, which provides financial payments to eligible individuals and households, as well as financial assistance toward temporary housing.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, 63 House Democrats signed a letter to Speaker Johnson urging him to call Congress back into session to pass additional funding for the response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Johnson has thus far rebuffed this request, saying the federal government has "the resources necessary right now to address the immediate needs."
Today, we’ll explore arguments from the left and right about FEMA’s funding and disaster response efforts. Then, my take.
What the left is saying.
- The left criticizes Trump and Republicans for spreading false information about FEMA.
- Some say lies about the agency have hurt hurricane victims the most.
- Others say these false narratives distract from areas where FEMA needs to improve.
The Washington Post editorial board said “storms veering inland — and rampant misinformation — are testing federal disaster response systems.”
“As the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard and other aid organizations navigate downed trees and mud-choked roads to reach affected residents, they face yet another challenge: rampant misinformation,” the board wrote. “Because it plowed through two swing states just over a month before Election Day, politicians were bound to pay extra attention to this disaster. Both presidential candidates rerouted their campaign trails to visit Georgia and North Carolina. This is par for the course in a democracy.
“What is neither normal nor acceptable is for former president Donald Trump to exploit the situation with inflammatory falsehoods. He claimed that his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, diverted FEMA funding to house illegal immigrants; and he accused North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, also a Democrat, of withholding aid from Republican-leaning counties. Misinformation about FEMA’s actions has become so widespread that the agency created a webpage dedicated to ‘rumor response.’ The agency should not have to spend scarce resources dispelling misinformation spread in part by someone running for our highest office.”
In Bloomberg, Barbara L McQuade argued “Trump’s lies about FEMA only hurt hurricane victims.”
“I know from my prior work as a prosecutor that emergencies almost always bring out scam artists hoping to defraud people desperate for help. But the current brand of disinformation is different from the usual con jobs. This new breed of disaster disinformation appears to be motivated by politics,” McQuade said. “Shortly after the storm, presidential candidate Donald Trump told rallygoers in Michigan that the Biden administration ‘stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season.’ This is not true (and undocumented immigrants can’t vote). Yet these claims have been amplified on social media by billionaire Elon Musk, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.”
“While the claims are false, the harm is real. False claims create confusion for people in need of relief. Victims who believe that funds are limited to $750 may not even bother to file a claim. Americans who did not even suffer loss from the hurricane may lose confidence in the government’s ability to respond to a natural disaster, putting pressure on Congress to reduce appropriations for relief. And FEMA itself must expend resources debunking false claims instead of attending to its relief missions.”
In MSNBC, Hayes Brown wrote “FEMA has real problems. Trump's lies are making things harder.”
“While FEMA has been rightly criticized for years as ineffective, slow and overly bureaucratic, the lies that the Republicans are pushing are different,” Brown said. “Among the many lies that are being told: that FEMA will run out of money before the end of the year because it gave that money to migrants; that the Biden administration is only giving out a few hundred dollars in aid to people in total; that aid in North Carolina is being denied so the federal government can steal that land for mining lithium. There are twisted facts undergirding some of those myths, but none are intended to increase assistance to the people affected.”
“Even as FEMA’s resources have increased, they’ve also been stretched thin as catastrophic events pile up… Unfortunately, the agency’s handling of those Vermont floods left survivors frustrated and without critical resources,” Brown wrote. “The good news is that FEMA put new rules in place this year to lower the hurdles for receiving disaster relief. That includes immediate cash for individuals’ emergency expenses and making it easier to help people whose insurance doesn’t fully cover their losses… But, again, you wouldn’t know it from the lies being told by Trump and other right-wing agitators.”
What the right is saying.
- The right argues FEMA should not be funding migrant services under any circumstances.
- Some say the agency’s shortcomings have been on full display throughout the response to Helene and Milton.
- Others criticize the Biden administration for how it has managed FEMA.
The Boston Herald editorial board said “FEMA funds are for emergencies, not bad policy.”
FEMA is “there in emergencies and disasters, like the recent flooding in Vermont, for which FEMA assistance was announced late last month. It was there for the severe winter storm that hit Massachusetts in 2022,” the board wrote. “It’s also there, apparently, to give money to ‘non-federal entities’ as the FEMA website says ‘to provide humanitarian services to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).’”
“Hurricane-force winds didn’t sweep millions of illegal immigrants across our southern border under Biden’s watch, the president’s open-borders policies did that. And yet FEMA funds are being used to support the consequences of his actions,” the board said. “We should never be in a situation where FEMA funds are insufficient during hurricane season. Or any season, given the natural disasters that have grabbed recent headlines. What is particularly baffling is that this administration is so invested in mitigating climate change… Shouldn’t Biden and Co. make sure FEMA funds are shored up as climate change-driven weather patterns worsen and states are more vulnerable?”
In USA Today, Nicole Russell wrote “Helene exposed FEMA's weaknesses.”
“The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) exists to help in such emergencies. While there's been much political back-and-forth about the agency's effectiveness in the wake of Helene, and not a small amount of misinformation, it is reasonable for citizens to question how well their government is delivering on its promises,” Russell said. “Biden-Harris administration officials said they were ‘sparing no resource’ to help those affected by the storm… Yet, families are still transporting clean water in 5-gallon containers and milk jugs 13 days after the storm came ashore in Florida.”
“In their defense, FEMA administrators say they have provided more than $137 million in assistance to six states, including about 15 million meals, 14 million liters of water and 157 generators as of Sunday,” Russell wrote. But “with the massive needs that remain in North Carolina, it's fair to ask whether FEMA is up to the job of easing the suffering of millions of Americans… Our fellow citizens should not go without water, food, electricity or cell service day after day. We must expect more from our government and more for our neighbors.”
In The Wall Street Journal, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) criticized the “shift” in FEMA’s priorities during the Biden administration.
“Federal Emergency Management Agency staff are working hard. The agency’s response to Helene has been praised in some quarters and criticized elsewhere. But it too has been the victim of misplaced Biden-Harris political priorities,” Vance said. “Under Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden, FEMA has funneled millions of dollars to nongovernmental organizations whose stated goal is facilitating mass migration into the U.S. The effort stems from a White House directive to reorient FEMA’s institutional focus away from U.S. citizens and toward aliens who either have no legal right to be here or whose legal status depends on the say-so of the Biden-Harris administration.
“Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been sending that message since the beginning of their tenure. In 2021 Mr. Mayorkas directed FEMA to participate in a ‘government-wide effort’ to receive and shelter migrants,” Vance wrote. “FEMA even seems to be picking winners and losers among the American people. In March 2023, FEMA hosted a panel titled ‘Helping the LGBTQI+ Community Before Disasters: Preparedness and Mitigation Considerations.’ Ordinary Americans of all backgrounds know that especially when it comes to disaster relief, federal agencies exist to serve all Americans, not to give some groups special treatment.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- Very few people are holding more than one or two perspectives at once.
- There has been a lot of misinformation, and there are many legitimate criticisms of the response.
- We actually seem to have illuminated some potential solutions, and our government should pursue them while they have momentum.
Following this discussion shows how difficult it can be for so many people to hold a few things in their minds at once. Inspired by that realization, let me try to sort out all my thoughts and reactions.
First, lies were and are being spread online about FEMA and the federal emergency response in North Carolina. I wrote an entire newsletter and did a YouTube video about them, but I certainly wasn't the only one frustrated by this. Kevin Corbin, a Republican member of North Carolina's state senate, was pleading with people to stop spreading lies about FEMA. Here is what he posted on Facebook:
Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), who also represents one of the most impacted areas in North Carolina, issued an entire press release "debunking Helene response myths." It included, among many other things, that FEMA is not diverting disaster funds to the border, that it's not halting relief efforts, and that it isn't imminently running out of money. Edwards also tried to knock down a lie being spread by former President Trump and his allies that the Biden administration was only offering $750 in assistance to survivors (that is the immediate, upfront cash people can get from Serious Needs Assistance, but much larger and longer-term financial assistance has already been made available).
The misinformation has gone both ways, too. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported on an email from a U.S. Forest Service official warning about armed militias in North Carolina “hunting FEMA.” That sparked a wave of claims and headlines that armed militias, inspired by misinformation, were blocking or actively threatening FEMA workers. It turned out that the threat was exaggerated, if not entirely misunderstood, and that a single person was arrested for being armed and threatening outside a grocery store.
While the falsehoods about the hurricane response are predominantly coming from influential conservatives, I want to be careful not to dismiss worthwhile points about FEMA while debunking these lies. For instance, FEMA's budget is constricted and Alejandro Mayorkas did say they were running out of money. FEMA did give hundreds of millions of dollars to programs supporting migrants — including some immigrants here illegally. If you are reading about those programs from North Carolina while federal aid workers are struggling to get to you, I understand why you would be distraught.
However, while it’s true that FEMA has a program to support services for migrants, that money isn’t relevant to any funding issues or disaster relief efforts more broadly. Conservative economist Brian Riedl was all over this story, pointing out that the $640 million allocated to FEMA for its Shelter and Services program is .009405% of the federal budget — or, as he called it, "budget dust." Questioning that line item is totally fair, but when you do so, you should keep that total in perspective; it isn't hard to find examples of Congress passing single disaster relief bills over $35 billion in recent years.
Perhaps most importantly, the $640 million that went from FEMA to migrants came from a totally separate funding process from the one to approve disaster relief aid. Ironically, back in 2019, President Trump actually took $155 million of disaster relief funds to spend on immigrant detention centers along the border.
Shortly after the Helene hit, I criticized the flood of misinformation on social media, but I also made the broader point that it was too early to criticize the government’s response. Two weeks later, we’ve now grasped the scope of the disaster and how many people are still struggling to get assistance. There are two ways to think about this:
1) The federal government is failing. North Carolinians have gone two weeks without potable water or electricity, and there is no excuse for why it’s taken so long to restore basic services. The amount of active-duty military mobilized to assist in the aftermath was anemically low even when compared to the response to Hurricane Katrina, a disaster response so inadequate that it permanently tarnished the reputation of a sitting president. Or…
2) Helene is a particularly devastating and challenging disaster. FEMA has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the first few weeks responding to this hurricane, which impacted an incredibly broad region across six states. It has provided millions of meals and millions of gallons of drinking water. To make matters worse, Milton hit Florida while Helene recovery efforts were still ongoing. The destructiveness and breadth of these storms was just too much for any federal agency to handle within a few weeks.
I’m not suggesting one of these lenses is more correct than the other, or that they can’t co-exist; I just want to show how both viewpoints have merit.
I’ve heard firsthand accounts from people on the ground saying they are in areas receiving a robust federal response, and firsthand accounts from people on the ground saying they feel totally deserted and on their own. One Tangle critic sent me this Twitter thread explaining how difficult and frustrating accessing that assistance can be. "Imagine how mad you’d be if you lived on the opposite side of a washed out bridge and the people you pay taxes to said we can help we’ll be at the library six miles away at 2:00 pm on Monday to sign up for $750,” the user wrote. “Your car is in a tree. You’re sick from inhaling dust and mold. You haven’t had a hot shower in a week. Imagine the rage at the uselessness of that offer."
So, what do we have in the way of solutions? Well, it seems like everyone now agrees FEMA should have robust enough funding to respond to disasters more thoroughly. I'm on board for that; I think organizing massive relief and recovery efforts is one of the things the federal government is well positioned to do. We also published a reader essay this Sunday from a ham radio operator in North Carolina detailing his experience in the recovery effort, as well as the ways he thinks communication can be improved in the aftermath of these storms.
It also might be a good time to focus more seriously on how and where we build. I’m very much in favor of removing housing restrictions, but there are a lot of lessons to glean from what North Carolina lawmakers failed to do. We should also consider eliminating subsidies for homes in areas vulnerable to this kind of devastation. As we're witnessing now, we pay for those decisions collectively as a country — not just at the personal or local level — and we should respond to the threat of these severe storms holistically, too.
So: Let’s keep our eyes on the FEMA response. Let’s keep our attention on communities still struggling. Let’s support legislators who fund the response and recovery efforts. And let’s act now, while the issue is hot, to help mitigate the destructiveness of these disasters in the future.
Take the survey: What do you think of the federal government’s response to Helene and Milton? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: I support very tight regulation and limitation of AI/automation within the art and entertainment industries, but for most everything else I only support regulation so as to keep guardrails in place, and I am much more in favor of pushing advancements… With regards to how much automation should be integrated, do you draw a similar distinction?
— Ryan from London, England
Tangle: Thanks for this question — when I wrote about why I didn’t support dockworkers striking to prevent automation from entering their industry, I mentioned that I did support voice actors striking against automation being used in theirs.
But honestly, I don’t think it’s a categorical thing for me — I agree that AI (as it exists right now) isn’t able to replace that human element in the creative process, but I don’t think we need strikes or laws to prevent that from happening. The lesser product will probably just lose over time.
In these cases, the difference is between work that’s already done by someone being repackaged and taken by automation and work that can be additive to the process. For voice actors, if the industry wants to use AI to help edit what they record or inspire the recording process in some way, I say more power to them. But during their strike, voice actors were upset about their voices being regenerated by AI, effectively using their likenesses without permission or compensation, or taking work that they or other voice actors could have received.
Making a direct analogy to the dockworkers is tough, but that’d be like someone unloading a ship for two hours, then an AI-operated crane restacking their boxes and preventing the worker from getting paid.
Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.
Under the radar.
Gallup’s latest survey on confidence in U.S. institutions found that Americans’ trust in media remains at record lows. For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust in the media than trust it a great deal or a fair amount. Americans’ confidence in mass media began to decline around 1997 but has dropped precipitously in recent years; between 2018 and 2024, the percentage who say they trust the media fell from 45% to 31%. Furthermore, younger Americans have less faith in the media than older generations, with just 26% in the 18-29 age group expressing trust in mass media compared to 43% in the 65+ cohort. Overall, local and state governments and the American people as a whole are the only major institutions or entities garnering trust from more than half of U.S. adults. Gallup has the story.
Numbers.
- $860 million. The approximate amount of aid approved by FEMA for Hurricanes Helene and Milton recovery efforts as of October 14.
- $507 million. Of that money, the amount approved for individual and community aid.
- $96 million. The amount of housing aid and other types of assistance approved by FEMA in North Carolina.
- $177.6 million. The amount of housing aid and other types of assistance approved by FEMA in Florida.
- 58%. The percentage of registered voters who say they have been satisfied with FEMA’s response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, according to an October 2024 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.
- 49%. The percentage of registered voters who think former President Donald Trump was lying about the performance of the government in response to the hurricanes.
- 50%. The percentage of registered voters who think Vice President Kamala Harris was “playing politics” in her response to the hurricanes.
- 67%. The percentage of registered voters who do not think FEMA should have allocated any money to housing unauthorized migrants.
The extras.
- One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition with criticisms of our October 7 coverage.
- The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was the ad in the free version for The Progress Network.
- Nothing to do with politics: The world’s tiniest washing machine.
- Thursday’s survey: 1,237 readers responded to our survey about ghost guns with 82% saying the rule is justified and will be a net positive. “I don't like unelected officials making regulations that impact millions. I do agree in ghost guns being regulated the same as other legal firearms however,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
Since 1972, pandas have drawn millions of visitors to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. The last two pandas left the zoo at the end of 2023, but a new partnership with the China Wildlife Conservation Association will reintroduce pandas to the zoo by the end of this year. The giant panda conservation program is seeking $25 million in funding — $10 million of which was recently pledged by the billionaire philanthropist David Rubenstein. WTOP has the story.
Don't forget...
📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.
🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here
💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.
🎉 Want to reach 150,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.
📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).
🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!