“When did that become acceptable?” Barack Obama mused, voicing his concern to a crowd at a Pittsburgh campaign rally. “Why would we just accept that?”
What raised eyebrows was Donald Trump’s audacious jab at Kamala Harris regarding the federal response to Hurricane Helene, a disaster that wreaked havoc particularly in North Carolina, leaving communities in devastation and sorrow.
During a campaign event in pivotal Michigan, Trump asserted, “The Harris-Biden administration claims they lack funds for hurricane relief… They squandered it all on illegal migrants… They pilfered FEMA funds just like a bank heist, all to cater to illegal immigrants who they hope will vote for them.”
This assertion lacks truth, yet it has gained traction as a narrative in this election cycle.
Interestingly, Hurricane Helene hasn’t garnered the same level of media coverage as other severe storms have historically received.
Take, for instance, Hurricane Milton, which followed; it may have received more attention than warranted. Sure, it spun into a fearsome Category 5 storm over the Gulf of Mexico, yet as it made landfall in Florida, it downgraded to a standard Category 3 situation—after all, the Sunshine State is well-prepared for its annual hurricane season.
But the real drama this week stemmed from an unexpected tornado outbreak—126 twisters struck locations not typically prone to such severe weather, resulting in widespread destruction.
Contrast that with Hurricane Helene, which approached land as a Category 4 storm, penetrating six states that are typically less familiar with hurricane chaos.
Upon reaching the lower slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains, it was forced upwards, causing its cool winds to release copious rainfall, leading to flash floods that surged down mountainsides.
Asheville, North Carolina, felt the full brunt of Hurricane Helene.
Nestled in a natural bowl in the foothills of the Blue Ridge, Asheville received an astounding 60 centimeters of rain. The resulting deluge unleashed torrents that devastated both the town and its smaller neighbors.
According to Professor Cary Mock at the University of South Carolina, an expert on hurricane history, Helene stands as the deadliest inland hurricane ever recorded.
With more than 230 fatalities, it ranks as the third deadliest hurricane in U.S. history, surpassing even those that struck coastal regions where hurricanes are more common. (Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is the record-holder from 2005, followed by Hurricane Camille in 1969.)
While the initial insurance claim estimates hovered around $47 billion in the storm’s immediate aftermath, expect that figure to soar as the floodwaters recede, revealing the full scale of damage.
Clearly, there has been significant devastation and tragic losses in areas unaccustomed to hurricane onslaughts.
Local and state bodies are tasked with leading recovery efforts, but they can lean on the support of federal resources when needed.
As with any governmental emergency response, it’s only natural to pose critical questions about the effectiveness of that response without descending into irrationality.
However, the rapid-fire spread of disinformation through social media complicates matters. Simple yet misleading messages can spiral out of control, overshadowing the nuanced truths that often come later, usually long after the initial damage is inflicted.
Sometimes, these falsehoods originate from “bad actors” seeking to inflict harm or from scam artists looking to exploit disasters for profit. Though such opportunists have always existed, technology has amplified their reach and effectiveness.
Political arenas are not immune either—particularly in the U.S., where outlandish claims can spread faster and farther than traditional campaigning methods like rallies or door-to-door canvassing.
In his speeches, Trump didn’t just flirt with skepticism; he wove several outright fabrications about the consequences of Hurricane Helene, particularly on social media platforms.
A chorus of supporters excitedly echoed such misinformation, creating a chaotic blend of voices. By the time legitimate reactions emerged, the erroneous claims had already taken root in the minds of many, leading to alarming assumptions about the impact on the most affected states.
North Carolina, hit hardest, and Georgia—including other pivotal swing states—found themselves at the center of this conundrum.
Here’s the crux: Trump’s comments weren’t random rants but calculated political moves aimed squarely at appealing to voters. This approach, while cynical, has proven effective according to various polls.
In early October, Trump made a series of unsubstantiated claims. He incorrectly insisted that President Biden hadn’t reached out to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a statement immediately refuted by Kemp himself, who not only appeared on television saying otherwise but also expressed gratitude for the federal support.
The same day, Trump alleged that reports surfaced indicating the federal government and the Democratic governor of North Carolina had been neglecting Republican areas in their response. Yet, when pressed for evidence, he failed to provide any.
Within days, Trump contended via his Truth Social platform that the Biden-Harris administration had garnered “universally negative reviews” for its handling of the situation. Notably, while there has been some criticism, numerous officials from both parties praised the federal response.
During a rally in Michigan, Trump resonated with his audience, stating, “Kamala blew through all her FEMA money—billions—on housing for illegal migrants, many of whom should never even be in our country,” further implying they would sway the election unfavorably.
This claim is devoid of truth—non-citizens, including those legally residing in the country, cannot vote, nor has there been any evidence that Kamala Harris or anyone else misappropriated FEMA funds.
Congress had appropriated $650 million for immigrant emergency funding, alongside $35 billion allocated for FEMA’s disaster response—sufficient resources to keep FEMA operational throughout the hurricane season.
Trump also recently claimed that $1 billion in FEMA funds had been misdirected to migrants—a fallacy that had already been disproven prior to his remarks, yet he continued to reiterate it.
At a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, he claimed, “FEMA is only offering Americans $750 in aid for the hurricane impacts while we’re dishing out billions to obscure foreign nations.”
This assertion is misleading. The $750 is an immediate emergency payment, designed to cover urgent needs like food and water; additional funds will follow based on a claimant’s documented losses.
However, misinformation can deter people from applying for the assistance that they rightfully deserve, as fears about losing their properties—fuelled by misleading online narratives—drive them away.
For instance, North Carolina’s home repair grant caps at $42,500, and this type of direct assistance is distinct from the federal funds allocated for state aid.
In fact, even a week post-Helene, the federal transportation department announced it would provide an immediate $100 million to North Carolina’s transportation network for emergency repair efforts due to the flooding.
This immediate relief for individuals aligns with federal assistance designed for state governments—a systematic approach to disaster recovery always in play.
Yet, the whirlwind of rumors, powered by Trump’s rhetoric, is significantly influencing both emergency management and the ensuing presidential campaign.
Just two days after Trump made his incendiary comments, the White House released a response memo spearheaded by Ben LaBolt, Biden’s Communications Director. Its central theme emphasized that such disinformation, particularly following a hurricane or a natural disaster, deters individuals from seeking the vital assistance they desperately need.
This memo outlined various falsehoods taken directly from FEMA, which found it necessary to create a special page on its website to combat the rampant disinformation chatter.
Here’s a concise snippet from the FEMA list debunking pervasive rumors:
Myth: FEMA will only offer $750 to disaster survivors.
Reality: See above.
Myth: FEMA is preventing evacuations in Florida.
Reality: FEMA neither controls traffic nor conducts traffic stops; local authorities are responsible for that. Spread of such misinformation poses real dangers to lives.
Myth: FEMA exclusively offers loans to disaster survivors.
Reality: Most FEMA grants do not require repayment.
Myth: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is blocking recovery operations.
Reality: The FAA coordinates with local entities to ensure safety in the airspace during recovery efforts.
Myth: FEMA is seizing properties of hurricane survivors.
Reality: FEMA cannot seize properties; applying for aid does not give any authority over your land to the federal government.
Myth: FEMA has ceased accepting applications for housing assistance.
Reality: Applications for disaster aid remain open across the affected regions.
Myth: FEMA lacks sufficient funds for Helene-related assistance.
Reality: FEMA currently possesses the funds necessary for immediate response and recovery.
Myth: FEMA solicits cash donations and dismisses volunteers.
Reality: FEMA does not request money or volunteers for disaster responses; if approached by anyone claiming otherwise, exercise caution—it’s likely a scam.
Against this backdrop of disinformation and dramatic claims, Trump has skillfully inserted the topic of immigrants into the mix.
Indeed, FEMA does allocate resources and services to immigrants through its Shelter and Services Program, which holds a $650 million budget approved by Congress. It’s deemed more appropriate for FEMA, with established systems, to handle such emergency help instead of the Customs and Border Protection agency.
Yet, very few people are aware of this funding structure—fact-checkers labor for hours to unearth such details, often long after outrage has set in.
The general public tends to perceive only the noise implying governmental impropriety, while only the politically engaged delve into the comprehensive narratives days afterward to ascertain the truth.
And explaining the nuances of bureaucratic accounts? Good luck with that! Misleading claims thrive in such an environment, making assertions of government theft believable to the unsuspecting voter base.
By midweek—on the day the Taoiseach visited and just as Hurricane Milton was about to hit—the President convened a televised briefing with heads of essential federal agencies, highlighting the government’s proactive measures and advising Floridians on safety precautions.
Biden recognized the need to confront the avalanche of disinformation stemming from Helene and now, Milton.
“In recent weeks, an alarming onslaught of reckless, misleading, and outright untruths have emerged, disturbing the public and undermining confidence in the critical rescue work that’s been initiated and will continue. It’s harmful to those who need assistance the most,” Biden declared.
“Former President Trump has spearheaded this barrage of distortions. Claims of property confiscation are simply unfounded,” Biden continued.
“People say storm victims will only receive $750 cash? Not true,” he asserted. “The suggestion that money is being redirected to migrants? Absurd. It’s utterly false. And some allegations are becoming more bizarre by the day,” Biden remarked.
“Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has even suggested that the federal government is controlling the weather—seriously, controlling the weather. That’s just ludicrous. It must cease.”
Climate change discussions are quickly becoming as polarizing as the pandemic debates.
Inquiries into whether the government manipulates weather patterns are surfacing.
Have you ever consented to this? Do you foot the bill?
Absolutely, you are.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) October 7, 2024
Nevertheless, such narratives persist—perhaps because they resonate. They entangle the U.S. government in a web of controversy, compelling Biden to respond in ways that may blur his already precarious alignment with Harris, a figure he’s desperate to bolster in the minds of disengaged voters in key states.
In the past week, polling indicates that Trump is experiencing a surge in the six out of seven pivotal swing states. Far from backfiring, his bombastic claims regarding the hurricanes—and previous outlandish statements—might actually invigorate his campaign.
On the flip side, the Harris campaign appears to be stalling—hence Obama, the Democratic Party’s articulate figurehead, is thrust back into action, kicking off with that rally back in Pittsburgh.
Republican commentators label this a desperate maneuver, while others view it as acknowledgment that such sensational claims are yielding results.
So, we circle back to Obama’s rhetorical question: when did all this become acceptable? With the stakes at an all-time high, the electorate appears poised to plunge into further electoral uncertainty.
With only about three weeks left in this campaign, it truly feels as though anything could happen.
Edited by: Ali Musa
alimusa@axadletimes.com
Axadle international–Monitoring
