History shows why FEMA is essential in disasters, and how losing independent agency status hurt its ability to function

When the head of the urban research and rescue team of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resigned after the deadly floods of July 4, 2025, he told his colleagues that he was frustrated by the bureaucratic obstacles that had delayed the team’s response to the disaster, according to the media. This decision highlighted a continuous challenge to FEMA.

Since the agency lost its independent status and has been part of the Ministry of Homeland Security in the early 2000s, it faced complaints concerning delays caused by bureaucracy and administrative formalities, leaders at the top with little experience in emergency response and changes in cervical boost.

Now, the Trump administration removes jobs at FEMA and talks about dismantling the agency, which would more responsibility for the response to disasters in states.

However, federal emergency management is crucial in America.

I direct the Institute of Vulnerability and Resilience of Dangers at the University of South Carolina and I worked for years with states and communities faced with dangers and disasters. To better understand the value of FEMA, let’s look at how the nation reacted to disasters before the agency’s existence and what history reveals on the moment when FEMA was the most effective.

Disaster response without the American government

Before 1950, help in the event of a disaster and the response were not considered a federal responsibility. When a hurricane, a flood or a tornado hit, members of the community and humanitarian groups, such as the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army, have called on food, shelter and medical aid and charitable donations solicited to help people rebuild.

States and local governments had the main responsibility for the response to disasters. But especially people counted on the family, neighbors and charity.

Federal aid has been approved on a case -by -case basis. The directives of the War Department in 1917 declared that aid would only be authorized if a certified superior military officer that the response to the disaster would go beyond local and state resources.

Then, the great flood of the Mississippi of 1927 and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s gave new meaning to the concept of disaster in America.

In 1927, the Mississippi river broke out by its dikes, overwhelming more than a million acres of land in seven states. It is estimated that 700,000 people have been moved from their homes and workplaces.

Herbert Hoover, then American trade secretary, was fully authorized to create, coordinate and carry out federal efforts. The Red Cross has installed camps using tents provided by the War Department. The coastal and naval boats saved people blocked by floods. But the answer aroused criticism of the lack of direct federal money to help flood survivors and the treatment of black sharecroppers and workers.

A few years later, the droughts of the era of dust began to destroy cultures in large plains, causing generalized damage.

Federal assistance on disasters begins to take shape

After the flood, the federal government began to formalize its role in the management of disasters.

Flood control projects have become federal responsibility with the adoption of the 1928 flood control law. The New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt provided farmers in the large plains and has set up the soil conservation service to help them reduce the effects of future droughts. It was among the first policies of attenuation of disasters at the federal level.

However, there was little coordination between agencies. Various aspects of rescue in the event of a disaster and recovery were managed by the defense, agriculture and housing and urban development and Small Business Administration departments. Everyone had their own rules and requirements.

In 1950, the Congress adopted the Federal Disaster Relief Act, establishing the first permanent authority for federal reparation on disasters.

The law gave the president responsibility to determine how aid would be distributed and which agencies would be involved. The legislation also widened the federal mission to include preparation for disasters and attenuation and formalized the process of publication of presidential disaster declarations.

FEMA’s creation

In the 1970s, large -scale disasters such as Hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Camille (1969), and fragmentation in the event of a disaster, led the National Governors Association to call a single full emergency management agency. His report provided the plan for the executive decree of President Jimmy Carter in 1979 which created the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

The new agency has become the emergency management home within the executive power. It was intentionally designed as an independent federal administrative agency that could work in federal agencies to support governments of states and premises in times of crisis.

FEMA was not created to direct the response to the disaster. Instead, it helps states and local managers by mobilizing federal resources, such as research and rescue, withdrawal of debris and financing when a disaster submerges the capacity of the state. FEMA could do this quickly due to established federal contracts and its ability to move equipment and stakeholders in the region before a disaster.

When things started to collapse

However, FEMA’s ability to act quickly changed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The agency was restructured as a unit of the newly formed Department of Internal Security. But the Ministry of Internal Security focused on terrorism and the application of laws, not natural disasters.

The loss of autonomy and direct reports to the congress, the mandates not financed outside the scope of the 1988 law on the aid in the event of a disaster and an emergency of 1988, and the major increases in the number of large and complex disasters have extended the capacities of FEMA.

When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, FEMA’s response aroused many criticisms. It was slow to deploy people and supplies and lacked enough experienced respondents who knew what to do. The decision -makers did not know the new national response plans. New communications breakdowns and a lack of coordination between the agencies have led Congress to declare Hurricane Katrina a failure of the initiative and agility.

The reputation of FEMA improved after the government caused more experienced leadership and is committed to planning preparation and better response capacities.

However, the first Trump administration, from 2017 to 2021, reversed these gains. Three different heads of FEMA in four years have led to the directions of sub-efficient and contradiction.

While Trump took office for the second time in 2025, he and his administration spoke of dismantling FEMA and pushing more disaster management to states. The job cuts and resignations to FEMA have reduced the number of employees with vital training and experience in disasters. Persons appointed politicians at high -level positions in the agency and in the Department of Internal Security lacked training and experience in emergency management.

A new policy that all purchases of US $ 100,000 is personally approved by the secretary of the homeland Kristi Noem has led to more resignation. For a response to disasters, a delay pending a signature to progress the chain can cost lives.

What now?

The dismantling of FEMA and leaving little or not the federal coordination of the response to disasters put states in a difficult position.

States must balance their budgets each year, and funds more and more “rainy days” are insufficient to cover the large unexpected disasters. While the federal government moves other financial responsibilities to the States, funds will decrease more.

A single disaster can cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and require a generalized disaster response, then relieve efforts. Since 1980, the cumulative cost of weather disasters has exceeded 2.9 billions of dollars. With a warming atmosphere producing more intense storms, an increase in human and economic damage is likely.

The members of the Congress proposed to make FEMA an independent agency at the office level. I see separate advantages to do so:

• Fewer management layers would allow faster deployment of federal supplies and staff to help the response to disasters.
• A rationalized and more agile agency could reduce administrative formalities for survivors in the event of a disaster needing help, which means providing rescue financing more quickly and more equitably.
• If an independent FEMA was responsible for recovery beyond its current reimbursement limits of 180 days, this could improve long-term recovery efforts, especially if the congress has provided permanent financing flows and coherent rules and regulations.

In my opinion, the efforts of the Trump administration to dismantle the FEMA are short seen. Instead, I believe that the best decision is to restore FEMA as an independent executive agency as it was initially envisaged.

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.