President Donald Trump's suggestions that he might shut down the federal agency charged with responding to disasters are running into trouble with Republican lawmakers.
Deeply red states are experiencing some of the costliest disasters, and lawmakers from those states fear that eliminating Federal Emergency Management Agency would leave them on the hook for increasingly expensive bills. So while they’re open to overhauling FEMA, congressional Republicans said they flatly reject the idea of abolishing the agency.
“FEMA can’t go away,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters last week. “I think the first job of the federal government is to protect people and property.”
Trump’s broadsides against FEMA came amid multibillion-dollar recovery efforts from Hurricanes Helene and Milton last fall and California wildfires that devastated the Los Angeles area in January. Speaking to reporters on Jan. 24 in deluged western North Carolina, he said he would “begin the process of reforming FEMA or getting rid of FEMA."
“I think we’re going to recommend that FEMA go away,” said Trump, who has criticized the agency's handling of catastrophes in North Carolina and elsewhere. He added, “I’d like to see the states take care of disasters.”
The president’s criticism of FEMA's behavior rang true to North Carolina officials still dealing with recovery from Helene, which scientists said climate change undoubtedly made wetter and more destructive. These officials lamented what they called a slow response by the agency in the early days, unclear guidance and cumbersome rules for rebuilding. Yet they cautioned against ending FEMA’s role entirely, fearing states alone could not shoulder some of the logistical and financial burdens for disaster recovery.
“I think [FEMA] failed me. But it may have been that they were completely out of resources,” said North Carolina state Rep. Mark Pless, a Republican representing a western North Carolina district Helene ravaged. “I don't want to beat up on them. But if they failed, I want to know why they failed — and I want to know what we can do to make a difference.”
Later, Trump via executive order created a council to review federal disaster recovery policies at FEMA. Cameron Hamilton, whom Trump installed as acting FEMA administrator, said changes are afoot at the agency.
“We have some work to do at@FEMA, and we are ready to implement the President's agenda and reform FEMA to better serve the American people,” he posted on X.
In the order, Trump expressed “serious concern” that political biases influenced FEMA decision-making. He has trained much of his ire for federal recovery spending on California by slamming its handling of wildfires, with Republicans now mulling tying other political conditions to disaster relief dollars. (Those could include demanding that California require voter ID at the polls, Trump said during his visit to the state.)
But Kennedy said the federal government would “help our neighbors in the time of need — and we'll end up helping our neighbors in California.”
Trump also lamented that FEMA had “unfairly treated” North Carolinians, who voted for him in last year’s election.
The recent disasters have brought fresh attention to the immense costs of helping communities rebuild from catastrophes and the federal government’s role in recovering from disasters. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that damage from Helene and Milton totaled $78.7 billion and $34.3 billion, respectively. Total economic loss from the California wildfires, which accounts for more than property damage, could hit $275 billion, according to AccuWeather.
Once a president approves a governor’s disaster request, FEMA begins coordinating with local and state emergency managers who lead the response and recovery effort. FEMA can also then reimburse governments, typically up to 75 percent, for disaster-related costs such as debris removal and rebuilding public infrastructure. It also can provide funds to eligible individuals for home repairs, rental assistance and other needs. Spending on those programs totaled $274.3 billion since August 2017, according to FEMA.
Republican lawmakers echoed Trump’s concerns about FEMA’s efficiency, arguing that its programs deserve inspection to ensure they are properly serving people, and voiced support for changes at the agency.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said he understood Trump’s comments as a call for an earnest review of FEMA spending. As governor of the frequently hurricane-ravaged state, Scott said what FEMA was willing to reimburse “shocked” him, arguing that the agency’s operations encourage wasteful spending. He said clarifying state and federal disaster recovery roles would help, though he did not advocate ending FEMA involvement.
“As the governor, you'd like to have the support of your federal government,” he told POLITICO.
But the hesitation to completely ditch FEMA spans the Republican Party.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said FEMA officials assisting with the Helene recovery are working “very hard,” but the agency has become too politicized. But he suggested an “overhaul” rather than disbanding FEMA.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said FEMA needs to be “reorganized” by letting states take the lead across a broad sweep of disaster recovery.
And Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) responded with a simple, “No,” when asked whether FEMA should “go away,” as Trump mused.
That may owe to the fact that Republican-leaning states have been among the most reliant on FEMA aid, said Michael Coen, who was FEMA chief of staff in the Obama and Biden administrations. States and local governments would have to budget to cover the costs of any policy change that reduces the amount of federal disaster assistance as the severity and frequency of climate change-fueled disasters exact a toll on an ever-expanding stretch of the country.
“I think Republican governors would probably have something they’d want to say about that,” Coen said.
Such a change would hit Republican states hard, according to FEMA data compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Texas, Louisiana and Florida, all of which backed Trump in the last three elections, received the most FEMA federal disaster assistance for individual households from 2015 through 2024. The totals did not account for Helene or Milton, both of which rollicked GOP-leaning states and districts. As of Jan. 21, a FEMA spokesperson said the agency had awarded $315 million to 159,000 North Carolina households for Helene recovery.
As Republicans look across the federal government for cuts, few are willing to take a cleaver to federal disaster spending given their districts may one day end up in need. Even when they’ve tried it, they’ve largely failed: While 23 Texas House Republicans and both its Republican senators unsuccessfully tried to block Hurricane Sandy relief for the Northeast in 2012, most backed federal aid for Texas’ 2017 recovery from Hurricane Harvey, which dropped more than 50 inches of rain over Houston.
“We've seen this pattern show up in the past where a Republican senator or congressman will say, ‘You know, this is too much disaster aid. We should cut back on disaster aid,’” said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor at the University of Delaware and a faculty member of its Disaster Research Center. “Then a disaster happens in their state, and then suddenly they're very pro-disaster aid. This kind of rhetoric is easy to say and hard to stick to.”
Pless said change is warranted because FEMA has been slow to authorize recovery activities and direction to North Carolina. But he acknowledged that the state cannot replace some of the agency’s functions, such as executing contracts for mobile homes to shelter displaced people. FEMA can quickly dispense resources through its budget authority, which is helpful in a state without a full-time legislature like North Carolina. Structurally, the state isn’t yet ready to assume that role, he said.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she’s discussing potential changes to FEMA with Hamilton, the acting chief. She floated letting states take control of disaster recovery, citing slow response time and allegations of political bias by FEMA officials. She suggested states could tap the National Guard for help if recovery expenses exceed budgets. And she recommended that FEMA waive a regulation that limits home repairs in high-risk flood zones if costs amount to at least 50 percent of the property’s market value — a rule intended to prevent repeat damage, but that also brings significant expense for homeowners.
“Just hearing directly from my constituents, the current FEMA program that's in place is an absolute nightmare and mess,” she said.
States can ask to take control of certain recovery functions and send FEMA a bill later for repayment, said a former FEMA official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But what Trump floated sounds more like a wholesale change to put states in the lead, the official said.
Such a system would likely create myriad challenges, the former official said. Many states lack the capacity or experience to budget for disasters. And emergency managers routinely criticize an existing Department of Housing and Urban Development disaster recovery program that requires states to front the money, with many waiting years for reimbursement.
“That’s not exactly the solution either,” the ex-FEMA official said.
The University of Delaware’s Siders acknowledged, however, that some changes could make sense. Climate change and demographic shifts putting homes, infrastructure and other assets in more vulnerable places are increasing the costs of disasters in those areas. But she said the damage threshold for triggering FEMA payouts is still quite low. Raising that level could leave major disasters to the federal government while putting states in charge of smaller events.
But unlike the federal government, local governments must balance their budgets, said Zeb Smathers, the Democratic mayor of Canton, a town in western North Carolina where Helene-induced flooding destroyed homes and businesses. He wondered aloud how local governments could pay for recoveries if the tab grew out of control.
“I heard President Trump’s statements. I took them as he said them,” he said. “What does that mean? When would you get paid? What would happen? There's so many questions that are attached to doing what he proposed.”
Comments
Post a Comment