States that need to call on FEMA for help in responding and recovering from nature-related crisis situations—and the cities that may have to rely on that assistance—could face a different kind of crisis if President Donald Trump succeeds in having the agency abolished.
“President Donald Trump said the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be eliminated, widening his fight against the federal bureaucracy that he has denounced as a ‘deep state’ working against his interests,” Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
“FEMA should be terminated,” Trump said in [a] Tuesday post on his social media network, reiterating his belief that shifting disaster response and recovery to individual states would save the government money and be more efficient,” according to the news organization.
But Trump cannot abolish the agency on his own.
‘Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally disband FEMA; the agency is authorized by Congress and has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Such a move would dramatically transform how the U.S. government handles disaster assistance,” Newsweek explained.
FEMA’s Depth And Breadth Of Experience
FEMA, which was established by President Jimmy Carter 46 years ago, has a breadth and depth of crisis management experience. It has responded to more than 1,000 severe storms, 478 floods, 227 hurricanes, 71 snow storms, 26 earthquakes, five volcanic eruptions, and hundreds of other catastrophes.
“Abolishing FEMA would be a disaster in itself. FEMA is the backbone of our national emergency response, ensuring communities can recover from hurricanes, wildfires, public health crises, and other large-scale disasters. It’s not just about money—it’s about coordination, expertise, and logistics on a scale that states and cities simply aren’t equipped to handle alone,” Kavelle Christie, a healthcare policy expert, warned in an email interview.
“Having worked closely with state organizations on health policy and advocacy, many of which were repeatedly hit by disasters, I’ve seen firsthand how much they rely on FEMA. These are not agencies with the staffing, resources, or supply chain access to handle large-scale disasters alone. The idea that they could seamlessly step in and do FEMA’s job is unrealistic,” she noted.
If FEMA is abolished, then the federal government’s institutional knowledge of responding to crises could disappear. It’s not clear what would happen to the free resources it provides for business leaders and others, including the National Risk Index for Natural Hazards, the National Disaster and Emergency Management University, and its Recovery and Resilience Library.
‘Greater Suffering And Higher Costs’
Eliminating the federal agency “would surely lead to greater suffering and higher costs after disasters. In a cruel irony, moreover, abolishing FEMA would likely hurt the worst in states that supported Trump, especially Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and the Carolinas. These states went for Trump in the 2024 election and will be important politically in the 2026 midterms,” according to the Atlantic Council.
Limited State And Local Budgets
“Federal disaster aid is nearly everywhere. About 94% of Americans live in a county that has gotten Federal Emergency Management Agency help for disasters since 2011,” Newsweek reported.
“State and local budgets aren’t built to absorb the financial shock of major disasters. Most states are legally required to balance their budgets, meaning they can’t just pull billions of dollars out of thin air when catastrophe strikes. Without FEMA’s funding and logistical support, states would either have to raise taxes, slash essential services, or beg Congress for emergency appropriations—creating costly delays that put lives at risk. Gaps in disaster response don’t just mean delayed rebuilding; they mean prolonged disruptions in access to healthcare, increased disease spread in displaced populations, and long-term harm to public health infrastructure,” Christie pointed out.
Not Just A Local Issue
“Disaster response isn’t just a local issue. When multiple states are hit at once, FEMA ensures resources get where they’re needed most, whether it’s emergency medical supplies, shelter assistance, or infrastructure repair. Without FEMA, states would be left scrambling, forced to negotiate aid agreements on the fly, delaying critical relief when every minute counts. Wealthier states might manage, but lower-income and disaster-prone states would be left vulnerable, deepening existing inequities in recovery efforts and worsening public health crises,” Christie explained.
‘Nebraska Would Be In A World Of Hurt’
“If they do away with FEMA, Nebraska would be in a world of hurt,” Al Berndt, a former assistant director who managed the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency on a day-to-day basis for 14 years until 2014, told the Nebraska Examiner. “We just didn’t have the people to do what FEMA does.”
“That sentiment was echoed by Dave Maurstad, a former Nebraska lieutenant governor who went on to serve 15 years as a top FEMA administrator, visiting dozens of disaster sites, from Hurricane Katrina to the tornado that ripped through Joplin, Missouri,” the newspaper reported.
Some states have more resources than others to respond to natural disasters.
“Cities and states largely do not have the funds, resources, and expertise to take on the entire FEMA functions. However, capacity and people power ranges wildly. In my experience in responding to California fires, the State of California tends to have more expertise and resources and work in close partnership with FEMA,” Jeff Le, the former deputy cabinet secretary under California Gov. Jerry Brown who was responsible for all emergency services and disaster responses, noted via email.
Coordinating The Work Of Other Agencies
“Other agencies, such as SBA and USDA, play an important role in resources and technical assistance. FEMA helps to coordinate this. That function would be much tougher without them and without the state having the human capital to engage. Cities generally range wildly in resources, but as seen in Los Angeles, New Orleans, and other massive physical disaster events, no one jurisdiction can absorb the worst alone,” he observed.
“In my experience in responding to California fires, the State of California tends to have more expertise and resources and work in close partnership with FEMA. However, I have seen in other state contexts where FEMA, the federal government, and its partner agencies take the state more or less into receivership,” Le concluded.
Alternatives
“Instead of abolishing FEMA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and includes other missions besides disaster recovery, Trump should seek to fix the agency’s problems, make it more efficient, and change its focus to include strategic resilience—that is, saving lives and reducing property damage before disasters strike,” the Atlantic Council recommended.
A basic tenet of crisis management is to know where to go if you need the expertise and resources to respond to a crisis. If Trump succeeds in doing away with FEMA, then several states and cities will find out the hard way that that failure to access those resources in a timely fashion can extend a crisis—or make it much worse.