The future of FEMA is Uncertain

Request for public input on Experinces with FEMA Disaster Responses

Hello Readers,

Another week has passed, and we are relieved to report that the anticipated wave of mass terminations has not occurred—at least not yet. However, the pressure and uncertainty surrounding the future of the agency remain heavy across regional offices and among our State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) partners. The Alt-FEMA editors are aware of a highly confidential memo circulating at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level concerning an impending Reduction in Force (RIF) plan. While we have not yet verified the contents, we understand it includes potential restructuring and funding shifts that could significantly impact FEMA operations.

If you have credible, verifiable information regarding this plan, we urge you to reach out to us securely via Signal.

In the meantime, we want to call your attention to an urgent and meaningful opportunity for public engagement. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public input on experiences with FEMA disaster responses. Whether you are an SLTT official, a member of the emergency management community, or a survivor of a disaster (or know someone who is), we strongly encourage you to participate and share this request widely.

Public comment is not just a formality—it is a vital mechanism to ensure DHS understands the essential role FEMA plays in supporting communities before, during, and after disasters. Without strong participation, decisions about FEMA’s structure and funding may be made based on limited or misinformed perspectives. We believe dismantling or degrading FEMA’s capabilities would cause irreparable harm to vulnerable communities across the country.

It is important to note that many of the proposed changes are not being led by experienced emergency management professionals within FEMA. Though FEMA operates under the DHS umbrella, the two agencies differ significantly in mission, culture, and expertise. In plain terms: you don’t know what you don’t know—and DHS does not understand the intricate, on-the-ground operations of FEMA. Instead, decisions are being made through the lens of public image and optics, rather than evidence-based outcomes or practitioner input.

To further illustrate the importance of this RFI, we will be spotlighting selected public comments submitted as part of the call for feedback. These voices matter—and we hope they inspire you to share your own.

As an emergency manager for nearly 30 years, I have worked alongside of FEMA in numerous ways, and am a firm believer that FEMA plays a critical role in our nation’s mitigation, preparedness, and response to, and recovery from disaster.

While FEMA has many programs that assist local and state governments to better prepare themselves for emergencies, one of the fundamental programs is the training that FEMA provides to emergency managers, first responders, and community leaders, by the FEMA NDEMU (formerly EMI)…Hurricane Evaciation studies, Hurrevac Decision Support Tool, Hurricane Liasion Team, Hurricane Specific Trainning, Technical Assistance, Post Storm Analysis…and The national Hurricane Program led administratively by FEMA, is critically important to hurricane risk states. It is also important to note that the NHP is underfunded and is struggling to meet the needs of hurricane risk states and territories. While there may be areas to improve in FEMA, their role in the National Hurricane Program is critical, and needs to continue.-Bruce Sterling

It is critical to recognize the voices of State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) emergency managers in response to this Request for Information, so that any decisions made for FEMA—often without its input—by DHS are at the very least informed by the experience, expertise, and programmatic understanding of those who truly know how the agency operates.

I’ve been both a recipient of FEMA aid after a hurricane and trained by FEMA to provide aid to my community as part of the Citizens Emergency Response Teams.

After Hurricane Ivan in FL FEMA was on the ground quickly and offered medical care and hot food when my town had no power. There would not have been a state response, there was in fact no state response and they left our community stranded until FEMA arrived to help.

That spurred my community to start a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) to help bridge the gap from the lack of state and county response. FEMA’s training is amazing. This program should be expanded.

After Hurricane Harvey, I saw FEMA coordinating the response. Months after, Texas denied FEMA funds to Houston and the surrounding areas for political reasons. If more responsibility is transferred to the state, politics rather than need will become how aid is distributed making it more difficult for those who need help to receive it.

Additionally, I use the FEMA app to get weather notifications that are not available in a timely manner elsewhere.- Cassidy Henry Pearson

Experiences like this underscore the importance of centering disaster survivors' voices when considering organizational restructuring. They also reveal how, at times, state-level decisions—often driven by political considerations—can hinder survivors' ability to recover, especially when those decisions limit access to the supplemental support provided by FEMA.

Increasing storms and fires means our state is very vulnerable. FEMA has learned lessons from every disaster and carries those lessons to local preparations. Don’t undervalue that knowledge base. FEMA can best coordinate events that affect multiple states. FEMA is able to stockpile items that are needed quickly on site better than 50 stockpiles in 50 states. FEMA was in North Carolina BEFORE the storms and was helping organize first responders and volunteer groups right away. FEMA needs better disaster funding and consistent experienced management.-William Doom

After Tropical Storm Helene struck Western North Carolina late last year, a surge of misinformation circulated—originating not only from fringe media outlets but also from top-level leadership within the Trump Administration. This created an unsafe working environment for field personnel and significantly eroded public trust in FEMA. Many survivors were left confused about the agency’s roles and responsibilities in their recovery, further complicating response and outreach efforts.

While FEMA attempted to counter these false narratives through a “Rumor Control” page on its official website, the effectiveness of this approach was limited. In rural communities like those affected in Western North Carolina, internet access is often unreliable, and digital literacy varies widely. Moreover, by the time the debunking materials were published, the damage to FEMA’s credibility had already been done—exacerbated by political interference that undermined the agency’s nonpartisan mission. As a result, even accurate information struggled to regain public trust: https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/myth-or-fact-misinformation-about-fema-disaster-assistance-can-hinder-recovery

I write to emphasize that FEMA has a substantial and irreplaceable role in disaster PREVENTION, separate from its role in disaster response. Anyone looking to cut waste, fraud, or abuse from FEMA assistance programs should start by *increasing* the agency's funding for mitigation and preparedness. Same for FEMA's role in recovery and resilience planning, capacity building, and development of codes and standards.By simply reducing predictable damage, pre-event mitigation avoids a host of problems that can later lead to waste when post-event activities need to act urgently, over-conservatively, or without careful coordination with locals.

Here are four FEMA efforts I am deeply familiar with, all of which have been severely curtailed, or even cancelled outright, because of the current administration's shortsighted and uninformed view of FEMA as merely a response agency:

1. Hazard Mitigation Grant administrationI am involved with a program that submitted its Phase 1 information in October 2024 and in April 2025 has still not received approval to proceed with Phase 2. The delay has disrupted the sub-applicant's ability to properly staff and implement its program.

2. BRIC program funding. California was awarded $40M in BRIC funding to help retrofit collapse-prone multi-unit housing throughout the state. But FEMA cancelled the entire BRIC program on April 4, falsely claiming it was "wasteful and ineffective [and] more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters." That's nonsense.

3. Building code development. FEMA requires local jurisdictions receiving post-event assistance to comply with the I-codes, so it has a clear interest in the development of those codes through the ICC's open process. For years, FEMA has participated in that process and has influenced code development to benefit all U.S. taxpayers. But in January of this year, as the Group B code development cycle was just beginning, FEMA was told to remove its name from the proposals it had already submitted and to stop its participation in the upcoming hearings.

4. Earthquake design standards. As a funder of the Building Seismic Safety Council (under the National Institute of Building Sciences), FEMA has been the main force behind development of design Provisions that are routinely referenced by national standards and model codes. In particular, FEMA has been involved most recently in the development of new provisions that would help transition earthquake design from mere safety to functional recovery -- a priority established in Federal law with the recent reauthorization of NEHRP. But just days ago (in late March or early April, 2025), FEMA cancelled its contract with NIBS without cause, citing only the "government's convenience."

President Trump's Executive Order called for a year-long review of FEMA procedures and priorities. That effort, if done in good faith, might have actually led to improvements and efficiencies in FEMA programs. Instead, with false claims and no rational basis, FEMA has simply stopped its long-standing and valuable efforts at actually PREVENTING disaster. THAT approach is more wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive than anything FEMA in prior administrations has ever done.- David Bonowitz

We want to make it clear: FEMA did not make the decision to shut down the BRIC Grant Program. This directive came directly from Cam Hamilton, the current Acting Administrator, whose limited background in emergency management raises serious concerns about his ability to make such consequential decisions in good faith or with an informed understanding of the agency’s mission.

According to internal sources, this decision contradicts the expertise and lived experience of those working within FEMA. Programs like BRIC, HMGP, and other mitigation grants are not only essential to helping communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters—they are also central to building long-term capacity and reducing vulnerability. Their termination threatens not just FEMA’s workforce, but the very communities these programs are designed to protect.

We cannot overstate the importance of these programs. Every dollar spent on mitigation saves the nation an estimated six dollars in recovery costs—a return on investment that benefits everyone, especially in high-risk and underserved areas.

These are just a few examples of why FEMA remains a vital pillar in the field of disaster management and recovery. They also underscore why participation in the Department of Homeland Security’s Request for Information is more important than ever.

If you are an emergency manager, stakeholder, or community member who values FEMA’s mission, we urge you to submit a public comment. Let your voice be heard by those in power—before more damage is done.

Follow this link to share your experience and support FEMA’s continued ability to serve the nation.

Request for Public Input on Experinces With FEMA Disaster Responses

With hope,

Alt-FEMA Neswsletter Editorial Staff