This is kind of a brain dump and probably messy. Remember: It's a BLOG post by a big fat fucking NOBODY, not a PhD paper and not a press release from a government official.
I saw a piece where Trump was saying DEI may have been a factor in some bit of negative news, a plane crash I think, that I hadn't heard because I intentionally live under a rock and ignore "The News" to the best of my ability.
I think I get what he's saying and I know people think that sounds racist AF, but he's right if he's saying what I think he's saying: hiring criteria OTHER THAN "the most qualified for the job" tends to undercut excellence in the workplace and for some jobs that require a high level of performance that can literally be disastrous.
It cuts BOTH ways. Historically, the Mafia was incredibly racist and Italians only worked with Italians and Irish only worked with Irish etc and the most successful American mafioso was NOT racist and worked with everyone in the Mafia based on qualifications -- the Irish, the Italians, everyone in organized crime, hiring them to do whatever illegal thing they did best.
So a "Whites only" policy or similar is ALSO problematic and when done well a policy of hiring on qualifications can be antiracist, antimisogynistic, etc.
See the Rooney Rule for an example of a best practice to help mitigate bias in hiring (which has unfortunately shifted to quotas but didn't begin that way) and see the backstory for the casting of Alien for how to create an excellent movie. (TLDR: Sigourney Weaver became the female lead because they didn't have preconceived notions about gender and skin color for the characters. Ditto casting for Teal'c.)
I don't follow the news but HEADLINES suggest Trump is criticizing FEMA and saying states need to take care of their own problems. I also suspect he's trying to create a world government by adding other countries as US states and doing it badly and getting a lot of hostility from other countries.
But my suspicion is his remarks about FEMA are part of a larger plan to add other countries as US states and tell them "No, the US will not be bled by all the underdeveloped countries for endless aid in the process of creating a world government."
My recollection is that when FEMA goes in after a disaster to help rebuild, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so I'm not necessarily opposed to saying the states need to do a better job of managing their stuff themselves. It's nigh impossible to actually PROVE, but the track record implies states are probably half assing a lot of stuff and counting on a disaster being a winning lottery ticket where the federal government comes in and fixes their SHIT.
The federal government historically sent the Army Corps of Engineers to serve FEDERAL needs by establishing infrastructure that supports federal goals of security, etc. And we seem to not being doing that anymore and instead wait until it floods, burns down, whatever and the federal government increasingly acts like an insurance company only with zero business sense because I worked in insurance and insurance doesn't cover "accidents waiting to happen."
Insurance policies have a list of exclusions and limitations and this shit where states build to a standard to protect against "a hundred years flood" and then whine and cry about being shocked when there's a five hundred years flood would get a denial letter from an insurance company.
Hundred years flood is a misnomer and is really more like a one percent chance per year and climate change is changing those odds etc etc, which is outside the scope of this post. The point being that sooner or later, x WILL happen, it's only a matter of time, and when cities and states make PLANS that hand wave that off and hope it's going to happen "not in my lifetime"/"not while I'm in office," they are guaranteeing their people will eventually be screwed because the infrastructure in place is inadequate to known worst case scenarios that WILL happen sooner or later.
It's not unlike international agencies pouring boatloads of money into helping Haiti after every big storm and never instituting a policy of only building storm resistant infrastructure and then being SHOCKED that Haiti has such intractable problems and things get steadily WORSE.
Only on a longer time scale then every single FUCKING year like "helpful" aid organizations do to Haiti.
(If I were Haiti, I would be postal by now and throwing those motherfuckers out of my country. But I'm weird like that, I guess. They had no cholera until an aid worker gave it to them. YAY!)
Anyway, exactly as I said in a previous post, the PROBLEM here is I'm hearing what they will STOP providing and NOT hearing a better solution they intend to upgrade it to. So like everyone on planet Earth, I'm skeptical they actually have a better answer.
But I still think global thermonuclear war is the only real fix for the cesspit known as planet Earth, so I'm pretty meh. If a 78 year old billionaire wants to try to take over the world as his hobby, I'm kind of up for making popcorn and watching this nonsense as entertainment.