🎧 Listen to the summary:
The Trump administration’s disaster policy aims to put more money and decision-making closer to the people who know their communities best. By shifting preparedness and recovery leadership to states and local governments and focusing federal dollars on core emergency needs, the White House says it can streamline a system long criticized as slow, duplicative, and costly. A new national risk register and a government-wide review of preparedness rules are intended to standardize how risk is measured while reducing red tape.
The policy’s centerpiece is a suite of executive actions to move FEMA toward a support role and to tighten oversight of how relief dollars are used. In January and March, the administration directed states to take a “more active and significant” role in emergency readiness and signaled that federal grants would be reoriented accordingly. DHS and FEMA began reviewing dozens of programs against new priorities, including limits tied to immigration directives. The administration has also said the agency is too expensive and too bureaucratic in its current form. Eliminating FEMA outright would require Congress, but the policy trajectory is clear: more state responsibility, fewer federal add-ons.
Implementation began with a broad audit of FEMA’s grant universe. After reviewing 56 programs for potential conflicts with a February 6 directive on nongovernmental organizations, FEMA froze nearly $10 billion previously approved for nonprofits, including hospitals and groups that provide short-term housing after disasters. One program with $8.5 billion for rebuilding nonprofit facilities and another with $1.3 billion for emergency lodging are under further review. Two state emergency management grant streams—together roughly $800 million per year—also face DHS scrutiny for potential overlap with immigration-related restrictions. The rest of FEMA’s disaster aid portfolio was cleared to continue.
Mitigation spending is being redesigned. In April, FEMA halted the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, canceling the 2025 funding round and stopping disbursements on previously selected projects while it reassesses priorities. Internal memos argued BRIC had not increased hazard mitigation as much as desired and may have supplanted local capital planning. The administration also pulled a separate notice for Flood Mitigation Assistance grants. Former senior officials warned that canceling awards midstream could stall levee work, drainage upgrades, and other projects that had already cleared years of planning.
Another shift touches the long-standing Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In an April 12 memo, acting FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton recommended not automatically attaching mitigation funding to presidential disaster declarations. Subsequent approvals in Virginia and Kentucky omitted the mitigation component, a departure from routine practice over the past quarter century. A standard mitigation award equals 15 percent of estimated disaster costs, money that states often use to harden infrastructure against repeat losses. Supporters of the redesign say it encourages states to shoulder more responsibility; others note that few states keep spare capital for mitigation and that the federal government is not required to run the program, limiting legal options to challenge the pause.
Workforce and management changes are underway. FEMA instituted a hiring freeze and added a DHS review for most field position renewals, steps framed as part of a broader move to cut waste. The freeze arrives heading into hurricane season, when the agency typically surges staff and restocks supplies. DHS also removed or replaced terms related to climate, DEI, and immigration from recovery guidance in response to executive actions, directing staff to adjust language in policy documents. Supporters argue common terminology will bring consistency; former officials warn it could complicate coordination with partners who still use the retired terms.
Grantmaking has been buffeted by court orders. In February, a senior FEMA grants official instructed staff to freeze a wide array of awards hours after a federal judge ordered the administration to stop such pauses pending further review. Four FEMA officials were fired amid the turmoil. The episode illustrated a new layer of process risk for states and cities counting on multi-year grants: competing directives from the bench and the executive branch can force sudden stop-and-go cycles in award management.
Congress is asserting itself. A bipartisan draft from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would elevate FEMA to Cabinet rank, encourage state leadership through a sliding cost-share that drops to 65 percent when states neglect mitigation, and authorize a permanent home repair program so families are not parked in high-cost trailers while waiting for rebuilds. Committee staff noted FEMA had spent upwards of $300,000 per trailer in some cases, an example cited to justify shifting dollars to permanent fixes. The same proposal would push FEMA to weigh damage in rural and economically distressed areas more heavily when advising the president on disaster declarations.
The administration has formed an expert council to recommend additional changes to FEMA, and the agency’s internal watchdog has shown a willingness to police conduct. In a separate dispute dating to 2024 hurricane response, FEMA’s Office of Professional Responsibility found no evidence of systemic political bias in field operations, a conclusion later reflected in a federal court filing. The same day, the White House highlighted concerns about bias as part of its broader review. The crosscurrents demonstrate how a focus on integrity and efficiency can produce dueling narratives even when the fact pattern is thin.
Trade-offs have accumulated. Freezing nonprofit recovery dollars during compliance reviews affects hospitals and shelters that help entire communities after disasters. Canceling mitigation awards midstream can strand partially designed projects and raise long-term costs when repairs precede hardening. Hiring restrictions and terminology rewrites can slow field work during peak season. Sliding cost-shares place new pressure on states that struggle to finance mitigation, and judicial pushback creates timing uncertainty in multi-year awards. Each step answers a stated goal—curbing waste, speeding direct relief, setting consistent rules—while adding a new checkpoint, a new acronym, or a new legal wrinkle to navigate.
Next steps and guardrails: DHS will continue reviewing programs identified in the March memos, while judges can block or narrow freezes that conflict with existing law. Congress is preparing to debate the FEMA bill with cost-share changes and permanent repair authority, and the acting administrator has told appropriators the agency should not be eliminated. The expert council will draft additional recommendations for the president. These layers of oversight—courts, committees, and career auditors—will shape how far the policy moves from idea to field practice.
—
Deborah Cole reports on climate regulations, environmental mandates, and disaster response. She holds a degree in environmental studies from the University of Florida and worked in state-level emergency management before joining the press. Her reporting follows how policy meets practice across agencies, municipalities, and emergency zones.
