President Donald Trump’s administration is making unprecedented moves to drastically reduce or even eliminate the federal government’s involvement in disaster response. The latest announcement came from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who stated in a Cabinet meeting that she plans to “eliminate” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency responsible for providing relief and recovery efforts after extreme weather events. Noem has reportedly discussed this plan with FEMA’s Trump-appointed interim leader.
This move is part of a series of actions taken by the Trump administration to shift disaster response responsibilities to state and local governments. Since taking office, President Trump has expressed interest in eliminating FEMA and has taken steps to restructure the agency. Recent layoffs of staff working on resilience and preparedness, as well as an executive order directing state and local governments to take a more active role in disaster resilience, further demonstrate the administration’s intentions.
However, experts warn that weakening or eliminating FEMA could have negative consequences, especially as climate change leads to more frequent and severe disasters. Studies have shown that a significant percentage of recent disasters have been exacerbated by human-caused warming. While there is merit in strengthening state and local emergency preparedness, a complete withdrawal of federal support could leave many communities vulnerable, particularly those with limited resources for disaster recovery.
FEMA was established in 1980 to streamline the government’s response to disasters and provide funding for state and local efforts. Over the years, the agency has distributed billions of dollars in grants to help communities prepare for disasters, reduce flood risk, and address climate change. Despite criticisms of FEMA’s response to disasters like Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the agency plays a crucial role in coordinating large-scale responses and providing financial support to affected areas.
Trump’s recent executive order emphasizing state and local involvement in disaster response reflects some of the criticisms of FEMA’s programs. While there is a consensus that state and local governments should take more responsibility for disaster preparedness, there are concerns about the lack of federal support for resilience projects. Experts worry that a sudden closure of FEMA could leave many states and local governments unprepared to handle disasters effectively.
If the Trump administration were to succeed in eliminating FEMA or transferring its operations to another agency like the Department of Homeland Security, it could lead to a return to the pre-FEMA era where states had to seek direct assistance from Congress or other federal agencies during disasters. The fate of FEMA and the future of disaster response in the United States remain uncertain as the administration continues to push for a reduced federal role in emergency management. In the past, Congress operated differently than it does now, especially before the existence of FEMA. Lawmakers would often take months or even years to allocate long-term recovery funds after a disaster, such as the devastating 2023 Maui wildfires. This delay made it challenging for local governments to secure the necessary funds to rebuild homes and restore public infrastructure. Moreover, the current political landscape in Congress is more polarized than ever, even on issues like disaster aid. Republican leaders have hinted at imposing political conditions on wildfire assistance to California, pressuring the state to change its policies on immigration or water management.
Without a centralized disaster fund like FEMA, the party in power in Congress would have the authority to determine which states receive relief money, potentially hindering rebuilding efforts in states governed by the opposing party. One proposed solution could involve Congress providing a set amount of preparedness funding to each state, allowing states to decide how to allocate the funds. However, this approach could also be susceptible to political manipulation. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas allegedly favored white and rural areas over minority communities in Houston when distributing disaster recovery grants.
If FEMA were to shrink or be eliminated, the coordination of life-saving aid during major disasters would be uncertain. However, if states continued to receive adequate disaster funds from Congress and distributed them fairly, it could expedite the often slow and bureaucratic spending process. For instance, in Harris County, Texas, removing federal oversight could accelerate the acquisition and demolition of flood-prone homes, known as “repetitive-loss” homes. Currently, federal grant requirements delay the process, taking up to five years to purchase and demolish flooded homes.
A reduction in federal funding for resilience projects could force local governments to make tough decisions. While this approach could lead to increased upfront costs for developers, as seen in Florida after Hurricane Andrew, it could ultimately reduce long-term damage. However, many states and local governments lack the expertise and funds to tackle disaster resilience independently. Previous administrations introduced reforms to assist communities in designing and funding infrastructure projects, such as providing direct technical assistance and changing grant application scoring to prioritize disadvantaged communities.
Udvardy of the Union of Concerned Scientists warned that removing FEMA from the resilience equation would leave smaller and poorer communities vulnerable, lacking the resources and expertise needed to mitigate disaster risks. This could result in higher costs for the government and disaster victims in the long run. Rural areas in states like West Virginia, heavily reliant on federal funding for basic adaptation projects, would be particularly impacted. The city of Grants Pass, Oregon, is already feeling the effects of potential federal funding shifts, highlighting the importance of comprehensive disaster assistance programs to protect vulnerable communities. Grants Pass, a city in Oregon, has been facing the challenge of securing $50 million from a FEMA grant program aimed at enhancing climate resilience. The urgency of this funding stems from the fact that the city’s water treatment plant is nearly a century old and is situated next to the flood-prone Rogue River. The potential risk of the plant flooding or collapsing during a major storm or earthquake poses a serious threat to the community, leaving residents without access to clean drinking water.
To address this critical issue, Grants Pass has already raised utility rates for its 33,000 customers to finance the construction of a new water treatment plant. However, despite these efforts, the city was still facing a shortfall in funding for such a significant project. In a stroke of luck, FEMA advanced the city’s grant application in 2023 to build a new treatment plant in a safer location away from the floodplain. This development was hailed as “incredible good fortune” by the local public works director.
Unfortunately, recent news from the state of Oregon has thrown a shadow of uncertainty over Grants Pass’ efforts to secure the FEMA grant. The state informed the city that all coordination meetings regarding the grant program had been canceled, leaving city officials in limbo about the status of their funding application. Jason Canady, the public works director, expressed concern over the situation, stating that the grant is a crucial component of their funding strategy and that they are unsure of the next steps to ensure the grant is awarded.
Former FEMA administrator Fugate highlighted the potential consequences of cuts to federal resilience funding, warning that it could widen the gap between communities with the resources to pursue adaptation efforts and those without. Rural areas, in particular, may face greater challenges in reducing climate risks without access to federal funding. This could leave vulnerable populations at higher risk of disaster-related harm and hinder their ability to recover, potentially pushing them into poverty.
As Grants Pass navigates this uncertain terrain, the importance of securing the FEMA grant for the new water treatment plant remains paramount. The city’s resilience in the face of climate challenges hinges on this funding, and the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the community’s safety and well-being.
