This hurricane season is tinged with uncertainty, with meteorologists noting a high chance of “normal” activity. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is indicating a possible shift in how the federal government will respond to natural disasters.
Despite discussions on potentially dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its existing structure, the administration assures that it will focus intently on disaster response and safeguarding the American public.
However, both red and blue states remain unclear about the agency’s future.
In June, during a Hurricane Preparation Meeting, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) was questioned about whether the state would take on more responsibilities, to which he responded, “I don’t know what responsibility will be added.”
A few states have put together task forces or committees in anticipation of the changes being debated in Washington.
A bipartisan group in Georgia, spearheaded by state legislator Clint Crowe (R), has formed the Research Committee on Disaster Mitigation. Additionally, Kentucky’s legislature has passed a bill to create a task force to prepare for potential alterations in FEMA funding. Republican Sen. Matthew Denine, who supported the Kentucky bill, remarked that the group aims to ensure readiness for upcoming changes.
“Whenever there’s a change out of Washington, we can’t predict the exact funding numbers, so being agile and prepared is crucial,” he expressed.
Some officials from the Trump administration on Capitol Hill, along with certain Republican voices, claim that FEMA has been inefficient and advocate for a more cooperative state-led approach to disaster response.
Yet following the severe flooding in Texas this month, the rhetoric from Trump’s officials has shifted to focus on reforming FEMA rather than abolishing it entirely.
Noem faced backlash after reports highlighted failures in disaster response, with an editorial from the Houston Chronicle likening FEMA’s handling of the floods to issues seen during Hurricane Katrina.
The Texas floods have claimed at least 120 lives, with over 100 still unaccounted for. Early estimates from Accuweather suggest recovery costs could reach between $18 billion and $22 billion.
Despite this, Trump has praised Noem’s handling of the floods and dismissed claims that delays in funding influenced the federal response in Texas.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) anticipates 13-19 storms for this hurricane season, including three to five major hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin.
“As we saw last year with inland flooding from Hurricanes Helen and Debbie, the effects can extend well beyond coastal towns,” NOAA administrator Laura Grimm emphasized.
A spokesperson from FEMA stated that “there’s no uncertainty about what FEMA’s role will be this hurricane season,” asserting that the old processes have been overhauled after years of failures in true emergencies.
Budget Strain
Nonetheless, states are confronting new budget challenges as lawmakers make cuts in various areas, including healthcare and disaster preparedness.
In April, FEMA ended its Building a Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, cutting $882 million in federal funds that aided states in minimizing disaster risks.
Recently, 20 states filed lawsuits against FEMA, accusing it of illegally terminating grants that had legislative approvals. These projects aimed to prevent severe damage and are now left either unfinished or stalled.
A FEMA spokesperson described BRIC as an ineffective program. Interestingly, two-thirds of counties that benefited from these grants had voted for Trump in the recent elections.
Colin Foard, director of the Fiscal Risk Project at Pew Charitable Trust, pointed out that these decisions will aggravate existing pressures on state budgets.
“States are already grappling with increasing disaster costs, and our research indicates that their traditional budgeting approach isn’t sufficient anymore,” he stated. “It seems states are being forced to allocate more budget for disasters, potentially sacrificing other policy areas.”
States are also tightening Medicaid services to counteract federal cuts. Trump’s proposed legislation could leave around 16 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, possibly increasing the burden on states to manage rising healthcare expenses.
“Some states are ticking time bombs if they lose FEMA reimbursements because the fallout could significantly impact health budgets,” remarked former Florida Emergency Management Director Jared Moskowitz.
Preparing for Challenges
Mathew Sanders, a senior Pew executive, conveyed that states need to prioritize spending on long-term risk reduction measures.
“Investing in risk reduction is always less costly than dealing with the aftermath of a disaster,” he pointed out. “The federal government has always been the primary funder for disaster-related efforts, and any future shortfalls present a gap that must be filled by other means.”
As states grapple with uncertainties regarding funding and future obligations, many questions linger over how they will adapt.
Following Hurricane Helen last fall, some states took positive strides in addressing these issues. The Georgia Research Committee recommended updates to building codes and introduced tax credits for disaster resilience improvements.
Both North and South Carolina emergency management agencies are looking to strengthen private sector partnerships and collaboration with other states’ emergency organizations.
A representative for North Carolina Governor Josh Stein (D) remarked that eliminating FEMA would create an “artificial disaster.” They expressed the importance of FEMA in navigating natural disasters and emphasized the need for collaboration to improve the agency.
With a rising potential for hurricanes, there’s an urgency to prepare for impending changes and clarify what lies ahead.
Republican Lieutenant Colonel Tony Ven Zuizen is set to lead a newly formed state task force, initiated in June to address prospective changes to FEMA.
“I’m aware that the federal government has spending challenges and that we need to tighten our belts in certain areas. While we’re understanding of that, we also need clarity on the specifics moving forward,” Venhuizen concluded.
