A person uses a garden hose in an effort to save a neighboring home from catching fire during the Eaton Fire on Jan. 8, 2025, in Altadena, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Any disaster aid to help Los Angeles recover from devastating wildfires could be predicated on whether local and state policy in California contributed to the natural disaster, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said earlier this week.
This seems like a sensible stance on the surface, hinting at careful stewardship of limited taxpayer resources. But when you consider the heavy political sentiment infused into the Republican speaker’s viewpoint, it becomes shaky as the San Andreas fault.
Johnson’s declaration followed a harsh commentary from President-elect Donald Trump last week aimed at California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Trump labeled both grossly incompetent in their approach and response to the wildfires, citing a string of distorted facts to support his opinion.
For instance, Trump wrongly claimed Newsom altered the flow of water to Southern California reservoirs to protect the endangered Delta smelt. High demand, and not the lowly smelt, impacted water supplies in three tanks and some hydrants, emergency officials said.
Plus, the water reservoirs in question were full ahead of the wildfires, according to the governor.
The disinformation doesn’t stop there, however.
Elon Musk, who arguably has the most prominent voice in the incoming president’s ear, endorsed a take from disgraced conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who called the Los Angeles wildfires “part of a larger globalist plot to wage economic warfare & deindustrialize the Untied [sic] States before triggering total collapse.”
This is the type of conversation Johnson entered with his suggestion that disaster aid for California come with conditions.
“The Americans there that are affected desperately need and deserve help,” Johnson said Tuesday. “But you’ve also heard us talk about our concerns with the governance of the state of California. And to the extent there is complicity involved in the scope of disaster, then we think that’s something that needs to be carefully regarded.”
This is a position Johnson hasn’t taken previously, despite a slew of disasters affecting numerous other parts of the U.S. – and frequently Louisiana.
If Johnson’s disaster aid dictum were followed earnestly, it could mean his home state would no longer be entitled to federal assistance after hurricanes because state policy has allowed the fossil fuel industry to carve up its coastal marshes, making south Louisiana more susceptible to storm damage.
The speaker’s viewpoint also reinforces local governments’ historic reluctance to require home elevation and the lax enforcement of improved building standards to better withstand hurricanes and frequent flooding
It would also rule out relief for Florida, where development policy has allowed housing and hotels to flourish up and down its coastline.
It would be easy enough to dismiss the speaker’s disaster aid posture as political grandstanding to curry favor with Trump and other conservatives. But because it could ultimately come back to haunt Louisiana, let’s hope his words don’t hold water.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.