By GABRIELA AOUN ANGUEIRA
Four days after starting his second administration, President Donald Trump floated the idea of “ getting rid of ” the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which manages federal disaster response. But at a Thursday meeting, the 12-person review council he appointed to propose changes to FEMA seemed more focused on reforms than total dismantlement.
FEMA must be “reformed into an agency that is supporting our local and state officials that are there on the ground and responsive to the individuals that are necessary to help people be healed and whole through these situations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said, who co-chairs the council. But, she added, FEMA “as it exists today needs to be eliminated.”
However, the meeting in Oklahoma City offered hints of what types of reforms the council might present to Trump in its final report. Members mainly focused on conventional and oft-cited opportunities for change, such as getting money faster to states and survivors and enhancing the capacity of local emergency managers.
But some moves by the administration in the last several months have already undermined those goals, as mitigation programs are cut and the FEMA workforce is reduced. Experts also caution that no matter what the council proposes, changes to FEMA’s authority and operations require Congressional action.
A Republican-dominated council
President Donald Trump created the FEMA Review Council through a January executive order instructing the group to solicit feedback from a “broad range of stakeholders” and to deliver a report to Trump on recommended changes within 180 days of its first meeting, though that deadline has lapsed.
The 12-person council is co-chaired Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and vice-chaired by former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant. It is made up of elected officials, emergency managers and other leaders mostly from Republican states.
Trump “believes we should be in a disaster-response portfolio and footprint,” Noem said at Thursday’s meeting, “but the long-term mitigation should not be something that the federal government is continuing to be involved in to the extent that it has been in the past.”
Noem attended virtually, citing efforts toward “bringing some peace to the streets of Washington, D.C.”
Members on Thursday presented some findings collected in listening sessions conducted in multiple states and with Native tribes. Much of the discussion touched on the need to get money to states more quickly and with more flexibility. Trump and Noem have both supported the idea of giving states federal block grants quickly after a disaster instead of the current reimbursement model.
Members have spent “hours, maybe even days, exploring ways to accelerate local recovery through direct funding for public and individual assistance,” Guthrie said.
Making plans beforehand
Several members emphasized improving preparedness and mitigation before disasters hit.
“Mitigation saves lives, it protects property, it reduces cost of future disasters,” said Guthrie, but added that more responsibility should fall on individuals and state and local governments to invest in mitigation.
States like Texas and Florida have robust, well-funded emergency management agencies prepared for major disasters. Members acknowledged that if other state and local governments were to take on more responsibility in disasters, they still needed training support.
Methods for governments to unlock recovery dollars without relying on federal funds also came up, such as parametric insurance, which provides a rapid payout of a previously agreed-upon amount when a triggering event occurs.
The meeting focused less on individual survivor support, but Bryant brought up the need to reform — and protect — the National Flood Insurance Program, calling it “vital.” That program was created by Congress more than 50 years ago because many private insurers stopped offering policies in high-risk areas.
The rhetoric around FEMA is evolving
The conversation signaled a departure from some of the more aggressive rhetoric Trump and Noem have used in the past to describe their plans for FEMA. As recently as June, Trump suggested “ phasing out ” the agency after the 2025 hurricane season.
Michael Coen, who held FEMA posts under three presidential administrations, said after three council meetings, recommendations remain vague.
“Council members provided their perspective but have not identified the challenge they are trying to solve or offered a new way forward,” Coen said.
Coen also cautioned that any significant changes must go through Congress. Lawmakers in July introduced a bipartisan reform bill in the House. The so-called FEMA Act echoes some of the council’s priorities, but also proposes returning FEMA to a Cabinet-level agency.
“Most current proposed FEMA legislation strengthens FEMA,” said Coen.
Actions sometimes contradict words
Some of the administration’s actions so far contradict council members’ emphasis on expediency, mitigation and preparedness.
Noem now requires that she personally approve any DHS expenditure over $100,000. That policy led to delays in the Texas response, according to several reports, though Noem and acting administrator David Richardson have refuted those claims.
The administration halted a multibillion-dollar program for climate resilience projects, and Trump stopped approving hazard mitigation funding requests for major disasters. FEMA abruptly canceled or moved online some local preparedness trainings this spring, though many later resumed.
On Monday, more than 180 current and former FEMA staff sent an opposition letter to the FEMA Review Council and Congress, warning that the agency is so diminished that a major climate event could lead to catastrophe.
At least some of the staff were put on paid administrative leave until further notice on Tuesday.