FEMA could use reform, not elimination

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

During a Friday tour of communities in western North Carolina and neighborhoods in Los Angeles devastated by natural disasters, President Donald Trump told victims, state officials and assembled media that his administration would look to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the nation’s foremost disaster response agency, or consider eliminating it entirely.

While the former has merit — and there are serious, promising proposals to strengthen and streamline the agency that could improve its work — the latter should be fiercely resisted if Trump pursues it. Substantially weakening FEMA would inhibit disaster response, shift an unsustainable burden onto states and put millions of Americans at risk.

In a matter of months, countless residents of southern Appalachia and Southern California have seen their lives upended by the type of extreme weather events that are a more common occurrence in the United States than ever before. These are the sort of disasters that outstrip the ability of any local or state government to swiftly and comprehensively respond, which is precisely why FEMA exists.

The agency was created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, who saw value in consolidating the federal government’s disaster response and civil defense efforts. In the years since, FEMA has been there in the aftermath of tragedy, supporting victims as they pick up the shattered pieces of their lives and helping communities get back on their feet.

FEMA exists to provide funding, resources, logistics and support, but much of the work of disaster recovery is still conducted by local and state officials who know affected communities the best. Its personnel have extensive experience managing recovery efforts and work to ensure that victims receive help they need, both in the short and long terms.

However, the leading criticism of FEMA — and of federal disaster response as a whole — is that it is focused on recovery after disaster at the expense of all else. It does not emphasize rebuilding in a way that prevents future calamity, working instead to make communities functional as soon as possible. FEMA’s mission is to help restore what’s lost, not to make places more resilient than before.

Responsibility for things such as land-use planning are local and state matters. Those living along Florida’s Big Bend region, which was struck by two hurricanes, including Helene, last year, weren’t barred from doing so by local or state officials even though the risk was great. Regardless, FEMA was there to support the cleanup, not demand communities rebuild in more sustainable ways.

Frustration among disaster victims is both understandable and commonplace, and was particularly evident after Helene hit western North Carolina. But rather than amplify the facts, as state and local officials did, then-candidate Trump spread lies about FEMA’s efforts, which delayed assistance and put agency personnel at risk. It was incredibly reckless and a disservice to those who lost everything.

It was also in keeping with a contempt for FEMA underscored by “Project 2025,” since proven to be the blueprint for Trump’s second term. It calls for returning emergency management and disaster recovery to the states (which, again, already shoulder most of the responsibility) and eliminating a federal agency that continues to do invaluable work for Americans suffering after extreme weather events.

The United States recorded 27 natural disasters that each inflicted at least $1 billion in damage last year. That will continue. States and localities cannot handle those costs alone, nor should they be expected to when we are one country, dedicated to the betterment of all Americans.