Commentary: Trump Is Right to Disband FEMA and Return Disaster Funding to the States

FEMA worker
by Alfredo Ortiz

 

During visits to disaster-affected areas in North Carolina and California, President Trump criticized the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s performance and suggested dismantling the agency. “FEMA has turned out to be a disaster,” Trump said while touring a North Carolina neighborhood destroyed by September’s Hurricane Helene. “I think we recommend that FEMA go away.”
Trump’s proposal fits his America First agenda of fiscal responsibility and efficiency. He’s correct that FEMA has been a failure and that states can manage disaster relief funding more effectively.
Start with the numbers: FEMA’s $30 billion 2024 budget includes $20 billion for its Disaster Relief Fund, designated for direct emergency relief activities. The rest is spent on bureaucracy, insurance, and grants. In other words, only two-thirds of FEMA’s funding actually goes to directly helping people.
No business could survive in the private sector with this much waste. FEMA allocates $1 billion annually just for transportation. According to data from 2023, FEMA reported 3,000 employees earning more than $100,000 annually and a total headcount of more than 20,000.
What do taxpayers get in return? Failure after failure. FEMA’s response to major hurricanes, including Katrina in 2005, Maria in 2017, and Helene in 2024, has been characterized by delays, logistical challenges, and mismanagement, leading to widespread suffering. Bureaucratic red tape is a feature, not a bug, at FEMA and can only be cut through by disbanding the agency.
Shifting responsibilities to individual states could lead to more efficient allocation of funds, as states are better positioned to assess their own needs. State governments possess a more intimate understanding of their unique geographical and demographic challenges, enabling them to respond more effectively to local disasters, reducing the bureaucratic federal delays.
States like Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, which frequently face natural disasters, have developed robust emergency management infrastructure. Empowering these states with direct control over disaster funds could lead to even more efficient and effective responses.
It’s also worth considering whether taxpayers in Kansas, Montana, or other states should be required to cover the costs of flood damages in Texas, hurricane recovery in Georgia, or fires in California.
Returning funding to the states will also overcome concerns about political bias in disaster responses. And it would promote individual and community resilience, removing the moral hazard of dependence on the federal government.
The federal government could still retain a limited disaster response capability without FEMA. Alternatives such as the National Guard and the military could offer emergency help. Federal financial aid could still be made available but structured as long-term loans to the states, with interest rates at least equal to the costs incurred by the national debt.
Thanks to Trump, the nation is finally starting a long-overdue fiscal reckoning, with an increased emphasis on federal government efficiency, accountability, and deficit reduction. Disbanding FEMA and returning its funding to the states that can better manage disaster response is a great place to start.

– – –

Alfredo Ortiz is CEO of Job Creators Network.
Photo “Federal Emergency Management Agency Worker” by Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

 

 

 


Content created by RealClearWire is available without charge to any eligible news publisher. For republishing terms, please contact [email protected].

Related posts

2 Thoughts to “Commentary: Trump Is Right to Disband FEMA and Return Disaster Funding to the States”

  1. Elizabeth Chichak

    Yes, disband FEMA and give money to each State for disaster relief. All those coming to America should do so LEGALLY!!!

  2. Joe Blow

    Looking forward to the federal monstrosity called FEMA being disbanded. The weight of the overhead is staggering while the actual results are underwhelming.

Comments