Trump plan to kill FEMA risks 'extreme state of turmoil,' officials warn
WASHINGTON — The Federal Emergency Management Agency could look significantly different by next year’s hurricane season, with state and local governments shouldering more of the responsibility for natural disaster response and recovery.
Members of both political parties have long criticized FEMA, but a bipartisan bill moving along in Congress combined with President Donald Trump’s disdain for the agency may provide momentum for a big shift in emergency management.
Trump has said repeatedly he doesn’t support FEMA’s current structure and wants to see a special review council he put together propose a complete overhaul of the agency, possibly eliminating it entirely. That’s provoked deep concern among some local and state officials who don’t see how they would have the funding or background to handle a sudden natural disaster.
“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”
Trump’s FEMA Review Council, a 12-member board led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has until mid-November to write a report detailing its recommendations for the president.
But, as Noem has noted several times during the group’s two public meetings, Congress holds authority over FEMA and would need to sign off on any major changes.
Lawmakers, some of whom have spent years working on federal emergency management issues, aren’t waiting for the review council’s report to get started.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves, R-Mo., ranking member Rick Larsen, D-Wash., Florida Republican Rep. Daniel Webster and Arizona Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton released their bill in late July, before the review council held its second meeting. It does not aim to eliminate FEMA.
“FEMA is in need of serious reform, and the goal of the FEMA Act of 2025 is to fix it,” Graves wrote in a statement. “This bill does more than any recent reforms to cut through the bureaucracy, streamline programs, provide flexibility, and return FEMA to its core purpose of empowering the states to lead and coordinating the federal response when it’s needed.”
Separately, a U.S. House spending committee is recommending a substantial boost in FEMA funding for the next fiscal year.
Make FEMA a Cabinet-level agency?
Stanton said during an interview with States Newsroom on Wednesday the Transportation Committee’s bill “recognizes the challenges we have learned from past disasters; that sometimes the rules and regulations in place make it very difficult for victims of natural disasters to get the help that they need, whether it be housing or even financial assistance.”
The legislation, he said, focuses on four broad improvements:
- Making FEMA a Cabinet-level agency instead of housing it within the Department of Homeland Security;
- Emphasizing mitigation projects that lessen the impact of natural disasters;
- Streamlining processes that have become too complex over the years; and
- Adding flexibility so states can choose the type of housing or other support that best helps their residents following a natural disaster.
Stanton does not support Trump’s inclination to eliminate FEMA, arguing the federal government should help when local and state governments are overwhelmed by the scale of a natural disaster.
“That’s the whole point of it, that Americans help our fellow Americans at their point of greatest need,” he said.
But Stanton added he’s willing to read through the FEMA Review Council’s report once it’s released and work with its members to improve the agency.
“I’m open-minded,” Stanton said. “If they have good ideas that actually will strengthen FEMA, I’m all ears.”
The bill, while a sign of bipartisan progress in an increasingly polarized Congress, still has several steps to go before reaching Trump’s desk. To gain his signature, lawmakers may need to blend in some of the review council’s recommendations later this year.
A handful of outside groups, including the National Emergency Management Association, sent the committee a letter applauding the bipartisan group for its work so far but hinting they expect changes in the coming months.
“We recognize and appreciate that the legislation is part of an ongoing effort to modernize FEMA and ensure its programs reflect current and emerging challenges,” the four organizations wrote. “In that spirit, we also await the work of the FEMA Review Council and understand that its recommendations may inform refinements to the legislation.”
‘We’re going to have to turn to our own resources’
The review council’s two public meetings so far haven’t included much debate. The members have mostly shared general statements about grievances with FEMA and issued some warnings for state governments that rely heavily on the federal government.
Phil Bryant, former Republican governor of Mississippi, said that states should prepare to begin spending much more on natural disasters.
“We’re going to have to turn to our own resources,” Bryant said. “States are going to have to develop that emergency response fund, take some of their rainy day funds or funds that they may want to use for musical events and put it into disaster recovery.”
Larger states or those with strong economies may be able to absorb some of the cost that the federal government has carried for years, but other members of the council have cautioned their colleagues against going too far.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said the committee will need to clearly explain what costs state and local governments will be responsible for and which will be covered by the federal government.
He also highlighted the challenges of completely reshaping FEMA while it’s in the middle of responding to natural disasters ranging from hurricanes to wildfires to tornadoes.
“We’re going to be changing the tires on this car while this car is barreling 100 miles an hour,” Youngkin said.
Jane Castor, mayor of Tampa, Florida, signaled the panel’s recommendations should take into consideration that many small or rural areas won’t be able to raise the amount of funds they’ve received from FEMA.
“The locals should be prepared to respond to these incidents in the immediate aftermath,” Castor said. “But as was stated before, there are some — London, Kentucky, and Asheville, North Carolina — (where) this is probably the first time that they’ve probably experienced anything like this. And so we have to be there to help them through the worst of their time.”
Noem has been blunt in her assessment of FEMA, calling the agency “disastrous” and “incompetent.”
She’s also been clear that Trump doesn’t expect incremental changes but an entirely new approach to how the federal government responds to natural disasters.
“The president’s vision is that FEMA would not be in the long-term recovery model,” Noem said. “He wants the state and local governments and emergency management directors to lead response immediately when something happens in a state or jurisdiction and for us to be in a supporting role; a financial role that would be there much in a state block grant model.”
A wary eye on Trump panel
Local and state officials throughout the country are keeping a close eye on the Trump administration’s review council, wary of the implications a loss in federal disaster response would have on local and state governments.
Houston, Texas, Controller Chris Hollins said on a call with reporters in August the city has typically put away between $25 million and $30 million for natural disasters with the expectation that FEMA would help with additional costs.
After Trump proposed eliminating FEMA, Hollins began encouraging city leaders “to take a broader look at what’s going to be necessary to be self-reliant. But that’s an incredibly tall task.”
“If we’re all on our own, it’s going to put our individual finances in an extreme state of turmoil, because we’re either going to have to tax our citizens and our residents at extremely high rates to have enough money to be prepared, or we’re going to intentionally roll the dice and run the risk of being unprepared when these moments come,” Hollins said. “And you know, both of those are unacceptable predicaments.”
Minnesota Auditor Julie Blaha said on the same call that some communities will need years or even decades to build up the type of reserve needed to cover just one major natural disaster.
“In a small town it’s going to be pretty hard to put away millions of dollars, and by the time you can get a reserve of millions of dollars, you are likely to have another disaster,” Blaha said. “The only way to respond to that, you have to go into debt, and you have again increased costs.”
Two committees and a funding boost
Congress has a two-track system for determining the size and scope of federal departments like FEMA — authorizing committees, which set policy and generally determine each agency’s mission, and the appropriations committees that provide funding through annual bills.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s bipartisan bill represents a significant step on the authorizing side. But the legislation still has to make it through committee debate, the House floor and the Senate before it could reach Trump’s desk.
Separately, the House Appropriations Committee released a partisan bill earlier this summer that would provide a robust $31.8 billion for FEMA during the next fiscal year, $4.5 billion higher than the agency’s current spending level.
During debate on the legislation, Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz proposed an amendment that would have blocked any federal funding from being used to eliminate FEMA.
“Yes, FEMA needs fixes but FEMA helps all of our communities and we can make it better and should be making it better without killing it,” Wasserman Schultz said. “The states cannot handle the responsibilities of FEMA in the aftermath of a storm on their own. That is simply not possible.”
Republicans opposed the amendment, arguing the spending panel shouldn’t do anything that would tie the hands of the review council, the authorizing committees, or Trump.
Oklahoma Republican Rep. Stephanie Bice sharply criticized FEMA during debate, saying the agency “isn’t working anymore” and has “become bloated.”
But Bice also made the point that federal funding is necessary, saying she was trying to address issues within her district “where FEMA hasn’t paid for disaster debris removal for two years.”
“These communities cannot afford the huge costs of debris removal for two years or more when FEMA doesn’t pay them, reimburse them for the services that they have provided,” Bice said. “This can’t continue.”
Dems say Congress in charge
Democrats on the committee, including Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, urged their GOP colleagues to support the amendment, pressing for any changes to FEMA to be made solely by Congress.
“If FEMA needs reforming, and I may certainly agree with that, we are the reformers,” Hoyer said.
North Carolina Republican Rep. Chuck Edwards, who represents western sections of the state devastated by Hurricane Helene, said he opposed the amendment because he wanted to see a complete overhaul of FEMA — though he appeared to back the idea that lawmakers should decide what changes and when.
“There are few people in this room that have more up close and personal interaction with FEMA over the last eight months than I,” Edwards said. “Up until Sept. 27, FEMA was nothing more than a line item on a budget for me. Since Sept. 27, I’ve very much been getting an education.
“I can tell you that FEMA needs major reform and Congress is best suited to do that.”
This story was published in partnership with the States Newsroom collaborative. Read the full story and original headline here.