by Daniel Brouse
June 11, 2025
In a recent statement, President Donald Trump declared, “We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level. A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.” He added that the federal government would begin scaling back disaster recovery aid, with funding instead coming directly from the president’s office—signaling a major shift in how emergency response may be handled going forward.
This announcement comes as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) projects an unusually intense and potentially deadly Atlantic hurricane season, which officially runs through November 30. With warmer oceans and atmospheric instability driven by climate change, stronger and more frequent storms are becoming the norm.
The implications of Trump’s remarks—and the broader policy direction they suggest—are both alarming and potentially transformative.
The Bad News: Soaring Risk for Homeowners
For homeowners in vulnerable areas such as Florida, California, and Louisiana, the move could trigger a crisis. Insurance premiums in disaster-prone zones are already rising dramatically. Some homeowners are being dropped altogether by private insurers and forced into state-run programs that are under increasing financial strain. If FEMA’s support is withdrawn or reduced, many states may be unable to shoulder the burden alone.
Flood insurance is especially concerning. Almost all flood insurance in the United States is currently underwritten by FEMA through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the federal government pulls out, coverage may become unaffordable or unavailable, making it impossible for homeowners in flood zones to obtain mortgages. The result could be a collapse in property values and a surge in foreclosures—effectively rendering entire neighborhoods economically unviable.
The Potential Silver Lining: A Long-Overdue Climate Reckoning
Yet, there could be an upside. If the federal government stops subsidizing climate denial—by rebuilding homes and infrastructure in increasingly dangerous areas—it might finally push individuals and governments to take serious climate action. Repeatedly rebuilding in high-risk zones, with taxpayer dollars, has long enabled reckless development and delayed the need for difficult conversations around managed retreat.
Redirecting disaster relief funds toward proactive climate measures—such as transitioning off fossil fuels, upgrading infrastructure, restoring natural buffers like wetlands, and supporting voluntary relocation—could help slow the pace of global warming and increase long-term resilience.
But this transformation must be guided thoughtfully. Abrupt cuts to FEMA without a corresponding increase in state capacity and investment in resilience will disproportionately harm the poor, elderly, and marginalized communities—those least responsible for climate change but most vulnerable to its effects.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment in Climate and Disaster Policy
President Trump’s proposal to devolve disaster response to the states represents a radical rethinking of federal responsibility. It could either catalyze long-overdue changes in climate and land-use policy—or unleash widespread chaos in the wake of increasingly destructive disasters.
The real test will be whether this shift leads to smarter, more sustainable approaches—or whether it simply abandons millions of Americans to face growing climate threats with shrinking support. As the 2025 hurricane season intensifies, the answer may soon become painfully clear.