Fern’s Fury Puts FEMA to the Test
If you’ve seen one natural disaster, then you’ve seen one natural disaster. Each has its own unique features that teach us something new about risk; however, January’s Winter Storm Fern stands apart.
Its 2,000-mile footprint impacted 230 million Americans from New Mexico to Maine. The snowfall was so heavy that it caused over 100 fatalities, including a dozen lives lost from exhaustion or cardiac failure while attempting to shovel out of two feet of snow. Others died from hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning, or car crashes on icy roads. According to risk-modeling firm Karen Clark & Company, the overall damage assessment includes an estimated $6.7 billion in insured losses. This piece explores the response to Winter Storm Fern by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to glean insight for future disaster management.
The Mississippi Story
FEMA’s response in Mississippi is worth examining, as the Magnolia State experienced the most power outages and the highest percentage of customers without power in the nation.
A storm this massive required a multi-front attack. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), Mississippi Power, the U.S. Forest Service, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and others worked around the clock to provide safety and distribute lifesaving goods like food, water, tarps, cots, medical supplies, blankets, and generators to supplement the state’s strained supplies.
MEMA coordinated a unified response. FEMA deployed logistical workers to clear fallen trees so linemen could repair fallen lines to restore power and brought in 60 additional generators to supplement those MEMA had pre-positioned at key locations like warming centers and nursing homes. FEMA also made a presidential emergency declaration on Jan. 24, announcing that it would deliver $3.75 million to expedite immediate disaster response in Mississippi. Additional emergency declarations opened the door to FEMA’s logistical resources, supply stores, and federal reimbursement.
FEMA’s participation in Mississippi’s disaster management activities alongside MEMA is commendable and, by all accounts, better than its bungled response to the July 4, 2025 flash floods that took over 130 lives in Texas. The disaster recovery in Mississippi was successful because it engaged resources from numerous agencies—managed by the state and with support from FEMA—where state resources were no match for the magnitude of the storm’s damage. These efforts were consistent with the long-standing mantra that disaster management should be state-managed, locally executed, and federally supported.
Whither FEMA?
FEMA was under the gun in 2025, when public statements by President Donald J. Trump and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem challenged its very existence. (Note: FEMA is part of DHS.)
In January, an executive order called for the creation of the “FEMA Review Council,” a committee of 12 lawmakers and disaster management professionals tasked with producing a report featuring recommendations for FEMA’s future. Once the report was finalized and presented to Noem (who chaired the council), it was scheduled to be shared during a live event on Dec. 11. However, the presentation was canceled without explanation just 30 minutes before show time. A new executive order issued last month announced a new deadline of March 25, 2026 for presentation of the council’s recommendations.
A complicating factor in the debate regarding FEMA is that Noem’s position may be in jeopardy due to her management of another DHS agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is embroiled in the recent shooting deaths of two individuals in Minnesota.
A further complicating factor is that the voices calling for FEMA’s dismantling appear politically driven. Both Noem and an acting FEMA administrator who held the position for six months in 2025 have declared that their job is to “implement the president’s vision.” The problem is that it’s unclear whether Trump’s vision is to abolish FEMA or to reform it.
Last year, the White House declared reducing the number of disaster declarations as one of its goals. Ironically, FEMA later issued a press release bragging that the president had issued the most disaster declarations in the quickest manner. So, what’s the plan—reduce federal disaster declarations or increase them?
The Mississippi story demonstrates that an alphabet soup of agencies and professionals, including those from FEMA, can successfully save precious lives and property when they head in the same direction. Unfortunately, the administration’s vision for the future of disaster management in the United States is about as clear as mud.