As weather disasters increasingly impact the U.S., communities find themselves leaning on a couple of key facts.
First, there’s a belief that the federal government will step in. Since its inception in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been the go-to support when state and local resources fall short in responding to crises.
However, the second truth is that FEMA’s assistance can be frustratingly inadequate. While its role is appreciated, the resources it provides often don’t arrive quickly enough or last long enough for those affected. This leaves many victims feeling traumatized, homeless, and disconnected from their lives as they once knew them.
But changes may be on the horizon. President Trump, along with Secretary of Homeland Security Christie Noem, has signaled a desire for a shift in how disasters are managed, suggesting that states should take on more responsibility—essentially telling FEMA to “go away.” Recently, Noem hinted at a “reorientation” of the agency’s mission, as Trump appointed her as co-chair of the FEMA Review Council, aiming to streamline processes to provide quicker aid.
The government is not sitting idle. Last week, Trump rejected the acting chief of FEMA, despite recommendations from the World Economic Forum urging investment in effective adaptation strategies that promise returns. Both he and Noem appear to be drawing significant funds from institutional programs that help mitigate disaster impacts.
Trump has also made moves that undermine climate science within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Just last month, he dismissed 400 volunteer scientists who regularly analyze and report on climate impacts across the country.
While there is consensus that FEMA and federal disaster programs need reform—there are over 60 such programs scattered across more than 30 agencies—experts and stakeholders have put forward ideas to improve government response. Various organizations, including state flood plain managers and major research institutions, have suggested multiple recommendations for better disaster management.
Trump argues that states should shoulder more responsibility for disaster preparedness, and it’s a point worth considering. Take floods, for example. They’re among the most frequent and costly disasters, often exacerbated by municipalities eager to develop flood-prone areas for tax revenue. As property values drop and insurance costs rise, many homeowners are forced to leave these hazardous areas, though there’s still a notable migration toward them.
Local governments can enhance flood resilience by restoring wetlands and utilizing permeable surfaces to manage stormwater. Still, increasing local efforts shouldn’t eliminate the need for federal support, especially in cases where local resources fall short. Federal research and assessments on climate impacts are vital to help states prepare.
Moreover, the federal government has a moral obligation to assist communities affected by weather disasters, particularly since policies have historically increased vulnerability by encouraging development in flood zones.
Historically, since the 1930s, these government policies have led to many living in flood-prone areas—about 40 million Americans today. The infrastructure built to manage these risks, such as dams and levees, is aging, with many exceeding their intended lifespan.
One possible solution is what’s known as “managed retreat” from high-risk zones. Studies suggest that moving just a million homes out of flood-prone areas could save the country a trillion dollars in potential damages. Interestingly, the investment could yield returns of about $6.50 for every dollar spent.
FEMA has already been involved in helping communities buy out homes in flood-prone areas, restoring the land to its natural state. However, the process can be slow—often averaging several years—because of bureaucratic hurdles. Streamlining procedures could greatly expedite assistance for those in need.
Unfortunately, the mixed signals from Trump, coupled with budget cuts, have hindered the FEMA Review Council’s ability to function effectively. His energy policies, promoting fossil fuel production, worsen the situation, as pollution contributes significantly to climate change. Meanwhile, his administration has taken steps to roll back pollution regulations, further compounding the risks associated with climate change.
At this point, it’s clear that almost every legislative district has experienced at least one significant weather disaster in recent years, leading to alarming statistics regarding fatalities and costs. The past year was notably severe, with record-breaking weather-related expenses that took numerous lives.
While Trump has a valid point that states need to do more for disaster preparedness, it’s crucial for the federal government to continue supporting these efforts. Climate change remains a significant threat that needs more attention and action from all levels of government.
William Becker was instrumental in establishing a Sustainable Development Center at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, focusing on helping communities recover from disasters. He has been involved in various disaster recovery initiatives and authored several studies on sustainable recovery practices, along with a book on coexisting with nature.
