Trump Targets FEMA, Shifting Disaster Costs to States

Trump Targets FEMA, Shifting Disaster Costs to States \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ President Trump plans to begin phasing out FEMA after the 2025 hurricane season, pushing disaster response responsibilities to states. Critics warn this could strain budgets and delay recovery during climate-driven emergencies. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem supports the effort, despite mounting concerns from former FEMA leaders.

Quick Looks

• Trump proposes phasing out FEMA after 2025 hurricane season
• Aims to “give less money” and redirect disaster aid
• FEMA overhaul would shift recovery costs to states
• Changes require Congressional action to amend Stafford Act
• Critics warn states are unprepared financially and logistically
• 2,000 FEMA staff have left or been dismissed in 2024
• States waiting weeks for disaster aid approvals
• Mutual aid networks already exist but rely on federal funds
• Homeland Security’s Noem co-leading FEMA reform panel
• Trump: “If governors can’t manage, they shouldn’t be governors”

Deep Look

President Donald Trump’s push to dramatically downsize — and eventually dismantle — the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season could mark one of the most significant shifts in U.S. disaster policy in decades. Trump outlined his intentions Tuesday during a White House meeting on wildfire preparedness, declaring his desire to transfer much of FEMA’s responsibility to state governments.

“We want to wean off of FEMA and bring it down to the state level,” Trump said. His comments echo previous statements made alongside Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, signaling the administration’s intent to fundamentally overhaul, if not abolish, the 46-year-old federal agency.

While FEMA’s operations have long been scrutinized by both parties, disaster policy experts say phasing it out would have far-reaching and potentially dangerous consequences. “It just causes more concern on how states should be planning for the future if the federal government’s not going to be there for them,” said Michael Coen, former FEMA chief of staff under the Obama and Biden administrations.

FEMA currently plays a critical coordinating role in the U.S. emergency response system. While local and state agencies manage immediate disaster response, FEMA mobilizes federal resources, provides direct household assistance, and channels billions in infrastructure repair funding to states and municipalities.

Trump, however, suggested that aid should be “given out directly” by the president’s office or the Department of Homeland Security. “We want to give out less money,” he said. Asked who would manage these funds, Trump was vague, offering no structured alternative.

Experts like Coen expressed deep concern, emphasizing that FEMA handles over $30 billion annually in disaster support. “I was left with the impression that he doesn’t really understand the scale of what FEMA manages,” Coen noted.

A move to shrink or eliminate FEMA would require Congressional involvement, particularly amendments to the 1988 Stafford Act, which defines federal disaster roles and funding formulas. Without such legislative action, Trump’s vision remains largely aspirational — though recent administrative moves suggest preparations are underway.

For example, FEMA’s survivor outreach program, which once included door-to-door assistance to help disaster victims apply for relief, has been suspended. Additionally, the agency has not approved any hazard mitigation requests since February 2025, cutting off funds typically used to rebuild infrastructure with greater resilience. States have also faced increasing delays in receiving responses to major disaster declarations — with some waiting up to eight weeks for approval this spring.

Secretary Noem, a close Trump ally, has co-chaired a FEMA reform council with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The panel, comprised mostly of Republican state officials, is expected to submit a formal restructuring plan later this year. “FEMA should no longer exist as it is,” Noem said at the council’s first meeting in May.

Sara McTarnaghan, a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, said the potential fallout for states could be severe. A recent Urban Institute analysis showed that raising the disaster declaration threshold would have shifted $41 billion in costs to state and local governments between 2008 and 2024.

“Very few states would have enough funds to replace the federal role in recovery,” McTarnaghan warned. She added that many of the most disaster-prone states — such as those on the Gulf Coast or in the Midwest — also face fiscal constraints that would hinder their ability to respond to increasingly severe climate events.

“The confluence of high disaster exposure and limited fiscal capacity is real,” she said.

Trump dismissed concerns over state readiness. “The governor should be able to handle it,” he said. “And frankly, if they can’t handle the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.”

Some gaps, he suggested, could be filled through interstate mutual-aid agreements. Noem echoed that idea, saying FEMA is working to strengthen those agreements so states can rely on each other. But as Coen pointed out, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact — the backbone of interstate aid — already exists and is largely funded by FEMA itself.

“There’s already robust communication between states,” Coen said. “The confusion is what they can expect from the federal government.”

Trump’s remarks come at a time when FEMA is already under internal strain. Since January 2024, more than 2,000 of its full-time staff have either resigned or been terminated — a significant exodus that may reflect deeper unrest within the agency. And while the hurricane season officially began on June 1, the administration’s pivot raises questions about federal readiness for major disasters in the months ahead.

Despite his criticisms of FEMA, Trump has yet to revoke the waivers that allow states like California to implement stronger environmental and emergency standards — a move he made in his first term but has not repeated thus far.

Critics, including climate resilience advocates, warn that undermining FEMA during a time of escalating climate-driven disasters — wildfires, hurricanes, and floods — could leave states dangerously under-resourced.

Dan Becker, a longtime environmental policy expert, called the proposed FEMA phase-out “one of the most reckless ideas to come out of this administration.” He added, “The federal government has a duty to protect its citizens during crisis. Abandoning that responsibility is both legally questionable and morally wrong.”

With the FEMA reform council’s proposals expected by year’s end, and growing legal, political, and financial questions looming, Trump’s plan is sure to face resistance — not only from Democrats, but from governors and emergency managers across the country, many of whom rely heavily on FEMA’s infrastructure and funding to protect their citizens.

More on US News

Trump Targets FEMA Trump Targets FEMA Trump Targets FEMA