Listen to the article
FEMA Reform Report Drastically Reduced by Homeland Security Officials
A comprehensive report on Federal Emergency Management Agency reforms has been substantially shortened after review by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s office, according to three sources familiar with the situation speaking anonymously to The Associated Press.
The original draft, compiled by a presidential council appointed to review FEMA’s operations, reportedly shrank from more than 160 pages to approximately 20 pages. This dramatic reduction has raised concerns among council members and emergency management leaders that critical recommendations regarding the nation’s disaster preparedness might be omitted from the final version, expected around December 12.
The significant cuts reflect the Trump administration’s broader strategy to reduce federal involvement in disaster management, shifting more responsibility to states, tribes, and territories for preparing, responding to, and recovering from disasters. Critics argue this approach could leave local governments overwhelmed by the growing financial and logistical demands of disaster response, especially as climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.
When asked about the report’s status, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the review council will recommend to President Trump how FEMA could be reformed “such that the Federal role remains supplemental and appropriate to the scale of disaster.” She added that Secretary Noem is working to implement the president’s vision for better serving the American public.
The original draft, completed in early November, reportedly contained nine “key principles” including reforms to public assistance programs, flood insurance, direct assistance to disaster survivors, and improving rural resilience. It also included sections proposing changes to the Stafford Act, which governs most of FEMA’s authorities, and outlined a phased approach to implementation that would allow state and local governments time to prepare for new responsibilities.
Initial recommendations reportedly aligned with priorities previously expressed by Trump and Noem, such as providing states with upfront direct grants for disaster recovery instead of the current reimbursement model, which is often criticized as slow and bureaucratic. Other proposals would have reduced FEMA’s financial commitment to disasters by lowering the federal cost share below its current 75% minimum and raising the threshold for when disasters qualify for federal major disaster declarations.
After the draft was submitted to DHS for review in early November, council members learned that Noem’s office had drastically reduced its length. According to sources close to council members who reviewed the shortened version, the new draft eliminates mentions of mitigation programs and cuts preparedness funding for local emergency management agencies.
In response to these developments, Noem reportedly called an emergency meeting of the FEMA Review Council on Wednesday. When contacted, DHS did not respond to questions about this meeting.
Many of the proposed changes would require congressional action, as the 1988 Stafford Act defines most of FEMA’s responsibilities, though some changes could be implemented directly by Trump or the FEMA administrator.
The review council itself, established by executive order on January 24—the same day Trump suggested “getting rid of” FEMA while touring Hurricane Helene damage in North Carolina—consists almost entirely of officials from Republican-led states. Co-chaired by Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, members include the emergency management directors of Texas and Florida, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant as vice chair.
Since its formation, the council has conducted three public meetings in Washington, D.C., New Orleans, and Oklahoma City, along with closed-door sessions with Native tribes and disaster-affected regions including North Carolina and Puerto Rico. The council also surveyed emergency management directors and other disaster recovery professionals.
The thoroughness of this initial approach had given experts hope that the final recommendations would reflect broad input from across the emergency management community. The dramatic reduction in the report’s scope has now called that expectation into question.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The Trump administration’s strategy to shift more disaster management responsibilities to state and local governments is worrying. While local knowledge is valuable, the federal government has critical resources and expertise to contribute. I hope the final report finds the right balance between federal and state/local roles.
You raise a good point. Disaster response requires coordination at all levels of government. Stripping away federal support could leave vulnerable communities without the help they need in times of crisis.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. While reducing federal bureaucracy may have benefits, disaster preparedness requires robust national planning and resources. I’m curious to see the final recommendations and how they address the trade-offs between federal, state, and local roles.
The reported cuts to the FEMA reform report are troubling. Disaster preparedness and response should be a bipartisan priority, not a political football. I hope the final version maintains a balanced approach that leverages federal capabilities while empowering state and local communities.
It’s disappointing to hear that critical recommendations may be omitted from the final FEMA reform report. Disaster response is a national security issue that requires strong federal leadership and coordination. I hope the administration reconsiders this approach and maintains FEMA’s capacity to support state and local authorities.
I share your concern. Disaster management is an area where the federal government should provide clear guidance and resources, not shift the burden to already-strained state and local budgets. Effective disaster response requires a unified national strategy.
This is concerning if critical recommendations are being omitted from the FEMA reform report. Disaster preparedness and response should be a priority, especially as climate change increases the frequency and severity of disasters. I hope the final version still addresses the important issues identified in the original draft.
I agree, the administration’s focus on reducing federal involvement in disaster management could backfire if it leaves local governments overwhelmed. A balanced approach with strong federal support is needed to ensure effective disaster response across the country.