Disaster Response in Flux

Recent natural disasters including Hurricanes Helene and Milton, California wildfires, and widespread flash flooding in Texas and elsewhere have been so destructive and lethal as to stimulate interest in revisiting disaster management policy. How well are we responding to disasters? How prepared are we for the next major disaster? From moral, humanitarian, and economic standpoints, we cannot afford to rerun playbooks that failed to preserve life and property. Responses to many disasters have been exemplary, but the history of disaster management also shines light on areas where we must improve. This Real Solutions report examines disaster response policy in context, including its current structure, and presents recommendations to make what does work better.

Federal Disaster Response Timeline 

The federal government has engaged in disaster response as far back as an 1802 fire in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Following are recent policy milestones that have shaped today’s disaster management landscape. 

1950. The Federal Disaster Relief Act wove together a patchwork quilt of 100-odd government laws. The act empowered states to request federal assistance through the president and clarified that federal disaster assistance would supplement state and local governments. 

1974. The Disaster Relief Act (DRA) specified the process for presidential disaster declarations. 

1979. The introduction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) unified federal emergency management activity and built a comprehensive approach to national emergency management.

1988. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act established the current statutory framework for disaster response and recovery through presidential disaster declarations. Governors may submit declaration requests for supplemental federal assistance when resources exceed capabilities of state, local, tribal, or territorial governments. The Stafford Act also requires state and local governments to create comprehensive emergency plans and hazard mitigation to prepare for disasters and reduce potential damage. 

2006. Responding to a checkered response to Hurricane Katrina, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act established FEMA as a distinct agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

2018. The Disaster Recovery Reform Act provided greater mitigation investment to reduce loss potential from future disasters. The emphasis shifted to preparedness. 

Mixed Messages Regarding Disaster Relief Policy

The mantra underpinning U.S. disaster management policy is that disaster aid should be state-managed and executed locally with federal support. FEMA’s mission is to support the role of the states, not to supplant it. The federal government gets involved when disasters are so large that they are beyond the scope of state resources; however, this guiding principle has been challenged by President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Very early on in his second administration, Trump spoke of dismantling or “getting rid of” FEMA because “[i]t’s very bureaucratic, and it’s very slow.” Recently, Noem expressed her belief that FEMA should be “eliminated and reformed.” The president has indicated plans to phase the agency out in November, at the end of this year’s hurricane season.

These statements raise questions and paint conflicting agendas. Does the executive branch favor outright deconstructing FEMA or reforming it? The law of non-contraction holds that something cannot be and not be at the same time. An entity that is destroyed cannot be reformed, as it no longer exists. FEMA Acting Director Cameron Hamilton was fired from his position in May, one day after making the case for reform rather than elimination at a congressional hearing. 

Project 2025, which has influenced much policy in the new administration, called for FEMA’s demise. Its report on DHS recommends privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program and shifting FEMA emergency spending on preparedness and response costs to states and localities. It also advocates for the elimination of most grant programs at DHS.

FEMA Review Council 

The FEMA Review Council formed in January 2025 to study disaster management policy and produce a final report by mid-November. The Council’s 12 members include governors, mayors, emergency managers, and others. It has three subcommittees:

• Federal-State Coordination Subcommittee

• Disaster Response and Recovery Assessment Subcommittee

• Final Report Subcommittee

The Council has met regularly and held three recorded public meetings, which are available to view on its website. Some notable observations:

• The current FEMA acting director (appointed in May 2025) was not mentioned at all in the August meeting, in contrast to earlier meetings. 

• Noem said in the third public meeting that the federal government should not be involved in long-term mitigation.

• In contrast to Trump and Noem’s “elimination” rhetoric, Council members’ remarks leaned more heavily toward reform measures.

• Council members strongly agreed that canceling Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants for loss mitigation would have negative impacts and that critical BRIC-funded resilience projects should continue to be funded. 

• In addition to Council members commenting on the importance of resilience, FEMA staffers argued against eliminating BRIC and expressed that pausing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program would undermine efforts to reduce the impact of future disasters.

Recommendations

Our research, analysis, and discussions with disaster policy experts tend to conclude that the way forward is not binary. We support more targeted policy shifts that lead to a reformed, improved FEMA. Attainment of the shared objective may include some of the following recommendations:

1. Execute cuts with a scalpel, not a chainsaw. All government agencies have some degree of bloat and inefficiency. Reductions in force are common in the private sector and, when done deftly, do not lead to severe disruption. Reductions should be made judiciously, cutting fat but not muscle and bone.
   
2. Reinstate BRIC grants. Recognize that each dollar of remediation spent translates into $6 of reconstruction resources. Grant projects save lives and money. 
   
3. Appoint qualified personnel for senior management roles. The Emergency Management Reform Act stipulates that the FEMA head shall be appointed from a pool of individuals with demonstrated knowledge and abilities in emergency management. This requirement was introduced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when FEMA management showed it was not up to the task.
   
4. Keep an open mind when analyzing recommendations from the forthcoming FEMA Reform Council report. The report is due to be finalized by Nov. 16, 2025.
   
5. Explore new products, such as parametric cover for risk transfer and artificial intelligence for insurance fraud detection. At the Council’s third public meeting, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor suggested that parametric products be considered for this purpose. Work with private flood insurers and flood managing general agents like Neptune Flood to expand private flood insurance options.
   
6. Clear bureaucratic obstacles such that disaster declarations take less time. They used to average two weeks; under the current administration, the average is now 34 days. In the interest of efficiency and helping people impacted by disasters, declarations should take less time, not more.
   
7. Expand takeup of flood insurance. Castor pointed out at a public meeting of the FEMA Review Council that only 30 percent of Floridians have flood insurance. Her message was “If you have a Florida driver’s license, you should have flood insurance.”

These measures make sense and are consistent with R Street’s policy orientation favoring limited, effective government.