President Donald Trump has outlined a controversial plan to overhaul the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in response to recent natural disasters, such as Hurricane Helene and severe flooding in Texas. His vision, articulated through executive orders and public statements, emphasizes shifting the primary responsibility for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery from the federal government to state and local governments. Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with FEMA’s performance, describing it as bloated, inefficient, and overly focused on non-core missions, such as supporting immigration-related initiatives. To address these concerns, he established the FEMA Review Council in January 2025, tasked with assessing the agency’s efficacy and recommending structural changes or potential elimination by November 2025, after the Atlantic hurricane season. The council, co-chaired by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, aims to streamline FEMA’s operations, reduce federal funding, and empower states to lead disaster management, with the federal government providing supplemental support only in catastrophic circumstances.

However, this plan has raised significant concerns among emergency management experts and state officials, who argue that states lack the resources and infrastructure to fully replace FEMA’s role. FEMA currently coordinates critical federal responses, deploying thousands of personnel and billions in aid to support states overwhelmed by disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. For instance, states like Florida and Texas have relied heavily on FEMA’s funding—$14.3 billion and $7.2 billion since 2015, respectively—to recover from frequent disasters. Critics, including former FEMA officials, warn that reducing federal involvement could lead to slower response times, inadequate recovery efforts, and increased loss of life, particularly in smaller states with limited emergency management capacity. The recent firing of over 200 FEMA employees and the cancellation of key programs, such as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, have already strained the agency’s ability to respond effectively, as seen in delayed deployments during the Texas floods.

Despite initial rhetoric about abolishing FEMA, the Trump administration has recently softened its stance, suggesting a “rebranding” rather than outright elimination, with a focus on state-led disaster response supported by federal funds. This shift followed public and bipartisan backlash, particularly after the Texas floods highlighted FEMA’s critical role in coordinating large-scale responses. The administration’s actions, such as denying disaster declarations for states like Arkansas and Washington, indicate a move toward stricter criteria for federal aid, potentially leaving communities vulnerable. While some states, like Texas, have robust emergency management systems, many others lack the fiscal and logistical capacity to handle major disasters without federal support. Experts argue that FEMA’s role as a coordinator and funder remains essential, especially as climate-driven disasters grow more frequent and severe, and any drastic reduction in its scope could have life-threatening consequences for millions of Americans.