President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to reshape the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a move that could have significant implications for federal disaster response efforts.
This development comes as FEMA remains central to addressing some of the most devastating natural disasters in recent U.S. history, including the California wildfires and Hurricane Helene in North Carolina.
Proposed Changes to FEMA’s Role
Trump, who recently criticized FEMA’s performance during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, claimed the agency has been underperforming for years.
“FEMA has not done their job for the last four years,” Trump said. “FEMA is getting in the way of everything.”
According to sources familiar with Trump’s discussions with congressional Republican leaders, the former president is considering changes to FEMA’s operational structure and the federal disaster aid formula. These changes, included in the conservative blueprint Project 2025, propose reducing the federal reimbursement rate for disaster costs, shifting more financial responsibility to individual states.
Smaller disasters would see reimbursement rates capped at 25%, while larger disasters could see a maximum reimbursement of 75%, a stark departure from the current policy that allows presidents to authorize 100% reimbursement for certain expenses.
The Project 2025 plan also suggests dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and relocating FEMA to the Department of the Interior or the Department of Transportation.
California and North Carolina in Focus
Trump’s comments have drawn particular attention in California and North Carolina, two states grappling with immense disaster recovery challenges. While Trump plans to visit both states this week, his remarks about potentially withholding aid to California have sparked controversy.
During the Hannity interview, Trump falsely claimed that California’s water policies—designed to protect fish conservation in the northern part of the state—caused fire hydrants to run dry during recent wildfires. He suggested that federal aid should be conditional on California revising its water policies, a position echoed by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
California’s wildfires are projected to be among the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history, adding urgency to the state’s recovery efforts. Meanwhile, North Carolina, devastated by Hurricane Helene, has been a focal point for criticism of FEMA’s response, with misinformation about relief payments fueling public discontent.
Concerns Over New Leadership
Adding to the uncertainty surrounding FEMA’s future, Trump appointed Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate, as the agency’s interim administrator.
While Hamilton has experience in emergency management through roles at DHS and the Department of State, he lacks substantial expertise in handling large-scale natural disasters. Hamilton has been vocal on social media about FEMA’s shortcomings and has advocated for reallocating agency resources to border security.
Critics Warn of Dangerous Precedent
Michael Coen, who served as FEMA’s chief of staff under the Biden administration, has cautioned against limiting federal disaster aid.
“You’re going to pick winners and losers on which communities are going to be supported by the federal government,” Coen said. “I think the American people expect the federal government will be there for them on their worst day, no matter where they live.”
Congress recently replenished the federal disaster aid fund with $100 billion following back-to-back hurricanes and wildfires, but critics fear that proposed changes could erode the agency’s ability to respond effectively.
Public Opinion Divided
While public confidence in FEMA’s performance has been mixed, Trump’s voters have been particularly critical.
According to AP VoteCast, roughly 40% of voters disapproved of FEMA’s handling of disasters, with two-thirds of Trump’s supporters expressing dissatisfaction.
The proposed reforms have sparked concerns about the federal government’s role in supporting communities during natural disasters. Whether these changes will gain traction remains to be seen, but the outcome could redefine disaster response in the United States.
