In a move poised to reshape the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the nation grapples with increasing natural disasters, a council appointed by Donald Trump has unveiled a controversial plan to significantly reduce the agency’s role in disaster response. Experts are sounding alarms, warning that these changes could leave the United States ill-prepared to deal with the escalating impacts of climate change and extreme weather events.
Fundamental Changes Proposed
The council’s report, presented to Trump this week, advocates for a paradigm shift in how disaster response is managed. “It is time to close the chapter on FEMA,” the 12-member “FEMA Review Council” declared in their final recommendations. The document suggests that disaster management should be primarily executed at the local or state level, with federal support taking a backseat. Co-chaired by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, the council posits that these changes will enhance efficiency and transparency within a beleaguered recovery system.
However, critics argue that the proposed reforms come at a time when the need for federal support is more pressing than ever. “The FEMA Review Council completely missed the moment we are in right now,” stated Shana Udvardy, a senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighting the disconnect between the recommendations and the realities of an increasingly volatile climate landscape.
New Funding Structure and Responsibilities
Among the 150 recommendations put forth, the report suggests a new funding model that would impose higher thresholds for states to obtain federal disaster declarations. This would effectively shift the burden of response and recovery onto local governments, many of which lack the resources or infrastructure to manage significant emergencies independently. Kevin Guthrie, a member of the council and the head of Florida’s emergency management division, noted that federal support should only be sought for events that severely disrupt local and state capabilities.
Furthermore, the report proposes lump-sum payments within 30 days of a disaster based on projected damages, alongside a reduction in federal oversight of environmental reviews and inspections—tasks that local agencies would now be responsible for. The report also advocates for a greater role for private insurance in the National Flood Insurance Program, a move that has raised concerns about the adequacy of coverage for vulnerable populations.
The Climate Crisis Ignored
Despite the report’s sweeping changes, it conspicuously fails to address the climate crisis that is fundamentally altering the landscape of disaster response. The term “climate” appears only once in the 74-page document, raising questions about the administration’s commitment to addressing the root causes of these increasingly frequent and severe weather events. In the first half of 2025 alone, damages from climate-related disasters in the U.S. exceeded $101 billion, marking the most costly start to any year in recorded history.
Experts are particularly concerned about the potential ramifications of sidelining FEMA’s role. Dr. Andrew Rumbach, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, expressed his worry that local governments, many lacking dedicated emergency management departments, would struggle to cope with the expectations placed upon them. “Small governments are far from equipped to pick up the slack,” he noted.
A Call for Greater Preparedness
The proposal comes in the wake of significant cuts to FEMA’s funding and staffing levels over the past year, which have already hampered the agency’s effectiveness. The Trump administration has denied more disaster declarations than previous administrations, prolonging the delivery of critical aid to affected communities. Critics, including Rafael Lemaitre, a former FEMA public affairs director, assert that dismantling the agency will only exacerbate the challenges faced by communities during disasters.
Local emergency managers have voiced frustration at the disruption caused by recent policy shifts and funding delays, raising concerns over the lack of a cohesive strategy to prepare for the upcoming hurricane season. While Mullin has indicated a desire to rehire staff and restore some funding, the council’s recommendations still require legislative backing for implementation, leaving many uncertainties regarding FEMA’s future.
Why it Matters
The proposed overhaul of FEMA poses significant risks to the nation’s disaster response capabilities at a time when climate change is intensifying the frequency and severity of natural disasters. As local and state governments grapple with increasing responsibilities, the absence of robust federal support could lead to catastrophic consequences for communities already vulnerable to extreme weather events. This pivotal moment calls for a reevaluation of how disaster management is approached, ensuring that policies not only address immediate recovery but also invest in long-term resilience against the worsening impacts of climate change.
