The tension around Congress that morning wasn’t about weather — it was about pressure. Cameron Hamilton, recently removed as FEMA administrator, stepped out of the Capitol with the calm of someone who had said what he believed needed to be said. Just minutes earlier, he had warned lawmakers that weakening FEMA would leave the country vulnerable during future disasters.
Hamilton was not the type who enjoyed attention. He wasn’t a politician trying to create headlines. He was someone who had walked through burned towns, flooded neighborhoods, and storm-damaged communities long after the cameras disappeared. He had seen the reality that disasters leave behind — entire blocks reduced to debris, families searching for what little remained. When he told Congress that cutting FEMA posed “a serious risk to national safety,” he was speaking from experience, not defending his position.
But experience doesn’t always win in political debates.
Some critics saw his testimony as proof that he supported an agency they believed needed major reform. They pointed to past controversies, funding debates, and public concerns about how resources had been used. Whether the claims were fully accurate or not no longer mattered; the debate had grown too large, and the arguments spread faster than anyone could control. Within hours, Hamilton was dismissed from his role.
He didn’t respond with anger. He simply accepted the outcome and left the building he had spent years trying to improve. But instead of calming the situation, his departure intensified it. His firing became a talking point for those who believed disaster management should move entirely to state control. Their view was that local governments understood their own communities best.
Continue reading on the next page…