FEMA Katrina Declaration

TO: Members of Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council

Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the Gulf Coast as a Category 3 hurricane, claiming an estimated 1,833 lives, leaving millions homeless, and causing approximately $161 billion in damage.  Hurricane Katrina was not just a natural disaster, but a man-made one: the inexperience of senior leaders and the profound failure by the federal government to deliver timely, unified, and effective aid to those in need left survivors to fend for themselves for days, and highlighted how Black, Indigenous, and low-income communities are disproportionally affected by disasters.  These failures prompted Congress to pass the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), which introduced safeguards to ensure such shortcomings of disaster preparation and response would not be repeated.  However, two decades later, FEMA is enacting processes and leadership structures that echo the conditions PKEMRA was designed to prevent.

1) We oppose the reduction in capability of FEMA to perform its missions. 

2) We oppose the ongoing failure to appoint a qualified FEMA administrator, as required by law. 

3) We oppose the elimination of life- and cost-saving risk reduction programs.  

4) We oppose interference with preparedness programs that build capacity for our SLTT partners. 

5) We oppose the censorship of climate science, environmental protection, and efforts to ensure all communities have access to information, resources, and support.

6) We oppose the reduction of FEMA’s disaster workforce.

The signatories of this letter are FEMA employees from across the United States who are dedicated to helping people before, during, and after disasters, and who are members of the communities we seek to support.  In addition to named signatories, we include anonymous signatories who share our concerns but choose not to identify themselves due to the culture of fear and suppression cultivated by this administration.

-- "The FEMA Katrina Declaration" (25 August 2025), four days before the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina

Sleek, Simple, Utopian

One persistent strand in utopian thinking, as we have often mentioned, is the feeling that there is some set of principles obvious enough to be accepted by all men of good will, precise enough to give unambiguous guidance in particular situations, clear enough so that all will realize its dictates, and complete enough to cover all problems which actually arise.  Since I do not assume that there are such principles, I do not presume that the political realm will whither away.  The messiness of the details of a political apparatus and the details of how it is to be controlled and limited do not fit easily into one's hopes for a sleek, simple utopian scheme.

-- Robert Nozick (1938 - 2002), American libertarian philosopher and Pellegrino University Professor at Harvard University, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) Ch. 10 : A Framework for Utopia; Utopian Means and Ends, p. 330

Carefully Nourished

With carefully nourished resentment, a man can go through his life blaming someone or something else for his failures.  This enables him to be a failure and to feel morally superior to the world at the same time.

-- Theodore Dalrymple, pen name of Anthony Daniels (11 October 1949 -), English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist, "Private Clubs and the Sour Pleasures of Resentment", The Epoch Times (19 August 2021)

And So Do All

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times.  But that is not for them to decide.  All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

-- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (1954) "The Shadow of the Past"

They Know We Know

They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying but they keep lying anyway, and we keep pretending to believe them.

-- Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs: A Memoir by Elena Gorokhova (2010), Chapter 13: A Tour of Leningrad, pp 172 and 173

Up Is Down

WASHINGTON -- Total violent crime for 2024 in the District of Columbia is down 35% from 2023 and is the lowest it has been in over 30 years, according to data collected by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and announced by United States Attorney Matthew M. Graves.  A breakdown of the data is available here

In addition to the overall violent crime reduction, homicides are down 32%; robberies are down 39%; armed carjackings are down 53%; assaults with a dangerous weapon are down 27% when compared with 2023 levels, with the District reporting the fewest assaults with dangerous weapons and burglaries in over 30 years.

-- Department of Justice press release from U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia, "Violent Crime in D.C. Hits 30 Year Low" (3 January 2025) h/t JSA

In Related News

Trump just took his attack on reality to a different level, by firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Why?  Because he did not like the job numbers her agency produced.

In related news, we just saw the last credible BLS data for the rest of the Trump administration.

-- Don Moynihan, Professor of Public Policy at University of Michigan, "Trump Shoots the Messenger", at Moynihan's Can We Still Govern? Substack (1 August 2025)

Few Doubts

Lion had few doubts about his actions.  As he had said on more than one occasion, "I may be wrong, but I am never in doubt."

-- Sheri Stewart Tepper (1929 - 2016), author of science fiction, horror, and mystery novels, Marianne, the Magus, and the Manticore (1985) Chapter 10 (p. 162)

A Nation Of Laws

We, the undersigned, proudly defended the rule of law as attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  We are all alarmed by DOJ leadership's recent deviations from constitutional principles and institutional guardrails.  We also share a grave concern over the senseless attacks on the dedicated career employees who are the backbone of the Department.

Emil Bove has been a leader in this assault.  Despite that, he now stands before you as a nominee for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  We ask that before the Judiciary Committee votes on this nomination, you rigorously examine the actions Mr. Bove has taken at DOJ and the effects they've had on the Department's integrity, employees, and mission-critical work.  It is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land, as it should be intolerable to anyone committed to maintaining our ordered system of justice. ...

Each of you was elected through a democratic process that, for nearly 250 years, has been anchored by the rule of law.  But the law is only as strong as the institutions that interpret and enforce it; foremost among them, the federal judiciary and the Department of Justice.  By elevating those who've degraded one of those institutions to lifetime seats on the other, you will have abrogated your duty to ensure that we remain a nation of laws.

We ask that you vote your conscience only after thoroughly and honestly investigating Mr. Bove's actions at the Justice Department, including by questioning current and former DOJ employees with information relevant to the aforementioned incidents and others.  We also urge you to zealously exercise your oversight powers to protect the Justice Department against further attacks.

-- Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, released Tuesday with signatures of 75 former U.S. Department of Justice employees, now (Wednesday) with more than 900 signatories (15 July 2025)

Odious

The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government.

-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965), British politician and statesman, in a telegram (21 November 1942) by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison; cited in In the Highest Degree Odious (1992), Simpson, Clarendon Press, p. 391

DMSP Termination

Topic: Suspension of All Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Data

Product(s) or Data Impacted:  All Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) data and products: FINE, SMOOTH and HOUSEKEEPING data from Operational Linescan System (OLS), Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS), and all Near-Earth Space Weather instruments

Date/Time of Initial Impact: no later than June 30, 2025 

Date/Time of Expected End: NA Termination

Details/Specifics of Change: 

Due to recent service changes, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC) will discontinue ingest, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30, 2025.  ESPC interfaces will not receive DMSP data and all data products will be suspended.  Users should expect all FINE, SMOOTH and HOUSEKEEPING data from Operational Linescan System (OLS), Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS), and all Near-Earth Space Weather instruments to be terminated.  This service change and termination will be permanent. 

-- Notice published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA (25 June 2025), announcing that after 40 years, on 5 days' notice, the U.S. Department of Defense will no longer provide satellite weather data, leaving hurricane forecasters without crucial information about storms as peak hurricane season arrives in the Atlantic.  The termination has been delayed by 1 month after an outcry from scientists and forecasters, NPR "Defense Department will stop providing crucial satellite weather data" (1 July 2025)

None Of This Was Charity

Russia, despite a rickety economy and unsustainable manpower losses, is escalating this fight in an attempt to win through diplomacy -- pouring everything into a renewed effort to break the West's resolve because they can't break Ukraine's lines.  And Ukraine continues to hold at great cost.  If we falter now, the United States risks more than just a battlefield setback.  We risk sending a signal to adversaries and allies alike that America no longer has the stomach to stand with those who fight for freedom.  To give up now sends the message that we have no will to commit to our own national interests.

The history of diplomacy has many euphemisms for disengaging from a fight before the enemy: "ending wars," "retrenchment," "refocusing," "a decent interval," and so on.  The military has a simple word for it: surrender.

The past three U.S. administrations understood both the stakes and the complexity of supporting Ukraine.  They helped Ukraine take the difficult steps toward interoperability with NATO while provided critical military equipment and training.  Our policy and our delivery timelines weren't always perfect, but Republicans and Democrats agreed that a free, strong Ukraine in a position to defend itself was an asset to our security.  And Americans supported that approach.

None of this was charity -- it was strategic investment with deliberate attention to what we could provide without compromising our own readiness.  That took rigor, discipline, analysis, and more risk mitigation than almost anyone who doesn't work in the Pentagon will ever realize.  But it paid off.  Ukraine, once reliant on Soviet doctrine and gear, transformed its military structure and operational capability under fire while defending its sovereignty with courage, combat savvy, and increasing skill.

Ukraine is holding on.  Barely, but bravely.  Let's not make them hold on alone or for much longer.

-- Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.), former commander of U.S. Army Europe, "If We Don't Stand With Ukraine, What Do We Stand For?" (7 July 2025)

United We Stand

Let us trust God and our better judgment to set us right hereafter.  United we stand, divided we fall.  Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.  Let us preserve our strength for the French, the English, the Germans, or whoever else shall dare invade our territory, and not exhaust it in civil commotions and intestine wars.

-- Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799), American attorney, planter, and politician who became known as an orator during the movement for independence in Virginia in the 1770s, Last public speech (4 March 1799); as quoted in Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondences and Speeches (1891) by William Wirt Henry, Vol. 2, p. 609-610

USAID

Background
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid worldwide. The aim of this study is to comprehensively evaluate the effect of all USAID funding on adult and child mortality over the past two decades and forecast the future effect of its defunding.

Findings
Higher levels of USAID funding -- primarily directed toward low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly African countries -- were associated with a 15% reduction in age-standardised all-cause mortality and a 32% reduction in under-five mortality. This finding indicates that 91 839 663 all-age deaths, including 30 391 980 in children younger than 5 years, were prevented by USAID funding over the 21-year study period. USAID funding was associated with a 65% reduction in mortality from HIV/AIDS (representing 25·5 million deaths), 51% from malaria (8·0 million deaths), and 50% from neglected tropical diseases (8·9 million deaths). Significant decreases were also observed in mortality from tuberculosis, nutritional deficiencies, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal conditions. Forecasting models predicted that the current steep funding cuts could result in more than 14 051 750 additional all-age deaths, including 4 537 157 in children younger than age 5 years, by 2030.

Interpretation
USAID funding has significantly contributed to the reduction in adult and child mortality across low-income and middle-income countries over the past two decades. Our estimates show that, unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030.

-- Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, PhD et al, The Lancet "Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis" (30 June 2025)

Narrow Escapes

It is happening here.  Democracy in America has been a series of narrow escapes.  We may be running out of luck, and no one is coming to save us.  For that, we have only ourselves.

-- Bill Moyers (5 June 1934 - 26 June 2025), American journalist and political commentator, We Hold This Truth to Be Self-Evident: It’s Happening Before Our Very Eyes (5 June 2020)

Now More Than Ever

Who will stand up for our democracy?  This question, fraught in even the most peaceful times, has only grown more pressing as our country approaches its 250th anniversary.  Each passing day brings growing assaults on essential liberties like freedom of speech and due process.  Meanwhile, our delicately assembled legal system faces a constant barrage of threats.  Even as this issue reaches publication, the U.S. military has been deployed against peaceful protestors.  We teeter on the brink of collapse into an authoritarian state.  That is why, today, The Onion calls upon our lawmakers to sit back and do absolutely nothing.

Members of Congress -- now, more than ever, our nation desperately needs your cowardice.

Our republic is a birthright, an exceedingly rare treasure passed down from generation to generation of Americans.  It was gained through hard years of bloody resistance and can too easily be lost.  Our Founding Fathers, in their abundant wisdom, understood that all it would take was men and women of little courage sitting in the corridors of power and taking zero action as this precious inheritance was stripped away -- and that is where we have finally arrived. ...

But we have not descended entirely from a nation of fearful men, have we?  Let this be the moment to make amends for any missteps of American bravery and valor.  Congress, we are asking, nay, demanding: This coming Independence Day, don't wave the Stars and Stripes, that enduring symbol of liberty and rebellion.

Instead, wave the white flag of surrender.

Tu Stultus Es,
The Onion Editorial Board

-- Editorial from a hard copy edition of The Onion newspaper that was delivered to all members of Congress, along with a letter "Why I'm Sending Issues of 'The Onion' To Every Member Of Congress" (20 June 2025)

Retreating

To give meaning to our Constitution's bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex.  If a State seeks to differentiate on that basis, it must show that the sex classification "serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."  Such review (known as intermediate scrutiny) allows courts to ascertain whether the State has a sound, evidence-based reason to distinguish on the basis of sex or whether it does so in reliance on impermissible stereotypes about the sexes.

Today, the Court considers a Tennessee law that categorically prohibits doctors from prescribing certain medications to adolescents if (and only if) they will help a patient "identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex."  In addition to discriminating against transgender adolescents, who by definition "identify with" an identity "inconsistent" with their sex, that law conditions the availability of medications on a patient's sex.  Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls.

Tennessee's law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny.  The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as " ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts' " might justify it.  Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review.  By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.  In sadness, I dissent.

-- Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting in US v Skrmetti, Attorney General for Tennessee, in which the majority upheld a Tennessee law denying gender-affirming care to minors (18 June 2025)

Not A Caucus

Democracy is not a caucus, obtaining a fixed term of office by promises, and then doing what it likes with the people.  We hold that there ought to be a constant relationship between the rulers and the people.  "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," still remains the sovereign definition of democracy.

-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965), British politician and statesman, speech in the House of Commons (11 November 1947), published in 205 The Official Report, House of Commons (5th Series), 11 November 1947, vol. 444, cc.

Extraordinary Intervention

Today the Court grants "emergency" relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans.  The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now -- before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful.  So it asks this Court to stay a lower court's decision to place temporary and qualified limits on DOGE's data access while litigation challenging DOGE's authority to access the data is pending.  But the Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention.  In essence, the “urgency” underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.

That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks.  But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.

-- Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Social Security Administration v AFSCME, on application for stay, in which the majority, on the emergency docket, granted a stay of a lower court ruling that limited DOGE access to Social Security data as this case makes it way through litigation (6 June 2025)

Habeas Corpus

Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to -

-- Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, at a Senate hearing, responding when asked, "Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" before being interrupted and corrected, New York Times  (20 May 2025)