Eliminate FEMA. That Was the Opening Line.

May 20, 2025

Today, I listened in with nearly 2,500 other interested parties on the first convening of the White House Council on Emergency Management Reform or as it was referred to today 'FEMA Review Council'. Like many others in the field, I went in expecting fire and fury: bold declarations, sweeping criticisms, and maybe even a headline grab or two.

And I wasn't wrong - Secretary Kristi Noem opened strong:

"The President has said many times he wants FEMA eliminated."

But the next sentence mattered more.

"Eliminated as it exists today."

That's the difference between a wrecking ball and a blueprint. And that tone carried through the rest of the day. While the media might focus on the splashy "dismantling FEMA" language, the substance of the meeting today told a different story - one that emergency managers, grant administrators, and local leaders should be paying close attention to.

This represents a significant shift in posture from the administration and what is starting to appear is a coordinated push to shift the federal government's role from operator to financial enabler. From responder to partner. From paperwork processor to trust-based funder. If that sounds like a big change - it is.

The Council was filled with seasoned leaders who've been on the ground during real events: governors who've watched their towns flood, mayors who've stood up EOCs in a crisis, state directors who've rebuilt roads and cleared debris while federal checks sat in limbo. And almost to a person, they said the same thing: the current system doesn't work anymore-not for the states, not for the feds, and certainly not for the people on the other end of the disaster.

Texas' emergency management Chief Nim Kidd drove that home in a way that landed hard. He said Texas is managing over $23 billion in federal disaster funding, and today, the bulk of that effort is auditing. Not planning. Not innovating. Not recovering. Just chasing compliance and responding to documentation requests. That line hit a nerve - because it's not just Texas. That's the norm. And it's not sustainable.

Kevin Guthrie from Florida brought another angle. He shared how their state is able to reopen roads within 72 hours, resume school in five days, and clear massive debris fields in less than three months - not because of FEMA, but because they've built a state system that moves with or without them. Florida has over a dozen pre-contracted vendors, 24/7 debris ops, and makes decisions based not on reimbursement risk but economic recovery potential. And it works.

But not every state is there. And that's the tension.

What many were surprised to hear today was not a Council of just high capacity states beating their chests but an equal focus on the uneven playing field. Some states don't have the trained workforce, the procurement infrastructure, or the cashflow to step up when a disaster hits. And yet they're expected to meet the same bar. This Council is, for better or worse, beginning to sketch out what a "ready state" looks like - and how the Federal government can help every state get there. And that's the inflection point that not many of us saw coming.

If FEMA as we know it is ending, what takes its place isn't just a renamed agency - it's a fundamentally different relationship between the federal government and states. It's a system where:

Money flows before damage assessments, not after
States lead operational response with pre-positioned capacity
The federal role is block grants, data coordination, and backstopping
- not deployment and delay

There's also an undercurrent here that shouldn't be missed: a deep frustration with how FEMA's processes - especially project formulation and CRC involvement - have created a drag on timely recovery. CRCs, multiple Council members said, are "where projects go to die." Requests for Information pile up. Timelines stretch into years. And all the while, mayors are trying to explain to their constituents why nothing has been rebuilt.

Mayor Jane Castor from Tampa spoke to that directly. She recalled the one-two punch of Hurricanes Helene and Milton hitting Tampa in close succession - storm surge followed by historic rainfall. Hundreds of homes were destroyed and what mattered most in that moment wasn't which agency had jurisdiction. It was speed. Coordination. Clarity.

What she praised - and what many echoed - is the response that happened when federal, state, and local partners worked side by side, each bringing their tools to the table without getting lost in whose lane it was. That's the model being held up now: one where the local response is strong, the state orchestrates, and the federal government enables - not controls - the process.

We also heard a subtle but important policy statement that may not be as popular with legislators: the idea that resilience begins with personal and state responsibility. Several speakers noted that the current federal structure disincentivizes good behavior - why buy insurance, why build to code, why invest in mitigation when the federal government will bail you out regardless? It appears that part of this restructuring is about rebalancing that moral hazard. Not by removing support, but by making it more conditional on planning and preparedness.

Glenn Youngkin, Virginia's governor, probably said it best. He described recovery as a spectrum: from mitigation and preparation to response, stabilization, and long-term rebuilding. And then he asked the question that framed the entire meeting:

"Who's responsible for what - and who's going to pay for it?"

That's the core of this conversation. And it's long overdue.

Personally, I've worked inside this system for two decades. I've supported states and cities in the immediate aftermath of disasters and stayed with them through the years of rebuild. I've watched PNPs hold bake sales to pay match while they wait for federal reimbursement. I've seen communities where debris sat for months because no one knew who was going to pay for pickup. And I've seen strong state leaders - many of whom were at that table today - find a way to get the job done anyway.

So if this Council is finally trying to rewrite the script, I welcome it. But I also know how hard this kind of change will be. This isn't just renaming FEMA or reorganizing org charts. It's a full system shift. One that will require trust, legislative muscle, statutory changes (especially to the Stafford Act), and real investment in state readiness. It'll mean embracing a new federal posture: one of funding and coordination, not control and delay.

The good news? The leaders at that table seem ready to carry that weight and have a much more positive attitude than has been purported by industry groups (and even myself) over the past 2-3 months. And the best among them aren't just pushing their own state models - they're thinking nationally. They're asking how to build blueprints that work for all 50 states, not just the top five.

Change in this space usually comes after a catastrophe. If this effort succeeds, we might actually get ahead of that curve for once.

"Eliminate FEMA." That Was the Opening Line. But What Followed Was More Thoughtful and More Actionable

Authored by:

Matthew Erchull
Senior Managing Director, Government Advisory Services

Want More?

WITH YOU WHEN IT COUNTS

"Eliminate FEMA." That Was the Opening Line. But What Followed Was More Thoughtful and More Actionable

Authored by:

Matthew ErchullSenior Managing Director, Government Advisory Services

Want More?

WITH YOU WHEN IT COUNTS

Matthew Erchull
Senior Managing Director, Government Advisory Services