Natural disasters are pivotal events that challenge the capacity of elected officials to address crises affecting their constituencies. This study investigates how U.S. congressional representatives adjust their legislative focus and rhetorical strategies in response to natural disasters. Using a comprehensive dataset of congressional speeches spanning the 97th to 114th Congress (1981–2017), we integrate records from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster dataset to analyze whether federally declared disasters prompt shifts in the topics and sentiments expressed in legislative discourse.
Our methodology employs advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques, including topic modeling and sentiment analysis, to identify and quantify changes in congressional speeches. Specifically, we examine how representatives adjust their priorities in response to disasters, considering factors such as party affiliation, geographic proximity to the events, and the severity of the disaster’s impact. Preliminary findings indicate that representatives from disaster-affected regions frequently redirect their focus to disaster-related issues, while broader response patterns are shaped by partisan and institutional contexts. Moreover, the sentiment of speeches often reflects heightened urgency, empathy, and calls for action following disaster declarations.
This research contributes to the understanding of political communication and the responsiveness of democratic institutions to crises. By exploring how natural disasters influence legislative behavior and priorities, we offer insights into the adaptability of Congress in addressing emergent challenges. Our findings have broader implications for the study of political behavior, public policy formation, and institutional responses to environmental and societal disruptions.