FEMA Doesn’t Need to Be Abolished. It Needs to Get Out of the Way.

You can keep FEMA, still save money, and make sure you save lives in the process.

There is a lot of talk right now about the Trump administration looking to cut FEMA, and especially here in Louisiana, there is a lot of concern. Part of the problem is that FEMA has historically been large, unwieldy, and poorly led. Another part of the problem is that there is so much taxpayer money going to so many places that everything is currently on the table for cuts.

Living close to Louisiana’s coast, I’m worried about the elimination of FEMA. I think there’s a serious reason that it exists, and I think that it still serves an important purpose. The more I think about it, the more I come to one conclusion: We don’t need to eliminate FEMA. We just need to get it out of the disaster response business and back into something it was better suited for: logistics, funding, and federal coordination.

President Trump’s suggestion that FEMA may be “replaced” sent a lot of people into the usual tailspins. The suggestion has been characterized as reckless, unconstitutional, dangerous, or a combination of those. In reality, it’s a discussion we should have been having for years, especially in Louisiana, where disaster response is practically a seasonal sport.

But we’ve seen time and again how long it takes for FEMA to disburse aid, approve reimbursements, or even respond to pressing on-the-ground needs. In too many cases, it’s not the first responder. It’s the paperwork agency.

That’s why reform, not abolition, is the right approach. And there’s already a blueprint for how to do it.

Let States Take the Lead

Congressman Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat from Florida and former state emergency management director, has proposed legislation that would allow states to opt into block grants instead of FEMA’s traditional piecemeal reimbursement model. It’s a smart, conservative idea: give the states upfront funding to manage things like housing assistance and public infrastructure, then get out of the way.

Florida, Texas, and even Louisiana already know how to manage disasters, but we don’t always have the cash to do it. A federal checkbook and some logistical support? That’s a role FEMA could play well.

But this kind of change needs more than a single bill. It requires a broad rethinking of FEMA’s mission.

How to Fix It

To make the shift, Congress would need to amend the Stafford Act, the law that governs disaster declarations and federal emergency aid. That includes:

• Letting states opt into flexible block grants

• Replacing FEMA’s project-by-project reimbursements with upfront funding

• Rewarding mitigation and preparedness by using a sliding cost-share formula, states that invest in resiliency get a higher federal match

The House already has a bipartisan proposal, the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act, that would elevate FEMA to a Cabinet-level agency and shift its role toward coordination rather than operations.

This kind of approach allows FEMA to remain the national coordinator, maintaining the flood insurance program, managing interstate logistics, and deploying specialized teams when needed, while letting states lead their own response.

Louisiana Can Lead the Way

Louisiana is better prepared than it’s ever been. Our emergency response infrastructure is strong, and we’ve got the scars to prove we know how to handle hurricanes, floods, and fires. But what we don’t have is reliable federal support when it matters most.

And when the feds do show up, they often slow things down. After the May floods in Texas, FEMA was delayed in its response because DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had inserted a new review process that required sign-off for every contract over $100,000. The delays cost valuable time and resources.

That’s not the kind of help we need in the middle of a disaster.

Louisiana and states like us should be first in line for a block grant pilot program. We already do the hard part. Just give us the money and let us get to work.

Reform With Teeth

But we shouldn’t pretend every state is ready for this tomorrow. Some lack the capacity, experience, or infrastructure to manage large-scale emergencies. That’s where FEMA’s other job comes in: technical support.

FEMA can and should be the national trainer, the data hub, the provider of expertise. If a state wants to take the lead on emergency response, it should have to submit a robust emergency plan, including mutual aid agreements, evacuation protocols, and procurement procedures. States that don’t meet the mark shouldn’t get the same level of autonomy until they’re ready.

And yes, all of this should come with oversight. FEMA’s funding formulas should be tied to performance and transparency. The more prepared and resilient a state becomes, the more flexibility and funding it should receive. That’s how you build a system that rewards good governance and puts disaster response in the hands of people who actually know what they’re doing.

This Can Happen in Four Years

If Washington has the will, this can be done in a single presidential term.

• Year 1: Pass the enabling legislation — start with pilot states like Florida, Louisiana, and Texas.

• Year 2: Implement block grant systems, train states, and build the evaluation framework.

• Years 3 and 4: Expand the program, tie in technical assistance, and create full GAO/CBO oversight.

None of this is radical. In fact, it’s a return to the principle of federalism. Let the states lead, and let the federal government support. FEMA can be fixed — but only if we stop asking it to do everything and start expecting it to do the right things well.