The Trump Administration's First Clear Signal on the Federal Role in Preparedness and Recovery

March 19, 2025

The release of the "Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness" executive order gives communities across the country the first real indication of how the Trump administration will go about reforming how disaster response and recovery is administered in the U.S.

For those working in resilience, emergency management, or state and local government, this is a meaningful glimpse into how the Trump administration envisions the federal role in both preparedness and recovery. Beyond broad philosophy, it also provides a concrete timeline for how these policy determinations will play out over the next year.

A Shift Toward State and Local Responsibility

First and foremost, the executive order enables a series of policy review actions and does not make any formal operational changes to FEMA. But it does insinuate that the administration will be looking to place a greater responsibility on states and local governments to manage resilience and emergency preparedness, While this shift has been discussed for years, this order sets in motion what could likely be an aggressive federal policy realignment and outlines timetables for recommendations to be made about how that shift will occur- To that end, several provisions stand out

• A National Resilience Strategy (90 days) - This strategy will move away from an all-hazards approach and instead emphasize risk­ based decision-making. States will be expected to align their policies accordingly, prioritizing investments based on specific threats rather than generalized preparedness efforts. As they say, the devil will be in the details as not every state deals with a concretely limited number of risks. Also worth noting that FEMA released the National Resilience Guidance in August of 2024. No indication on how that guidance could/will be incorporated.

• Critical Infrastructure Policy Overhaul (180 days) -A review of federal policies governing infrastructure security, resilience, and supply chain stability, which could result in significant changes to funding structures and regulatory expectations for states. Of particular note - no mention of consulting with CISA which should be incorporated.

• Development of a National Risk Register (240 days) - A comprehensive assessment of risks to national infrastructure and critical systems that will inform both government and private-sector investment priorities. Fortunately, they can lean heavily on the recently developed FEMA National Risk Index and National Risk Map, if they so choose. Until instructed otherwise or made redundant, these should continue to be key resources for State and Local governments.

• Decentralized Emergency Management (240 days) - A fundamental reassessment of the federal role in disaster response, shifting more responsibility to states and requiring them to develop their own mechanisms for preparedness and recovery. I'll highlight here that my gut feeling is that this analysis will largely be focused on money - not just operational responsibility but who actually pays for preparedness, response and recovery.

• Streamlining of Federal Bureaucracy (1 year) - An effort to simplify and consolidate federal preparedness functions, potentially removing longstanding programs that states and localities have relied on for coordination and funding. This will have to be a live by the sword element. Grant programs come and go, and the administration seems keen on reshuffling the deck.

What This Means for States and Local Governments

For states and local governments, this order doesn't change anything immediately, and probably murkies the water a bit on what comes next. If the administration does wholesale shift responsibility solely to state and local, some and perhaps many, states can rejoice at the greater autonomy they are provided to craft resilience policies that are tailored to state­ specific risks. On the other hand, it likely signals reduced federal financial support, requiring states to identify alternative funding mechanisms for disaster preparedness and recovery.

Operational Implications
And while we continue to take wild ganders at what the future holds, there are things that could be done now. Namely, State and local emergency management agencies should start assessing how to adjust their operations to accommodate this potential shift in federal policy.

Some key considerations include:

• Building Internal Capacity- With federal resources potentially scaled back, states may need to expand their emergency management agencies, invest in staff training, and enhance their data analytics capabilities to better assess risk.

• Enhancing Regional Collaboration - Given the potential reduction in federal coordination, states may need to strengthen mutual aid agreements, regional coordination structures, and partnerships with neighboring states to share resources and expertise.

• Reevaluating Emergency Resource Stockpiles - States should assess their current stockpiles of critical disaster response resources, such as generators, food, and water supplies, in case federal aid is delayed or diminished.

• Expanding Private Sector Engagement - With the federal government stepping back, states may need to increase collaboration with private sector entities to ensure business continuity and community resilience.

• Developing New Disaster Funding Strategies - Exploring options such as state-backed resilience bonds, catastrophe funds, and insurance mechanisms will be key to filling potential funding gaps left by reduced federal disaster aid.

Legislative Considerations

To align with this potential federal shift, states will likely need to review and revise existing laws and policies to ensure they are prepared for increased responsibility. Key legislative areas to consider include:

• Updating Building Codes and Land Use Policies - States may need to adopt stricter building codes, zoning regulations, and development restrictions to ensure new infrastructure investments align with risk-informed resilience strategies.

• Revising Disaster Declaration and Funding Mechanisms - Legislators should evaluate whether current state disaster declaration processes and funding mechanisms need to be amended to reflect a more state-led response framework.

• Strengthening Insurance and Risk Mitigation Policies - States may need to work with insurers to reevaluate risk models, establish resilience incentives, and potentially create or expand state-backed insurance pools.

• Ensuring Legal Clarity in Emergency Response Authority - To avoid conflicts in a more decentralized disaster response system, states may need to update statutes that clarify the roles of local, state, and private entities in disaster management.

• Enhancing Public-Private Partnership Legislation - Laws facilitating investment from private sector partners into infrastructure resilience, supply chain security, and emergency preparedness initiatives may need to be expanded or restructured.

What This Means for Disaster Prone Communities

As some of the most disaster-prone prone areas, coastal communities and those susceptible to severe weather events or wildfires will need to move quickly to assess how this shift impacts its emergency management and resilience funding. With state legislatures in session across the US, I'd hope we start to see meaningful dialogue on these and other related topics to get ahead of the policy shifts.

• Hurricane Preparedness Funding - With potential reductions in federal disaster aid, states will need to bolster funding mechanisms for hurricane preparedness and recovery.

• Infrastructure Resilience Investments - Coastal communities especially may see changes in how federal funds are allocated for mitigation projects - and that may start as soon as BRIC and FMA NOFAs being brought back online this spring.

• Insurance and Risk Planning - A greater emphasis on risk quantification could have implications for state-backed insurance programs and private sector investment in resilience. I could see a significant rise in group policy programs focused specifically on major catastrophes.

• Emergency Response Coordination - If federal support is reduced or restructured, high risk states will need to refine their own disaster response frameworks. States like Texas and Florida certainly have a head start (tip of the hat to Florida's F-ROC program as a compliance focused initiative that drives greater levels of local government capacity).

Policy Timelines and Next Steps

Perhaps the most important takeaway from this order is that while the rules are likely to change in the future, we will most surely see FEMA continue to operate their existing programs for this year. That said, the next 6-9 months will be critical in determining how resilience and preparedness policies evolve, with potential legislative and regulatory changes to follow.

For those working in state and local government, emergency management, or infrastructure resilience, now is the time to engage with policymakers, assess current programs, and prepare for this transition. The Trump administration has made its position clear, the federal government will likely not be participating in preparedness and resilience at the levels they have historically putting more emphasis on localized posture.

The question now is: are we ready for that?

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: