There’s an Afghan saying: When you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, only the one you hit yelps. If my book, Texas Flood 4 July 2025, were a stone I threw, it hit Andy Rumbach right between the eyes; he’ll likely remain cross-eyed for a while.
Like many at FEMA, Andy takes himself seriously, but not what he does. That’s a recipe for failure. FEMA has proven this repeatedly. Now Andy has. Consider his clownish critique of Texas Flood 4 July 2025:
Andy tells folks he’s read my book, so they don’t have to. That’s probably because anyone who reads my book will know far more about managing disasters and what FEMA is supposed to do than Andy does. Andy has a PhD in something having to do with disasters and works for one of the stumps in the swamp in Washington D.C. called a think tank. In other words, Andy profits from the confusion at FEMA by talking about it. As far as I know, Andy has never witnessed firsthand any history worth mentioning except for a battle for a parking space or who sits where in the cubicle jungle at the office. I have, and my book details what happened in Washington D.C. during the Texas flood. As even Andy admits, it’s a success story.
Andy calls me misogynous and shallow thinking. Indeed, Andy picked from my book the humorous quips and barbs and interpreted them as any academic who has spent too much time reading the manual on acceptable speech might. In short, he took the bait. Mission accomplished. I didn’t realize it would be so easy to snare the humorless. As far as asserting the solutions I propose in my book are shallow, Andy likely has no experience tackling complex problems and simplifying mission statements so they can be understood by those who require crystal-clear guidance to carry out operations. Like most academics, Andy mistakes simplicity for shallowness. Andy likely prefers big words, long sentences, and prolonged speeches that delay action and obfuscate intent. If you read my book, you will know exactly what FEMA is supposed to do by law and why for years it has operated in a muddle of half-baked mission statements and a gaggle of federal employees who can’t get out of each other’s way. Also, if you read my book, you will be able to do Andy’s job.
Yet, somehow, at the end of his screed, Andy sees fit to concede my actions in July 2025 were the right ones. He admits the DHS $100K procurement memo acted as a bureaucratic tourniquet during the emergency, and that by bypassing DHS headquarters I pushed search-and-rescue assets from Colorado and Missouri into Texas on time. Indeed, Andy goes as far as confirming for the record that Nim Kidd, the top emergency manager in Texas, responded, “Damn right we did” when I asked him if the state received critical assets without delay. Yes, my book is a story of success, and Andy acknowledges that.
Furthermore, Andy attempts to dismiss my policy critiques—critiques I developed side by side with those at FEMA willing to tackle their basket full of problems—by claiming they are nothing new. I agree, the problems I uncovered are not novel; they’ve been discussed for years, and no solution was found. I offered solutions; at FEMA, that’s definitely new. Nobody denies there are certain programs at FEMA that are bankrupt and require bailouts from Congress. Rather than admiring the problem further, I walked those at FEMA through the process of providing solutions other than taxpayer bailouts and Band-Aids. It wasn’t Jesus turning water into wine, but it provided clearly articulated solutions. Andy’s motto, like many at FEMA, is likely something akin to, If you’re not part of the solution, there is job security in prolonging the problem. Andy doesn’t solve problems; he talks about them. He fits well with his kindred spirits at FEMA. I don’t.
Andy cites a Netflix show, comparing me to someone playing a police officer. I’ve never watched a Netflix series, so I’m not qualified to comment on the accuracy of his comparison. But he also somehow suggests I believe I’m of Ulysses S. Grant caliber. Far from it. Yet, like many with my background, I know the necessity of understanding how people respond under duress, so I read Grant’s memoirs; I learned Grant understood that effective command requires moving toward the point of greatest friction, cutting through ambiguity, and doing more with less. It would well serve the country if FEMA learned these lessons rather than turning disaster relief into a pile-on sport of bureaucrats, endless paper churn, and job security. But, regardless of any recommendation I make, Andy will probably not read the general’s memoirs to glean leadership lessons. Netflix shows will have to suffice.
And, finally, Andy says, “The debate requires participants who understand what FEMA does and respect the people who do it.” Indeed, it does. But at the think tanks of Washington D.C. and FEMA, few exist that do understand FEMA’s mission and the laws that inform it. That is why the problems at FEMA have been admired for so long and nothing has been done. If you read my book, you will see solutions. If you read the Op-eds I am providing the public, you will see more of them. Also, if you read my book you will laugh—sometimes directly at the white-collar welfare recipients at FEMA who you are paying to do nothing more than talk about problems. Be assured, the folks at FEMA never intend to solve problems because there is job security in the resulting circular discussions. These are people who deserve derision.