Trump wants states to handle disasters without FEMA

Alex Brown and Kevin Hardy, Tribune News Service

State and local emergency managers are facing a serious question in the wake of President Donald Trump’s first few weeks in office: When disaster strikes, will they be able to count on the federal government? Trump has called the Federal Emergency Management Agency a “disaster” and suggested it might “go away.” He said states would best take care of hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires on their own, with the federal government reimbursing some of the costs. He convened a council to review FEMA and recommend “improvements or structural changes.” But leaders in states that have been hit by disasters say they need more than the promise of an eventual federal check to manage catastrophic events. They say they’re not equipped to handle the roles FEMA currently plays — such as marshaling emergency resources from multiple federal agencies, providing flood insurance, conducting damage assessments and distributing billions of dollars in recovery funds.

“FEMA has been an absolute lifesaver for people,” said Vermont state Sen. Anne Watson, a Democrat who has been involved in the state’s recovery from devastating 2023 floods. “I don’t see (states and municipalities) as being able to replicate what FEMA does. The possibility of it going away leaves millions and millions of Americans in a very vulnerable position.” Meanwhile, Trump said last month that he wanted to make federal wildfire recovery aid to Los Angeles conditional on California enacting new laws requiring voter identification, adding further uncertainty about whether states can expect help from the feds. Trump and his allies also targeted the agency in the wake of Hurricane Helene, spreading lies that FEMA, under President Joe Biden, was diverting disaster money to immigrants without legal status; failing to provide helicopters; limiting aid to $750 per person; and cutting off support for Republican areas. State officials say that while there’s room for a conversation about state and federal roles in disaster response, eliminating FEMA altogether would be shortsighted.

“I don’t think it makes sense to get rid of FEMA,” Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, said in an interview with Stateline. “There are economies of scale (that a nationwide agency provides). States don’t have that capability built to handle a disaster every single year.” Budd said she doesn’t believe Trump intends to terminate FEMA, calling such a move “not realistic.” She also serves as president of the National Emergency Management Association, a nonprofit comprising state and territorial emergency officials. Budd called on Trump to include state emergency managers on the council that will consider FEMA’s future. Emergency management experts say that Trump cannot unilaterally dissolve FEMA, which would require congressional action. However, Trump already has taken actions that appear to exceed his executive authority, including an attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding that had already been approved by Congress.

FEMA does have some support from Trump’s Republican allies, especially given that red states have needed more aid in recent years. Since 2015, residents in Florida, Louisiana and Texas have received the highest amounts of individual assistance payments from FEMA, exceeding $2 billion in each state. But experts see much to fear in cost-cutting efforts by Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk, which so far have focused on slashing the federal workforce and forcing out officials with decades of experience. Such actions could cripple FEMA, even if it’s not officially “abolished.”

“Senior people who don’t want to put up with this nonsense are going to walk away,” said Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA’s administrator under President Barack Obama. “It’s one thing to talk tough, it’s another to govern and provide services.”

Over the past decade, FEMA has responded to nearly 1,400 disasters, including wildfires, severe storms, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes. The agency coordinates the federal response during emergency situations, such as calling the Pentagon to get rescue helicopters in the air or trucking in generators in the aftermath of a storm. But the agency’s larger purpose is focused on recovery, assessing the damage to communities and distributing funding to help them rebuild. Over the last four years, FEMA has provided more than $12 billion to individuals and $133 billion to state and local governments, tribal nations, territories and some nonprofits to help in recovery efforts. FEMA also provides much of the nation’s flood insurance coverage, as the private market has largely pulled back from flood policies. Some governors, including Democrat Andy Beshear of Kentucky, have said Trump’s threats to dismantle FEMA are dangerous.

“(I)t would be disastrous in and of itself for the FEMA organization to be dissolved,” he said, according to the Kentucky Lantern. Beshear noted that replicating FEMA’s administrative functions in each state would be far more costly than a single national agency.