Politics in California usually feels like a cage match, but when the hills start glowing orange, people generally expect the fighting to stop. That hasn't always been the case. Trump's response to California fires has historically been a mix of rapid federal aid and some of the most intense political friction in modern American history. If you've lived through the last few fire seasons, you know the drill: the smoke clears, the damage is tallied, and then the finger-pointing begins.
Honestly, it’s complicated. On one hand, you have a President who signed dozens of disaster declarations. On the other, you have a leader who suggested "raking" the forest floors and threatened to cut off FEMA funding in the middle of a crisis. It's a lot to unpack.
The Famous "Raking" Comment and Forest Management
We have to talk about the raking. Back in 2018, while visiting the ruins of Paradise after the devastating Camp Fire, Trump suggested that California needed to take a page out of Finland's book. He claimed the Finnish President told him they spend a lot of time "raking and cleaning" their forests.
It became an instant meme.
👉 See also: Next vote for government shutdown: Why Jan 30 is the date to watch
But behind the "raking" comment was a very real, very heated debate about forest management. Trump’s core argument was that California’s "gross mismanagement" of forests was the primary reason for the catastrophic blazes. He wasn't entirely wrong that forests needed more thinning, but there was a massive catch.
Most of the forested land in California isn't actually owned by the state.
About 57% of California’s forests are under federal control—managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Only about 3% belongs to the state. This created a bizarre situation where the President was essentially criticizing his own administration’s "mismanagement" of the land while blaming the Governor.
Breaking Down the 2025 Los Angeles Fires
Fast forward to early 2025. The Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles were apocalyptic. Thousands of homes were destroyed. This time, the rhetoric shifted from "raking" to "water."
Trump claimed that Governor Gavin Newsom (or "Newscum," as he frequently posted on Truth Social) was letting millions of gallons of water flow into the Pacific Ocean to protect a "worthless" tiny fish called the Delta smelt. He argued this water should have been sent south to fight the fires.
Experts and local officials, like those from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), were quick to correct the record. They pointed out that the issue wasn't a lack of water in Northern California; it was the infrastructure. When fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades ran dry, it was because the local pumps and storage tanks—some of which were under repair—couldn't keep up with the 100-mph winds and the sheer volume of water being pulled by firefighters.
The Threat to Withhold Federal Aid
This is where things get genuinely tense. Trump has repeatedly used federal disaster aid as a bargaining chip. In January 2025, he suggested that California might not see typical federal reimbursement unless the state changed its voter ID laws or its water policies.
"I just want voter ID as a start," he told reporters on a tarmac.
This sent shockwaves through the emergency management community. Usually, disaster aid is a "no questions asked" situation once the criteria are met. Under the Stafford Act, the President has broad authority to declare a disaster, but once the money is moving, it's hard to stop. Former FEMA directors have noted that while a President can make things a "pain in the butt" through bureaucratic delays, they can't easily cancel checks for work already done.
The Cooperation You Didn't See on TV
Despite the public bickering, the actual work on the ground often tells a different story. In 2020, Trump and Newsom actually sat down in a briefing at McClellan Park. Newsom thanked Trump for his support and acknowledged that both the state and the feds needed to do better on forest thinning.
Trump, for his part, signed over 40 Stafford Act declarations for California during his first term.
💡 You might also like: Recent Shootings in the US: Why the Numbers Feel So Different Lately
He even presented the Distinguished Flying Cross to seven National Guard members who rescued hundreds of people from the Creek Fire. This "split-screen" reality is the hallmark of Trump's response to California fires: high-level political combat on Twitter/Truth Social, paired with a functioning (if strained) federal-state emergency pipeline.
The Recent Shift in Policy
In mid-2025, the administration issued a new Executive Order aimed at "Commonsense Wildfire Prevention." It pushed for:
- Consolidating wildland fire programs between the Interior and Agriculture departments.
- Selling excess military aircraft to states for firefighting use.
- Declassifying satellite data to help with fire prediction.
- Cutting red tape for "prescribed burns" (intentionally setting small fires to clear brush).
Many of these moves were actually welcomed by fire scientists, even if they disagreed with the President's rhetoric on climate change. Scientists like John Abatzoglou have long argued that while management is key, you can't ignore the "threat multiplier" of rising temperatures and drying soils.
What Most People Get Wrong
There's a common misconception that Trump simply "hates" California and wants it to burn. It's more accurate to say he views California as a political antagonist. By framing the fires as a result of "radical environmentalism" or "bad governance," he speaks to his base's frustration with the state's liberal policies.
However, the "Smelt vs. Fire" argument is largely a red herring. Diverting more water to the Central Valley helps agriculture, but it doesn't provide the high-pressure delivery systems needed to stop a wind-driven fire in a suburban canyon.
👉 See also: Valeria Marquez Video de su Muerte: What Really Happened That Night
Moving Forward: Actionable Realities for Californians
The back-and-forth between D.C. and Sacramento isn't going away. If you're living in a high-risk zone, relying on the political climate to stabilize isn't a strategy. Here is what the current landscape actually means for residents:
- Insurance is the New Front Line: With the federal government threatening to condition aid and the state struggling to keep up, private insurers are fleeing. Check your FAIR Plan options now.
- Defensible Space is Non-Negotiable: Regardless of who owns the forest, your 100 feet of "home hardening" is what determines if your house survives. Don't wait for a federal thinning project.
- Local Infrastructure Matters: The 2025 fires showed that municipal water systems are the weak link. Pressure your local city council to upgrade "high-elevation" pump stations and storage tanks.
- Follow the Funding, Not the Tweets: Watch the HUD and FEMA reimbursement cycles. While the rhetoric is loud, the actual flow of money for debris removal usually happens through the "loyal opposition" of career bureaucrats.
The reality of Trump's response to California fires is that it’s never just about the fires. It’s about water rights, immigration, voter ID, and the ongoing power struggle between the nation’s largest state and the federal government. The fires are simply the theater where that struggle plays out.