Will Trump’s FEMA Review Force States to Take on More Disaster Relief?
The Trump Administration’s approach to governing so far appears to be to “nuke it from orbit,” which will have a detrimental effect on how the federal government provides aid. While the administration’s early focus was on USAID and foreign aid, in late January, Trump issued an executive order to establish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Review Council. It has drawn far less attention but could prove to be massively disruptive. And if the administration carries out its reported plans to slash the FEMA workforce, the implications for future disaster relief are profound.
One of the council’s goals is to evaluate “whether FEMA can serve its functions as a support agency, providing supplemental Federal assistance, to the States rather than supplanting State control of disaster relief.” In short, Trump wants to know why states cannot handle disasters themselves.
To be clear, states do handle disasters. Take FEMA public assistance as an example. When a disaster is declared, FEMA releases public assistance for rebuilding infrastructure, such as getting the power back on or repairing roads. The money goes to a non-federal or pass-through entity, which then carries out the work or awards the funding to a subrecipient like a contractor. Often, this entity is the state, county, tribal, or local government. FEMA writes the checks, but the locals decide how the work is done (while complying with federal laws). This is also how programs like FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program work.
So far, Trump’s proposal sounds precisely like how FEMA currently operates regarding public assistance. However, FEMA frequently adopts a more hands-on approach when it comes to individual assistance. This covers expenses and serious needs for eligible individuals and households — usually uninsured or underinsured. This aid can include shelter support for evacuees and survivors, crisis counseling, unemployment assistance, and programs to reunite families.
States, especially poorer states, cannot cover these costs because they are expensive. One of the eligibility requirements for this type of assistance literally considers the state’s ability to “raise revenue for disaster response and recovery based on either total taxable resources (TTR) or gross domestic product (GDP).” Basically, FEMA only grants individual assistance when it is beyond the state’s capacity to respond.
Additionally, the aid provided is frequently criticized as insufficient, especially in areas like encouraging resilience in rebuilding or addressing inequality in communities affected by disaster. In other words, what’s coming from FEMA is not enough, and it is already too much for states to handle.
FEMA and the federal government at large are not without criticism; applying for funding is complicated, and receiving the money can take years. Although prioritizing state capabilities could simplify these aspects of disaster response, significantly changing the federal government’s role, as suggested by the Trump administration, could worsen existing inequalities and leave people without sufficient support during disasters. States differ in their capacity to handle unexpected, but the federal government always has the backing of the US Treasury. Maintaining a balance between state and federal responsibility is crucial in ensuring effective and equitable disaster relief. However, in case Trump nukes FEMA — which, based on recent actions, is a more likely outcome — states will be left scrambling for other options.
