Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules | AP News

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules

(Please do not forget this decision, it was one of the worst, if not the worst, since Plessy v Furgeson 163 U.S. 537, John Roberts has always been a racist.)

Image

ATLANTA (AP) — Within hours of a U.S. Supreme Court decision dismantling a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Texas lawmakers announced plans to implement a strict voter ID law that had been blocked by a federal court. Lawmakers in Alabama said they would press forward with a similar law that had been on hold.

The ruling continues to reverberate across the country a decade later, as Republican-led states pass voting restrictions that, in several cases, would have been subject to federal review had the conservative-leaning court left the provision intact. At the same time, the justices have continued to take other cases challenging elements of the landmark 1965 law that was born from the sometimes violent struggle for the right of Black Americans to cast ballots.

The justices are expected to rule in the coming weeks in a new case out of Alabama that could make it much more difficult for minority groups to sue over gerrymandered political maps that dilute their representation.

“At that point, you have to ask yourself what’s left of the Voting Rights Act?” said Franita Tolson, a constitutional and election law expert and co-dean of the University of Southern California School of Law.

RELATED COVERAGE

Core parts of the law have been reauthorized with bipartisan support five times since it was signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson, the most recent in 2006. But congressional efforts to address the enforcement gap created by the June 2013 Supreme Court decision on what was known as preclearance — federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect — have languished amid increasingly partisan battles over the ballot box. 

The recent wave of voting changes have been pushed by Republican lawmakers who point to concerns over elections that have been fueled by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. 

At least 104 restrictive voting laws have passed in 33 mostly GOP-controlled states since the 2020 election, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting legislation in the states.

Alabama, where two of the major challenges to the Voting Rights Act began, considered legislation this year that would have made it a crime to help a non-family member fill out or return an absentee ballot. Supporters argued the change was needed to boost security, though ultimately the bill failed to pass as the state’s legislature adjourned Tuesday without taking a final vote on it.

Critics said the proposal would have made it difficult for voters who are older, low-income, ill or who do not feel comfortable with the already cumbersome absentee ballot process, which includes a requirement to submit a copy of a photo ID.

Betty Shinn, a 72-year-old Black woman from Mobile testified against the bill, saying it was a vehicle for suppressing votes: “It’s no different from asking me how many jellybeans are in that jar or asking me to recite the Constitution from memory.”

It was such Jim Crow-era rules that the Voting Rights Act was designed to stop, relying on a formula to identify states, counties and towns with a history of imposing voting restrictions and with low voter registration or participation rates. They then were required to submit any proposed voting changes in advance, either to the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal court in Washington, D.C.

The law included ways for jurisdictions to exit the preclearance requirement after demonstrating specific improvements, and dozens had over the years. At the time of the 2013 decision, nine states and a few dozen counties and towns in six other states were on the list for federal review. That included a small number of counties in California and New York.

In the decade since the Supreme Court decision, which came in a case filed by Shelby County, Alabama, lawmakers in the nine states formerly covered by the preclearance requirement have passed at least 77 voting-related laws, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab for The Associated Press.

Most improved voter access and likely would have sailed through federal review. But at least 14 laws – in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – added new voting restrictions, the Voting Rights Lab found. These include nine, high-profile bills passed in the aftermath of the 2020 election that would have almost certainly drawn significant scrutiny from the Justice Department.

In Georgia, Senate Bill 202 added ID requirements to mail voting, codified the use of ballot drop boxes in a way that reduced the number allowed in metro Atlanta — and restricted outside groups from providing water and food to voters standing in line. Republicans have said the changes were needed to boost security. Groups in the state have recalibrated their efforts to help voters.

Arizona passed two measures last year requiring voters who use state and federal voter registration forms to prove their citizenship and purging voters based on whether county election officials believe they might not be citizens or might not be qualified to vote.

Those could disproportionately affect Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities with cultural family names, said Alexa-Rio Osaki, political director of the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition.

“If Shelby v. Holder didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have to worry about feeling as if we’re excluded yet again,” she said. “So, we’re talking about targeting our own communities within the state just based on what our name is and whether that looks American or not.”

In North Carolina, voting rights groups are bracing for the return of the state’s strict voter ID law, which the new GOP majority on the state Supreme Court has revived. They say the law will disproportionately affect younger voters. Several North Carolina counties, home to a handful of historically Black colleges and universities, were previously subject to federal review.

The Voting Rights Lab analysis identified three restrictive bills passed in North Carolina and two in Florida since the Shelby decision that would have been subject to federal review because they affected local governments covered by the preclearance requirement.

For groups such as Vote.org, which focuses on voter registration and education in the states, the evolving legal landscape has meant moving quickly to update website information, retrain volunteers and overhaul education material to include the latest voting rules and polling place information.

The group has filed legal challenges in Florida, Georgia and Texas over new rules for registration forms that prohibit digital signatures.

“People don’t realize or are fully aware of the rollback that has happened since the Shelby decision,” Vote.org CEO Andrea Hailey said. “It means programs like ours have to work double time, at increased expense to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.”

Without the preclearance process, the Justice Department and outside groups must rely on the courts to address potentially discriminatory legislation after it’s already taken effect. While remedies are built into the legal system to address harm that has been done, elections are unique, said Justin Levitt, who recently served as the White House senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights.

“If a discriminatory election happens, you can’t undo that,” said Levitt, who was a top Justice Department official during the final years of the Obama administration. “The only way to get legal relief is to make the next election better. But in the meantime, the people who were elected in a discriminatory election are in office and making laws.”

In Texas, Republicans have enacted one of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws, limited the use of drop boxes and redrawn political district maps to fortify their dominant majority amid rapid demographic shifts.

Legal challenges to Texas’ new voting laws have persisted, but to little effect. When a federal court in 2019 ruled that Texas can continue to change district maps without supervision, it did so despite voicing “grave concerns” in the state where nearly 9 of every 10 new residents are Hispanic.

Two years later, Democratic lawmakers staged a 93-day walkout in protest of additional voting restrictions that included changes to mail ballot rules. The changes were rushed into place before the 2022 midterm elections and resulted in nearly 23,000 ballots being rejected.

“We’ve seen a drastic change in election policy,” said Texas Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat. “I think all of this stuff, if we had preclearance, would be protected. We should be working together to make sure access to the ballot box is the most important thing, and we don’t do that in this state.”

In addition to Texas, the Justice Department has filed legal challenges to new voting rules enacted in Georgia and Arizona since the 2020 election.

Supporters of such laws say the courts, even after the Shelby decision, remain an effective check to address any problematic measures.

“Shelby County did not alter the fact that state election rules that discriminate against protected groups like racial minorities are illegal,” said Derek Lyons, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, a group co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. “And in the few instances when courts have identified violations, they have quickly remedied them.”

In its 2013 decision, the majority on the Supreme Court found the formula was outdated for determining which jurisdictions should be covered by the preclearance requirement and pointed to increased minority participation in voting.

It’s difficult to draw conclusions based on voter turnout data, especially since few states track it by race. Of the nine states where federal review had been required before the court ruling, all but one saw their statewide voter turnout decline for the 2022 midterm elections compared with the previous midterms four years earlier — but that also mirrored the trend nationally, according to an analysis of election and population data maintained by the AP.

Some of the states passing new restrictions also do have election policies that are voter-friendly, such as offering early voting and mail voting without needing an excuse.

“The Shelby opinion stands for the basic idea that if the federal government is going to take the drastic step of usurping the constitutionally endorsed power of states to govern their own elections, it must do so based on real and current data,” said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project. “By any objective measure, elections are free, fair, and accessible.”

Voting rights groups say that does not mean voting is easy, and they have been responding to the restrictions with fresh strategies. In Georgia, for instance, Common Cause set up mobile printing stations across the state so voters could comply with new voter registration rules that require an ink signature on a printed form.

“It’s only through the work of all these communities and groups on the ground that voters have access,” said Sylvia Albert, the group’s national director of voting and elections. “But doing this post-Shelby, courts are not recognizing the true damage those laws have had.”

The Supreme Court weakened another section of the Voting Rights Act two years ago with a ruling in a case from Arizona. It sided with the state in a challenge to new regulations that restricted who can return early ballots for another person and prohibited ballots cast in the wrong precinct from being counted. The conservative majority court could further erode voting rights that are intended to protect racial minorities in an Alabama case in which the plaintiffs argue the state diluted the power of Black voters.

Under Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, just one of seven districts has a majority Black population in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. A broad ruling in the case would not only uphold that map, but also make it much harder to sustain claims of racial discrimination in redistricting across the country.

“If those kind of things happen, they’ve effectively closed the door on the Voting Rights Act,” said Evan Milligan, executive director of Alabama Forward and the lead plaintiff in the case.

Alexander reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama; Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas; and Aaron Kessler and Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

The Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content."

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules | AP News

Georgia counties are mandated to certify elections, judge rules | US elections 2024 | The Guardian

Georgia counties are mandated to certify elections, judge rules

"Ruling beats back a lawsuit by a Republican election board member linked to an election denialist organization

people in suits sit and stand at a dais
Georgia's state election board members discuss proposals for election rule changes at the capitol in Atlanta on 20 September. Photograph: Mike Stewart/AP

Election certification is a mandatory duty, not discretionary, for county election officials in Georgia, a judge ruled on Tuesday, rejecting assertions made by a Republican elections official that elections board members could refuse to certify an election based on their suspicions of fraud or error.

Julie Adams, a Republican member of the Fulton county board of registration and elections, brought the suit earlier this year after abstaining from a vote to certify the May primary election. The America First Policy Institute, a legal thinktank that was formed by former Donald Trump advisers in the wake of Trump’s 2020 election loss to help lay legal groundwork for his potential return to office, joined the suit.

Adams refused certification after claiming she had been denied access to a long list of elections documents. But Robert McBurney, Fulton county superior court judge, ruled that Adams was entitled to review documents quickly, but failing to provide those documents was not grounds for denying the certification of an election.

“If election superintendents were, as plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so – because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud – refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced,” wrote McBurney in his ruling. “Our Constitution and our election code do not allow for that to happen.”

The law uses the world “shall”, meaning certification is an order, McBurney wrote.

“To users of common parlance, ‘shall’ connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!” he wrote.

Adams is the regional coordinator for south-eastern states in the Election Integrity Network (EIN), a national group that has recruited election deniers to target local election offices. EIN was founded by Cleta Mitchell, a Trump ally who aided his efforts to overturn the election in Georgia and elsewhere.

Adams’s suit aimed to overturn longstanding Georgia precedent that the act of election certification is “ministerial”, an administrative activity marking the end of an election. Elections disputes in Georgia have historically been managed through investigation by local district attorneys, the attorney general’s office and ultimately in court.

A bloc of Trump-aligned Republicans on Georgia’s state elections board have rejected that interpretation of the law and implemented changes to election policies allowing for an undefined “reasonable inquiry” by local elections officers before certification. Those changes are under challenge by Democratic leaders in separate court cases."

Georgia counties are mandated to certify elections, judge rules | US elections 2024 | The Guardian

Supreme Court's FATE SEALED by Chief Justice


Roberts also dismantled the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a direct attack on African American an Latino Americans. He is truly evil.

Opinion | Trump’s racism serves two purposes - The Washington Post

Opinion Why Trump is doubling down on racism

A protester carries the retired Mississippi state flag and a Trump flag at the Mississippi Capitol in Jackson on Jan. 6, 2021. (Rogelio V. Solis/AP)

"Former president Donald Trump has gone full racist (or “nativist,” as some outlets delicately describe it). In Aurora, Colo., the New York Times reports, he spewed “repeated claims, which have been debunked by local officials, that Aurora had been ‘invaded and conquered,’ described the United States as an ‘occupied state’ … and revived a promise to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process.” He has continued demonizing legal immigrants from Haiti in Springfield, Ohio. In Detroit, as he does in many cities with large numbers of African American voters, he bashed the city. (“The whole country is going to be like — you want to know the truth? It’ll be like Detroit,” he said. “Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she’s your president. You’re going to have a mess on your hands.”)

Regardless of his location, he invokes the specter of a non-White horde displacing Whites. Illegal immigrants are “evil,” are “taking your jobs,” and have “bad genes.” Right-wing hosts, elected Republicans and most down-ticket Republican candidates don’t blanch, let alone denounce racism unprecedented in modern American presidential elections. The mainstream media has begun to feature Trump’s racism (sometimes thinly disguised with fuzzy language) in headlines.

Aside from instilling anger, fear and resentment in his White base, why would he do this, and in particular go to cities and towns to insult those communities in person?

For starters, Trump has consistently evidenced racism throughout his career. He might have flipped on abortion, but racial animus seems baked into his psyche. Whether being sued for refusing to rent to African Americans, demonizing the innocent Central Park Five, promoting the “birther” conspiracy theory to delegitimize the first Black president, announcing his entry into politics by slandering immigrants as murderers and thugs, refusing to denounce white nationalists at a debate in 2016, referring to non-White-majority countries as “s---holes” or preemptively blaming Jews for his defeat, Trump has never departed from a steady stream of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. His exaggeration about crime in big cities is a racial dog whistle; his phony “immigrant crime wave” is a racial bullhorn. This is who he is.

Follow Jennifer Rubin

But like other authoritarians, Trump uses racism instrumentally as part of his assault on democracy and his quest to become a “dictator on day one.” Retired Gen. Mark A. Milley told Bob Woodward that Trump is “fascist to the core.” Milley knows from firsthand experience. Trump deployed a violent mob on Jan. 6, 2021, and still frequently uses thethreat of violence; he wanted to fire on civilian demonstrators; he scapegoats minorities; he uses conspiracy theories to terrify the masses; and he identifies with and praises dictators.

Whether it was fascists in the 1930s, India’s Narendra Modi (marginalizing Muslims), China’s Xi Jinping (persecuting Uyghurs) or Russia’s Vladimir Putin (attempting to eradicate Ukraine), authoritarians inevitably enlist the power of the state against a minority group whom they blame for society’s ills. In the name of protecting their country from a virulent threat, anything and everything is permissible.

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat told Politico that Trump has “been taking Americans and his followers on a journey since really 2015 conditioning them … step by step instilling hatred in a group, and then escalating.” She explained that in Trump’s vision, “immigrants are crime. Immigrants are anarchy. They’re taking their jobs, but now they’re also animals who are going to kill us or eat our pets or eat us. That’s how you get people to feel that whatever is done to them, as in mass deportation, rounding them up, putting them in camps, is OK.”

Moreover, for Trump, racism is crucial to his voter suppression and election denial. The spate of voter suppression laws following Jan. 6 disproportionately affecting non-Whites, the targeting of cities in swing states with large Black electorates in 2020 (Detroit, Philadelphia), the attacks on Black poll workers and the ongoing claims of millions of undocumented immigrants voting all have a common purpose. Trump and his followers aim to put non-Whites outside the American electorate (not “real Americans”) and cry foul based on unsubstantiated charges of fraud when the candidate loses. If non-Whites are not “real” Americans or stand in the way of Whites attaining or retaining power, then making it harder to vote (or not counting their votes) — and removing immigrants on the mere suspicion that they are illegal — are justified.

It’s no coincidence that in the closing weeks of the campaign, Trump is returning to race. His racism, xenophobia and antisemitism are not incidental to his campaign (it’s all about tax cuts!) but, rather, central to his personality and to his political movement. Those who vote for him, enable him and normalize him must take responsibility for the movement that threatens to destroy pluralistic democracy."

Opinion | Trump’s racism serves two purposes - The Washington Post

Lawrence: Harris uses Trump's own words about 'the enemy within' to pros...

Canada Expels Indian Diplomats, Accusing Them of Criminal Campaign

Canada Expels Indian Diplomats, Accusing Them of Criminal Campaign

“The Canadian police said the Indian government had orchestrated homicides and extortion in Canada to intimidate Sikh separatists. India, in return, kicked out Canadian diplomats.

Protesters waving flags and hold a banner noting the assassination of a Sikh leader.
Sikh protesters in British Columbia, in September 2023.Carlos Osorio/Reuters

Canada accused the Indian government on Monday of homicide and extortion intended to silence critics of India living in Canada, escalating a bitter dispute that began last year with an assassination of a Sikh activist.

Canada expelled India’s top diplomat and five others, saying they were part of a vast criminal network. India reciprocated, expelling six Canadian diplomats.

The two countries have been in an intense dispute following the assassination in Canada of a prominent Sikh cleric, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the time that his killing had been orchestrated by the Indian government.

Canada is home to the largest Sikh community outside India, where the religious minority lives mostly in the northwestern state of Punjab. The Indian government says that some Sikhs in Canada are actively involved in a secessionist movement that seeks to carve a Sikh homeland known as Khalistan out of India.

Canadian officials said their investigation had focused on the Indian government’s involvement in a campaign aimed at Canadian Sikh activists.

The breakdown in the relationship between the two countries has gone all the way to the top. Mr. Trudeau said on Monday that he had confronted his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, about the investigation  last week in Laos, where both men were attending a summit.

The Canadian leader said he had asked Mr. Modi for India’s cooperation ahead of a meeting between national security officials from both countries in Singapore. The officials were to discuss the involvement of Indian diplomats in what the authorities have described as serious criminal activities against Sikhs in Canada.

“I impressed upon him that it needed to be taken very, very seriously,” Mr. Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa at a news conference.

Despite the one-on-one discussion between the leaders, the Singapore meeting did not produce the cooperation Canadian officials had sought, leading to the diplomatic expulsions. 

“We will never tolerate the involvement of a foreign government threatening and killing Canadian citizens on Canadian soil, a deeply unacceptable violation of Canada’s sovereignty and of international law,” Mr. Trudeau said.

Mélanie Joly, Canada’s foreign minister, said that her country had issued the expulsion orders to the six diplomats after the Indian government refused to waive their diplomatic immunity and allow them to participate in the Canadian investigations. Among those kicked out was Sanjay Kumar Verma, India’s high commissioner, or ambassador, to Canada.

Ms. Joly said that Canada’s law enforcement agencies had identified the six as “persons of interest” in the Nijjar assassination. “The decision to expel these individuals was made with great consideration,’’ she said, adding that investigators had “gathered ample, clear and concrete evidence.’’

Mr. Nijjar was ambushed and killed by three masked men outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia. Three Indian nationals have been arrested and charged to date.

The Indian government, in its own statement on Monday, rejected Canada’s account of what had happened to its diplomats. India said it had pulled them out of Canada because of “an atmosphere of extremism and violence” that put them in danger.

The Indian government also said it was expelling six Canadian diplomats from India, including the embassy’s second-highest ranking diplomat, the chargé d’affaires, Stewart Wheeler.

The Indian government has vehemently denied accusations that it was involved in Mr. Nijjar’s killing, and maintains that the allegations against it are politically motivated. It says Mr. Trudeau is in cahoots with Sikh separatists in Canada because they support his Liberal Party.

A top Canadian law enforcement official, Mike Duheme, on Monday presented the accusations against the Indian government, saying that it had set up a criminal network inside Canada to harass and intimidate Sikhs. He provided few specifics about the allegations, but said the investigation had been aided by the F.B.I.

“An extraordinary situation is compelling us to speak about what we have discovered in our multiple ongoing investigations into the involvement of agents of the government of India in serious criminal activity in Canada,” said Mr. Duheme, who is the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

He said that the police were taking the unusual step of going public because of a “significant threat to public safety in our country.”

Mr. Duheme said his officers had investigated and charged “a significant number of individuals for their direct involvement in homicides, extortions and other criminal acts of violence.”

He said there had been more than a dozen credible threats to life against members of the Sikh community in Canada. The Indian government agents, including the six diplomats expelled, were based not just in Ottawa, the capital, but also in Vancouver and Toronto and other cities across Canada where Sikhs live.

While Mr. Duheme did not detail the means the Canadian authorities had used to collect evidence against the Indian government and its agents, he said that the investigations had found that it was running a major intelligence-gathering network in Canada. Some of those involved in the network were paid, he said, while others were coerced into helping.

“The information collected by the government of India is then used to target members of the South Asian community,” Mr. Duheme said.

India’s intelligence services have long been accused of directing the killings of opponents inside neighboring countries.

Canada’s accusations against India regarding the Nijjar assassination of have been bolstered by the findings of an American investigation into a similar, though unsuccessful, plot against a U.S.-based Sikh cleric. Last November, federal prosecutors in Manhattan said they had found connections between both plots. 

The deepening rift between India and Canada comes as the United States, the European Union and other Canadian allies have been trying to court India as a counterweight to China. India is a booming power on the world stage both in terms of defense and in trade and the economy.

Mr. Trudeau said that he had informed his country’s closest intelligence allies about the developments. Together with Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand make up the so-called Five Eyes intelligence cooperation group.

The accusations against India arise as a Canadian commission is investigating the interference of foreign powers into domestic politics. A Canadian parliamentary report in June, based on information provided by the country’s intelligence services, identified China and India as the two countries that pose the biggest risk of foreign interference.

Mr. Kumar Verma, India’s ambassador to Canada, dismissed the report as politically motivated, and his government on Monday expressed its full support for him. “The aspersions cast on him by the government of Canada are ludicrous and deserve to be treated with contempt,” it said.

Anupreeta Das and Ian Austen contributed reporting.“

Sunday, October 13, 2024

FEMA - Hurricane Rumor Response

“Rumors and misleading information can spread quickly after any disaster. Following Hurricanes Helene and Milton, we have seen many rumors that have the potential to seriously hamper storm response efforts or prevent people from getting assistance quickly.

Help keep yourself, your family and your community safe by being aware of rumors and scams and sharing official information from trusted sources. You can get official information on Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton.

Do your part to stop the spread of rumors by doing three easy things: 

  1. Find trusted sources of information. 
  2. Share information from trusted sources. 
  3. Discourage others from sharing information from unverified sources. 

Rumors

This is false.

FEMA is not blocking or preventing any aspect of debris removal, which is handled by local governments. FEMA does not directly handle debris removal, hire contractors to remove debris, or manage dump sites or transfer stations. FEMA does reimburse local, state or tribal governments for their storm-related debris removal.  

If you were affected by a hurricane and are wondering how to address debris removal for your property, check with your local county or municipal government for guidelines. Volunteer organizations and companies operating in your area may also be able to help. Learn more: 9 Ways to Stay Safe Cleaning Up Debris After a Disaster.

This is false. 

FEMA does not hire, manage or supervise work performed by contractors for debris removal after storms. FEMA does not control or manage dump sites or transfer stations. FEMA does reimburse local, state or tribal governments for their storm-related debris removal. However, we have no control over local laws or ordinances for debris removal that may control transfer stations, dump sites or contracts.

This is a misleading statement.

To determine what assistance you may be eligible for, visit DisasterAssistance.gov or call 1-800-621-3362 to go through the application process. You will be asked questions during the application process about how the disaster affected you. Your application will be reviewed and you will be updated about the assistance you qualify for as it goes through the review process. Some forms of assistance may be provided sooner than others. You can check the status of your application any time by logging into DisasterAssistance.gov or by calling 1-800-621-3362.

This is false. 

This is a type of assistance that you may be approved for soon after you apply, called Serious Needs Assistance. It is an upfront, flexible payment to help cover essential items like food, water, baby formula, breastfeeding supplies, medication and other emergency supplies. It is NOT a loan. There are other forms of assistance that you may qualify for to receive and Serious Needs Assistance is an initial payment you may receive while FEMA assesses your eligibility for additional funds. As your application continues to be reviewed, you may still receive additional forms of assistance for other needs such as support for temporary housing, personal property and home repair costs. If you have questions about your disaster assistance application and what you qualify for, contact us at 1-800-621-3362 to speak with a FEMA representative in your language.

Note: FEMA adjusts the maximum amount of financial assistance available to disaster survivors each fiscal year, which began on October 1. The new maximum for the initial Serious Needs assistance is now $770. These maximums apply to any disasters declared on or after October 1, 2024.

This is false. 

FEMA is not blockading people in Florida and preventing evacuations. FEMA does not control traffic flow or conduct traffic stops, which are handled by local authorities. This is a harmful rumor that can put lives in danger.

If you live in the west coast of Florida and the Florida peninsula, take immediate action to protect yourself and your loved ones. Follow the guidance of your local authorities. If you are ordered to evacuate, do so immediately. Delaying your evacuation can put your life and the lives of others at risk.

Local officials are the best source of information about evacuation and resources to help. Find more information: Hurricane Milton | Florida Disaster.

This is false. In most cases, FEMA grants do NOT have to be paid back.

There are some less common situations in which you may have to pay FEMA back if you receive duplicate benefits from insurance or a grant from another source. For example, if you have insurance that covers your temporary housing costs, but you ask FEMA to advance you some money to help you pay for those costs while your insurance is delayed, you will need to pay that money back to FEMA after you receive your insurance settlement.

If you are a homeowner or small business owner, low-interest disaster loans are also available from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in a declared major disaster area. These loans may help with home repair or replacement, personal property, vehicles, mitigation, business losses, and working capital for small business and most private nonprofits. Learn more about SBA disaster loans.

People need to apply for assistance one time per household.  Do not re-submit or create a new application during the disaster assistance process. Submitting more than one application per disaster will cause delays.

You can check the status of your application or read any FEMA correspondence by accessing your DisasterAssistance.gov account or by calling the FEMA Helpline at 800-621-3362

The FAA is not restricting access for recovery operations. The FAA is coordinating closely with state and local officials to make sure everyone is operating safely in very crowded and congested airspace. 

Learn More from the FAA

External Link Arrow

FEMA provides assistance to survivors regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, English proficiency or economic status.

FEMA cannot seize your property or land. Applying for disaster assistance does not grant FEMA or the federal government authority or ownership of your property or land. When you apply for disaster assistance a FEMA inspector may be sent to verify the damage on your home. This is one of many factors reviewed to determine what kind of disaster assistance you may be eligible for. If the results of the inspection deem your home uninhabitable, that information is only used to determine the amount of FEMA assistance you may receive to make your home safe, sanitary and functional.

Last updated