FEMA: Federal Emergency Maybe Agency

By: Alex Makoid, Tulane Class of 2025

Imagine the unthinkable happens: a Category 4 hurricane devastates your community. When you turn to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for help, you discover it is being dismantled. FEMA has been the backbone of the nation’s disaster response framework for decades. First created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, FEMA assists communities in the immediate aftermath of disasters by distributing emergency aid and coordinating long-term rebuilding and recovery efforts. FEMA also helps mitigate disasters and educates the public to optimize its disaster relief response. However, as climate disasters grow more intense and frequent, FEMA is undergoing rapid changes. Many are questioning whether FEMA will still be able to fulfill its mission. With key grant programs being eliminated and increased pressure on states to assume FEMA’s responsibilities, some are questioning FEMA’s ability to serve communities in times of crisis. The question now isn't whether FEMA will respond, but if it will even be there to answer.

A System Under Pressure: FEMA Cutbacks

Agency reform is nothing new. Following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA underwent reforms focused on improved and efficient resource allocation, enhanced preparedness efforts, and a greater focus on disaster resilience. In response to evacuation hesitations and concerns over household pets, Congress created the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act to support owners with rescue, care, and shelter. FEMA has also undergone fundamental changes in its organization and program focus. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act more clearly defined FEMA’s mission. FEMA’s role has evolved and expanded in recent years, particularly regarding hazard mitigation programs and related funding initiatives. For example, in 2021, Congress authorized the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program to provide support through capitalization grants to award low-interest loans to local communities.

Currently, there are discussions about redefining FEMA’s role or eliminating it altogether. It’s lost almost a third of its full-time staff since inauguration day, creating instability and loss of institutional knowledge in the country’s disaster management programs. Critical pre-disaster risk reduction programs have been entirely cancelled, and the Trump Administration has been less likely to approve federal disaster declaration requests to open up disaster assistance funding to states.

States may have to create programs and overhaul budgets to meet the needs typically addressed by the federal government. This will be a tremendous challenge for places frequently impacted by natural disasters, like Louisiana, which relies heavily on federal funding for disaster management programs. As hurricane season fast approaches, the question remains: if FEMA is stripped of its authorities and funding, what will replace it? What happens to Louisiana residents if disaster funding is drastically reduced?

Missing BRIC(s): Will FEMA topple?

The current administration recently eliminated FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program (BRIC), which helps with mitigation efforts and strengthens federal infrastructure to reduce risks from natural disasters. It has provided Louisiana with over $720 million in aid. Future grant applications, projects dating back to 2020, and any unprocessed funding have also been canceled, totaling $3.6 billion in revoked funds. Although BRIC helps provide necessary funding, FEMA officials suggested they are ending a “wasteful, politicized” program.

Louisiana officials say differently. Archie Chaisson, president of Lafourche Parish, pointed out that without the canceled $25 million grant to strengthen Port Fourchon's power grid, another Hurricane Ida-level outage could occur, which took weeks to restore last time. Furthermore, U.S. Representatives Troy Carter and Cleo Fields, former Mandeville Mayor Donald Villere, and U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy all support BRIC and argue that FEMA’s removal of the program will harm the state. Furthermore, these state and local authorities say that federal rollbacks will lead to an increased burden on taxpayers.

Looking Towards the Future

In March, President Trump issued Executive Order 14180, designed to overhaul FEMA’s resilience strategy and push states to play a bigger role in disaster management. The administration has also suggested that FEMA raise the disaster declaration threshold, reducing when states would qualify for federal aid. However, to dissolve FEMA would require an act of Congress; a President cannot unilaterally dissolve FEMA.

State-level burdens could become more onerous as FEMA’s traditional roles become state responsibilities. Under the Stafford Act, following a federal disaster declaration, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments must provide 25% of disaster funding, with FEMA covering the remaining 75% through the Disaster Relief Fund. Since these disasters can be costly, what would happen if states cannot meet FEMA’s previous funding levels and programmatic capacity?

There are also concerns about states' capacity to fund disaster relief programs as the frequency and intensity of natural disasters increase. Last year, the U.S. experienced 27 separate billion-dollar disasters, “trailing only the record-setting 28 events in 2023.” Louisiana consistently ranks among the states most affected by natural disasters and receives some of the highest levels of FEMA funding.  The idea that states can shoulder this burden independently raises serious concerns about whether states are adequately prepared to take on responsibilities currently handled by FEMA. Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky noted that “replicating FEMA’s administrative functions in each state would be far more costly than a single national agency.” Wyoming’s Director of Homeland Security echoed this sentiment, saying, “States don’t have that capability built to handle a disaster every single year,” and believes that the transition from federal to state is unrealistic. Governor Landry recently moved Louisiana’s state disaster agency under the National Guard to achieve “major cost savings,” but it doesn’t necessarily resolve questions about the state’s technical and financial capacity to manage disasters effectively, especially considering there are currently no plans at the state level to address potential FEMA funding cuts in the upcoming fiscal year.

Conclusion

With FEMA’s role poised to be significantly reduced or eliminated, it is essential to consider the potential implications and outcomes. Although one could argue that rolling back or restructuring programs could eventually lead to more efficient disaster relief systems, the lack of a clear replacement leaves significant gaps. For example, abruptly cancelling FEMA’s BRIC program without a concrete backup plan creates uncertainty and concern. These decisions primarily affect Louisiana residents, who rely on the availability of prompt disaster relief as the hurricane season begins. Implementing abrupt changes and slashing programs is not the answer. Instead, strategic reform can build a stronger and more reliable system.