Since 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has stood as the cornerstone of the United States’ disaster response and recovery framework. Established to coordinate federal assistance during emergencies, FEMA’s role has been pivotal in aiding state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments in times of crisis. However, recent political discourse has raised questions about the agency’s future, with proposals suggesting a diminished or even nonexistent federal role in disaster management. This article by the leadership of the International Association of Emergency ManagersTM-USA Council explores the potential implications of a world without FEMA, focusing on the actions and challenges that SLTT governments would face in such a scenario.
FEMA’s responsibilities encompass a wide range and timeframe of activities, including disaster preparedness, response coordination, recovery assistance, and mitigation efforts. The agency provides critical funding through various grant programs, such as the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), and the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program (BRIC), all of which support SLTT governments in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from disasters.
In recent years, FEMA has also focused on enhancing local community resilience through initiatives like the Community Disaster Resilience Zones, which aim to provide targeted support to areas most vulnerable to natural hazards.
Discussions about reducing or eliminating FEMA have gained traction in certain political circles. Proponents argue that disaster management should be primarily the responsibility of SLTT governments, suggesting that a decentralized approach would lead to more efficient and tailored responses. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, for instance, have advocated for diminishing FEMA’s role, emphasizing local responsibility in disaster preparedness.
In April 2025, a draft memo revealed plans for nearly all FEMA staff to be deployed annually in response to disasters, reflecting a significant shift in the agency’s operational model. This move aligns with broader efforts to reassign disaster preparedness responsibilities to SLTT governments, sparking debates about the efficacy and sustainability of such a transition. Critics further argue that diminishing FEMA’s capabilities could leave localities vulnerable, especially as climate change increases the frequency and severity of disasters.
Tribal governments possess sovereign authority and have the option to request federal disaster declarations independently. However, the elimination of FEMA would complicate this process, potentially limiting access to necessary resources and support. Tribal nations would need to navigate complex intergovernmental agreements and seek alternative funding sources to manage disaster response and recovery effectively. The 2024 Tribal Declarations Interim Guidance aimed to simplify standards and enhance access to programs for Tribal Nations. Yet, without FEMA, the implementation and effectiveness of such guidance remain uncertain.
For the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the relationship with the federal government is complex as well – yet it is FEMA who leads all of the other federal entities in supporting very devastating disasters such as Guam’s Typhoon Mawar in 2023, and Hurricane Maria in 2017 which struck both Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. While there still may be response deployments in advance of tropical storms heading towards these island territories, the questions about future federal funding of infrastructure repairs and mitigation work remain.
However, it is alarming and concerning that the language being put forth is only ‘state’ and ‘local’ specific, excluding both our tribal nations and our territories. This perspective overlooks the complexities and challenges inherent in federal disaster response and recovery efforts, particularly for SLTT governments with limited resources.
Implications for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments include, but are not limited to:
- Financial Strain: Without FEMA’s financial support via the Stafford Act, SLTT governments would bear the full cost of disaster response and recovery. This includes expenses related to emergency protective measures, debris removal, infrastructure repair, and assistance to affected individuals. Most SLTT entities operate with constrained budgets and may lack the fiscal capacity to manage large-scale disasters independently, especially with such short notice in 2025.
- Resource Limitations: FEMA provides not only funding but also access to specialized resources, personnel, and logistical support during emergencies. In its absence, SLTT governments will need to develop and maintain their own capabilities, that will be particularly challenging for smaller or rural jurisdictions. Even a mutual aid model with neighboring SLTTs, there are costs that will be at “full price,” potentially even greater with SLTT shortfalls. While “all disasters are local,” this takes the concept a bit too far in too short a timeframe.
- Coordination Challenges: Disasters often transcend jurisdictional boundaries, necessitating coordinated responses across multiple levels of government. FEMA plays a crucial role in facilitating such coordination amongst federal agencies and impacted states. Without a central coordinating agency, SLTT governments may struggle to effectively collaborate during multi-jurisdictional emergencies.
Recent events underscore the critical role FEMA plays in disaster response and recovery:
- Arkansas Tornadoes (March 2025): Severe storms resulted in over 40 deaths across Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri. Despite the devastation, federal disaster relief funds were denied, highlighting the challenges SLTT governments face without federal support.
- California Wildfires (January 2025): The early 2025 wildfires in Southern California, particularly in Los Angeles County, led to significant property loss and displacement of residents. While over 24,000 residents applied for FEMA assistance, many received initial notices of ineligibility, causing confusion and concern. Local officials clarified that these were often due to missing information rather than outright denials. Despite the challenges, a Major Disaster Declaration was approved, enabling access to federal aid. However, political debates emerged, with some federal officials suggesting conditions on aid distribution, highlighting the complexities SLTT governments face in securing and managing disaster assistance.
- Mountain Fire in Ventura County, California (November 2024): The fire destroyed 182 structures but was not declared a federal disaster, leaving affected residents without access to FEMA aid. Local organizations provided limited assistance, but resource shortages hindered recovery efforts.
- Hurricane Helene (September 2024): Hurricane Helene caused widespread devastation across several southeastern states, including Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. In Georgia, President Biden approved a major disaster declaration, leading to over $283 million in assistance for affected households by January 2025. However, in North Carolina, FEMA declined the state’s request to continue covering 100% of recovery costs, reducing the federal share to 90%. Governor Josh Stein expressed deep disappointment, emphasizing the ongoing need for federal support in debris removal and infrastructure restoration. In Virginia, the state faced delays in receiving up to $260 million in federal reimbursements, impacting critical infrastructure repairs and preparedness for the upcoming hurricane season.
Emergency managers universally agree that while FEMA could be reorganized or restructured through a deliberate process to make its efforts more efficient and effective, drastic actions to eliminate or drastically reduce the role of FEMA in supporting disasters throughout the country will put the nation at risk. Recognizing FEMA’s indispensable role, some lawmakers have proposed legislation to reinforce its position within the federal government. The FEMA Independence Act of 2023, for example, seeks to establish FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency, ensuring its continued operation and authority in disaster management. This Act reflects a growing recognition of the need to preserve and strengthen FEMA’s role. The act proposed establishing FEMA as an independent, cabinet-level agency to enhance its effectiveness and accountability. Such measures underscore the importance of federal leadership in disaster management. Conversely, some policymakers advocate for reforming FEMA rather than dismantling it. For example, Congressman Chuck Edwards released a report urging the White House to reform FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Helene’s devastation, emphasizing the agency’s critical role in ongoing recovery efforts.
The International Association of Emergencys’™ Recommendations for SLTT Governments
In anticipation of potential changes to FEMA’s structure or existence, SLTT governments should consider the following actions:
- Enhance Local Capabilities: Invest in building robust emergency management infrastructures, including appropriately funding full-time emergency management staff with salaries that match the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience needed, training personnel, developing response plans that reflect the latest guidance/doctrine, and acquiring necessary equipment.
- Establish Mutual Aid Agreements: Forge partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions to share resources and support during emergencies. In the absence of FEMA, mutual aid agreements like the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) would become increasingly vital. EMAC allows states to share resources during disasters, facilitating a collaborative approach to emergency management. However, reliance on such agreements requires robust coordination and trust among participating entities and potentially the fiscal solvency to self-support these agreements.
- Advocate for Federal Support: Engage with federal representatives to emphasize the importance of sustained federal involvement in disaster management.
- Diversify Funding Sources: Explore alternative funding mechanisms, such as state grants, public-private partnerships, community-based initiatives, and intergovernmental agreements, to supplement disaster preparedness and response efforts.
- Establish Disaster Relief Funds: Work with local leaders to establish emergency funds, similar to a local disaster relief fund, to be leveraged for immediate response costs.
- CERT, Citizen Corps, and AmeriCorps: Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) would play a crucial role in grassroots disaster response. CERT trains volunteers in basic emergency skills, enabling communities to respond effectively in the immediate aftermath of disasters. CERT could be supported by Citizen Corps and AmeriCorps programs if these continue to be adequately funded, staffed, and trained. Expanding organizational capacity at the local level and actively seeking funding sources and support for such initiatives would be essential to compensate for the loss of federal coordination.
The prospect of a world without FEMA presents significant challenges for SLTT governments. While decentralizing disaster management may offer certain advantages, the absence of a centralized coordinating agency like FEMA could lead to fragmented responses, increased financial burdens, and heightened vulnerabilities, particularly for underserved communities. It is imperative that policymakers carefully consider the ramifications of such proposals and work collaboratively to ensure a resilient and equitable disaster management system for all.
The International Association of Emergency Managers™-USA Council is led by:
Carrie L. Speranza, CEM®, IAEM®-USA President
Josh Morton, CEM®, IAEM®-USA First Vice President
Todd DeVoe, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Second Vice President
Erik S. Gaull, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Secretary
Walter English, III, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Treasurer
David M. Muse, Jr., CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 1 President
Michael D. Prasad, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 2 President
Sara Ruch, CEM, IAEM®-USA Region 3 President
Allison Farole, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 5 President
Joseph J. Leonard, Jr., CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 6 PDisaster Response resident
Randy Pommenville, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 7 President
Valerie Lucus-McEwen, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 8 President
Jon Shear, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 9 President
Kevin Wickersham, CEM®, IAEM®-USA Region 10 President
Additional information on the International Association of Emergency ManagersTM can be found at www.iaem.org.
