President Donald Trump’s bold plan to phase out FEMA after the 2025 hurricane season puts governors on notice: handle your own disasters or step aside.
Key Takeaways
- Trump plans to shift disaster response responsibilities from FEMA to state governments after the 2025 hurricane season
- The plan includes appointing a FEMA Review Council led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
- Trump criticized FEMA as costly, bureaucratic, and ineffective, citing the agency’s response to Hurricane Helene
- Emergency management experts warn most states lack the capacity and resources to handle major disasters without federal support
- The shift could place a $41 billion financial burden on states between 2008-2024, according to Urban Institute analysis
Trump Orders Comprehensive FEMA Review
President Trump has signed an executive order establishing a comprehensive review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), signaling his intention to dramatically reduce federal involvement in disaster management. The order appoints Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to lead a FEMA Review Council that will evaluate the agency’s performance and develop a plan to shift disaster response responsibilities to state governments. This decision comes after years of criticism regarding FEMA’s effectiveness and allegations of political bias within the agency’s operations.
“We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level,” said President Donald Trump, explaining his vision for a more decentralized approach to disaster management.
States Face Increased Responsibility and Financial Burden
The president’s plan would fundamentally alter how America responds to natural disasters by transferring both responsibilities and funding directly to state governors. Trump made his expectations clear when he stated, “A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.” This approach represents a significant departure from decades of federal disaster management policy and would require congressional action, including amendments to the 1988 Stafford Act that currently governs federal emergency response.
“FEMA has been a very big disappointment. They cost a tremendous amount of money. It’s very bureaucratic and it’s very slow,” said Trump, highlighting his frustration with the current system.
Financial analysis raises serious concerns about states’ ability to shoulder this new burden. An Urban Institute study indicates that shifting disaster costs to states could amount to $41 billion between 2008-2024. States with high disaster exposure and limited fiscal capacity, particularly those along the Gulf Coast, would face the greatest challenges under this new system. The timing of this announcement is particularly significant as NOAA forecasts 6-10 hurricanes for the upcoming season, with 3-5 expected to be major storms. Last year’s hurricane season alone caused $182.7 billion in damages, exceeding the five-year average.
Critics and Supporters Weigh In
The plan has drawn mixed reactions from political figures and emergency management experts. Former FEMA officials have expressed concern about the practicality of dismantling an agency that coordinates federal resources, provides direct assistance, and funds state infrastructure repairs after disasters. “I was left with the impression that he doesn’t really understand the scale of what FEMA manages on a yearly basis with a budget of over $30 billion,” said Michael Coen, former FEMA chief of staff.
“It’s completely disgraceful that Donald Trump would sit in the Oval Office and claim his administration has successfully helped western North Carolina rebuild from the devastation brought by Hurricane Helene,” said U.S. Rep. Deborah Ross, criticizing Trump’s assessment of recent disaster response efforts.
However, some local officials see potential benefits in a more state-centric approach. “I think it does have some promise, but I don’t see us eliminating something so much tax money goes to, to respond to these disasters,” said Canton Mayor Zeb Smathers, suggesting that reform rather than elimination might be preferable. Even some Democrats, like Rep. Jared Moskowitz, support more direct state disaster relief funding but prefer reforming FEMA rather than abolishing it entirely.
Implementation Challenges and Future Outlook
The practical implementation of Trump’s vision faces significant hurdles. FEMA has already lost about one-third of its workforce this year, and the administration is considering cutting assistance programs and raising aid thresholds. Trump has suggested that future federal disaster aid would be limited and managed directly by the president’s office, but details on distribution mechanisms remain unclear. Emergency management experts warn that dismantling FEMA could leave critical gaps in services and funding, particularly for states that lack robust emergency management infrastructure.
As the Atlantic hurricane season progresses from June through November, the president’s plan will face its first real-world test. Scientists warn that warming oceans are contributing to stronger hurricanes, potentially increasing the frequency and severity of disasters that states would need to handle independently. The success of Trump’s bold restructuring of disaster management will ultimately depend on states’ ability to develop the capacity, resources, and expertise currently provided by FEMA – all while facing increasingly challenging environmental conditions.
