The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is undergoing significant changes under the Trump administration. David Richardson, a former Marine, has been appointed as the new head of FEMA. He has announced plans to increase the financial burden on states for natural disaster response from the current 25% to 50%. This shift aligns with the administration’s push for FEMA to focus strictly on its legally mandated roles while transferring more responsibilities and costs to the states. Richardson emphasized that the revamped “FEMA 2” would prioritize state-led response, recovery, and preparedness efforts. He has instructed FEMA staff to begin notifying governors about the forthcoming changes, which may take effect as early as next year. While FEMA will still offer additional support in cases of extreme financial need, the broader shift marks a significant reform in federal disaster management strategy. These changes are occurring amid FEMA’s workforce downsizing and preparations for a predicted above-average Atlantic hurricane season. Concerns are rising regarding insufficient staffing at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, potentially impacting forecasting capabilities in vulnerable areas. That’s just where we are now. Richardson has declared a hardline leadership approach, warning staff he will “run right over” anyone obstructing organizational changes. He made clear that all FEMA decisions now require his approval, suspending all delegated authority. His appointment follows the ousting of acting FEMA head Cameron Hamilton, who had expressed opposition to dismantling the agency. The administration advocates for limiting or abolishing FEMA, suggesting state governments can manage disaster response. Under this policy shift, federal disaster aid has already been curtailed. Richardson aims to restrict FEMA operations strictly to legal mandates, increase cost-sharing with states, and reduce federal involvement. FEMA’s workforce has been reduced by one-third since Trump took office, with over 2,000 employees departing. The leadership tone and policy direction are expected to demoralize remaining staff and potentially weaken FEMA’s disaster response capabilities. That’s just where we are now. As the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season approaches—with forecasts predicting 17 named storms and nine hurricanes—FEMA has significantly reduced its in-person emergency preparedness training for state and local officials. This move, prompted by President Trump’s directive to minimize federal agency roles and reduce FEMA’s scope, has raised concerns among emergency management experts. About one-third of FEMA’s workforce has departed since Trump took office, and travel restrictions and administrative approvals have curtailed staff participation in vital conferences and training events. Many FEMA hurricane training sessions have now shifted online, a format experts argue is less effective for practical learning and critical relationship-building. The National Emergency Management Association and several state officials have expressed concerns that states lack the resources to compensate for FEMA’s scaled-back involvement. The reduction of FEMA personnel at conferences, such as the cancellation of key sessions at April’s National Hurricane Conference, has further hindered the dissemination of updated forecasting tools and preparedness strategies to local agencies. Despite this, some states like North Carolina and Louisiana continue internal disaster training using FEMA-certified trainers, though the overall preparedness for the upcoming hurricane season may be compromised. That’s just where we are now. The United States is caught in a cycle of increasingly severe and frequent natural disasters that exceed its current disaster preparedness and budgeting. FEMA is persistently short on funds, and while the federal government reimburses local expenses, this reactive approach is unsustainable. As climate change and development increase disaster risks, the U.S. faces escalating costs and insurance gaps—many vulnerable homeowners are uninsured. Experts emphasize the need for investment in disaster resilience and preparedness, which could save significantly on recovery costs. However, there is political contention over such measures, and the federal system’s structure complicates efficient disaster management. Without fundamental changes in policy, improving infrastructure, and streamlined federal response, the cycle of costly, reactionary recovery will continue to burden the U.S. This ongoing failure to proactively manage disaster risks suggests a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of national emergency management strategies. That’s just where we are now. The article examines the potential consequences of efforts by the Trump Administration to dismantle FEMA and shift disaster response responsibilities to individual states. This move comes amid increasing extreme weather events fueled by climate change, such as recent deadly storms across the U.S. Experts warn that such a decentralization could be devastating, especially for smaller states lacking adequate resources. FEMA’s current structure allows for coordinated federal assistance, including deploying experts and stockpiling emergency supplies—capabilities many states cannot replicate. The administration’s review of FEMA, led by a council including state officials and federal leaders, seeks to evaluate the agency’s efficiency. Critics argue that while FEMA indeed needs reform, especially in addressing the needs of low-income disaster survivors and coping with a rising number of emergencies, dismantling it would likely exacerbate existing issues, increase costs, and reduce the nation’s readiness, leading to greater loss of life and property. The article underscores the urgent need for modernizing FEMA to handle the growing frequency and intensity of climate-induced disasters rather than eliminating it. That’s just where we are now. In conclusion, the administration’s policy changes are reshaping FEMA’s role in disaster management. The increased financial burden on states, leadership changes, workforce reductions, and shifts in training approaches are all part of this transformation. While these reforms aim to streamline federal involvement and encourage state-led responses, they also present challenges in terms of preparedness, resource allocation, and interagency coordination. Time, staff, and oversight will be essential to navigate this evolving landscape.
—
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.