Abolish FEMA, Shift Disaster Aid to States

Summary#

This bill would abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) two years after the bill becomes law. It would move FEMA’s duties to the President and create a new, temporary block grant program run by the Treasury Department to fund state disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation (projects to reduce future risk). The broad goal appears to be to shift disaster management authority and funding from a federal agency to the states.

Key changes:

• Abolishes FEMA after two years and transfers all FEMA functions, personnel, property, and records to the President.
• Treats legal references to FEMA or its Administrator as references to the President or the Executive Office of the President.
• Directs Treasury to create a formula-based block grant program for states, using factors like population, disaster history, geographic risks, and economic need.
• Requires states to submit an annual emergency management plan (including local and Tribal coordination and measurable goals) for Treasury approval before receiving funds.
• Allows state use of grants for training and equipment, disaster response and recovery, and risk-reduction projects; caps state administrative costs at 5% of their grant.
• Bars “duplication of benefits” from other federal sources for the same purposes; requires annual state reports and federal audits.
• Sets aside 10% of total program funds for Treasury to administer the program and 10% for audits; the program ends four years after Treasury issues the funding formula rule.

What it means for you#

• Residents in disaster-prone areas

  • After FEMA is abolished, federal disaster aid would likely flow through your state government rather than FEMA programs.
  • The bill does not explain how individuals would apply for help. This could mean application processes vary by state.

• State governments and emergency managers

  • Must submit an annual emergency management plan by April 1 with goals, planned uses of funds, and proof of coordination with local and Tribal authorities. No funds are awarded without an approved plan.
  • Can use grants for preparedness training/equipment, response and recovery, and mitigation projects. Only up to 5% can go to state administrative costs.
  • Must report within 90 days after each fiscal year on uses, outcomes (like preparedness metrics and response times), and plan compliance. Expect federal audits at least annually.
  • May be unable to combine these grants with other federal disaster aid for the same purposes because of the “duplication of benefits” rule.

• Local governments and Tribal authorities

  • Need to work with the state to be included in the annual plan to access funding. The bill does not provide direct federal grants to local or Tribal entities.

• Federal workforce and contractors

  • FEMA would be abolished after two years. Staff and assets may be reassigned under the President. Specific roles, job protections, or transition plans are not described.

• Federal executive agencies

  • The President assumes FEMA’s authorities. Treasury must design and run the block grant program, including a funding formula rule, approvals, reporting, and audits.

• Timing

  • FEMA ends two years after enactment.
  • The block grant program starts once Treasury issues a funding formula rule and runs for four years from that date.

• What is unclear

  • How much money will be available for the grants. The bill sets no dollar amounts.
  • How individual assistance, insurance programs, or other specific FEMA-run services would work after abolition.
  • How disaster declarations and other Stafford Act processes would operate once FEMA is gone (functions move to the President, but implementation details are not given).
  • Funding language in Section 2(b) appears to reference “the program established under section 2,” which likely means the grant program in section 3. This drafting is unclear.
  • What happens after the four-year grant program ends.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill does not state any funding levels. Total program cost depends on future appropriations.
• It directs that any FEMA funds left unobligated on the abolition date move to the Treasury’s general fund and be made available for the grant program (the text appears to cite the wrong section number).
• Of whatever funds are provided for the grant program, 10% is for Treasury’s administration and 10% is for audits.
• States may use up to 5% of their own grant for administration.
• Ending FEMA could reduce some federal operating costs but may require new staffing and systems in the Executive Office of the President and the Treasury. The net fiscal effect is not stated.
• The “duplication of benefits” rule could limit overlapping federal spending, but the impact is not quantified.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to give states more control over disaster management and funding, replacing federal program-by-program approvals with flexible block grants.
• Moving funds by formula could make support more predictable and better aligned with population, risk, and economic need.
• Annual state plans with measurable goals could improve accountability for preparedness and response outcomes.
• Central audits and a duplication-of-benefits rule could reduce waste and double payment.
• Abolishing FEMA might be seen as reducing federal bureaucracy and speeding decisions by shifting responsibilities to states and the President.

Opponents' View#

• Abolishing FEMA could weaken national coordination and surge capacity for large or multi-state disasters; the bill does not describe a new structure to perform those roles under the President.
• The bill sets no funding amounts, making it hard for states to plan or ensure adequate aid.
• The grant program ends four years after the formula rule is issued, and the bill does not say what replaces it, creating long-term uncertainty.
• The “duplication of benefits” ban may prevent states from combining this grant with other federal disaster programs for similar purposes, which could reduce total aid for recovery or mitigation.
• A two-year wind-down may be too short for a smooth transfer of complex programs and expertise, potentially disrupting services.
• Capping state administrative costs at 5% might strain smaller or resource-limited states that need more overhead to manage grants and reporting.
• Drafting confusion about which section funds the program raises questions about implementation and timing of available funds.