In this thesis, I enquire into how the USA – our world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation –  and its federal government has dealt with two of its most severe natural disasters: the drought and dust storms that plagued the Great Plains during the 1930’s, i.e. the Dust Bowl, and Hurricane Katrina, which made landfall in late August 2005.  I attempt to identify differences and similarities and analyze if and, in that case, how the hegemonic politico-economic paradigm affected the federal management of these crises. This comparison is made relevant by the fact that two differing paradigms were at play during these events. In the thirties, President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched his “New Deal”, a series of counter cyclical measures in line with the Keynesian school of economics, as a response to the overwhelming economic depression as well as the raging drought. In sharp contrast, Hurricane Katrina swept over a country ridden by decades of neoliberal governance. I show that political economy plays an important role in the success and/or failure of, in this case, the United States’ management of natural disasters. Finally, I argue for the return (or, rather, the creation) of an expanded and more socially and environmentally conscious public sector, which, in times of crisis, is able to represent all of its citizens – regardless of class or race.