Massive fires continue to rage across Southern California, exacting a terrible toll on its residents. At this writing, at least 27 lives have been lost, over 12,000 structures have been destroyed, and over 90,000 people remain under evacuation orders. The fires are estimated to have caused up to $275 billion in damage, making this the most expensive wildfire in modern American history, and one of the costliest natural disasters overall.
Normally when faced with an emergency like this, the nation’s political leaders set aside politics and offer aid and sympathy to the victims. Instead, Congressional Republicans are politicizing the catastrophe, threatening to withhold disaster aid unless Democrats cave to their partisan demands.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters this week that he thinks “there should probably be conditions on [the] aid.” Many Republicans agreed, though no consensus emerged on what those conditions should be. Some, such as Congressman Warren Davidson and Senator John Barrasso, chose this perilous moment to demand state officials change California’s allegedly bad forest management practices, which they claimed worsened the disaster.
There’s no doubt that sound forest management techniques, such as controlled burns, can be a valuable tool for fire prevention. But what works in more heavily forested areas of the state isn’t necessarily applicable to the drier and more densely populated hillsides of Los Angeles County. These fires’ rapid spread has more to do with natural phenomena, such as the powerful Santa Ana winds, and the region’s noticeable lack of rainfall this year, than the state’s forest management practices. Scientists believe California’s recent dry spell has been exacerbated by climate change. If Republicans were truly serious about fire prevention, they’d be supporting rather than blocking policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Other Congressional Republicans seemed purely interested in scoring partisan points. Congressman Ralph Norman, for example, said, “[Republicans have] got to get a pound of flesh on any dollar spent on California” simply because it is a predominantly Democratic state. Both President-elect Donald Trump and Speaker Johnson have proposed to extract that pound of flesh by linking aid to a temporary suspension of the federal debt limit, which they know a narrow House GOP majority will struggle to pass on its own. Democrats have thus far refused to support any debt limit changes that merely serve to expedite Trump’s agenda without making broader reforms to the broken debt limit process that undermines future presidents of both parties. But Republicans believe that by taking wildfire aid as a hostage, Democrats — several of whom represent districts affected by the fires — can be pressured into giving up their leverage in budget negotiations.
This type of politicization is not the norm in Washington. When Hurricanes Helene and Milton hit heavily Republican areas of North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida only months ago, Democrats were quick to support emergency aid. The Biden administration and Congressional Democrats put no conditions on disaster funding, and when it was clear that FEMA’s budget would not be sufficient to cover recovery efforts, President Biden declared that more funding was “urgently needed.” Shortly thereafter, disaster aid was included on a bipartisan basis in December’s government funding bill.
Congressional Republicans are attempting to set a terrible precedent by attaching partisan strings to disaster aid. This callous ploy violates our government’s basic responsibility to come to the aid of U.S. citizens whose lives and property are threatened by natural forces beyond their control. Democrats have rightly rejected this blackmail attempt, with Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies calling GOP demands “unconscionable, unacceptable, [and] un-American.” He’s right, and Democrats should continue to stand firm as Republicans attempt to use this tragedy to extort purely political concessions.
