Long-Awaited FEMA Council Report Sets the Stage for Reform

The reimagining of disaster response in the United States took a step forward with the release of a long-awaited report from a presidential advisory council.

During federal government restructuring in the first year of the second Trump administration, officials floated the prospect of eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) more than once. The administration has made clear that it expects states to take on increased responsibility for disaster response. Dozens of requests for federal disaster aid have been denied or are still pending; new application requirements have created delays.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council was created in January 2025 to recommend “improvements or structural changes” to the agency.

A report from the council was expected in late 2025. A version of a final report was leaked to media outlets but never released. Some attributed this to misalignment with administration views at the time; rather than advising that FEMA be abolished, it suggested it should be an independent agency.

In a February 2025 open letter to the council, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) acknowledged the need for state and local governments to “further build and maintain adequate capacity to be an active and willing partner” in emergency response. (It also noted that its members responded to nearly 24,000 disaster events in FY 2023 that didn’t receive federal support.)

The council’s final report was released on May 7. It offers recommendations for transforming FEMA guided by a consensus that “disaster response should be locally executed, state or tribally managed, and federally supported.” (Public comments are open until June 8.)

Significant recommendations include: changing the criteria for federal assistance, reserving it for events that exceed state capabilities; payments to states within 30 days of a disaster, in amounts based on pre-determined criteria such as flood depth or wind speed rather than a damage assessment; a single direct payment to survivors whose homes have become uninhabitable; and the transfer of emergency shelter responsibility to states. The council also proposes changes in federal cost share across programs. It envisions a transformed FEMA as a “lean, coordination-focused workforce.”

In a statement following the release of the report, NEMA said that it "broadly supports the overarching principles outlined by the council of less complexity in federal programs, faster assistance, and cost savings at all levels."

These are recommendations, not policy. Implementing substantial changes to the agency will require legislation. A Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act was introduced in July 2025. At present it has 72 cosponsors, from both parties. It aims to re-establish FEMA as an independent cabinet-level agency. Progress from further debate to legislation to implementation will take years.

Governing reached out to Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, for an initial response to the report. Budd served as president of the National Emergency Management Association when administration concerns about FEMA operations garnered headlines and the council was created. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity,

Does the report reflect the views of emergency managers?

I can't name an emergency manager who would say FEMA was perfect because it wasn't. I think many of the changes are welcomed.

The point that the [council] is making is that we've become addicted to federal disaster funding, and we have to figure out how to get off that addiction. How do we do a better job of supporting our communities with state and local funding, and still know that we have that backstop when things get really, really bad?

I think the council did a great job of getting a lot of stakeholder input. My only complaint would be that, yes, we had emergency managers on there [the council] but they were all from very large states that have lots of money. I would like to have seen a smaller state represented.

You have the entirety of Congress, you have every emergency manager across the nation and all of the people who have interests in this. We're never all going to agree on one thing. We have to all find the wins in each of the reforms that happen along the way.

FEMA is only supposed to come in when the states run out of resources. Part of the challenge is, when is it okay to have FEMA come in and help? That's still a question to be answered.

What stands out about the recommendations?

Some of them will be very difficult for us at the state level, but we also know that they're necessary, such as the change in the thresholds for disasters.

All of these high-level suggestions sound very straightforward. The goal is to get money on the ground to people who have had their worst day. Will these changes actually do that, and will we be able to create a system that makes that happen?

I think emergency managers and states are excited to have more control over funding that comes, both during disasters and in the recovery aspect of things, hoping that will help speed up the system and get money to places that really need it. [Lump sum payments would come immediately after a disaster rather than as reimbursement.]

What should state and local officials who haven’t followed the council closely recognize in this report?

There will not only be more responsibility put on the states, there will also be more responsibility put on the local level. In developing resilience at the local level, states won't have as much backing from FEMA.

Working together at the local level to understand how to develop disaster resilience and the capacity to respond to the disasters that you know could happen in your community is probably the most important thing.

Grant funding [from FEMA] is likely going away, or it will look different. They will have to figure that out. Most states pass through a portion of that to the local level to help support local emergency management offices. They will likely go away; we won't have the capacity to do that.

How can these kinds of gaps be filled?

We all have to get more engaged with our partners. We have to talk to each other; we have to begin to take more responsibility.

We also have to look to private-sector and nonprofit organizations. We have to build those partnerships to a higher level and engage them in the planning process for an emergency, so they understand how they can help before the emergency actually happens.

States already face cuts to federal funding in other areas. Do you have a sense of how legislators feel about investing more in emergency response?

I met with the legislative committee that oversees my office today, and I threw a bunch of this on the table for them. They asked really good questions and asked me to create a report back to them about what I think the changes for our state will be.

I got questions about my budget: How much money would I need if I lose all the federal grants? That's a new attitude. This is just a committee, an interim committee, but I was pleasantly surprised to have them say, “Okay, we have to get ready for this, and we have to understand how we can support you.”

As I said [in previous interviews] when they were talking about eliminating FEMA, we have to do a better job of explaining what we do and the importance of maintaining emergency management throughout the year, not just when it's time to respond.

They [legislators] are not going to like it. It's going to be an uphill battle, but I think it will also give them a better understanding of what emergency management does. We're going to have to sell our case, so to speak.

Anything else you hope those in government would understand about this report?

This is a thought-provoking document, and it leads us to an area of more conversation. There are a couple of bills in Congress, and this is exactly what we need to be doing, getting all the ideas together and figuring out which parts of the ideas we need to make it all work. There are a lot of steps that need to happen before any of this gets put in place.

You can’t change FEMA completely in two years. It may take a bunch of tiny steps to get to big reform. Can we have some success in getting money and help to survivors as quickly as possible? I think there’s a possibility of doing that.

I would say it’s like the profession of emergency management: I hope we’re never done. I hope we will always continue to get better and repair things, or say “That was a great idea, but it didn’t work at all — let’s be willing to trash it.”