The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has weathered a storm of its own in recent years, facing calls for elimination and significant downsizing. However, the agency’s future now seems more secure, with a shift towards reform rather than abolition. This transformation is rooted in a complex interplay of politics, policy, and the realities of disaster management.
In 2025, David Richardson, who led FEMA as acting administrator, embarked on a mission to drastically reduce the agency’s size. His efforts were driven by the Trump administration’s disdain for FEMA, with the president openly stating, “I think, frankly, FEMA is not good.” Richardson’s goal was to cut the number of employees at FEMA headquarters from about 6,000 to no more than 2,000 by November 2025.
FEMA’s Fight for Survival
Despite the administration’s initial rhetoric, FEMA’s survival was never guaranteed. The agency faced significant challenges, including understaffing and delays in disaster recovery funding. A report from the Government Accountability Office raised concerns about FEMA’s staffing levels, highlighting the struggles within the agency to provide timely assistance to disaster-stricken states.
Andrew Rumbach, a disaster policy expert at the Urban Institute, noted that the attempts to reduce FEMA’s size were “ill-advised” and lacked a comprehensive understanding of the agency’s functions. The fear of wholesale abolition or mass layoffs among FEMA workers has since dissipated, but the attempts to kill the agency have compounded some of its longstanding problems.
The Inside Account of FEMA’s Transformation
Richardson, a former U.S. Marine artillery officer, arrived at FEMA with no experience in disaster management. He described his appointment as “reluctant” and admitted that “FEMA’s not my thing.” However, he was determined to take on the job, having previously led efforts to cut the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Richardson’s plan to downsize FEMA was met with resistance from DHS leadership. In July 2025, he received a clear message that the administration’s goals had changed. A DHS deputy chief of staff told him, “Dave, things have changed,” indicating that the president’s council of emergency experts would decide FEMA’s future. This shift marked a significant turning point in the agency’s trajectory.
New Leadership and Reform Efforts
Richardson resigned from FEMA in late 2025, and Kristi Noem, the then-DHS secretary, was fired in March of this year. Noem’s replacement, Markwayne Mullin, brings extensive experience working with FEMA after major disasters in Oklahoma. The Senate recently confirmed Cameron Hamilton to lead FEMA, who had previously served as the agency’s acting administrator.
Hamilton has expressed his commitment to “strengthening the agency for the future.” The president’s FEMA Review Council submitted its recommendations earlier this year, calling for states to take more responsibility for disasters. Hamilton has promised to come up with a plan to implement some of those recommendations, including a pilot program with the state of Indiana aimed at expediting disaster relief funding.
Rumbach notes that these reforms represent a significant departure from Richardson’s approach. “Those are the kind of improvements I’d hope to see in the coming years,” he says. “Compared to some of the more dramatic and draconian cuts that were being recommended.” However, many of the most sweeping FEMA reforms would require the White House and Congress to work together, a collaboration that does not appear to be a priority for the administration today.
