The Fate of FEMA: A Political Storm Brewing Over America's Disaster Response

March 25, 2025

The political winds in Washington have shifted dramatically, and now one of America's most vital emergency response agencies-FEMA-finds itself in the crosshairs, When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly questioned whether the federal government should even be in the disaster management business, it sent shockwaves through emergency response circles, "Why should Washington dictate how states recover from hurricanes, floods, or wildfires?" she argued at a recent policy forum. "Let's return that power to where it belongs - to local leaders and the private sector."

The backlash was immediate, Former FEMA administrators, disaster survivors, and emergency planners warned that dismantling FEMA would leave the nation dangerously exposed. But then a formal committee was established to evaluate the future of FEMA and everyone took a brief breath, Anxiety spiked yet again when Fox News rumored an upcoming executive order that would shift functions away from FEMA. But the actual text was largely lacking in details and was underwhelming. Again, collective breath of fresh air amongst the emergency management community. And finally, on Saturday March 22nd, Cameron Hamilton, Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator gave further assurances at the National Emergency Management Association mid-year forum by offering insight into the agency's strategic plan to reduce redundancy and become more streamlined. In doing so, Hamilton implied confidently that FEMA would exist, albeit transformed organizationally. But yesterday, March 24, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem dropped a casual mention during a Cabinet meeting that eliminating FEMA is part of the administration's plan, So just as national politics pivot toward decentralization and federal reform, a new and somewhat startling question is being asked today: Can FEMA go away?
 
The question sounds dramatic, but it isn't purely rhetorical or theoretical anymore. Some believe FEMA has become too bureaucratic, while others question whether the federal government should even be in the disaster management business. These debates are no longer reserved for niche legal scholars or think tank panels. They've begun making their way into Congressional hearings, budget proposals, and agency reorganization blueprints. So now is the right time to seriously ask and answer three core questions:

•  Can FEMA legally go away?
•  What does the Stafford Act - the backbone of disaster law - actually require?
•  If FEMA did go away, where would its vital functions go?

FEMA's Complicated History

Picture Washington in the 1970s: a bureaucratic jungle where disaster response wasn't a system, but a scavenger hunt. Flood survivors pleaded with Housing and Urban Development. Fire-ravaged towns negotiated with the Forest Service. Earthquake zones waited on the Geological Survey. Governors kept a Rolodex of federal contacts because no single number reached "the person in charge" when disaster struck.

Jimmy Carter's White House saw this chaos and made a pragmatic, almost casual decision -the kind of housekeeping move you'd make while reorganizing a cluttered garage. No landmark legislation. No fiery congressional debates about national resilience. Just Executive Order 12127 and Executive Order 12148 in 1979, stitching together fragments from five agencies into something new: the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA entered the world not with a bang, but with the dry thud of a government reorganization plan.

This administrative origin story has left FEMA perpetually vulnerable. When James Lee Witt (co-founder of Witt O'Brien's) transformed it in the 1990s - rebuilding trust after Hurricane Andrew by responding decisively to the Northridge earthquake - his success came through leadership, not legal armor. Bill Clinton's decision to give Witt Cabinet status wasn't codified in law; it was a temporary courtesy, as revocable as a White House parking pass.

Then history pivoted on 9/11. The post-9/11 reorganization of federal agencies prioritized a unified approach to national security, leading to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. As part of this consolidation, FEMA was incorporated into DHS alongside 21 other agencies, shifting from an independent entity to one component of a broader homeland security framework. While FEMA retained its core disaster response functions, its chain of command now flowed through DHS - a structural change that altered its direct line to the White House and integrated its work with other security-focused agencies. The agency that once reported directly to the President now answered to a Secretary preoccupied with border walls and bomb threats.

FEMA's journey reveals an uncomfortable truth: In Washington, what's created by executive whim can be undone the same way. Its survival has always depended less on statutes than on the political currency of disasters themselves - rising in value when catastrophe strikes, depreciating when the spotlight moves on. The agency we assume is permanent was really just an experiment in bureaucratic tidiness, one that could still be dismantled with the same pragmatism that built it.

FEMA's Statutory Footing

The agency's legal foundation became more complex following its incorporation into DHS in 2003. While the Homeland Security Act absorbed FEMA's structure into the new department, it was the Post­ Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 that fortified FEMA's institutional identity. PKEMRA's provisions in Title 6 of the U.S. Code created explicit protections, mandating FEMA's preservation as a distinct entity and prohibiting its dilution without legislative action.

This bifurcated legal framework means FEMA's operational authority flows primarily from the Stafford Act, while its organizational integrity derives from homeland security statutes. The distinction carries significant implications: Congress could theoretically reshape FEMA's structure through new legislation while leaving its core disaster response functions intact. But in that same vein, the President could use executive authority to transfer key functions to elsewhere within DHS (or elsewhere) thereby leaving FEMA a shell of its former self.

Could the Executive Branch Dissolve FEMA Without Congress?

While direct elimination of FEMA by presidential fiat is not legally viable under current law, there are limited executive mechanisms that could functionally weaken or partially restructure FEMA without needing an act of Congress, these in order of least likely to most likely:

• Budgetary Defunding: The President, through the Office of Management and Budget (0MB), can propose dramatic funding cuts to FEMA in the executive budget. While Congress holds the power of the purse, persistent underfunding or withholding of support for key FEMA programs can severely degrade its capacity.

• Internal Reassignment within DHS: Though FEMA is protected within DHS by PKEMRA (6 U.S.C. §316), the administration could reallocate major functions within DHS - e.g., transferring FEMA's preparedness or grants to other offices. PKEMRA would require legislative override for a full dissolution, but internal erosion of scope is certainly possible.

• Executive Orders & Memoranda: The President could issue executive orders shifting key Stafford Act responsibilities to other agencies, designating alternate leads for ESFs (Emergency Support Functions), or creating a parallel disaster response office within the White House or National Security Council. Based on Trump's recent Executive Order "Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness", issued March 19th, this is the mostly likely pathway to achieve a dramatic reshaping of FEMA and disaster response in the US.

What Does the Stafford Act Actually Require?

This brings us to the Stafford Act-the spine of federal disaster response. Passed in 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act didn't create FEMA. It created obligations. It was Congress's way of saying: "When disaster overwhelms a state, the federal government must have a process to step in and help." It codifies how the President
 
declares emergencies, what types of aid the federal government can provide, and how federal, state, tribal, and local governments coordinate during disasters.

But here's the kicker: the Stafford Act doesn't say FEMA has to do it.

The law refers to "the President" as the executor of emergency declarations and assistance. The President, in practice, delegates that authority to FEMA - but that delegation is administrative, not statutory. If a President decided tomorrow that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should lead long-term housing recovery, or that the
Department of Defense should oversee hurricane logistics, the Stafford Act wouldn't necessarily object. As long as the functions are performed and aid is delivered, the law doesn't care who's in charge - just that someone is.

Here are the core elements of the Stafford Act and what they enable from a federal response and relief perspective:

Section 401 - Major Disaster Declarations

Authorizes the President to issue a major disaster declaration at the request of a state, tribal, or territorial government. This unlocks a full suite of federal support programs, including public assistance, individual assistance, and hazard mitigation.

Section 402 - General Federal Assistance

Outlines the federal government's powers to coordinate resources and technical support in a declared disaster. This includes things like providing equipment, personnel, and logistical help to state and local governments.

Section 403 - Essential Assistance

The core of federal response operations. This section authorizes FEMA (or whomever the President designates) to carry out life-saving and life­ sustaining activities like search and rescue, emergency medical care, food, water, shelter, and debris removal.

Section 404 - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Funds post-disaster projects that reduce the risk of future damage­ elevating homes, strengthening infrastructure, flood control systems, etc. One of the few parts of the Act focused on building back better.

Section 406 - Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Public Facilities

Covers permanent work-restoring roads, utilities, schools, bridges, and other public infrastructure to pre-disaster conditions (and sometimes better, if eligible for code upgrades).

Section 408 - Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households

Often the most visible to the public. Provides Individual Assistance, including temporary housing, home repair, personal property replacement,
 
disaster-related medical and funeral costs, and more. Delivered directly to survivors.

Section 428 - Public Assistance Alternative Procedures

Introduced after Hurricane Sandy. Allows states to use fixed-cost grants for large projects, giving them more flexibility and control in rebuilding, but requiring more up-front planning and accountability.

Section 501 - Emergency Declarations

For situations that don't meet the threshold of a major disaster. These emergency declarations unlock more limited, targeted federal assistance­ often used for public health emergencies, events like presidential inaugurations, or pre-disaster staging during hurricanes.

If FEMA Goes Away, Where Would Its Functions Go?

If the administration was to take FEMA apart, they can't erase its responsibilities - they will need to redistribute them. But where? And to whom?

Some speculate that we'd simply fold FEMA's functions into other parts of DHS, the way Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were organized post-9/11.
The Office of Policy could take over hazard mitigation. Preparedness grants could go to the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement. Response could move under Customs and Border Protection's emergency assets. But none of these entities were built for civilian disaster response, and none have the ethos of community-focused emergency management. You can't drone strike a hurricane.

Others argue for decentralization-a more radical vision where states take on more responsibility, and FEMA's roles are scattered across a portfolio of federal departments. Housing recovery (IHP) might go to HUD, Infrastructure repairs (PA) to DOT, etc. This patchwork approach has historical precedent (see: 1970s), but it brings back the very fragmentation that made FEMA necessary in the first place. It also assumes that every federal agency wants these responsibilities, or that they have the capacity to take them on mid-disaster.

Here is a first stab at a mapping of which Stafford Act functions go where, if the administration is set of reducing the scope and mission of FEMA within DHS without Congressional intervention:

Disaster Declarations & Coordination (Stafford Act 401, 501)

Current Administrator: FEMA Administrator (after Presidential order)

Potential Future Administrator: DHS Secretary's Office


Disaster Response Operations (Emergency Support Functions, Incident Management, NRCC)

Current Administrator: FEMA Response Directorate
 
Potential Future Administrator: DHS Operations Directorate


Individual Assistance (Section 408: Temporary Housing, Medical, Funeral Aid)

Current Administrator: FEMA Individual Assistance Division

Potential Future Administrator: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or Social Security Administration (SSA)


Public Assistance (Sections 402, 406, 428: Infrastructure Repair, Debris Removal, Alternate Projects)

Current Administrator: FEMA Public Assistance Division

Potential Future Administrator: Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or HUD (for housing-related projects)


Hazard Mitigation (Section 404, BRIC Program)

Current Administrator: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program

Potential Future Administrator: HUD Office of Resilience


Floodplain Management/ National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Current Administrator: FEMA Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA)

Potential Future Administrator: HUD or stand-alone National Flood Insurance Agency


Emergency Communications (IPAWS, Alerts, Interoperability)

Current Administrator: FEMA Office of National Continuity Programs

Potential Future Administrator: CISA (within DHS)


Disaster Logistics (Warehousing, Supply Chains, MREs, Generators)

Current Administrator: FEMA Logistics Management Directorate

Potential Future Administrator: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency) or National Guard Bureau


Training & Preparedness (Emergency Management Institute, NIMS, Grants)

Current Administrator: FEMA National Preparedness Directorate

Potential Future Administrator: DHS Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), U.S. Fire Administration, or direct grant authority to states through DHS

 
Urban Search and Rescue (US&R Task Forces)

Current Administrator: FEMA Response Directorate

Potential Future Administrator: National Guard Bureau (DOD) or National Fire Academy (USFA)


Continuity of Government/ National Security Programs

Current Administrator: FEMA National Continuity Programs

Potential Future Administrator: DHS Secretary's Office or DHS Office for State and Local Law Enforcement


Community Disaster Recovery (National Disaster Recovery Framework, Recovery Support Functions)

Current Administrator: FEMA Recovery Directorate

Potential Future Administrator: HUD Office of Community Planning & Development or interagency council under the Executive Office of the President


A Case for Keeping FEMA or a Cabinet Level Disaster Response/Recovery Agency

Unwinding FEMA's responsibilities and scattering them across a dozen agencies might sound like a bold reform - but it's not progress. It's a return to the fragmented, confusing, and inefficient system that existed before FEMA was created. Every one of these "potential future administrators" already has a full-time mission. None were designed to lead during disaster.

Consolidation wasn't a bureaucratic accident. It was a response to uncoordinated fragmentation. It gave the nation a single point of contact, a unified framework, and a mission-focused agency that could scale quickly, coordinate across jurisdictions, and speak with one voice when it mattered most. Dismantling that isn't innovation - it's regression.

Instead of breaking FEMA apart, we should be doing the opposite: investing in greater integration, alignment, and capability across the federal response architecture and transfer MORE programs into the funding apparatus to avoid disjointed funding streams. That means stronger interagency playbooks, clearer funding pathways, modernized data systems, and elevated leadership that's empowered to act fast and locally when the next disaster hits.

To learn more about the dedicated resources we have and gain valuable insights on grants management, please visit our Center for Grant Excellence page.

If you need further assistance, please reach out to see how we can help.

Authored by: