A council of emergency-management experts appointed by President Donald Trump recommended a major overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Thursday [1].
The proposals signal a fundamental shift in how the U.S. government handles natural disasters. By raising the bar for federal assistance and reducing the agency's footprint, the administration aims to lower federal spending and increase the reliance on sub-national governments.
The council's report, released May 7, 2026 [1], suggests raising the thresholds required for a disaster to qualify for federal aid. This change would limit the number of individuals eligible for assistance and restrict the types of events that trigger federal intervention [2].
Beyond financial thresholds, the council recommends shifting disaster-response responsibilities away from the federal government. Under the proposed model, states, tribes, and territories would take on a larger role in managing the immediate aftermath of wildfires, floods, and hurricanes [1].
Staffing levels at FEMA would also be targeted for reduction. The council said that the agency should employ fewer staff members to improve overall efficiency [3]. This reduction in personnel coincides with the push to limit the pool of eligible aid recipients [3].
The council said these changes are intended to speed up aid to survivors by streamlining the process and reducing federal bureaucracy [2]. Additionally, the report eyes a shift toward a private flood market to further reduce the government's financial exposure to catastrophe [2].
These recommendations come as the administration seeks to redefine the relationship between federal oversight and local execution in emergency management. The shift emphasizes local autonomy and local financial responsibility over a centralized federal safety net [1].
“The council recommended a major overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”
This proposal represents a move toward 'new federalism' in disaster management, where the federal government acts as a last resort rather than a primary responder. By increasing aid thresholds and shifting burdens to states and tribes, the plan may reduce the national deficit but could create significant funding gaps for lower-income jurisdictions that cannot afford independent disaster infrastructure.
