Trump Walks Back Talk of Abolishing FEMA
After criticizing the agency for being ineffective for months, the Trump administration now plans to reform it to supplement state disaster response efforts.

Only a month after President Donald Trump said he planned to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after this year's hurricane season, he is now reportedly walking back his plans.
On Friday, The Washington Post reported that "the White House has backed away from plans to abolish the agency." In a statement, Tricia McLauglin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said, "Federal Emergency Management will shift from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens. The old processes are being replaced because they failed Americans in real emergencies for decades."
"Changes in the agency will probably amount to a 'rebranding' that will emphasize state leaders' roles in disaster response," per the Post.
The announcement comes after the deadly Guadalupe River flood in Texas on July 4. Heavy rainfall flooded the Guadalupe River, causing the river to rise nearly 30 feet in less than an hour in the early morning of July 4. The flood damaged homes and summer camps, killing at least 120 people, including 36 children. More than 160 people remained missing when Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) surveyed the aftermath of the flooding on Friday.
Since the tragedy, the government's ability to warn and respond to natural disasters has come under scrutiny. Some have blamed agency cuts for impairing emergency response efforts, making people less safe. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D–Fla.) has called for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to be investigated for needlessly delaying the disbursement of funds by requiring personal approval of FEMA resources in excess of $100,000. On Friday, three Democrats from the House Oversight Committee sent letters to FEMA, the Commerce Department's inspector general, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demanding answers to concerns regarding "the apparent delay in FEMA's response efforts cause by the politicization of the agency and its funding."
Trump's apparent walkback from abolishing the agency marks a stark contrast from earlier this year, when he sharply criticized FEMA's response to Hurricane Helene. While surveying damage in North Carolina in February, Trump floated the idea of ending FEMA and announced his executive order to assess the agency's ability to provide "immediate, effective, and impartial response to and recovery from disasters."
Following the order, the FEMA Review Council was created to "begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA," according to Trump. But the council's report containing recommendations to reform federal disaster response won't be released until November. During the wait, Trump and DHS have kept the prospect of abolishing the agency alive, and even ousted the agency's acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, in May for disagreeing with the president's call to eliminate the agency. However, no official changes to FEMA have taken place.
But now, abolishment looks to be off the table. FEMA may instead be "reformed in ways that best serve the national interest" and "supplement state actions," according to Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman. "President Trump is committed to right-sizing the Federal government while empowering state and local governments by enabling them to better understand, plan for, and ultimately address the needs of their citizens," she added.
The majority of Americans believe the federal government should have a "major role" in natural disaster response. But the specifics of how involved it should be has been an ongoing topic of debate for decades as the number of natural disasters—and the amount spent on recovery efforts—has risen. "In 2018, there were 14 disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages. In 2024, there were 27," said a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in March. Congress has appropriated $458 billion for disaster assistance over the last 10 years, according to the GAO.
Despite these massive financial resources, Americans have received suboptimal federal recovery responses from disasters in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, North Carolina, and California. The agency has also been accused of denying aid to political enemies. And now the country's most recent natural disaster along the Guadalupe River, Trump's FEMA has already received criticism for providing too little aid and a delayed deployment of funds to Texas.
Trump's original instinct that the mere existence of FEMA causes unnecessary bureaucratic bloat during times of emergency was correct. While "right-sizing" the agency to empower state and local governments is a step in the right direction, a better approach would be to abolish FEMA altogether.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck. You. Cut. Spending.
Hilarious given you've been against literally every cut since Jan 20th.
Sarc walks back sobriety. Daily.
"Since the tragedy, the government's ability to warn and respond to natural disasters has come under scrutiny. Some have blamed agency cuts for impairing emergency response efforts, making people less safe."
Sure, by people who are undeniably incorrect on everything they are saying. You could note that staffing was not harmed at all.
Did autumn really couch her ignorance by using the "some people say?"
Did she learn that in journalism school? Or maybe a Reason staff workshop.
Last week huh?
June.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/politics/fema-hurricane-season-phase-out-trump
“We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump told reporters during a briefing in the Oval Office, later saying, “A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.”
So... same policy.
And same as back in January.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2025/01/24/what-is-fema-why-does-trump-want-to-get-rid-of-fema/77931810007/
The goal was always to move the actions to state. Whether under governors or fema itself. Thats what the phase out means. It doesn't mean sudden cut off.
Yes we know. Trust the government. Everything they say can be taken at face value.
Well yeah. The right people are in charge. That changes everything. Remember it’s always who, not what.
What idiotic comments from both of you lol.
We get it. You demand all money and power flow through D.C. bureaucracy.
But only the "proper" (Team Blue!) D.C. bureaucracy.
He wants to be the director of the Department of Homeless Child Security.
Are you taking umbrage with the idea that disaster relief, should not exist at all, should be handled at a state level, or are you saying you don’t think that will happen?
Big flood in big blue state. That means FEMA is good now. Trump to the rescue! As always it’s about who, not what.
Big blue huh?
Sarc has trouble with colors after "lunch".
To all the sensitive people with permanently twisted panties--and clinical anxiety that they can't get free government health care for--sometimes Trump says things for effect. And sometimes the media either takes the bait or deliberately inflates what Trump said. And sometimes politicians and media try to amp up your anxiety to make you more irrational, and more dependent on them.
So, settle down, go to your safe space, and try again tomorrow.
This is exactly why our constitution was set up the way it is. The president does not have any authority to eliminate any agency. Congress decides how big an agency is, what budget it gets, and what its mission is. It is the duty of the president to run the agencies as Congress intended.
One person deciding what government agencies exist or not is dictatorship.
Where in the constitution does it say all federal agencies are run with no accountability in D.C.?
You talked about the take care clause a few days ago. Congress mandates the president look for wast fraud and abuse, so how is that unconstitutional?
Have you ever read the appropriations or law for FEMA?
You dont think even shallowly.
Legal authority to run an agency efficiently and the legal authority to eliminate or drastically downsize it are very different. Nice Straw Man argument...fail.
Constitutionally, FEMA shouldn’t even exist in the first place, doc.
"The president does not have any authority to eliminate any agency."
Only the soviet has THAT authority, right comrade?
He walks it forward, he walks it back! OMG what is he even doing? Ugh!
One day at Mar-a-lago, Trump's golf cart stalls out.
Trump: I'm going to get rid of that piece of junk. It doesn't work.
McLauglin: Look, I get you're frustrated, just give me a minute and let me see if I can fix it.
Trump: .... fine.
McLauglin: OK, see, look, it's working just fine again.
Trump: We'll see.
McLauglin: See? We finished the round, and no complaints right?
Trump: OK I guess you did a pretty good job. Thanks.
Reason: TRUMP WALKS BACK PROMISE TO GET RID OF GOLF CART!!!!!!11!!1!!!!
Put on the nose, Autumn. You are Clown World.
The Golf of America
As long as he's getting America's balls out of the sand traps.
(You were missed, Chumby! :D)