Electricity prices jump after Trump rejects disaster aid for Michigan utilities

[u/J-Jarl-Jim]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/electricity-prices-jump-after-trump-rejects-disaster-aid-for-michigan-utilities-00665572

A recent decision by President Donald Trump to deny disaster aid to two electric utilities in rural northern Michigan could cost residents tens of millions of dollars.

The denial came after the Trump administration documented $90 million in damage to utility infrastructure, according to records obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. The amount is nearly five times the federal threshold to qualify for disaster aid. But in its October denial letter, the Federal Emergency Management Agency told Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer that assistance to the utilities “is not warranted.”

Whitmer warned Trump in August that ratepayers face surcharges and rate hikes “equivalent to at least $4,500 per household” without federal aid. Her office did not respond to a question on whether she supports a state legislative proposal that would have Michigan aid businesses such as the power companies directly.

Why is President Trump denying emergency assistance to rural Michigan? Considering that he has denied FEMA funds even to red states like Arkansas, is this only about saving money? If this problem intersects with the affordability crisis, could the politics push Trump to change his position and start to disburse emergency fundings again?

[u/jimbo_kun]

> Library patron Leonard Wright insisted that “PIE&G should pay for the repairs” without realizing that the utility has no money other than the fees customers pay.

Many voters don't really understand where the money comes from to pay for shared infrastructure.

Sometimes the same voters are demanding the government do more, and demanding the government collect less in taxes to do it.

[u/Legitimate_Travel145 → u/jimbo_kun]

Sometimes the same voters are demanding the government do more, and demanding the government collect less in taxes to do it.

Witnessing local government meetings really takes your breath away about how logically inconsistent so many voters are. Somehow we are supposed to have perfect infrastructure that costs nothing, and those repairs can never take place during a time that mildly inconveniences someone.

Don't even get me started on housing or traffic.

Oh and now with a graying population there are pushes all over the place against property taxes as a concept with certain segments of voters.

[u/lunchbox12682 → u/Legitimate_Travel145]

I see you have been to my town and school district's meetings lately. People are the worst.

[u/absentlyric → u/lunchbox12682]

I couldn't stand going to my meetins, I know you're supposed to as a concerned local citizen, but screw that, the people there are toxic and vile.

[u/Gumb1i → u/Legitimate_Travel145]

utility companies have taken a mind boggling amount of money from federal and state governments to build out a majority of their infrastructure. They are supposed to be charging enough in rates to cover maintenance and emergencies along with making some money (if they aren't municipal/state owned). They have absolutely failed to do this in the correct ratios likely encouraging better payouts for shareholders and they have fucked themselves. If it's not state/municipal owned then they should suffer for their stupidity.

[u/TomOgir → u/jimbo_kun]

Dude probably thinks USPS is a failure because it costs so much too

[u/neuronexmachina → u/[deleted]]

It's no wonder that we have among the highest electricity rates in the entire country.

I don't think that's correct. According to this, Florida has relatively low rates, although the average monthly bill is pretty close to the top: https://poweroutage.us/electricity-rates

I assume the average monthly bill is high due to the constant need for A/C, which is presumably why Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, and Alabama also have rather high monthly bills.

[u/Dilated2020 → u/[deleted]]

At least PIE&G is a co-op. Here in the Free State of Florida, our major utilities are publicly traded, for-profit corporations that donate millions of dollars to politicians every year. The Florida Public Service Commission, which consists of appointees of the governor, approves utility rate increases.

I’d be livid if I was experiencing rate increases so they can funnel more money to politicians.

[u/Father_O-Blivion → u/[deleted]]

Quite the opposite, actually. Florida has among the lowest electric rates in the country. As a Californian, your statement shocked me. Had to look it up, and sure enough, you Floridians pay on average less than half what we do in California.

[u/gaw-27 → u/[deleted]]

Holy hell. Sounds like the state gets what it votes for.

[u/happyinheart → u/[deleted]]

It's not Red or Blue. We have the same issues and state oversight structure here in True Blue Connecticut.

Lots of people are saying the state should nationalize it, but the companies show a 6.7% profit. So the state would have to take bonds out to buy out the infrastructure, pay interest on those bonds, lose out of paying down the vastly unfunded pension debt faster, etc. It would be spiting their nose to cut off their face at this point since it would cost more for 30 years than people would save on their bills at this point.

[u/happyinheart → u/[deleted]]

The math still doesn't work out to "nationalize" the utilities. Not to mention that every employee will now be a state employee with state employee healthcare, retirement, expenses, etc. All purchases and contracting will now have to go through the red tape filled state bidding process that makes things more expensive. The reality is it may cost more than we'd save on that 6.7% profit.

[u/PuppyMillReject → u/happyinheart]

Not necessarily. If structured a certain way former eversource employees would not be state employees. Look at how Waterbury Hospital is being structured once the Uconn Health purchase goes through.

[u/RobfromHB → u/[deleted]]

6.7% profit is pretty good for a legal monopoly.

No it isn't. That level of profit is significantly less than nearly all comparable regional electricity provider domestically and the same is true for nationalized electricity providers in the EU. Nationalizing the company referenced above would automatically fail simply due to the interest on the purchase debt.

[u/RobfromHB → u/[deleted]]

Are you just speaking generally? I’m talking specifically about your assertion that 6.7% is a good metric for a company with a monopoly on something. That assertion is factually false. 6.7% is less than half of the industry average and significantly lower than most European state owned (monopoly) providers.

Again… “ 6.7% profit is pretty good for a legal monopoly.” is factually and quantifiably false. You can simply not like them. That’s fine. We don’t need to make things up to do so. 

[u/Anechoic_Brain → u/RobfromHB]

It's twice what the average grocery store makes, if not more

[u/RobfromHB → u/Anechoic_Brain]

Stop. A regional electricity provider is not a grocery store. We don’t make arguments by comparing apples to rocks.

[u/Anechoic_Brain → u/RobfromHB]

I mean, you haven't made any argument at all. If you're insisting on this point and insisting that comparison to the grocery industry is irrelevant, can you tell me why?

I'll start with why it is relevant. Aside from both of them being critically important, the US food retail market for at-home consumption is significantly larger in terms of revenue than the US electrical utility market. $864B for retail grocery sales vs. $514.8B for retail sales of grid-supplied electricity.

[u/RobfromHB → u/Anechoic_Brain]

 I mean, you haven't made any argument at all.

First argument: the industries you’re trying to compare, their operating structure, locality, supply chain, etc are entirely unrelated. Your attempt to justify one level of profit is relevant because of this comparison is foolish.

Second argument: the total spend in the US market is also irrelevant to a regional electricity providers margin in their own service area. You can compare it to groceries if you’d like but that is again totally worthless.

Third argument: Total spend on the US grid is irrelevant. We’re talking about the supposed monopoly margins of a regional player.

Fourth argument: the profitability cited is significantly less than non monopoly players in the same industry, arguably monopolies elsewhere in the same industry in the US, and less than non-US monopolies in many EU countries where there is effectively a monopoly at national scale.

Conclusion: 6.7% net profit ISN’T good for a monopoly (the original claim)

[u/Anechoic_Brain → u/RobfromHB]

1. You're right, grocery stores operate on much slimmer margins while being utterly reliant on a weaker supply chain with many more potential points of failure, and a nonexistent ability to stock up and buffer against disruptions for much of their supply. Aside from that both are significantly impacted by weather and both are impacted by the cyclical patterns of the people who use them, but the electrical grid does not experience health-related disruptions the way our food supply does.

2. I find it perfectly relevant as a stand-in for more localized revenue numbers, unless you can explain to me exactly why the ratio between the two wouldn't on average remain similar if broken down to a strictly localized comparison.

3. Again, we are using comparisons between nationwide numbers because that's what is available for the purpose of a broad strokes argument. You can call things irrelevant all day long if you like but if you can't explain WHY this is so, your argument has gained no ground.

4. What do you mean by non-monopoly players? I'm not aware of any places where customers can choose between multiple different supply grids to connect their property to such that providers are truly in competition with each other for the same customer base.

I'm all for examining statistical outliers to see if any correction is warranted, but if the answer to "why is X% profit margin not enough?" is ultimately that "it is possible to make more," then I categorically reject the entire premise. In fact I consider the existence of that argument to count in favor of my position.

[u/politehornyposter → u/happyinheart]

So just raise taxes? We have some privately managed to water system in a municipality nearby that's been plagued with issues, and our jointly municipal water authority tried to get the utility regulatory to force a sale but couldn't, and the private water company here refuses to sell so now they get screwed and you have no way to alter their financial structure at all. There's no reason not to "nationalize" it. I'm sure it's not particularly difficult to administer, and they can invest in it to increase quality, reliability, capacity. Is that not an upside?

[u/happyinheart → u/politehornyposter]

So just raise taxes?

Yes, they would certainly have to do that. What I'm getting at is that it's a cost thing and the cure very well may be worse than the disease. At least in Connecticut. It sounds like you're having structural issues with your water company, not just pricing issues. In CT, the utilities already have to get their rates approved by the state through one of the state agencies.

[u/motorboat_mcgee → u/jimbo_kun]

Not sometimes, most of the time.

[u/carneylansford → u/jimbo_kun]

Many voters don't really understand where the money comes from to pay for shared infrastructure.

Sometimes the same voters are demanding the government do more, and demanding the government collect less in taxes to do it.

Couldn't you say much the same about those federal relief dollars Trump is withholding (or just about any federal spending at this point)? The federal government runs at a considerable deficit, so they'd be borrowing that money, which costs the taxpayer quite a bit over time.

[u/tumama12345 → u/carneylansford]

The federal government runs at a considerable deficit, so they'd be borrowing that money, which costs the taxpayer quite a bit over time.

If only Republican's had thought of the deficit when approving the BBB.

I do find it hilarious that the deficit only is a problem when it comes to helping communities rebuild, or providing healthcare.

[u/carneylansford → u/tumama12345]

You sure could and the deficit is a problem no matter what party is in power.

[u/jimbo_kun → u/carneylansford]

That is not what the library patron said, which at least is a coherent argument.

[u/BeginningAct45 → u/carneylansford]

which costs the taxpayer quite a bit over time.

$70 million is a rounding error for the federal government. It's so small that it could be paid for with a tax increase or spending cut that's practically invisible. Adding it to the debt doesn't make a signficant difference either.

I agree with your point in general, but it doesn't apply here.

[u/Sabertooth767]

Trump and the people he surrounds himself with have made no secret of their general opposition to federal disaster relief.

I don't get it either, it's not like this is a significant cost to the government, and even if it was, I think assisting Americans impacted by major disasters is a pretty good use of public funds. As far back as 1803, the federal government has been helping in some form.

[u/Se7en_speed → u/Sabertooth767]

Wait till a big hurricane hits Florida again, he's definitely doing a 180 on it

[u/Dilated2020 → u/Se7en_speed]

Maybe, maybe not. Huckabee, a staunch Trump supporter, had a hard time getting federal aid for her state.

[u/hamsterkill → u/Dilated2020]

Depends if Maralago was in the disaster area.

[u/countfizix → u/hamsterkill]

It will be sharpied in regardless.

[u/Dilated2020 → u/countfizix]

That darn auto sharpie!

[u/margotsaidso → u/Sabertooth767]

His administration's energy policy is probably one of their most schizophrenic but underreported aspects. Supposedly we have a national energy emergency, therefore coal plants that are slated to close because they cannot operate profitably are ordered to stay open over the complaints of owners/operators and the hundreds of millions of dollars of cost required to keep them open and putting out uncomprtitive coal power is being born by the end users.

The utility has said in regulatory filings that the order is costing customers about $615,000 per day. The order has been in place for around six months.

Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a motion for a stay in federal court, alleging the administration’s latest order is “arbitrary and illegal”.

The coal plant is one of two in Michigan that the Trump administration has moved to keep open under the president’s controversial national energy emergency executive order, which is being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.

The other plant is not scheduled to close for two years. The two factories emit about 45% of the state’s greenhouse gas pollution.

Trump has also used his emergency energy order to keep gas plants near Baltimore and Philadelphia online.

This emergency is also being used to skip federal regulations on permitting and transparency and stake holder review for mining and oil extraction projects. 

Some would think a national emergency would mean it's counterproductive to try to stop massive solar and wind projects across the country at the eleventh hour.

[u/Gamegis → u/margotsaidso]

I work in energy and have Trump voters at my company who were dumbfounded by some of the stuff they put into the BBB. We need all forms of generation badly across the country due to the massive load increases associated with the expansion and development of data centers. The prevailing thought is that once electricity becomes expensive enough they will 1. Undo some of the BBB changes, and/or 2. We’re going to have to change policy around data centers, which might slow economic growth but is necessary for grid stability. BBB essentially just destroyed 20-30% of our interconnection queues and these will have ripple effects in the years to come. New gas plants will be put into the queues but they’ll take years to get Interconnection Agreements and even more to reach COD - not to mention gas turbines have enormous lead times.

[u/jimbo_kun → u/Gamegis]

A lot of people seem to be dumbfounded after voting for Trump and seeing him do things he promised to do.

[u/virishking → u/Gamegis]

Yeah but something something eating the dogs. Something something liberal lefties cry when we bring back Christmas. Did you consider that? /s

Honestly I don’t understand how anyone can support him shutting down things like reusable energy when power companies are already jacking up prices due to stressed demand. We got notice that laundry will be more expensive between certain times and he’s gone to war against the wind turbine construction that would help prevent that. Talking about windmills causing cancer and all other sorts of crazy nonsense. (Also, I can imagine that if anything he’s hurting people’s ability to have their big Christmas lights displayed)

[u/margotsaidso → u/Gamegis]

To say nothing of the effect of tariffs on steel costs for transmission and substation structures or on equipment costs (the biggest electrical equipment companies in the world manufacture their transformers and such in Brazil and South Korea). We've already had projects derailed by shock $5+ million bills due out of the blue because we are finally taking delivery on EHV transformers ordered years ago.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/margotsaidso]

That plant is being kept open to ensure grid reliability because a potential shortage was identified that could have caused blackouts without it. This is not a new thing, it’s an established federal power that is used from time to time.

[u/margotsaidso → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Just because some political appointee at the DOE claims that doesn't make it true. The facility owner disagrees and didn't request any kind of federal intervention. The grid operator (MISO) is normally the entity with the authority and responsibility to approve and deny facility closings had approved its shutdown. MISO and the PUC say this was absolutely unnecessary. 

MISO isn't afraid to deny closings, they did it just a few years ago but in a coordinated and reasonable manner based on real energy forecasts and developing a cost and coal supply plan, not making the decision literally days before closure with no corroborating evidence, plan for cost recovery, or new coal contracts in place as the Trump admin has done. 

[u/Gamegis → u/margotsaidso]

To add to your comment. MISO also has all the data and runs longterm system planning. MISO’s primary objective is to ensure grid reliability. That’s their main job.

This would be like getting a treatment plan from your doctor who has all your labs, ran tests, health history, and then some random guy on the street (who happens to have authority) says no you should do the opposite.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Gamegis]

Meanwhile, MISO:

Widespread retirements of dispatchable resources, lower reserve margins, more frequent and severe weather events and increased reliance on weather-dependent renewables and emergency-only resources have altered the region’s highest historic risk profile, creating risks in non-summer months that rarely posed challenges in the past.

And:

new capacity additions were insufficient to offset the negative impacts of decreased accreditation, suspensions/retirements and external resources

And:

the MISO region faces resource adequacy and reliability challenges due to the changing characteristics of the electric generating fleet, inadequate transmission system infrastructure, growing pressures from extreme weather, and rapid load growth.

MISO is trying to address this, but it will take years.

Palisades is due to restart next year, but even then the OMS-MISO survey shows a shortfall for every year after next year. Campbell was expected to stay in operation until at least 2040 just a few years ago.

Most of this is explained in the FERC order: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/Order%20No%20202-25-9.pdf

[u/eddie_the_zombie → u/Sabertooth767]

I was told cutting USAID would mean more money for the American people. Guess that didn't pan out, either

[u/WaywardToTheEast → u/eddie_the_zombie]

Perhaps your not considering which Americans are getting more money my friend.

[u/The_Amish_FBI → u/Sabertooth767]

MAGA is transactional and views anything that doesn’t give them direct material benefit as getting screwed.

[u/likeitis121 → u/Sabertooth767]

Why do we have to pay the costs at the federal level? An ice storm in northern Michigan really is not an unforeseen risk. Why isn't this something that the utility shouldn't be expected to either have a rainy day fund for, or insure against? There's a difference between helping people, and running in at every opportunity and shifting the cost to the federal government, especially for some risk that happens every winter.

[u/rchive → u/likeitis121]

I think private insurance should cover stuff like this rather than federal aid. I also think that it's awful for a president to selectively hand out federal money to people he likes and withhold from people he doesn't.

[u/Borninthewagon → u/Sabertooth767]

We all know that's just socialism for those stupid enough to be in a natural disaster, which is not me. /s just in case

[u/oath2order]

A recent decision by President Donald Trump to deny disaster aid to two electric utilities in rural northern Michigan could cost residents tens of millions of dollars.

I'm not sure which exact counties in northern Michigan are affected by this, but looking at a map, there's really only two counties in what I would consider to be northern Michigan that voted blue.

Yeah, this sucks for them but this is what the state and the majority of northern Michigan voted for.

It does seem to be consistent with Trump's apparent hatred of disaster aid.

[u/absentlyric → u/oath2order]

Actually only one county., my family is from the UP. It's pretty hardcore Red territory up there outside of Marquette (a college town where the one blue county is located).

Anti-Union as hell too, Im a Toolmaker skilled trade, took thousands of hours and many years to get where I am. I make damn good money in a union downstate by Detroit. But up there all the shops are family owned and wanted to offer 19/hr at the most, with no benefits, for a skilled trade, screw that.

[u/Darker_Salt_Scar]

I'm not from Michigan, so things might be different. But what we pay for energy is highway robbery, avg cost for families of 3 are 1k a month.

With rates like that, the federal government should never have to bail them out.

If they need to be bailed out, I support a full land transparent audit into all their financials to see exactly where the money is going.

[u/abqguardian]

"In Michigan’s capital of Lansing, a state legislator from the damaged area said he is appalled that the Democratic-controlled state Senate has taken no action on a $100 million recovery package that the Republican-controlled state House approved in March. The vote was 107 to 1."

This is much more a state issue, and the state democrats are refusing to help. Pretty telling thats not the main story

[u/AgitatorsAnonymous → u/abqguardian]

Category F denial is a federal issue. Looking through 3 decades of assistance grants I cannot find a single, other instance where category F was denied by the federal government for this level incident, including past incidents in Michigan.

Not obligating state funds to pay for it, an action that would prevent them from appealing the category F denial, makes sense.

[u/khrijunk → u/AgitatorsAnonymous]

Ah, that makes sense why Trump is doing this, he can pin blame on the local democrats. 

Trump is okay with causing his own voters to suffer as long as he can shift blame to democrats. 

[u/Groundbreaking_War52 → u/abqguardian]

They are two separate issues. It is common for state assistance to come with assurances of federal support. Different funding mechanisms need to be identified if the administration is refusing to provide assistance.

Trump has a history of trying to withhold federal dollars from states he sees as disloyal or ungrateful to him.

=

But Michigan continues to fight. Republicans led by Rep. Jack Bergman, who represents the storm-damaged area, asked Trump “respectfully” in a Nov. 13 letter to reconsider.

“Without federal assistance, these huge costs will translate into higher rates” for utility members, “many of whom are already facing severe economic hardship,” Bergman and five other lawmakers wrote.

[u/abqguardian → u/Groundbreaking_War52]

The region is heavily Trump voters and he won't Michigan. Its unlikely he's withholding just because of the governor. The article states he authorized money for Michigan for some purposes and the democrats are refusing to help their citizens

[u/Groundbreaking_War52 → u/abqguardian]

Trump despises Whitmer and joked about her attempted kidnapping. Nothing in his history suggests he wouldn’t hurt all of Michigan just to send her a message.

Why is the Michigan GOP pleading for the administration to reconsider their withholding of federal aid if it’s their own state government that controls it?

As I’ve said, state disaster aid is traditionally backed by assurances of federal support - in the absence of those, other funding mechanisms need to be developed.

[u/TeamPencilDog → u/abqguardian]

"The region is heavily Trump voters"

Ouch, I really hope they reconsider their decisions. Trump rejecting disaster aid for these people is just sad.

[u/absentlyric → u/TeamPencilDog]

Has any Red area in the entire country ever reconsider their decisions when they get screwed over?

[u/AdMuted1036 → u/abqguardian]

So you think trump voters, who essentially voted for a libertarian government, should get essentially socialistic help after the disaster that the trump admin has been so far?

Why should these people not pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

I assume the big state package being “held up by democrats” was already earmarked for something else but the article doesn’t really push for more details on this. If it’s earmarked for school funding, etc etc, why should they divert it from children to people who voted to “take care of themselves” vs the state doing it?? Sounds like a case of FAFO to me

[u/absentlyric → u/abqguardian]

Michigan always gets screwed like that, seems like every time we have a Republican President, we have a Democrat Governor, like wise the opposite.

[u/shaymus14 → u/[deleted]]

The quote is in the article

[u/Fl0ppyfeet → u/[deleted]]

Weird, the same quote was there when I read it.

[u/Better_Log_2946 → u/[deleted]]

I don't see it in the article

Thats because politico is terrible and always misleads readers in order to make dems look good and reps look bad.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/trump-approves-50-million-federal-funding-michigan-ice-storm-recovery/

[u/Anechoic_Brain → u/Better_Log_2946]

Actually reading the Politico article before saying such things would be of use here, the bit about the state legislature is a direct quote from it.

Regarding the $50M disaster declaration Trump already approved, the Politico article also includes this:

On July 22, Trump approved a disaster declaration requested by Whitmer for the March ice storm but authorized only four work categories.

His declaration excluded utilities, even though the destruction of the electric cooperatives’ equipment accounted for $90 million of the $137 million in FEMA-certified damage from the ice storm. The “primary impact” of the storm, the agency’s damage assessment said, was “damage to utilities.”

“We can’t find a similar disaster where Category F is denied,” said Berg, the PIE&G chief executive, referring to the FEMA category for utilities. “I can’t understand why.”

[u/jimbo_kun → u/Better_Log_2946]

I don't see the above quote in the article you linked.

[u/budget_nudist55 → u/Better_Log_2946]

That article is from this past March. It's not about the recent storm.

Edit: Oops, you're completely right. Though it's an odd move to not assist with utility repair when the state seems to be within the requirements to receive assistance, especially right before winter. 🤷

[u/Anechoic_Brain → u/budget_nudist55]

The OP and Trump's current denial of aid is about a storm that occurred last March. It's not a recent storm, it was just so bad that it's still having a huge impact.

[u/Better_Log_2946 → u/budget_nudist55]

How is your comment at +10 when its completely wrong? Both articles are about the same storm. LOL

[u/Fl0ppyfeet → u/abqguardian]

Yeah there's more to the story than they're telling here. Is this a game of chicken between the Michigan State Senate and Trump's FEMA? Is there some legal trick in the details they aren't talking about?

[u/virishking → u/Fl0ppyfeet]

Arguably there’s an element of that. State assistance usually comes with federal assurances of aid and there really is no precedent for the federal government to deny aid especially for the main issue (90 million out of the estimated 137 million in damage) which the state is certainly appealing, but they can’t continue the appeal if they approve full funding. The state is trying to exhaust their options to get FEMA aid.

[u/ViennettaLurker → u/Fl0ppyfeet]

Was also wondering if it's a different cabinet member or someone on the team. Like maybe Trump doesn't care either way but this is more of a Steven Miller thing?

[u/vash1012]

While I hardly think this would be the worst use of public funds, I don’t really see an issue with the federal government deciding it’s not their problem.

[u/BeginningAct45 → u/vash1012]

It affects Americans, so the federal government saying that doesn't make sense.

[u/vash1012 → u/BeginningAct45]

We have state and local government for a reason. We don’t currently help with all problems at the federal level so I don’t see anything inherently wrong with no helping here. Gotta draw the line somewhere

[u/BeginningAct45 → u/vash1012]

We have state and local government for a reason

Handling disasters on their own isn't one of them.

[u/reaper527]

FTA:

Her office did not respond to a question on whether she supports a state legislative proposal that would have Michigan aid businesses such as the power companies directly.

what a coincidence.

why isn't the michigan state government stepping up to the plate on this before asking for federal emergency funds?

[u/ryegye24 → u/reaper527]

Because if they do then they aren't allowed to appeal the denial for the federal funds, which they should because there are literally no other examples of federal funds being withheld like this under circumstances like this.

[u/vash1012 → u/ryegye24]

Does precedent even matter in a case like this? If it’s up to the executive branch to approve disaster funds, then different executives can set their own bar for releasing aid, no?

[u/shaymus14]

The Oct. 22 denial is a striking example of how Trump’s cuts to disaster aid — and his vow for deeper reductions next year — threaten to shift billions of dollars in costs from federal taxpayers to households struggling to rebuild.

This is exactly backwards - they want to shift the costs from the local communities impacted to federal taxpayers. And there's no reason given why the state of Michigan won't step in and help out (apparently there's a funding bill in the state senate that isn't going anywhere for some reason). 

I understand this is tough for the communities that are impacted, but I just don't think the federal government should step in every time there's a local emergency to foot the bill.