Trump ignored disaster aid request from political rival

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/25/trump-ignored-disaster-aid-request-from-democratic-governor-00185542

In early September 2020, wildfires tore through eastern Washington state, obliterating tens of millions of dollars of property, displacing hundreds of rural residents and killing a 1-year-old boy.​

​

But then-President Donald Trump refused to act on Gov. Jay Inslee’s request for $37 million in federal disaster aid because of a bitter personal dispute with the Democratic governor, an investigation by POLITICO’s E&E News shows.​

​

Trump sat on Inslee’s request for the final four months of his presidency, delaying recovery and leaving communities unsure about rebuilding because nobody knew if they would get federal help......​

​

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican representing the wildfire-damaged area in Washington state, asked Trump at least twice to approve disaster aid and wrote him a desperate letter on Dec. 31, 2020, obtained by E&E News.​

​

“People in my district need support, and I implore you to move forward in providing it to those who have been impacted by devastating wildfires,” McMorris Rodgers wrote. Her district was one of three in Washington state to support Trump in the 2020 election. Washington has 10 congressional districts.​

​

Five months after Trump left office, McMorris Rodgers introduced a bill to require presidents to act on governors’ requests for disaster aid within 30 days. She did not respond to a request for comment.​

​

President Joe Biden ultimately approved Inslee’s request two weeks after taking office — 141 days after Inslee had made it — and has given Washington $45 million.​

​

That was an abuse of power, and I have no doubt Trump will abuse power again if he is in office.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Similar issues arose in 2019 with regard to California fires, after Trump suggested forests and federal lands should have been properly raked by state employees.

Trump additionally threatened to withhold federal aid from the state as a result of future fires.

“We're tired of giving California hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars all the time for their forest fires when you wouldn’t have them if they manage their forests properly,” he said.

The lack of love from the Trump Administration continues.

Since 1961, the Forest Service has reimbursed the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, or Cal OES, for the costs of local, state and volunteer firefighters who help battle blazes on federal lands.

As California prepares for what some officials fear will be another devastating fire season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service are withholding reimbursements that state fire agencies say are owed for battling wildfires on federal lands last year.

--

On the campaign trail recently, Trump indicated his intention of doing much the same in the future.

Sept. 13, 2024

"if [California Governor Newsom] doesn’t sign those papers, we won’t give him money to put out all his fires. And if we don’t give him all the money to put out the fires, he’s got problems,” Trump said in response to a question about helping Americans struggling with natural disasters, such as wildfires in California, without specifying which papers he was referring to. “He’s a lousy governor.”

Newsom responded on X that Trump was revealing who he was.

“Every voter should be made aware of this. @realDonaldTrump just admitted he will block emergency disaster funds to settle political vendettas,” Newsom wrote. “Today it’s California’s wildfires. Tomorrow it could be hurricane funding for North Carolina"

 

[Richard T]

So basically you are saying a state (Washington) with a 69.8 billion total budget, (Probably around 60 billion in 2020,) could not find 42 million?
Here is part of the process of declaring an emergency.

"State Resources Overwhelmed
As part of the request, the Governor must take appropriate action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have been or will be committed to alleviating the results of the disaster, provide an estimate of the amount and severity of damage and the impact on the private and public sectors, and provide an estimate of the type and amount of assistance needed under the Stafford Act."

Given the low amount of the request, did Trump do the right thing? Perhaps it was for the wrong reasons but this type of stuff happens with all Presidents. They coopt various bureaucracies to help their allies and hurt their enemies. Human nature sees to this.
Examples are how the IRS looked at bona fide Christian organizations as targets. The IRS’ persecution of a Christian nonprofit should terrify all of us
This occurred for years.

Trump himself is the defendant in novel criminal charges from a biased judged.

The FBI too has been weaponized before. Here they targeted traditional Catholics. New Report Details the Extent of the FBI's Weaponization of Law Enforcement Against Traditional Catholics

Trump tax returns were illegally leaked.

I would hypothesize that unfair actions and prejudice are taken from all levels of government. Just as racism is still real, political favors and disfavors have occurred all through US history.
Here we have the U.S. Census Bureau overcounting 7 blue states and just one red state. Census Bureau Admits Overcounting 7 Blue States, Just 1 Red State

Trump too tried some things with the U.S. Census Bureau. It seems to be the case that some individuals and even departments within governments use their biases to promote their own agendas. The Presidents are not exempt from such activities. Bush and the case for the Iraq war is far more compelling and costly grudge than Trump's 42 million decline of a disaster aid package to the state of Washington.

I only wish it was more straightforward like it was with President Truman, "President Harry S. Truman had special instructions for when his plane flew over Ohio: "This was the home state of Republican senator Robert A. Taft, his political nemesis. When the plane crossed into Ohio, the president would get up from his seat and use the bathroom in the rear of the aircraft, then order Myers (the pilot) on the intercom to release the waste into the air. It was Harry’s way of demeaning Taft." Source: Of interest only to me

 

[essentialsaltes]

So basically you are saying a state (Washington) with a 69.8 billion total budget, (Probably around 60 billion in 2020,) could not find 42 million?

This is irrelevant to whether federal disaster funds can be requested or obligated with respect to a declared disaster.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So basically you are saying a state (Washington) with a 69.8 billion total budget, (Probably around 60 billion in 2020,) could not find 42 million?

That is an interesting take on disaster relief.

Texas has a budget of $321.7 billion. They asked for and got disaster relief after Hurricane Beryl.
And they also got it for Hurricane Hanna in 2020.
And they got it in Feb. 2021 when they had a deep freeze and power went out.

In fact, Texas, Louisianna and Florida get the most disaster relief of the states. They did not have to wait. It wasn't withheld from them when needed.
Washington rarely asks.


Trump was weaponizing disaster relief.

I see the rest of your post as off topic.

 

[Richard T]

That is an interesting take on disaster relief.

Texas has a budget of $321.7 billion. They asked for and got disaster relief after Hurricane Beryl.
And they also got it for Hurricane Hanna in 2020.
And they got it in Feb. 2021 when they had a deep freeze and power went out.

In fact, Texas, Louisianna and Florida get the most disaster relief of the states. They did not have to wait. It wasn't withheld from them when needed.
Washington rarely asks.


Trump was weaponizing disaster relief.

I see the rest of your post as off topic.

Well you have to see the forest and not just the trees. Government action from politics is expected to be unequal. Research too shows that it is unequal. Based on that I am inclined to accept the premise that Trump applied Fema relief unequally but to be certain one would need a bigger sample size than even 4, to know the motivation of withholding relief. Yes, Biden gave relief to Washington state, where Trump denied it. Was it just or perhaps a favor to the democrats? Or is Biden so liberal that he hands out Fema money like he does student loan forgiveness? It simply is not known from any post in here. I saw some research that noted that the size of the disaster does influence the response. Beryl was massive, Fema provided 750 million, in a multi-billion disaster to Texas for that.

I checked other studies and there is quite a bit of information on politics and disaster relief. Here is a typical conclusion "At this point, the politicization of disaster relief is an American tradition." Source The Politicization of Disaster Relief | Policy Commons
I should note too that the same research finds "It is too early to identify whether the Trump administration’s decisions on how to allocate medical supplies, aid, and agricultural relief are truly political." It is a 2020 article. I briefly tried a larger literature review and did not find anything solid on Trump. I did find some evidence from Rolling Stone. Trump Blew Off Disaster Relief Requests From Washington, Other States Here we have four instances. The question though remains is it only Trump? In general the older research shows that it is not. Even more worrisome is that disaster relief in the USA is shown to have a racial bias that favors whites. Of course this is not seemingly related to your post that Trump is biased in aid. If one is trying to just do a hit piece on Trump like the Rolling Stone article, then that is not scholarly research but reporting based on political motivations. So link Trump to some political doings and accuse him of bias. Mission accomplished. However, if one genuinely wants to examine the issues of fair distribution of disaster relief then comparing Trump with other administrations and the reasons why and the magnitude are far more important. Why one would not also want to look at all forms of politicization of not just disaster aid but regulatory/criminal action too?

 

[FreeinChrist]

There was no reason for Trump to deny Washington state disaster relief. He did it out of pettiness and meaness because it is a blue state and he saw the governor as an opponent.
.
He acted similarly during covid.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The underlying question is, is it (and if so, when is it) okay for a President to use the federal checkbook and resources as a means of making state-level governments "get their own houses in order" by making them borrow or pay for it themselves (or make adjustments) instead of getting a federal hand-out.

If the answer is "in a disaster situation, never", and that position is held consistently, that's fine.

However, if this is going to be another one of those politically selective "Well, when my side does it, it's reasonable, when the other side does, it's evil...for reasons", then nothing's going to get decided.

Since Politico's the source of the OP, I'll use Politico as a source here:

Biden's team tightens grip on state use of Covid antibody treatments

Federal health officials plan to allocate specific amounts to each state under the new approach.

www.politico.com

Was it okay when the Biden administration rationed/limited federal resources to southern red states because they didn't like the way they were handling covid?

If you were of the position of
"It was wrong when Biden did that, and it was wrong when Trump did this"...congratulations, your position is consistent.

Same goes in the other direction. If you're of the position "Federal officials have the right to make states pay for their own issues if we don't like the way they're using their own money, as a means to get them to play ball with regards to federal level initiatives", then I may say that's a tad authoritarian, but it's still consistent if the logic was applied to both cases.


However, if someone is going to say "It's awful that Trump did that, they were dealing with an emergency"...but 3 years ago were saying "Yeah, Biden should withhold those, the federal government shouldn't have to send them stuff if they're not going to encourage vaccinations and enforce covid precautions, if they did things our way, they wouldn't need so many doses", then that's just partisan hackery.

Likewise, if someone was lambasting Biden for withholding antibodies (because he felt Florida was using them as a crutch), but will defend Trump's move with "If Washington wasn't spending their money on woke initiatives and instead budgeted and spent their money our way, maybe they wouldn't need the $34 million in relief funds", then that's the exact same type of hackery.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The underlying question is, is it (and if so, when is it) okay for a President to use the federal checkbook and resources as a means of making state-level governments "get their own houses in order" by making them borrow or pay for it themselves (or make adjustments) instead of getting a federal hand-out.

If the answer is "in a disaster situation, never", and that position is held consistently, that's fine.

However, if this is going to be another one of those politically selective "Well, when my side does it, it's reasonable, when the other side does, it's evil...for reasons", then nothing's going to get decided.

Since Politico's the source of the OP, I'll use Politico as a source here:

Biden's team tightens grip on state use of Covid antibody treatments

Federal health officials plan to allocate specific amounts to each state under the new approach.

www.politico.com

Was it okay when the Biden administration rationed/limited federal resources to southern red states because they didn't like the way they were handling covid?

If you were of the position of
"It was wrong when Biden did that, and it was wrong when Trump did this"...congratulations, your position is consistent.

Same goes in the other direction. If you're of the position "Federal officials have the right to make states pay for their own issues if we don't like the way they're using their own money, as a means to get them to play ball with regards to federal level initiatives", then I may say that's a tad authoritarian, but it's still consistent if the logic was applied to both cases.


However, if someone is going to say "It's awful that Trump did that, they were dealing with an emergency"...but 3 years ago were saying "Yeah, Biden should withhold those, the federal government shouldn't have to send them stuff if they're not going to encourage vaccinations and enforce covid precautions, if they did things our way, they wouldn't need so many doses", then that's just partisan hackery.

Likewise, if someone was lambasting Biden for withholding antibodies (because he felt Florida was using them as a crutch), but will defend Trump's move with "If Washington wasn't spending their money on woke initiatives and instead budgeted and spent their money our way, maybe they wouldn't need the $34 million in relief funds", then that's the exact same type of hackery.

That was done 9 months after the vaccine started being distributed! They were not denied aid right off or for many months!
And it only happened as the GOP governors were taxing the supplies of the anti-body treatment because they resisted using the vaccine.
It caused problems in other states and their ability to access the antibody treatment when they really needed it. imo the GOP governors were selfish.
You DO know that making the antibody treatment and other meds take time, right?

It is ridicuous to make a comparison of that to Trump's withholding aid for 4 months with no idication he was ever going to agree to it. They are NOT the same.
Imagine how Texas or Louisianna or Florida or North Carolina would have felt (and how the GOP would have reacted) if Biden held back hurricane aid for 4 months after it was needed. Did Biden withhold aide to Texas once requested when their power went down in the bad freeze - which was partly their fault for not connecting to the nationwide grid? Nope. Same with other disasters. The governors needed to make the request and he didn't hold back, basically saying no.

Trump would have totally denied it if he had been re-elected in 2020. I will not forget how he made the states compete with each other for supplies, and how he favored the red states.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That was done 9 months after the vaccine started being distributed! They were not denied aid right off or for many months!
And it only happened as the GOP governors were taxing the supplies of the anti-body treatment because they resisted using the vaccine.
It caused problems in other states and their ability to access the antibody treatment when they really needed it. imo the GOP governors were selfish.
You DO know that making the antibody treatment and other meds take time, right?

It is ridicuous to make a comparison of that to Trump's withholding aid for 4 months with no idication he was ever going to agree to it. They are NOT the same.
Imagine how Texas or Louisianna or Florida or North Carolina would have felt (and how the GOP would have reacted) if Biden held back hurricane aid for 4 months after it was needed. Did Biden withhold aide to Texas once requested when their power went down in the bad freeze - which was partly their fault for not connecting to the nationwide grid? Nope. Same with other disasters. The governors needed to make the request and he didn't hold back, basically saying no.

Trump would have totally denied it if he had been re-elected in 2020. I will not forget how he made the states compete with each other for supplies, and how he favored the red states.

You're exhibiting the exact thing I was talking about...

You're saying that there are conditions, driven off of an ideological assessment (based on your own viewpoints of what constitutes "the right way" vs "irresponsible") that warrant the federal executive taking a hard line against a state executive for not doing things "the right way"

Everything downstream of that logic is going to be subjective in terms of the "what" and "how long"

Much like you're saying "if red state governors would've just enforced/encouraged vaccine mandates and mask mandates, they wouldn't need so many doses of monoclonal antibodies from the federal government"

A right-wing person's statement is going to be "If the state of Washington hadn't funneled tens of million into propping up services for sanctuary cities (in fact, they were the first or one of the first to declare themselves a sanctuary state) and creating "wage replacement" systems for undocumented workers when they get fired or laid off, they would've had the money in their own coffers to use state funding for the $37 million they're asking for, for this disaster" Or they may appeal to the fact that Trump overtly stated "To you states & cities that are allowing lawlessness during these BLM protests, and you waste all your own money cleaning it up and repairing, don't come knocking for federal funding later"


No matter how you slice it, it's invoking logic along the lines of "you made your bed, now you have to lie in it, but you don't get to take everyone else's money later as a crutch" as a basis for restricting federal resources. As soon as you open that door, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[FreeinChrist]

You're exhibiting the exact thing I was talking about...

You're saying that there are conditions, driven off of an ideological assessment (based on your own viewpoints of what constitutes "the right way" vs "irresponsible") that warrant the federal executive taking a hard line against a state executive for not doing things "the right way"

Everything downstream of that logic is going to be subjective in terms of the "what" and "how long"

Much like you're saying "if red state governors would've just enforced/encouraged vaccine mandates and mask mandates, they wouldn't need so many doses of monoclonal antibodies from the federal government"

A right-wing person's statement is going to be "If the state of Washington hadn't funneled tens of million into propping up services for sanctuary cities (in fact, they were the first or one of the first to declare themselves a sanctuary state) and creating "wage replacement" systems for undocumented workers when they get fired or laid off, they would've had the money in their own coffers to use state funding for the $37 million they're asking for, for this disaster" Or they may appeal to the fact that Trump overtly stated "To you states & cities that are allowing lawlessness during these BLM protests, and you waste all your own money cleaning it up and repairing, don't come knocking for federal funding later"


No matter how you slice it, it's invoking logic along the lines of "you made your bed, now you have to lie in it, but you don't get to take everyone else's money later as a crutch" as a basis for restricting federal resources. As soon as you open that door, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That really is baloney.

IF Biden had denied the vaccine or the antibody treatment to red states, then it would be comparable. But he didn't while Trump did deny aid to a blue state with a Democratic governor. He held back on giving aid to California until he learned the area needing help had a lot of Republicans in it.


If you cannot see that one giving aid right off to all is not the same as the one who withheld aid because of politics, then that is simply bias on your part.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is really is baloney.

IF Biden had denied the vaccine or the antibody treatment to red states, then it would be comparable. But he didn't while Trump did deny aid to a blue state with a Democratic governor. He held back on giving aid to California until he learned the area needing help had a lot of Republicans in it.


If you cannot see that one giving aid right off to all is not the same as the one who withheld aid because of politics, then that is simply bias on your part.

It's not baloney...

If the crux of our conversation is, "is it okay to make federal aid conditional during an emergency situation?", if so, then you open it up to subjectivity.
(doesn't matter whether an individual, personally, likes the rationale or conditions)

Either the federal resources are made available (regardless of how poor a state's internal planning was in the eyes of another person) unconditionally, or they're subjective (and that subjectivity is going to be based on the perceptions of the people in power at the federal level).

Those are the choices.

The former means that it doesn't matter if Washington State spent their own money commissioning pride flags being painted on all intersections, and government buildings, or letting protestors do millions of dollars worth of property damage, when disaster strikes, the government steps up...likewise, it also means that it doesn't matter of Ron DeSantis organized a state-wide game of "sneeze tag" right in the middle of covid, if they need the resources, the government steps up.

Under a subjective application, you're not always going to have the control/luxury of creating carve-outs for the specific forms of "worthiness" you feel are "justified" and "unjustified" for aid restrictions.

 

[FreeinChrist]

It's not baloney...

If the crux of our conversation is, "is it okay to make federal aid conditional during an emergency situation?", if so, then you open it up to subjectivity.
(doesn't matter whether an individual, personally, likes the rationale or conditions)

Either the federal resources are made available (regardless of how poor a state's internal planning was in the eyes of another person) unconditionally, or they're subjective (and that subjectivity is going to be based on the perceptions of the people in power at the federal level).

Those are the choices.

The former means that it doesn't matter if Washington State spent their own money commissioning pride flags being painted on all intersections, and government buildings, or letting protestors do millions of dollars worth of property damage, when disaster strikes, the government steps up...likewise, it also means that it doesn't matter of Ron DeSantis organized a state-wide game of "sneeze tag" right in the middle of covid, if they need the resources, the government steps up.

Under a subjective application, you're not always going to have the control/luxury of creating carve-outs for the specific forms of "worthiness" you feel are "justified" and "unjustified" for aid restrictions.

You can worry about what you see as the crux of the conversation.

The point of the OP is that Trump withheld disaster funds from Washington for political reasons, and I brought up in my last post that Trump would have withheld money from California, too until he heard Republicans were affected.

That does not compare with Biden, who did not withhold aid, giving it whether a red state or a blue state, and after 9 months of the vaccine being available, had to adjust, NOT WITHHOLD, antibody treatments so ALL states can get them as needed. It was not a political thing, it was the responsible thing.

So Trump withheld aid. He had no justification other than it was a blue state. It was political.

Biden gave aid right off, or as soon as requested by the governors, and eventually had to establish a policy so that all states (red and blue) could use the antibody treatment for their Covid patients as recommended by their doctors.

 

[Richard T]

If you want to look at Federal Covid aid per capita, you can see that Washington State got about the same aid per person as did Texas. from this heading:

Spending to Date for 22 Major COVID-19 Programs​

New York and California received more per person. The southern states in general got the least. (might be racist?) D.C. New York, Vermont, and Alaska are the top five receivers per person. The data goes into the Biden term up until Jan 25, 2022. It includes the monies that went to the state government from 22 different programs or types of aid.

Though outside of the purview of this thread, the totals of 12,000 or more per person is worth asking: Did you get your 12,000 dollars worth?

How Much Coronavirus Funding Has Gone to Your State?

The effects of COVID-19 have prompted policymakers to provide financial aid across the U.S. Find out how much coronavirus funding has gone to your state with our interactive tool.

www.pgpf.org

 

[FreeinChrist]

If you want to look at Federal Covid aid per capita, you can see that Washington State got about the same aid per person as did Texas. from this heading:

Spending to Date for 22 Major COVID-19 Programs​

New York and California received more per person. The southern states in general got the least. (might be racist?) D.C. New York, Vermont, and Alaska are the top five receivers per person. The data goes into the Biden term up until Jan 25, 2022. It includes the monies that went to the state government from 22 different programs or types of aid.

Though outside of the purview of this thread, the totals of 12,000 or more per person is worth asking: Did you get your 12,000 dollars worth?

How Much Coronavirus Funding Has Gone to Your State?

The effects of COVID-19 have prompted policymakers to provide financial aid across the U.S. Find out how much coronavirus funding has gone to your state with our interactive tool.

www.pgpf.org

That covers a great deal of items but not how much vaccine sent or how much antibody treatment was sent where.

But all that is really off topic as the aid denied to Washington was for a large forest fire. It burned 640,000 acres, about 3 times the size of NYC.

Trump's denial was blatant enough that Republican Rep. Cathrine McMorris Rodgers introduced a bill requring presidents to respond within 30 days of receiving a request.

 

[Richard T]

Often those fires are left to burn in that area, so the size is not always important. I already pointed out that the amount was rather small 42 million. In perspective of a 121 billion budget it is about the size of a speeding ticket for an average American. https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Documents/Citizen

 

[FreeinChrist]

Yeah, it was just people's homes, town.....not much. If it was not much, why did Republican Rep McMorris Rodgers go to Trump twice begging for help for those people, and write a letter to him begging for help?
Biden sent aid 2 weeks after getting into office. Still, it was the longest time ever for a request to be made and not answered.

 

[Richard T]

Yes, 228 structures. I can't find exact total acreage but in Malden and a nearby town it was 15,000 acres, Seems like a lot but if you live around there it is pretty normal. Here is a quote from the Seattle times.? In 2021 alone, the Washington Department of Natural Resources has responded to nearly 2,000 fires consuming just over a half-million acres of land, representing the most individual fires in the last decade in the state, and the third-highest acreage as of Sept. 1, even as fires continue to burn. This Labor Day, flashing road signs are again warning drivers of extreme fire risk." A year after fire destroyed Malden, a grieving town slowly rebuilds

Yes, it is sad for the town of Malden, with a population of just over 200. I am not even sure Biden gave individual assistance. With a half million acres and 2000 fires perhaps it probably did not make it to the top of the list. How Babb Road Fire victims are moving forward after FEMA individual assistance denial

Trump approved this aid in 2019 for storm damage so obviously he has some concern Federal Register :: Request Access

Here is Obama denying a Federal Disaster. Disaster Declaration Denials Exasperate Governors • Stateline

I admitted that politics plays a part in who gets aid. (racism too) Perhaps Trump was ignorant that the Palouse voters are nearly all GOP? Perhaps it was too small. Is there any reporting of Trump's motivation other than gossip? There were 2000 fires in Washington that year, many much larger.

If you wanted a more accurate headline for the Malden Fire here are a couple that are more accurate.

Trump Denies Declaration of Federal Aid for Western Washington Area Known For Ties to White Supremacy and Republican Voting.

Or

Biden Approves Federal Disaster Aid to GOP Eastern Washington Area That Is Known For Ties to White Supremacy.

Yes, there have been reports of hate speech, racism too against Asian American there. An area just south of Spokane, Hate groups in western Washington echo the past - High Country News

Stop AAPI hate on the Palouse | Pullman WA

Stop AAPI hate on the Palouse, Pullman, Washington. 159 likes. Since the start of the pandemic last spring, Asian Americans have faced racist violence at a much higher rate than in previous years....

www.facebook.com

Plus Trump got 66% of the vote in Whitman County in the last election.

November 3, 2020 General Election Results - President/Vice President County Breakdown

results.vote.wa.gov

All this exercise really accomplished is to see that the press is biased against Trump. There was no major outcry on Obama. I only try to look at facts. Fact is Trump did not declare a natural disaster for a fire in Washington. That is his discretion. Obama did not approve of a fire disaster in Yarnell, Arizona that killed 19 firefighters. That is his discretion.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Trump did not deny the request for aid in Washington. He ignored it. He left it hanging.

I have been a resident of AZ for 43 years and remember the Yarnell fire. I do wish Obama approved it, but he didn't deny it on the basis of politics. AZ's request was largely based on emotion regarding the death of 19 firefighters, which was horrible, but the size of the fire was an aspect of the denial.

In contrast, Trump did delay and ignore based on politics. In the months leading up to the WA fire, there were pointed insults directed back and forth between Gov. Inslee and President Trump. It was actually an area that leaned Republican, but Trump's actions were based on who was governor. This article mentions other times and reasons Trump denied or delayed aid based on politics:

Trump Blew Off Disaster Relief Requests From Washington, Other States

Donald Trump delayed or didn't approve federal disaster relief aid to states with governors who criticized, Politico reports.

www.rollingstone.com

Is the Malden area known for white supremacy? Anything to back that up? You linked to a Facebook page that ties to Pullman, WA but there is a lot of empty land between Malden and Pullman. While Pullman is on the Palouse river, which the Facebook page is about, Malden is not.

I think you are pulling things out of the air to defend Trump's denial of aid based on politics, but they fall short or are off topic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could Trump really cut off wildfire aid for California? Absolutely​

Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut off federal disaster aid for California’s wildfires if he returns to the White House, most recently at a campaign rally in Coachella and in remarks at his golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Trump has said he’ll withhold disaster funding if state officials don’t back his policies — most recently threatening to do so if Gov. Gavin Newsom doesn’t make more water available to farmers and homeowners.

“We’re going to take care of your water situation, force it down his throat, and we’ll say: Gavin, if you don’t do it, we’re not giving any of that fire money that we send you all the time for all the fire, forest fires that you have,” Trump said in Coachella.

He initially refused to approve federal aid to California for wildfires in 2018 until a National Security Council staffer showed him that Orange County had a dense concentration of supporters, according to a report from Politico’s E&E News. [Also 2020 Washington situation in OP.]

In order to qualify for such aid, a state must show that an incident is of such a severity and magnitude that a response is beyond the state’s capability. The governor must request, and the president must declare, a major disaster and then approve whatever aid the governor requests.

In the past, presidents have followed [FEMA's] recommendation [to declare a disaster], but there’s nothing in the law that requires them to do so.

[Conversely, after] Hurricane Michael hit Florida in 2018, Trump directed FEMA to pay 100% of most of the state’s disaster costs instead of the customary 75%, resulting in $350 million more in federal assistance than the state would have received without intervention, Politico reported.