President Joe Biden’s announcement that the federal government will cover 100% of the initial disaster response costs for the Los Angeles wildfires is being met with a mix of relief and skepticism. While pledging federal resources to combat the devastation is a step in the right direction, many are questioning the timing, execution, and broader implications of this response.
Biden’s pledge covers debris removal, temporary shelters, first responder salaries, and other emergency needs for 180 days. Given the scale of the disaster—five fires spreading across 28,000 acres, at least five lives lost, hundreds of thousands evacuated, and countless homes destroyed—the costs will be astronomical. Biden himself admitted that the cleanup and recovery numbers are “big, big, big,” though he left the specifics to Congress to sort out.
Yet, critics note that this announcement comes on the heels of years of underwhelming federal and state coordination on wildfire prevention and infrastructure resilience. The “spare no expense” rhetoric sounds great, but it rings hollow for those who’ve seen the government lag behind in disaster preparedness time and time again.
Someone. Anyone. Please explain this to me like I’m a western North Carolina 2nd grader whose hotel voucher expires in 24 hours and my family has to move into our car or a tent in the dead of the mountain winter. https://t.co/DStXYCKN6v
— Steve Baker – TPC (@TPC4USA) January 10, 2025
This announcement also comes as President-elect Donald Trump continues to criticize Biden’s handling of federal agencies like FEMA. Trump’s claim that FEMA is underfunded is technically false, as Congress recently approved $100 billion in disaster aid, including $29 billion for FEMA. However, Biden’s decision to bypass his planned foreign trip to Italy in favor of focusing on the wildfires shows an administration keenly aware of its political vulnerabilities.
Vice President Kamala Harris, herself a Californian whose neighborhood faced evacuation orders, echoed Biden’s messaging, calling the scenes “apocalyptic.” Still, this administration’s track record in California, including its approach to energy and land management policies, has faced repeated criticism for prioritizing ideology over practicality. Whether this full-court press is enough to rebuild public confidence remains to be seen.
Biden’s directive to the Pentagon to deploy helicopters and 500 personnel for wildfire response sounds significant, but it’s worth asking why such resources weren’t mobilized earlier. The Santa Ana winds, which continue to stoke the fires, are a known seasonal hazard. Critics argue that a preemptive federal response, including infrastructure upgrades and better forest management policies, might have mitigated the disaster before it spiraled out of control.
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell’s presence in Los Angeles and the immediate availability of resources like disasterassistance.gov are positive steps, but they’re only part of a larger puzzle. The long-term recovery effort will require more than just emergency funds—it will demand systemic changes in how California and the federal government handle wildfire risks.
The Biden administration’s response, while proactive in the moment, is emblematic of the larger problem: reactive governance. Decades of poor forest management, underfunded infrastructure, and shortsighted energy policies have left California uniquely vulnerable to wildfires. Even as Biden promises robust federal support, the underlying issues remain unaddressed. Without meaningful reforms, this cycle of devastation and last-minute intervention will continue.
