Eliminating FEMA Will Not Solve Its Fundamental Flaws
The bridge connecting Lake Lure and Chimney Rock was knocked to the ground as a result of Hurricane Helen’s catastrophic flooding. Source: Construction Drive.
Hurricane Helene made one thing clear: climate change is no longer solely an issue for the coast. The Appalachia region is over four hundred miles from where the storm made landfall. Consequently, they never saw a storm of Helene’s intensity coming and suffered from a major lack of preparedness as a result. The continuous intensification of these storms due to climate change will cause their effects to be felt further inland than ever before. However, climate change is not the only problematic player here. The disaster relief that FEMA provided for Helene victims did not meet North Carolinians’ expectations, and its inequitable distribution of funds remains a chronic issue. The Trump Administration’s solution is to eliminate FEMA as a whole, but this decision will leave communities even less equipped to handle storms like Helene, as well as other climate disasters.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is a government organization that helps communities recover after they are hit by extreme weather events such as Hurricane Helene. Although Western North Carolina was declared a disaster area rather quickly, several of the organization’s faults were illuminated, one being the inadequate aid they provided to Helene victims. Marshall, NC resident DeeDee Buckner reported to NPR that she received a one-time $750 payment, followed by a $3,000 payment to her family — an underwhelming quote compared to the aid that Buckner expected from FEMA —“I mean, I thought they were going to offer a shelter. I mean, listen, we had nowhere to live. They did not even give us motel vouchers.” Many other victims waited months for aid to arrive.
Even more troubling is FEMA’s long-standing pattern of inequitable aid distribution. There is a history of disaster relief being unequally distributed among communities; after Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017, six in ten black Texas Gulf residents reported that they did not feel they received adequate aid, compared to three in ten white Texas Gulf residents. In areas like Texas, the issue of immigration also plays a part in inequitable aid. Noncitizen immigrants do not have the same access to recovery assistance programs as citizens — a direct reflection of their eligibility restrictions, immigration-related fears, and language barriers. People who live in poverty are already at a disadvantage when climate disasters strike. They are often unable to evacuate due to their lack of a car or somewhere else to go. The physical homes in lower-income areas are often more vulnerable to destruction, especially mobile homes. When you add inequitable aid on top of that, it becomes even harder for low-income communities to recover. Eliminating FEMA would do a lot more harm to these communities than good.
Trump believes that FEMA is fundamentally flawed and consequently plans to phase it out as a federal organization, therefore shifting disaster aid fully to the states. His administration believes that this will “simplify” disaster relief and “incentivize states to invest more in disaster preparedness.” This undertaking is scheduled to take place between the 2025 and 2026 hurricane seasons, and the agency could be eliminated as soon as December 2025. Although the endpoint of the FEMA restructuring effort is not fully clear, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reports, “I want to be very clear. The President wants it eliminated as it currently exists. He wants a new agency."
Following the devastation of Hurricane Helene, President Trump claimed that FEMA’s efforts were “a disaster.” This statement is not entirely false, as FEMA undoubtedly needs reform. Hurricane Helene was a true test of the organization’s capabilities, and it ultimately failed. However, the solution does not lie in abolishing the whole organization, as this will not make disaster relief any more efficient, much less equitable. The states are not prepared to handle these perpetually intensifying disasters on their own; the state of North Carolina certainly did not possess the resources to fund a recovery effort of Helene’s magnitude. The stronger these storms get, the more the United States will feel FEMA’s absence — after learning about the current and potential cuts to FEMA, as well as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the proportion of voters who believe that their state is equipped to handle climate events decreased from 63% to 57%.
The disaster system in the United States was already inadequate, and its strength moving forward is not looking too good. As North Carolina resident Anna Stearns put it, there are valid criticisms of FEMA, but she argues that individual states cannot independently manage the costs or the manpower needed to handle the “growing toll” from natural disasters. The dismantling of FEMA, in addition to the ever-increasing number of climate events, creates a perfect storm for socioeconomic challenges that will affect more and more Americans. The people of the United States must figure out a new method for handling climate disasters, as the nation can no longer rely on the federal government’s help.