logo

Unfixable FEMA puts the ‘disaster' into ‘disaster recovery'

The Hill09-06-2025

We thought reform was possible. We were wrong.
We were brought to Puerto Rico to fix FEMA's broken disaster recovery processes after Hurricane Maria struck in 2017. Our team of seven Lean Six Sigma experts — decorated military officers and retired executives — had more than 150 years of combined experience in process improvement across 60 organizations in more than 20 countries, including war zones.
FEMA was the only organization our team unanimously deemed unfixable — not because the mission was complex, but because of its toxic mix of incompetence, lack of accountability, and calcified dysfunction.
FEMA's three-part mission was extremely simple: assess damage, calculate costs, release funds. Yet two years after Hurricane Maria, only 5 percent to 8 percent of cost estimates had been completed. Recovery had stalled.
And instead of admitting failure, FEMA inflated $1.5 billion in project estimates to mislead Congress.
At FEMA's Joint Recovery Office near San Juan — with 2,000 to 3,000 staff — the public Wi-Fi password had to be changed because so many employees were streaming Netflix. Damage assessments were routinely fabricated. 'It's easier,' one staffer told us. When we reported it, investigators asked, 'Did anyone take the money?' We said no. They lost interest.
It got worse. FEMA approved leasing $46 million in pumps that could have been bought for $4 million. A whistleblower who reported this later died under suspicious circumstances — his body was cremated without an autopsy, despite requests for a forensic review.
FEMA's response? Nothing.
At the core was FEMA's unique DEI mandate: 80 percent of positions had to be filled locally, regardless of qualifications. Only 25 percent of residents were fluent in English, and fewer than one-third held college degrees. This created a woeful mismatch between mission needs and personnel.
The federal coordinating officer had told us, 'I wish I had retired execs who just want to do the right thing.' We recruited just such a team, but we were then sidelined during our time in Puerto Rico from July 2018 to June 2019, largely due to discrimination.
Merit was irrelevant. FEMA handed its critical improvement program to a young woman who epitomized quota-driven hiring. Enrolled in law school, she unabashedly prioritized classes over work, failed our Lean Six Sigma training, tried to steal test material, and colluded with the prime contractor to dilute requirements. We reported her, but she was protected.
We faced relentless discrimination for being 'the straight old white guys.' Some managers mocked us in Spanish. FEMA's Equal Employment Opportunity office 'lost' our complaints five times. The lead counselor was fired the day before the investigation was set to begin. Discrimination was later confirmed by FEMA's Office of Professional Responsibility, but the findings were suppressed for six years. When we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the report, FEMA redacted it entirely — including the page numbers.
We brought our findings to Congress and the Inspector General but were ignored. Freedom of Information requests were stonewalled. FEMA's Freedom of Information office withheld records — even from Congress. That's not incompetence — it's obstruction.
After exhausting every avenue — facing retaliation, smear campaigns, and sabotage — we filed lawsuits. Seven are now active, three of them naming FEMA. They were filed just before the statutes of limitations expired, only because FEMA's Whistleblower Protection Unit, Equal Employment Opportunity office, and Freedom of Information teams delayed resolution for years.
Legal costs now exceed $700,000 — and we haven't even set foot in court yet. The strategy is attrition: Bury the truth in paperwork and delay.
It is now 2025, and Puerto Rico's recovery remains incomplete. Its power grid is fragile. Two near-total blackouts in six months confirmed what we already knew: FEMA failed — and still is failing.
In a real national emergency, FEMA will not be the answer. U.S. Northern Command, the National Guard, the Defense Logistics Agency, and hardened continuity-of-government military sites like Cheyenne Mountain and Raven Rock are the real backstops — not FEMA bureaucrats.
Even in routine disasters, FEMA doesn't do the heavy lifting during the response. That falls to the Army Corps of Engineers, local EMS, and the Red Cross. In recovery, FEMA behaves like a bloated, poorly run insurance company — slow to pay, hostile to oversight, and incapable of learning.
We have kept fighting because this isn't about FEMA's image. It is about lives. Americans are being failed by a $33 billion bureaucracy that delivers PowerPoints instead of progress.
FEMA doesn't go to where the work happens, embrace problems, or fix them. Rather, it hides failures, punishes dissent, and rewards mediocrity. In FEMA's culture, the nail that sticks up doesn't just get hammered back down — it gets audited, reassigned, or made to disappear. It embodies the very things the Lean Six Sigma management approach was intended to eliminate — overburden, waste, and unevenness.
If FEMA were a company, it would be bankrupt. If a military unit, it would be relieved of command. Instead, it limps along—propped up by Cold War nostalgia and D.C. inertia.
President Trump has spoken of dismantling it. He cannot do it soon enough.
He should devolve emergency operations to the states via block grants. Let the military handle large-scale logistics. Bring back transparency, urgency, and accountability.
It can't happen overnight, of course, but it must begin. States must be gradually and strategically weaned — both operationally and financially — from FEMA's central role in disaster recovery. This phased approach should prioritize high-aid, high-frequency states, based on disaster frequency and severity.
States facing similar risks should form regional pacts to share resources and coordinate surge response. This starts with honest assessments of each state's disaster history, capacity, and capability gaps. It includes inventories of personnel, materiel, and clearly defined responsibilities. States should formalize mutual-aid agreements to offset localized shortfalls. And FEMA reservists should be retained in a modified form to provide flexible, rapid-deployment surge staffing when disasters exceed state capacity.
We used to joke that if you sent FEMA managers out to get you a Big Mac and a Coke, they'd come back with a kitten, a pincushion, a harmonica — and not a single receipt.
When the next real emergency hits, FEMA won't save anyone. Americans deserve better than the bureaucratic cosplay we witnessed when we tried in vain to fix. It is not ending FEMA, but continuing to fund FEMA that is radical.
Barry Angeline, a retired business executive, led the FEMA Lean Six Sigma effort in Puerto Rico. Col. Dan McCabe (U.S. Army, Ret.), two-time Bronze Star recipient, served as a senior consultant for FEMA Lean Six Sigma in Puerto Rico. Both are federal whistleblowers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?
Opinion - Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?

The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump's $500 million political machine has Kentucky's 4th District in its crosshairs, and the establishment media is already writing the congressman's obituary. But they're missing the real story here. This isn't about one maverick politician bucking the system. This is about the soul of the Republican Party, and whether it still has one. Massie stands alone. While his colleagues genuflect before Trump's Truth Social tantrums, Massie asks the hard questions. When the president bypasses Congress to strike Iran, Massie calls it unconstitutional. When Trump demands Republicans rubber-stamp another bloated spending bill, Massie votes no. When the party leadership demands lockstep loyalty, Massie chooses principle. For this, he's branded a 'grandstander' and 'Little Boy' by a man who turned the presidency into performance art. What makes Massie unique in the age of MAGA isn't just that he dissents; it's that he can't be bought. While most Republicans perform ritual acts of submission to stay in Trump's favor, Massie reads the Constitution. In Washington, that's practically a revolutionary act. Massie represents what MAGA was supposed to be before it got hijacked: a rebellion against the permanent ruling class, not a rebranding of it. While Trump's movement descended into ego worship and grievance theater, Massie stayed where it began — principled, skeptical and unwilling to bow to power, no matter who holds it. The movement that promised to drain Washington ended up building a new palace. It said 'America First,' but delivered 'Trump First.' Through all this, Massie stayed exactly where he was: demanding spending cuts, opposing executive overreach and defending the Constitution even when his own party tried to bulldoze it. Every MAGA promise has been shattered by its loudest apostles. Fiscal restraint? Trump exploded the deficit. Constitutional order? He ruled by tweet and tantrum. Endless wars? He launched unauthorized strikes. Dismantling the swamp? He just gave it a new uniform. Massie didn't move. He voted against every bloated stimulus package. He fought against illegal wars — not just when Democrats launched them, but when Trump did it, too. He defended congressional authority when his own party told him to shut up and fall in line. That's not rebellion for show — it is actual courage. Of course, the MAGA faithful will call him a traitor. That's the tell. They don't oppose the establishment; they have just built a new one. And Massie, by refusing to play along, exposes the absurdity of their game. Trump's pollsters wave around numbers like talismans. They predict a pro-Trump challenger will sweep the district. But Massie knows his district. He has fought off three primary challenges since 2012. His voters value independence over obedience, and he gives them that, in spades. The Republican Party faces a choice. It can become Trump's private army, where one stray thought earns you a superPAC hit-job, or it can remember what it once stood for: Small government, constitutional order and leaders who know the limits of power. Massie is the road not taken. He endorsed the 2024 presidential bid of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis when Trump was in the basement. He voted against war fever when it was politically convenient to stay silent. His offense isn't ideological drift; it's consistency. And in a party now built on sycophancy, many view that as unforgivable. The irony is delicious. Trump, the man who ran against the swamp, now uses the swamp's playbook, word for word. Endless money, poll-tested puppets and political punishment for disobedience. The populist hero has become everything he claimed to hate. Massie's libertarian, constitutional streak isn't a glitch. In a party now driven by clicks and blind devotion, he's the outlier who still believes in self-government. When Trump calls for bombing another country on a whim, Massie's the one reminding us we're a republic, not a monarchy. This is what real anti-establishment politics looks like: not all-caps rage posts, not loyalty parades, but stubborn, often unpopular principle. Trump built a machine to generate outrage. Massie just shows up and votes the way he always has. If Massie falls, the Republican Party won't just lose a congressional seat; it will forfeit the last trace of the ideals it once pretended to believe in. Who will vote against the next trillion-dollar spending spree? Who will stand up to the next foreign war fever dream? Who will remind the executive branch — Republican or Democrat — that it is not above the law? Trump may have the war chest, but Massie has something far more dangerous to the machine: credibility and conviction. While others orbit Trump's moods, Massie orbits the founding documents. While others contort themselves to fit the day's narrative, he hasn't bent once in over a decade. This isn't just a primary. It's a referendum on whether the Republican Party still has room for Republicans. Not sycophants. Not performers. But actual public servants, men and women who care more about liberty than likes, more about separation of powers than social media relevance, more about the country than any cult of personality. Thomas Massie is the last Republican who remembers what the job is actually for. If he falls, what's left isn't a party. It'll be an echo chamber dressed up as a political movement. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him
Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him

A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Republican majorities in the Congress and conservatives on the Supreme Court are ceding power instead of protecting it, giving President Donald Trump more and more control over what the Constitution separated in three. But Republican lawmakers cheered when Trump launched an air offensive against Iran rather than balking that many were kept out of the loop. House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't seem to mind reports that the White House would be limiting its information-sharing with lawmakers. His response suggested concern about leaks than about guarding lawmakers' duty to oversee the executive. Regulating international trade is something the Constitution puts on lawmakers' plates. A series of laws over the past hundred years slowly gave power over tariffs to the president, but Trump has taken that authority and weaponized it to make demands of other countries, as he did Friday when he cut off trade talks with Canada, the latest twist in a trade war he engineered and is scripting like a reality show. Conservative justices limited the ability of district court justices to issue nationwide injunctions against executive policies. 'This really brings back the Constitution,' President Donald Trump said without a whiff of irony at the White House on Friday. The decision also literally lets him ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment, at least for now. 'This is a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers of the presidency and the powers of the courts,' said Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst. 'This ruling that we just got impacts everything about the way that the presidency exercises power.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said there is no precedent in US law for nationwide injunctions. She harked back to English law and the 'judicial prerogative of the King' in a very technical and history-based decision that, she said intentionally 'does not address' the issue of birthright citizenship in either the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. 'This is as clear as the Constitution gets about questions,' said Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Princeton, appearing on CNN Friday. But the case won't get to the court this year. The short-term result of the decision could well be that at least some babies born in the US may not have US citizenship, despite the very clear language in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court told lower courts to take another look at the cases and reassess their injunctions. The court also seemed to invite class action lawsuits against Trump's executive order. Nationwide injunctions from district court judges have bedeviled presidents of both parties, but Trump's brash view of his power has made for a record number of actions by lower courts. Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the decision as a reclaiming of power from lower court judges in liberal districts. 'They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary,' she said. But the liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this is the type of slippery slope that puts the entire US system of government at risk. 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Conservative justices last year bought into Trump's argument that presidents should be afforded a kind of super immunity from prosecution for nearly any action they take while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court 'cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.' Rather, it had something larger in mind. 'Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case,' he wrote. That decision all but ended Trump's prosecution during the Biden administration for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He subsequently won the 2024 presidential election. If granting Trump immunity was meant to preserve separation of powers, it was a whiff, since, as CNN's Joan Biskupic has written, Trump is using that decision almost as a blank check. He 'boasts of his ability to define the law,' she wrote. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves; it wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said of the 14th Amendment at the White House on Friday. The 14th Amendment was actually enacted after the Civil War as an answer to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857, an ugly blot on the court's history that declared Black people ineligible for citizenship. By not addressing the issue, the court at least seems open to allowing Trump to change the amendment's meaning, for now, without going through the process of changing the Constitution or passing legislation through Congress — which is a hard thing to square with Roberts' idea of separation of powers principles. In part because Trump does things like issue executive orders that plainly seem to violate a constitutional amendment and intentionally sets up court clashes over laws like the Impoundment Act, which are designed to limit presidents' ability to ignore Congress, his actions have led to a record number of nationwide injunctions. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, he will try to move forward with a laundry list of stalled agenda items he read off at the White House Friday: 'Including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people,' he said. If the Supreme Court gives him power, he'll use it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store