Decentralizing Disaster Management: A Plan to Eliminate FEMA

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has long been responsible for disaster response in the United States, but what if its responsibilities could be shifted to the states?

Decentralizing Disaster Recovery: A Plan to Eliminate FEMA and Empower States

Government Executive reports Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during Monday’s Cabinet meeting that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be eliminated. At about the same time, in contrast, a bipartisan pair of lawmakers introduced legislation to separate FEMA from its parent department.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has long been responsible for disaster response in the United States, but what if its responsibilities could be shifted to the states without sacrificing funding, impacting disaster response, or resources? Here’s a blueprint for dismantling FEMA at the federal level, empowering state governments, and ensuring local resilience through a restructured system.

Step 1: Legislative Overhaul

Congress should kick off the process by passing a law to dissolve FEMA as a federal entity under the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation would amend or repeal parts of the Stafford Act, transferring primary disaster management authority to the states and setting the stage for a decentralized approach.

Step 2: Funding Through Block Grants

To keep resources flowing, the federal government would redirect FEMA’s budget—typically $20-30 billion annually—into block grants distributed to states. These grants, tailored to factors like disaster risk and population, would give states flexibility to address local needs while maintaining federal financial support.

Step 3: Strengthening State Agencies

States would bolster their own emergency management offices, such as California’s Cal OES or Florida’s Division of Emergency Management, to handle preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. With block grant funding, they could hire staff, train responders, and equip local teams to take on FEMA’s former roles.

Step 4: Tapping Local Power

Local governments, nonprofits, and private organizations would become key players in state-led disaster plans. Groups like the Mecury One or Samaritan's Purse could handle sheltering and cleanup, while community preparedness programs would reduce reliance on external aid.

Step 5: A Federal Safety Net

For catastrophic events or states with limited capacity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could absorb residual responsibilities in a dispersed manner, rather than maintaining a centralized agency like FEMA. Existing DHS components—such as the Coast Guard for logistics or Customs and Border Protection for resource tracking—could provide targeted support when a state requests it. Strict criteria would ensure this remains a last resort, keeping state leadership at the forefront.

Step 6: Interstate Teamwork

Disasters don’t respect borders, so states would rely on informal relationships to share resources during crises. Rather than forming a formal association with boards or officials, states could negotiate direct, case-by-case agreements—building on precedents like the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)—to loan equipment, personnel, or funds as needed.

Step 7: A 6-Month Transition

To assist the transition, the shift could begin with a template framework of best practices from states like Texas or Florida, which already have strong emergency systems, taking the lead within the first two months. Over a 6-month transition period, federal support— including technical assistance and temporary funding—would help other states build capacity, ensuring no one is left behind. By the end of this period, all states would assume full responsibility, with block grants fully implemented and federal oversight phased out.

A New Era of Resilience

By decentralizing disaster management, states gain control tailored to their unique needs, backed by federal funding and local ingenuity. While the transition demands careful planning and political resolve, it offers a path to a more responsive, community-driven system—one where states, not Washington, lead the charge.