'Unforgivable': FEMA Missed Thousands of Calls from Texas Flood Victims After Noem Fired Contractors

鬼百合

Let It Burn!

'Unforgivable': FEMA Missed Thousands of Calls from Texas Flood Victims After Noem Fired Contractors​

commondreams-mobile-logo


President Trump Tours Devastation In Texas After Deadly Flash Flooding

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem participates in a round table event with President Donald Trump at the Hill Country Youth Event Center to discuss last week's flash flooding on July 11, 2025 in Kerrville, Texas.
(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

'Unforgivable': FEMA Missed Thousands of Calls from Texas Flood Victims After Noem Fired Contractors​

"They are intentionally breaking government—even the parts that help us when we are deep in crisis," said Sen. Chris Murphy.​



Outrage continues to grow against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem over her response to the deadly floods that ravaged Texas last week.

According to a Friday report from The New York Times, more than two-thirds of phone calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from flood victims went unanswered after Noem allowed hundreds of contractors to be laid off on July 5, just a day after the nightmare storm.

According to The Times, this dramatically hampered the ability of the agency to respond to calls from survivors in the following days:

On July 5, as floodwaters were starting to recede, FEMA received 3,027 calls from disaster survivors and answered 3,018, or roughly 99.7 percent, the documents show. Contractors with four call center companies answered the vast majority of the calls.

That evening, however, Noem did not renew the contracts with the four companies, and hundreds of contractors were fired, according to the documents and the person briefed on the matter.

The next day, July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls and answered 846, or roughly 35.8 percent, according to the documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency fielded 16,419 calls and answered 2,613, or around 15.9 percent, the documents show.


Calling is one of the primary ways that flood victims apply for aid from the disaster relief agency. But Noem would wait until July 10—five days later—to renew the contracts of the people who took those phone calls.

"Responding to less than half of the inquiries is pretty horrific," Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, told The Times.

"Put yourself in the shoes of a survivor: You've lost everything, you're trying to find out what's insured and what's not, and you’re navigating multiple aid programs," he added. "One of the most important services in disaster recovery is being able to call someone and walk through these processes and paperwork."

The lapse is a direct result of a policy introduced by Noem last month, which required any payments made by FEMA above $100,000 to be directly approved by her before taking effect. Noem, who has said she wants to eliminate FEMA entirely, described it as a way of limiting "waste, fraud, and abuse."

Under this policy, Noem allowed other critical parts of the flood response to wait for days as well. Earlier this week, multiple officials within FEMA told CNN that she waited more than 72 hours to authorize the deployment of search and rescue teams and aerial imaging.

Following The Times' piece, DHS put out a statement claiming that "NO ONE was left without assistance, and every call was responded to urgently."

"When a natural disaster strikes, phone calls surge, and wait times can subsequently increase," DHS said. "Despite this expected influx, FEMA's disaster call center responded to every caller swiftly and efficiently, ensuring no one was left without assistance. No call center operators were laid off or fired."

This is undercut, however, by internal emails also obtained by The Times, which showed FEMA officials becoming frustrated and blaming the DHS Secretary for the lack of contracts. One official wrote in a July 8 email to colleagues: "We still do not have a decision, waiver, or signature from the DHS Secretary."

Democratic lawmakers were already calling for investigations into Noem's response to the floods before Friday. They also sought to look into how the Trump administration's mass firings of FEMA employees, as well as employees of the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may have hampered the response.

Following The Times' revelations, outrage has reached a greater fever pitch.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called it "unforgivable and unforgettable" and an "inexcusable lapse in top leadership."

"Sec. Noem shows that dismantling FEMA impacts real people in real time," he said. "It hurts countless survivors & increases recovery costs."

In response to the news, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) simply wrote that "Kristi Noem must resign now."
 
Oh no... Here we go again... Didn't a thread on this already exist? I know I slammed on with this exact article from the radical Leftist webzine Common Dreams.


Seems FEMA does us automated call screening so that they can kick retards and other imbeciles off the phone for wanting to ask idiotic questions and nonsense before they get to a live person. There's also a site where you can electronically submit your claim, etc.



Sure, the paperwork is immense. What'd you expect from a massive, bloated, government bureaucracy?

Bottom line: The Common Dreams article is just bullshit from the radical Left bashing the Trump administration about things the author doesn't know shit about.
 
Oh no... Here we go again... Didn't a thread on this already exist? I know I slammed on with this exact article from the radical Leftist webzine Common Dreams.


Seems FEMA does us automated call screening so that they can kick retards and other imbeciles off the phone for wanting to ask idiotic questions and nonsense before they get to a live person. There's also a site where you can electronically submit your claim, etc.



Sure, the paperwork is immense. What'd you expect from a massive, bloated, government bureaucracy?

Bottom line: The Common Dreams article is just bullshit from the radical Left bashing the Trump administration about things the author doesn't know shit about.
This is another flopped spin job.
 
It takes more than that for it to be a crime.
Incitement to violence
Examples of criminal behavior
Important considerations
  • Determining whether online speech constitutes a true threat or incitement to violence depends heavily on the specific words used, the context in which they are used, and the intent of the speaker.
  • The subjective intent of the person making the statement is crucial. They must have intended to threaten or incite violence, or known that their statements would be perceived as such.
  • The potential consequences of such speech can include fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record
 
Incitement to violence
Examples of criminal behavior
Important considerations
  • Determining whether online speech constitutes a true threat or incitement to violence depends heavily on the specific words used, the context in which they are used, and the intent of the speaker.
  • The subjective intent of the person making the statement is crucial. They must have intended to threaten or incite violence, or known that their statements would be perceived as such.
  • The potential consequences of such speech can include fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record
Incitement requires I try to get others to do something. I made no such claims or demands.
The examples given are irrelevant. No specific person or persons were included.
Since you don't know my intent or the overall context is was using, it again doesn't fly. You need more than a vague statement that could be taken as sarcasm to make a criminal claim out of it. No lawyer needed to figure that out.
 
Incitement requires I try to get others to do something. I made no such claims or demands.
The examples given are irrelevant. No specific person or persons were included.
Since you don't know my intent or the overall context is was using, it again doesn't fly. You need more than a vague statement that could be taken as sarcasm to make a criminal claim out of it. No lawyer needed to figure that out.
Good luck
 
Back
Top