The Federal Emergency Management Agency has issued a stark warning to state and local emergency managers, advising them to prepare for the possibility of responding to major disasters entirely without federal assistance in as little as six months. The directive, which aligns with broader policy shifts under the Trump administration’s America First Resilience Strategy, has ignited an intense national debate over whether state and local governments possess the financial reserves, staffing, and administrative capacity to shoulder the burden of disaster response and recovery.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Cameron Hamilton delivered the remarks during the National Emergency Management Association’s annual conference in Little Rock, Arkansas. According to an audio recording obtained by Politico, Hamilton told attendees that states will need to secure appropriate financial reserves and develop independent operational capabilities. This shift is intended to ensure that recovery efforts can commence immediately, bypassing potential delays caused by the traditional federal disaster declaration process.
While the concept of localized self-reliance appeals to proponents of federal decentralization, disaster experts and local officials have expressed profound alarm. Alan Gerard, a meteorologist and CEO of Balanced Weather, addressed the announcement in a Substack post, writing that the policy sounds wonderful in theory but will be exceptionally difficult to achieve in practice. Gerard noted that states, cities, and counties possess vastly uneven levels of resources, hazard vulnerabilities, and historical experience with major disasters.
This assessment is reinforced by empirical data from recent federal and institutional reports. An Urban Institute report released last year examined financial data from 2019—the most recent year with complete data availability—and found that out of 31 states that received federal disaster response and recovery resources, only five had set aside sufficient funds in their budgets to independently cover the cost of disasters.
Understaffed and Underfunded
Hamilton’s remarks follow closely on the heels of a FEMA-funded study released on October 16, which painted a grim picture of operational readiness at the local level. The study concluded that local emergency management agencies are routinely understaffed and underfunded. In a news release, FEMA stated that these findings reinforce the vision outlined in President Donald Trump’s America First Resilience Strategy, which calls on state and local governments to develop and maintain the capacity to effectively manage incidents affecting their communities.
However, the reality on the ground highlights severe systemic deficiencies. In the FEMA-funded study, state emergency managers reported that insufficient staff and chronic underfunding constitute their most formidable challenges. Many state officials noted that local agencies within their jurisdictions lack the personnel needed to focus on anything beyond basic, day-to-day tasks. This operational bottleneck makes it extraordinarily difficult for local agencies to take advantage of state-offered training, technical assistance, comprehensive planning, and emergency exercises.
The data within the report underscore the severity of the staffing crisis. More than half of all local emergency management agencies operate with one or fewer full-time employees. Furthermore, a notable percentage of local emergency management directors serve purely on a volunteer basis. Heavily reliant on local tax revenues for their operational budgets, these agencies face an array of compounding hurdles, including a lack of funding, insufficient staffing, competing community priorities, widespread stakeholder confusion regarding the exact role of emergency management, and persistently low pay.
Consequently, local confidence in community preparedness is low. Just over half of all local agencies surveyed reported that they are completely or mostly meeting their community’s needs. Meanwhile, 19% stated that they are only slightly meeting community needs or are failing to meet them altogether.
Budgets Vary Widely
Anticipating upcoming FEMA reforms and policy overhauls, the Congressional Research Service released a comprehensive report in September exploring the capacity of states to absorb significantly more responsibility for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. The report highlights that both the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act, which is currently moving through Congress, and the FEMA Review Council recommendations released in May, explicitly suggest that states should take on expanded responsibilities pertaining to disaster management.
Despite this federal push toward decentralization, emergency management operating budgets vary wildly from state to state. According to the CRS report, fiscal year 2026 operating budgets range from a modest $390,000 in New Mexico to a staggering $700 million in Illinois. Furthermore, individual states’ reliance on federal funding for emergency management spans a massive spectrum, ranging from zero percent to 99.4%.
States also face structural and legal limitations regarding how they can deploy their financial reserves during a crisis. Rainy day funds, which are specifically designed to cover budget gaps when revenues are insufficient to meet spending demands, may be limited by state statute regarding when and how they can be utilized to assist with disaster-related budget shortfalls. The 2025 Urban Institute report found that state rainy day fund balances vary dramatically across the country, ranging from $240 million in South Dakota to more than $20 billion in Texas.
Compounding these financial disparities is the legal reality that nearly all state governments are constitutionally or statutorily required to balance their operating budgets. To offset any increased spending necessitated by frequent or severe disasters, states will be forced to find alternative revenue sources, make deep cuts elsewhere, or adjust their emergency management programs and capabilities. Such adjustments could require sweeping changes to state laws, according to the CRS report.
The report concludes that some states and territories are better positioned to assume expanded emergency management responsibilities should federal involvement diminish, while others will struggle profoundly to adjust to the proposed changes. As with any major shift in federal policy, states will likely request considerable time—ranging from months to years—to adapt their own laws, policies, and programs to the new reality.
The announcement has also drawn swift political condemnation from state leaders who view the policy shift as an abdication of federal duty. California Governor Gavin Newsom released a strongly worded statement accusing the Trump administration of abandoning FEMA’s core mission and telling Americans across the country to fend for themselves in the face of catastrophic natural events.
Newsom pointed to his own state’s preparations as an example of the heavy lift required when federal support recedes. In the growing absence of the federal government, he stated, California is actively coordinating with local communities, procuring essential flood-fighting supplies, inspecting critical levees and water infrastructure, and assisting vulnerable coastal communities in mitigating flood, landslide, and coastal hazards ahead of anticipated El Niño storms this winter.
