Trump wants states to handle disasters without FEMA. They say they can't

Yahoo

06-02-2025

President Donald Trump addresses the 2025 Republican Issues Conference at the Trump National Doral Miami on Jan. 27 in Doral, Florida. ().
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.
FEMA, which was established in the 1950s, has taken on a larger role as Congress has added to its recovery mission, populations have grown in disaster-prone areas, and climate change has increased the frequency and severity of disasters.
The agency has faced criticism at times — most famously after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — for an overly bureaucratic system that has gotten bogged down in red tape. Some conservative groups have long argued that states should shoulder more of the burden of responding to disasters.
Project 2025, a hard-right blueprint that Trump distanced himself from during the campaign but which appears to have guided many of his actions since he took office, aims to limit states' eligibility for disaster assistance or set a deductible that states must meet before the feds step in. Such cutbacks would incentivize states to 'take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities,' it said. The document also calls for states to take on much more financial responsibility for recovery efforts.
Emergency managers say that there are opportunities to make FEMA more efficient.
Fugate, the former FEMA chief, said the underlying problem is that the agency was not designed to replace insurance coverage, but is increasingly taking on that role as private insurers abandon disaster-prone areas. And increasing the pace of payouts also increases the risk of misspent funds, he said.
'Nobody is saying we shouldn't look at these programs and figure out how we move this money through faster,' he said. 'But you've got that dual tension of, 'I want to be fast but I'm a steward of the taxpayer's dollars.''
Amid that discussion, experts say that rushing to dismantle the federal agency would be catastrophic.
'The consequences [of dissolving FEMA] would be life-threatening,' said Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a former Obama administration official. 'The states are not built for that right now.'
Local leaders who have experienced disasters say FEMA is essential.
After an EF5 tornado swept through Moore, Oklahoma, in May 2013, the federal agency provided recovery support.
'Sometimes I think people have a misconception of the purpose of FEMA. And it's not to provide lots of equipment or manpower — they can do a little bit of that, but that's not their primary function,' said Moore Mayor Mark Hamm, whose office is nonpartisan.
Hamm was on the city council when the mile-wide tornado killed 24 people, including seven students at an elementary school. Moore said FEMA provided crucial financial resources, reimbursing the city's exorbitant overtime costs for police and fire crews.
Moore is a bedroom community of about 63,000 people situated between Oklahoma City and Norman. The city's annual budget is about $133 million. The National Weather Service calculated the 2013 storm's damage across the region at $2 billion. The city has been hit by two F5 tornadoes since 1999.
'When you have a natural disaster like the couple of F5 tornadoes that have come to our city — that would bankrupt our city, our budget,' he said. 'That is a huge burden that this city just could not afford.'
Hamm said he would be open to Trump's talk of realigning FEMA, particularly if it allowed more funds to stay directly with states like his. But he said federal disaster funding must remain intact in some way.
'When you need a lifeline, it's reassuring to know that one is there and you can grab onto that rope, and there's somebody on the other end pulling you to safety,' he said. 'And the federal government was a lifeline, not so much in the recovery, but in providing the finances. I can't emphasize that enough.'
Eaton County, Michigan, was hit hard in August 2023, as tornadoes, severe storms and flooding struck the mid-Michigan region. FEMA's response helped the community navigate aid and recovery programs and apply for federal assistance.
'That federal support piece is critical to us to be able to respond and recover from disasters,' said Ryan Wilkinson, the county's emergency manager. 'Yes, we need reform for emergency management nationwide — at all levels — but shifting complete responsibility to the states would do greater harm in the long term.'
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [e-mail].