A draft of a much-anticipated report on reforms to the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been whittled down in size, with recommendations compiled by a council appointed by the president slashed and amended by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s office, according to three people familiar with the developments.
The report “got nuked,” said one former FEMA official. The three people, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue with the media, said the report shrunk from over 160 pages to roughly 20. They said it left council members and other emergency management leaders concerned that some of the recommendations about the country’s disaster preparedness won’t make it into the final copy, which is expected around Dec. 12.
The draft report’s downsizing reflects the Trump administration’s push to disengage the federal government from disaster management and the agency overseeing it, FEMA, pushing more responsibility for preparing, responding to and recovering from climate on states, tribes and territories.
The former officials said that cutting some of the original recommendations and adding others that further diminish FEMA will not only show that the administration is intervening politically in a professional undertaking. They said the changed recommendations could ultimately leave states and other governments unequipped to prepare for or recover from disasters.
Those who oppose shrinking FEMA say most state and local governments can’t take on more of the enormous financial and logistical strains of rebuilding, especially as the frequency and severity of extreme weather wrought by climate change grows, and that FEMA plays a key coordinating role, shepherding help from across the federal government.
DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Asked about the status of the report, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the review council will recommend to President Donald Trump how FEMA may be reformed “such that the Federal role remains supplemental and appropriate to the scale of disaster,” and that “Secretary Noem is working hard to implement the President’s vision that will best serve the American public.”
The initial draft sought reforms to FEMA
The council, appointed by Trump and made up almost exclusively by members from Republican-led states who support significant FEMA reforms, finished a draft report in early November of over 160 pages, according to the three people.
A table of contents obtained by the AP showed the initial draft included nine “key principles,” including reforming public assistance, flood insurance, direct assistance to survivors, and improving rural resilience.
It also included sections on potential reforms to the Stafford Act, which dictates most of FEMA’s authorities, and proposes a phased approach to the changes, to prepare state and local governments.
Two former officials familiar with the matter told the AP the initial recommendations included several of the reforms Trump and Noem have repeatedly touted, including giving states upfront direct grants for disaster recovery instead of reimbursing for the work after it’s done, a process that is often criticized for being too slow and bureaucratic.
Other initial recommendations would reduce how much FEMA pays for disasters by reducing the federal cost share below its current minimum of 75%, and raising the threshold of how much a disaster must be estimated to cost before FEMA recommends to the president that it receive a major disaster declaration. Declarations are ultimately up to the president regardless of that formula.
The new draft cuts proposed reforms and makes others
After submitting the draft in early November to DHS for comment and approval, council members learned Noem’s office cut the report to around 20 pages, the former officials said.
Two people who had not seen the DHS version but are close to members of the council who did said the new draft removes any mention of mitigation programs and slashes preparedness dollars for local emergency management agencies. The AP could not independently confirm other changes made to the draft.
Noem called a last-minute meeting of the FEMA Review Council on Wednesday afternoon. DHS did not respond to questions about the meeting.
The AP could not reach council members for comment.
At a disaster resilience conference in Florida Wednesday, council member and Florida Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie said federal funds would “continue to come down” to states, but that, with legislative changes, the money could potentially arrive in “days and weeks,” hinting at the transition to using direct grants. He did not address the draft report in his remarks.
Many of the expected recommendations would require action by Congress because the 1988 Stafford Act lays out most of FEMA’s responsibilities. Other changes could be implemented by Trump or the FEMA administrator.
A Republican-dominated council
For nearly a year, the council has been meeting around the country, holding listening sessions in disaster-impacted places and surveying emergency management professionals and others on how to reform FEMA, and streamline federal support after disasters.
Trump created the review council by executive order on Jan. 24, the same day he proposed “ getting rid of ” FEMA after touring Hurricane Helene damage in North Carolina.
It is co-chaired by Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, though Hegseth did not attend the last of three public meetings, and Noem attended two meetings virtually.
The members are almost exclusively from Republican-led states and include the emergency management directors of Texas and Florida, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. Former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is vice chair.
Members held three public meetings between May and August in Washington, D.C., New Orleans and Oklahoma City, along with multiple closed-door listening sessions with Native tribes and in disaster-impacted states and territories including North Carolina and Puerto Rico. They also surveyed emergency management directors and others involved with disaster recovery.
Experts hoped that what they believed was a thorough approach would mean that the final recommendations would be reflective of the broad input.
