Trumping disaster: Possible impacts of Trump 2.0 policies on disaster risk

Below are brief, initial thoughts about the possible impacts of Trump administration policies active from 20th January 2025. I have dashed these off as work in progress and as an invitation to other researchers, scholars and activists to add their own ideas and concerns. Writing in early November, all this is speculative; yet isn’t it best to be prepared for the worst?

Disaster risk is generally understood as a function of geobiophysical hazards (H), the vulnerability of people exposed to the hazards (V), the capacity or ability of people to resist, cope with and recovery from hazard impacts (C), and governmental actions to control and reduce hazards, to provide warning, and to enhance people’s capacity to resist, cope and recover from hazard impacts (M), or:

R ~ (H [V/C] – M). 

Trump 2.0 policy is likely to create risk by its impact on H, V, C, and M, judging from the policies of the first Trump administration and campaign statements by candidate Trump during 2024 as well as a document produced by the Heritage Foundations co-authored by dozens of Trump’s closest advisors.

Hazards will likely increase due to Trump 2.0’s encouragement for expanded fossil fuel extraction and by undermining the Paris Agreement that committed the US to a schedule of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Deregulation of mining, drilling and land use in ecologically sensitive areas could decrease biodiversity and increase the likelihood that new epizootic diseases such as SARS and Covid evolve and jump to humans. What other hazards might be created or increased by the policies of Trump 2.0?

Vulnerability is determined by health, nutrition and the satisfaction of other basic human needs. Health status is an important component of vulnerability. Health could be affected internationally by Trump 2.0’s reducing or eliminating finance for health care programs such as those focused on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for water supply and sanitation as well as financial support for the World Health Organization. Likewise, financial support for food assistance and support of the World Food Program may be affected by new policies. Support for the international migration organization (IOM) and UN High Commission for Refugees could also suffer. How many millions of vulnerable people depend on the assistance that Trump 2.0 could well reduce or eliminate? Domestically, the possible appointment of John F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic with no medical qualifications as Secretary of Health and Human Services does not bode well for the U.S. agriculture department, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Safety Administration (FDA).

Capacity to resist, cope with and recovery from hazard impacts depends on knowledge and sufficient local solidarity to allow common action. Local knowledge of a place and its hazards is fundamental to capacity. Outside specialist knowledge can complement local knowledge. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey are sources of outside specialist knowledge that often support local knowledge and action – for example, FEMA’s flood hazard maps. Trump 2.0 envisions a radical restructuring and down-sizing of the federal state apparatus. Will the long-overdue revisions of FEMA’s flood hazard maps be delayed or cancelled? The federal government supports higher education in the U.S. and could have influence over what research is funded and what is taught. Could Trump 2.0 defund research on climate change, something Trump has labeled a hoax? Might teachers be banned from discussing climate change just as earlier this year in Florida there were attempts to forbid discussing race or gender in class? U.S. agencies such as the NOAA, NASA and National Weather Service provide worldwide satellite-based hazard and disaster relevant information that complements what other national agencies provide. Will such generosity continue?

Trump 2.0 will also revise current personnel and financial allocations at the heart of the government’s arrangements for Mitigation. Collectivities such as nations, sub-national government entities and larger municipalities provide expertise, funding and other resources necessary to reduce disaster risk beyond the reach of hamlets, villages and small towns. If Trump 2.0 successfully shrinks the state and privatizes its functions, will mitigation still complement and underpin local capacity?

Each of the key elements that influence disaster risk are likely to be affected by Trump 2.0 policy. R ~ (H [V/C] – M) could be transformed into a formula for increased Risk at best, if not Havoc, Violence, Chaos and Mayhem.