Noem's vow to 'eliminate' FEMA raises alarms

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's vow to “eliminate” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is raising the alarm from experts on disaster assistance, who say it could leave vulnerable communities at risk. 

Noem this week said she was planning to eliminate the agency but did not elaborate on what that meant. Spokespeople for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the disaster relief agency, did not respond to questions about whether FEMA’s services would be cut entirely or reshuffled elsewhere.

President Trump has also said he would consider “getting rid of FEMA.”

Carrie Speranza, president of the USA Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers, told The Hill that if FEMA is shut down, she would be “fearful for this next hurricane season and what that means for survivors.”

“You're talking hundreds of thousands of people that will be impacted with very little resources to help,” Speranza said. 

FEMA helps support communities before, during and after disasters. This includes helping localities with coordinating during a storm, conducting some search and rescue operations and providing funding to help communities rebuild. 

“The first time people see people in FEMA jackets is when we start going knocking on doors to make sure that we register people so they're eligible for individual assistance,” said Pete Gaynor, who led FEMA under the last Trump administration. “But we have been there from the beginning.”

Gaynor said that while the agency could be reformed, it should not be eliminated. 

“I think we can always do a better job in the way we deliver services,” he said. “But if we're not doing it, I'm not sure who does it, because I think the thing that we're really good at is coordinating different agencies.”

“FEMA is that glue that holds it all together,” he added.

Eliminating FEMA would be “fraught with great risk, especially for those states that are not well versed in responding to and recovering from disaster,” he said. 

Speranza agreed, saying that if the agency were cut, even if some of its functions remained part of the government, emergency response could take longer — and cost lives. 

“If you don't have a coordinated mechanism … then it's going to take longer, and people are going to be perishing more. This is truly a life or death situation,” she said, specifically referring to search-and-rescue programs. 

Gaynor said effective reform to FEMA would include a “simplified” long-term recovery system that includes incentives for states to keep costs low and making them pay for overages instead of that cost falling on the federal government.

Prior to Noem’s remarks, Trump issued an executive order that called on the Homeland Security secretary to propose changes to FEMA and ensure “state and local governments and individuals have improved communications with Federal officials and a better understanding of the Federal role.”

The order stopped short of eliminating the agency, however.

Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the administration “doesn't have the legal ability to eliminate FEMA” because a 2006 law established it as a distinct agency. But she said she perceives ongoing changes at the agency to be “death by 1,000 cuts,” particularly citing staff dismissals. 

“We should take the president at his word. He says he wants to eliminate FEMA, and I think that's a huge concern,” she said.