The Future of State Disaster Recovery and Budgets

Earlier this week, President Trump held a press conference from the Oval Office with Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins, Interior Secretary Doug Bergum, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. While several topics were discussed, including timber production and the administration’s proposal to consolidate wildfire management into a U.S. Wildland Fire Service within the Department of Interior, one particular conversation likely stood out to governors across the country: the intent to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the coming months.

During the televised meeting Noem announced that, following this year’s hurricane season, that FEMA will be “eliminated as it exists today.” She continued that governors will be given “more control” over disaster response and that DHS is already in the process of assisting states in setting up mutual aid agreements “to respond to each other.”

The implication was that some Federal funding may be provided to states to support disaster recovery in the future, but the scale will be dramatically reduced after this year. The President concluded that it’s time to “wean off of FEMA and bring it down to the state level, much like the Department of Education.” The message was clear: Disaster recovery is no longer the Federal government’s responsibility.

The reality is that states already have control over disaster response, but often need additional funding to adequately recover from severe disasters in a timely manner. Most states just don’t have the budget space or tax revenue to accommodate multi-billion-dollar disaster response and recovery efforts, not to mention mitigation work, which is needed now more than ever. Without support from FEMA, state budgets could be decimated. It won’t help that NOAA funding is also being gutted, which will impede accurate weather prediction and make storm hardening and evacuation notice more difficult.

The idea that states like Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, which face devastating hurricanes and flooding every year and have received billions of dollars in FEMA assistance over the last decade, will be able to flip a switch and cover disaster damages with only state revenue is almost inconceivable, particularly when natural disasters seem to be worsening due to climate change. This raises questions about where the administration will choose to deliver disaster funding when it does deem necessary in the future. Partisan favoritism seems unavoidable.

Even ahead of this hurricane season, the Trump Administration has begun cutting off FEMA dollars. Last month, FEMA denied North Carolina’s request for a 100% cost reimbursement for debris removal following Hurricane Helene, which caused an estimated $53 billion in damage in the state. The denial is particularly confusing considering that Helene was one of the main drivers for passing the $110 billion American Relief Act last year.

Leadership on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recently released draft legislation to make major reforms at FEMA - likely in an attempt to head off the administration’s effort to wind down the agency, which has been brewing for months. But at the pace this administration is moving to shrink Federal agencies, the likelihood that the bill is enacted into law before FEMA is dismantled are slim.

In any case, states may have to start rethinking their budgets to account for more resources for disaster mitigation, response, and recovery. Some western governors faced a similar calculus earlier this year when the administration signaled its intention to reshape the Forest Service and forced thousands of employees to retire just before what’s expected to be a worse than normal wildfire season – a situation that may worsen in the coming weeks if the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s injunction on the President’s Reductions in Force (RIF) efforts are lifted.

Unfortunately, the potential effects of shifting state resources that would otherwise fund social services are dire. Funding for infrastructure, housing, education, public safety, and other services could be depleted at a time when Federal resources for similar functions are also being withheld and gutted.