Outrage continues to mount over the federal government’s botched response to the deadly floods that struck Texas Hill Country earlier this July. At the center of the crisis is U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, whose decision to abruptly terminate FEMA’s call center contractors directly coincided with thousands of emergency calls from flood survivors going unanswered.
According to documents obtained by The New York Times, on July 5—the day floodwaters began to recede—FEMA received 3,027 calls and answered 3,018, a 99.7 percent response rate. But that same evening, Secretary Noem allowed contracts with four call center companies to lapse, resulting in the immediate layoff of hundreds of contractors.
The consequences were immediate. On July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls but answered only 846—just 35.8 percent. By July 7, call volume surged to 16,419, yet the agency managed to answer only 2,613, or about 15.9 percent.
For flood victims, calling FEMA is one of the primary avenues to apply for assistance. The sudden inability to reach the agency left many stranded in a critical window for recovery. “Responding to less than half of the inquiries is pretty horrific,” said Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. “Put yourself in the shoes of a survivor: You’ve lost everything, you’re trying to find out what’s insured and what’s not, and you’re navigating multiple aid programs. One of the most important services in disaster recovery is being able to call someone and walk through these processes and paperwork.”
Secretary Noem waited five days to renew the contracts for call center staff. By then, the majority of callers during the peak of the crisis had already gone without assistance.
The lapse stemmed from a policy implemented by Noem in June requiring her direct approval of any FEMA expenditure over $100,000. Describing the rule as a safeguard against “waste, fraud, and abuse,” Noem used the new authority to block or delay several key flood response actions, including the call center contracts, deployment of search and rescue teams, and the use of aerial imaging for damage assessment.
According to CNN, multiple FEMA officials reported that Noem waited more than 72 hours to authorize those critical operations. Internal emails obtained by The New York Times show mounting frustration within the agency. On July 8, one FEMA official wrote to colleagues: “We still do not have a decision, waiver, or signature from the DHS Secretary.”
Despite these reports, DHS issued a statement denying the extent of the failure: “NO ONE was left without assistance, and every call was responded to urgently,” the agency said. “When a natural disaster strikes, phone calls surge, and wait times can subsequently increase. Despite this expected influx, FEMA’s disaster call center responded to every caller swiftly and efficiently, ensuring no one was left without assistance. No call center operators were laid off or fired.”
This official narrative stands in direct contradiction to the agency’s internal documents, contractor logs, and interviews with FEMA personnel, all of which confirm that call center operators were indeed dismissed and that thousands of calls went unanswered in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
The political backlash has been swift. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called the failures “unforgivable and unforgettable” and denounced them as “an inexcusable lapse in top leadership.” He added, “Sec. Noem shows that dismantling FEMA impacts real people in real time. It hurts countless survivors & increases recovery costs.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) responded succinctly on social media: “Kristi Noem must resign now.”
Other lawmakers went further, accusing Noem of deliberately undermining FEMA’s operations to further an ideological agenda. “She broke it on purpose,” said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in an interview on MSNBC. “So that when it fails this summer, she can say, ‘Oh, see, we told you—FEMA doesn’t work.’”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) echoed this sentiment, stating, “It’s not really incompetence because they know what they are doing. They are intentionally breaking government—even the parts that help us when we are deep in crisis.”
Secretary Noem has pushed back forcefully, accusing the media and political opponents of exploiting the crisis for partisan gain. In a Sunday interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, Noem said, “It’s discouraging, it’s discouraging that during this time when we have such a loss of life, and so many people’s lives have turned upside down, that people are playing politics with this.”
She also challenged the accuracy of the New York Times reporting: “I’m not certain it’s accurate, and I’m not sure where it came from. And the individuals who are giving you information out of FEMA, I’d love to have them put their names behind it. Because the anonymous attacks to politicize a situation are completely wrong. These emergencies need to be conducted exactly how President Trump handled this one.”
The FEMA controversy also spotlights the precarious future of the agency under the current administration. President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of eliminating FEMA or substantially downsizing its role. Last month, he remarked on potentially weaning states off FEMA support, and he previously cut billions from disaster preparedness programs. Despite this, Trump has praised FEMA’s performance in Texas—comments that seem to contradict Noem’s defensive stance and the agency’s own reported failures.
In her interview, Noem clarified that Trump “does not want FEMA to cease operations,” but added, “I think he wants it to be remade so that it’s an agency that is new in how it deploys and supports states.”
The problems in Texas appear to be part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reorient—or dismantle—federal agencies that provide public services. Previous mass firings at FEMA, the National Weather Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have raised alarm among emergency preparedness experts. As extreme weather events grow in frequency and intensity, critics argue that reducing federal capacity for disaster response leaves millions vulnerable and erodes trust in institutions designed to protect the public.
In this case, that erosion had immediate, life-altering consequences. Thousands of Texans, in the wake of a deadly flood, sought help—only to be met with silence.
COMMENTS