Earlier this week, severe storms in the Pittsburgh area resulted in three fatalities and widespread power outages.
This is the most recent in a series of deadly storms across the U.S. Storms in the South and Midwest previously caused at least 24 deaths, while another wave of storms across the country resulted in at least 32 deaths. In both instances, FEMA intervened to provide aid to affected individuals and counties.
While Pittsburgh may not require FEMA assistance, many communities nationwide could face challenges in obtaining disaster recovery aid if the Trump Administration’s plans to restructure the agency and shift disaster response responsibilities to individual states are implemented. The increasing complexities due to climate change further complicate the situation.
According to Allison Reilly, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Maryland, transferring disaster response to states would have “devastating” effects. She emphasizes that “FEMA exists because there are instances when the state is simply unable to respond.”
Trump initially suggested overhauling FEMA during a visit to North Carolina following Hurricane Helene in January. He stated, “I would prefer states to manage disasters themselves, handling tornadoes, hurricanes, and other events. I believe it will be significantly cheaper, costing less than half, and the response will be much quicker.”
One of Trump’s first executive orders established a council to evaluate the disaster response agency’s effectiveness. Shortly before the Pittsburgh storm, Trump appointed 13 individuals, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, to assess FEMA. The executive order stipulates that the group is to submit a report to the president .
Trump’s initiative to dismantle the agency coincides with the increasing frequency and cost of extreme weather events. In 2024, the U.S. experienced 27 weather and climate disasters, each causing at least $1 billion in damages, second only to the 28 billion-dollar events in 2023. Researchers anticipate a further increase in such events.
Jeff Schlegelmilch, Associate Professor of Professional Practice and Director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia Climate School, highlights the significant opportunity for national emergency management to invest in addressing the impacts of climate change and improving preparedness.
FEMA was not initially designed to address the challenges posed by our changing climate. Schlegelmilch explains that “FEMA and the disaster response structure were originally intended to handle perhaps one or two major disaster recoveries simultaneously. Currently, there are over 100.” He adds that “disaster response recovery mechanisms have significantly expanded.”
Traditionally, FEMA has collaborated with state officials, rather than operating independently. The agency’s role extends beyond financial assistance; FEMA also provides disaster response and recovery experts and maintains emergency equipment stockpiles. Research suggests that outsourcing these functions to states could be more expensive and could lead to competition among states for emergency supplies and expertise during natural disasters.
Without FEMA, states would need to employ their own disaster response specialists on standby. Riley notes that “every state would need a large team of people ready to respond to a disaster, but for events that occur very rarely.” She suggests that states would either need “a large number of staff with little to do for extended periods until a disaster strikes, or states will simply be completely unprepared, which is more likely.”
Larger states like California or Texas may have the financial resources to compensate for the absence of FEMA, but smaller states would likely lack the capacity to respond effectively to natural disasters.
Experts acknowledge that FEMA faces legitimate challenges, including a stretched workforce dealing with an increasing number of disasters, and instances of unequal treatment of low-income survivors in disaster response.
Schlegelmilch argues that “the need for emergency management reform has been voiced by people from all backgrounds. If we can rebrand and create something suitable for 21st-century challenges, we should.”
However, Schlegelmilch cautions that eliminating the existing system without a viable replacement would be detrimental. He warns that “the shock to municipalities from the sudden transition from a functioning system to having nothing in place would be very measurable in terms of lost lives and livelihoods.”