Background
The increasing threats posed by climate change—including extreme heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods, and storms—underscore the need for robust, inclusive, and effective early warning systems and disaster response strategies that safeguard lives, livelihoods, and property. Early warning systems (EWS) play a crucial role in reducing risks from climate and environmental hazards. Recognizing their importance, the United Nations (UN) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have prioritized advancing these systems through the Early Warning Systems for All Initiative, launched in 2022, which aligns with Target G of the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. While EWS play a key role in enhancing resilience to climate-related risks, their effectiveness is often limited by financial and institutional constraints, data gaps, communication challenges, and the complexity of evolving climate threats.
Disaster response in the United States is guided by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which was signed into law on November 23, 1988, amending the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Act constitutes the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, establishing a structured and coordinated system for providing disaster assistance, and placing primary authority under the president and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Under the Act, the president can authorize federal assistance through two primary types of declarations, each serving distinct purposes: Emergency Declarations and Major Disaster Declarations. FEMA, operating within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leads the federal government’s disaster response efforts. Its mission is “to help people before, during, and after disasters,” serving as the central coordinator for federal actions and managing most disaster assistance programs.
Disaster response systems are grounded in the principle that disasters are first and foremost local events, where local and state officials lead the initial response within their communities in case of a disaster. The federal government does not automatically intervene, instead it only steps in when local and state resources are overwhelmed and agencies file formal requests for assistance. This bottom-up approach is outlined in the National Response Framework (NRF), which defines roles, responsibilities, and coordination across all levels of government. When disasters exceed the response capacity of local and state governments, states request federal assistance through formal disaster declarations. This collaboration was necessary after Hurricane Helene struck North Carolina in 2024, causing catastrophic flooding and infrastructure damage across the state. FEMA does not take command of state or local operations; rather, it supports and coordinates based on their needs.
On January 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14180 establishing a council to assess the effectiveness of the disaster response agency, FEMA. The President appointed 13 people including Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to review the agency. This was followed by Executive Order No. 14239, signed on March 18, 2025, which directed a review of infrastructure and risk management policies, established a National Risk Register, and urged states and local governments to assume greater responsibility for disaster management. However, experts point out that the executive order lacks any federal commitment for continued financial or operational assistance, posing a risk for future disaster response. These orders followed months of the president hinting at plans to “get rid of FEMA” during visits to disaster-affected areas—first in North Carolina, which had been severely flooded by Hurricane Helene, and later in California after the Los Angeles fire in January. Additional developments include proposed budget and staffing reductions. The Executive Branch has taken several actions to downsize FEMA’s workforce. Between January 1 and June 1, 2025, about 20 percent of FEMA’s permanent full-time workforce accepted voluntary buyouts, and 24 senior employees left the agency, resulting in a significant loss of institutional experience and expertise. Moreover, disaster funding has become increasingly constrained and delayed, particularly through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). This approach, implemented with limited transparency, poses serious challenges for effective disaster recovery and resilience to natural disasters.
These changes come at a time when climate change is causing more frequent and severe disasters and becoming more expensive to manage. In 2024 alone, the United States experienced 27 weather and climate disasters with at least $1 billion in damages each, second only to 2023, which had 28 events. States that frequently face natural disasters will be hit hardest, particularly smaller, rural, and less affluent ones. Socially vulnerable populations, including low-income households, elderly people, and people with disabilities, are especially at risk, and likely to suffer greater and take much longer to recover.
Arguments in favor of Trump Administration Changes to Disaster Preparedness and Response
President Trump emphasized the need for state and local governments to take responsibility, arguing that they are the closest to affected communities and are better positioned to manage disasters effectively and efficiently. The argument assumes that a “good state government” should be capable of handling emergencies without relying heavily on federal intervention. Additionally, some state and local officials believe they are better positioned to tackle disasters than federal agencies due to their familiarity with impacted areas. In response to recent changes to FEMA, Oklahoma Governor Stitt stated that “We know our land, we know our people, and we know how to respond faster, leaner and smarter than Washington ever could.”
While visiting the Los Angeles fires incident in January 2025, Trump stated that “FEMA is a very expensive, in my opinion, mostly a failed situation,” implying that the federal agency wastes state’s money and delivers subpar results compared to what states could achieve if given more autonomy and direct resources. These arguments rest on the belief that local control is more efficient and cost-effective than centralized federal management, even though, in practice, large-scale disasters often exceed what states can handle without federal coordination and funding.
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Press Release from August 2025 states that “Under the Trump administration, FEMA is getting funding to communities for disaster relief twice as fast,” for individual assistance, debris removal, and clean up. FEMA under the Trump administration reportedly became more efficient, reducing the average time to deliver disaster aid to survivors from 17 days to about 12. The arguments indicate that the reforms—which include funding cuts, staffing reduction, and reorganization—are working. In this regard, proponents believe FEMA has become more efficient, responsive, and capable of meeting disaster needs.
Arguments in opposition of Trump Administration Changes to Disaster Preparedness and Response
While some argue for devolving disaster management responsibilities, state and local government budgets tell a different story. Without federal agencies like FEMA, states, local governments, and communities would be forced to coordinate and finance disaster management largely on their own—an expectation far beyond their current capacity. For instance, Louisiana and Florida—two of the most disaster-prone states—would face expensive recurring challenges that could prolong recovery and reduce their overall resilience. Smaller, rural, and less wealthy states would be even more vulnerable, lacking both the financial resources and logistical systems needed for large-scale emergency response. According to emergency management experts, states lack the fiscal flexibility to take on functions that have long been the remit of the federal government. Wyoming Homeland Security Director Lynn Budd noted that most states do not have the infrastructure to manage major disasters year after year. Caroline Hackerott, assistant professor of disaster resilience and emergency management at North Dakota State University, stated that “I cannot think of a single state that is prepared to have that responsibility pushed back onto them,” warning that eliminating federal disaster funding would leave many communities unable to cope with catastrophic events.
Critics warn that transferring disaster responsibility in entirety to states and local governments would exacerbate funding inequities, and weaken the nation’s coordinated approach to disasters. Rob Moore, the director of the flooding solutions team at the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated that “From day one, the Trump administration has been eroding the nation’s capacity to plan for, respond to, and recover from disasters.” States currently depend heavily on federal financial and logistical support. Experts like Allison Reilly, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Maryland, emphasize that FEMA exists precisely because some crises exceed state capacity. She contends that removing FEMA’s safety net would force states to choose between overspending on rarely used emergency systems or leaving their populations unprotected. An article by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) pointed out that such decentralization would not increase efficiency but instead fragment coordination, slow response times, and erode resilience, particularly in regions already facing frequent and severe climate-related disasters.
Changes in federal disaster response risk leaving communities less protected. Experts warn that merely shifting responsibility to state and local governments without matching financial or technical support will not reduce disaster risk, but instead heighten community vulnerability. The Trump administration’s executive order proposes that states take greater responsibility for disaster preparedness and infrastructure investment, yet it provides little clarity on what federal assistance will remain. Funding delays and shifting directives are already jeopardizing local recovery efforts—states and localities are facing slower grant approvals and unclear guidance as the federal agency’s role is redefined. Maintaining a strong federal role in disaster management is therefore essential to ensure that communities nationwide are not left to confront catastrophic events alone.
What lies ahead for FEMA and the United States Disaster response
While disasters often begin as localized events, their impacts can rapidly expand across regions and persist for extended periods. Many states and local governments lack the financial capacity, technical expertise, and infrastructure to handle large-scale disasters independently. As such, localities rely on support from external sources, including neighboring jurisdictions, national agencies, or international organizations. Looking ahead, it remains uncertain whether Trump’s administration will continue to pursue reforms at FEMA or attempt to “get rid of FEMA”. However, it is evident that FEMA reforms are likely to continue, as demonstrated by the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act introduced in Congress on July 23, 2025. The bill seeks to restructure the agency, update disaster assistance programs, and improve the way aid is distributed to affected communities.