Every year, millions of people in the United States are impacted by environmental disasters. Survivors often experience negative effects to their physical and mental health, destruction of property and assets, and disruptions in employment and education. Disasters can also exacerbate preexisting inequities, disproportionately impacting low-income households, communities of color, and people with disabilities.
The federal government, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), plays a critical role in ensuring that state and tribal governments overwhelmed by these disasters have access to additional emergency response staff, financial assistance, and other resources to help impacted households, businesses, and communities recover.
In January President Trump visited communities impacted by Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and the Los Angeles wildfires. During those visits, the president made several claims regarding his plans for federal disaster relief, including the possibility of eliminating FEMA via executive order. President Trump also raised the possibility of withholding federal assistance for victims of the Los Angeles fires unless California changes its policies related to water, forestry, immigration, and voter identification.
In this explainer, I review the legality of these proposals, their potential implications for disaster survivors, and what other changes to federal disaster policy we will be watching for in the coming months.
Can the president abolish FEMA via executive order?
Under federal law, the president does not have the authority to undo or amend statutory or regulatory mandates via executive order. Therefore, the president should not be able to abolish or change FEMA’s statutory obligations or structure via only an order.
FEMA was originally established in 1979 by President Carter under Executive Order 12127 and Executive Order 12148 to take over implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), among other functions. However, Congress has since affirmed the agency’s role leading federal disaster mitigation, response, and recovery functions, and overseeing the implementation of the NFIP through various amendments to the Stafford Act and National Flood Insurance Act, among other laws.[1] FEMA has issued numerous regulations via notice-and-comment process implementing those mandates, including the agency’s 2023 interim final rule expanding access to disaster assistance for individuals and households. While the president can use executive orders to guide how FEMA and other agencies implement these mandates, he should not be able to unilaterally change or nullify those mandates.
For more on procedural safeguards to rolling back agency rulemakings, see EELP’s step-by-step guide.
“While the president can use executive orders to guide how FEMA and other agencies implement these mandates, he should not be able to unilaterally change or nullify those mandates.”
Can the president impose conditions on federal disaster assistance?
Congress passed the Disaster Relief Act, later amended and renamed the Stafford Act, to ensure consistency in the distribution of federal disaster assistance regardless of who is in the White House or the politics of the impacted area. Specifically, Congress passed the 1970 Disaster Relief Act to end policymakers “logrolling” individual disaster bills, which allowed representatives to exchange political favors and attach earmarks to disaster-specific funding packages but led to significant delays and variability in the types of assistance survivors received.[2] By nationalizing one federal disaster relief framework, Congress sought to ensure that all disaster survivors have the same access to federal disaster assistance, and that the assistance is delivered as efficiently and consistently as possible.
Notably, the Stafford Act requires disaster assistance to be provided in an “equitable and impartial manner,” whether that assistance is provided by federal agencies, the state, or relief organizations like the Red Cross.[3] While the statute gives the president flexibility to incentivize certain activities or speed recovery by increasing the federal cost share,[4] the president does not have the authority to impose external conditions on federal assistance.
There are also constitutional prohibitions barring Congress or the president from imposing certain conditions on federal disaster assistance.[5] Under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government cannot deny a benefit to someone “on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests.”[6] As applied to state and tribal governments seeking federal disaster assistance, the doctrine prohibits Congress and the president from conditioning that assistance on the state or tribal government giving up authority it is otherwise empowered to exercise under the Constitution. President Trump’s proposal to condition disaster aid to California on the state revising its voter ID, water, and forestry policies would violate this doctrine.
Imposing political conditions on federal disaster assistance may also violate disaster survivors’ procedural due process rights. Disaster survivors do not have a constitutionally protected right to receive federal assistance,[7] but several courts have held that survivors have a right to procedural due process where they have a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to federal disaster assistance (i.e., where a survivor would be automatically eligible for certain disaster-related benefits under federal rules).[8] The unconstitutional conditions doctrine thus prohibits the government from attaching conditions to disaster assistance that would infringe on these due process rights by significantly delaying or preventing survivors from seeking assistance for which they are otherwise eligible.
“The Stafford Act requires disaster assistance to be provided in an ‘equitable and impartial manner,’ whether that assistance is provided by federal agencies, the state, or relief organizations like the Red Cross. While the statute gives the president flexibility to incentivize certain activities or speed recovery by increasing the federal cost share, the president does not have the authority to impose external conditions on federal assistance.”
How will President Trump’s executive orders impact federal disaster response?
On Jan. 24, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14180 establishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council (FEMA Review Council), noting “the need to drastically improve [FEMA’s] efficacy, priorities, and competence, including evaluating whether FEMA’s bureaucracy in disaster response ultimately harms the agency’s ability to successfully respond.”
Under the terms of the order, the FEMA Review Council will include up to 20 members and advise the president on recommended changes to the agency. The council will be led by the secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense and include non-federal members with “diverse perspectives and expertise in disaster relief and assistance.” On Jan. 28, President Trump appointed four council members from North Carolina, including three Republican congressional representatives and Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley. On Feb. 18, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes FEMA, formally established the FEMA Review Council. As of this writing, the president has not publicly designated additional council members.
Notably, both the executive order and notice repeat false claims in support of the need to reform the federal disaster system. Both point to “serious concerns of political bias in FEMA,” alluding to FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina where, following widespread misinformation and threats of physical violence to FEMA staff, the agency temporarily paused door-to-door operations. The order and notice also repeat false claims that the agency is “spending well over a billion dollars to welcome illegal aliens.”
It is also unclear how the FEMA Review Council will supplement the advisory body Congress established to propose necessary reforms to federal disaster preparedness and response. After Hurricane Katrina, Congress ordered the DHS secretary to create the National Advisory Council (NAC) to “advise the [FEMA] Administrator on all aspects of emergency management” and “incorporate State, local, and tribal government and private sector input” in revising agency plans and strategies.[9] Notably, unlike the FEMA Review Council, the NAC’s charter emphasizes transparency, including requiring that meetings be open to the public with limited exceptions. On Jan. 27, 2025, FEMA disbanded the NAC, consistent with a DHS memo ordering the termination of all agency advisory committees. FEMA is unlikely to appoint new NAC members until the Senate confirms a new FEMA administrator.
What other issues are we watching?
There are several changes that have the potential to significantly impede the ability of disaster survivors to recover, particularly low-income households and underserved communities. These include current and future cuts to FEMA staff, anticipated cuts in federal funding for legal aid organizations supporting disaster survivors, and the refusal to comply with agency regulations based on the administration’s new policy priorities.
Cuts to FEMA staff
As of this writing, the Trump administration has reportedly fired more than 200 FEMA employees. Those firings affected “probationary” employees at FEMA’s regional offices and headquarters. While “probationary” employees are those who have been at their position less than a year, many of those fired had been at the agency for years if not decades and were recently promoted into new positions. DHS said those fired were “non-mission critical personnel.” FEMA also fired four longtime employees over funds disbursed to house migrants in New York City under a separate congressionally-mandated program, including the agency’s chief financial officer.
Since 2020, staffing at FEMA has failed to keep up with increased demands on the agency. In 2022 alone, FEMA had 500 major disaster declarations nationwide in addition to 59 major disaster declarations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found these staffing gaps create a vicious cycle leading to burnout and increased attrition. Today, FEMA’s staffing gap remains at about 20 percent.[10]
The administration plans to make additional staffing cuts at FEMA, reportedly focusing on staff who worked on climate, environmental justice, or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related issues. However, FEMA’s 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, which has since been removed from the agency’s website, prioritized “equity as a foundation of emergency management” and “climate resilience.” Future staffing cuts based on these criteria could, therefore, affect core staff across the agency, including those responsible for emergency preparedness and response, coordinating federal grants for disaster-impacted states, and managing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Cuts to federal funding for legal aid organizations
At the end of last year, the incoming Trump administration reportedly directed House Speaker Mike Johnson to strip legal assistance for disaster victims from the emergency supplemental spending bill in December 2024. Congress complied, and the final spending package excluded the proposed $103 million for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). LSC provides crucial support to nonprofit legal aid organizations across the country. Notably, legal aid organizations exclusively serve low-income U.S. citizens, with limited exceptions.[11]
After a disaster, legal aid organizations are often referred to as “third responders” because of the critical assistance they provide, including helping low-income survivors navigate FEMA and insurance appeals, landlord/tenant disputes, family law matters, and challenging unlawful price gouging and discriminatory treatment. LSC grantees also provide essential information to survivors, including know-your-rights training, and are often the first to identify systemic issues in the distribution of federal or state assistance affecting the poorest survivors. Congress has included LSC funding in every disaster response package since Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
Refusal to implement regulations inconsistent with policy priorities
On February 4, FEMA’s chief counsel issued an internal memo stating the agency intends to stop enforcing a rule finalized under President Biden to mitigate flood damage to federally funded infrastructure. The memo states that the “pause” is intended to give the agency time to rescind or revise the rule. However, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agencies cannot simply decline to enforce regulations once they take effect; they must follow a step-by-step process to formally revoke or revise the rule after seeking and responding to public comment. Failure to do so creates uncertainty among FEMA grantees and raises critical legal questions about agencies’ authority to unilaterally reverse the policy priorities of a previous administration.
FEMA codified the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) in July 2024, following notice-and-comment procedures as required under the APA. The FFRMS requires FEMA-funded projects to meet certain resilience requirements to reduce future disaster-related costs, including elevating buildings or relocating them to lower-risk areas. Though the regulation is based on an executive order first issued in 1977,[12] FEMA finalized its rule pursuant to statutory authority to set grant eligibility criteria under various laws including the Stafford Act, the National Flood Insurance Act, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.[13] The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Army Corps of Engineers also finalized rules codifying the FFRMS under President Biden.
Sign up for our Regulatory and Federal EJ Tracker emails for updates.
[1] Under the Stafford Act, for example, FEMA is tasked with specific mandates regarding disaster preparedness and response, including maintaining and deploying emergency response teams post-disaster, 42 U.S.C. 5144(b), administering billions annually in disaster funding to both governments and households pursuant to specific statutory criteria, see e.g., 42 U.S.C. 5170c (governing the hazard mitigation program), performing audits to ensure grantees comply with those criteria, 42 U.S.C. 5135, and implementing additional disaster programs established by Congress, see e.g., 42 U.S.C. 5136 (creating the Community Disaster Resilience Zones program).
[2] Andrew Morris, Hurricane Camille and the New Politics of Federal Disaster Relief, 1965–1970, 26 J. of Policy Hist. 406, 408 (2014).
[3] 42 U.S.C. § 5151. The statute does authorize FEMA to withhold future disaster funding awarded by the president, but only if FEMA has found that the SLTT government has failed to comply with federal law and FEMA regulations. FEMA must also provide the recipient with “reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing” before withholding those funds. 42 U.S.C. § 5197(h).
[4] Erica A. Lee, Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis, CONG. RSCH. SERV. at 3 (July 26, 2023).
[5] This is particularly true with assistance provided in emergencies. According to the Supreme Court, “governmental privileges or benefits necessary to basic sustenance have often been viewed as being of greater constitutional significance than less essential forms of governmental entitlements.” Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 259 (1974) (cited favorably in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 604 (2013)).
[6] Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
[7] See, e.g., Ridgely v. FEMA, 512 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that the Stafford Act does not require FEMA to provide temporary housing assistance payments to eligible survivors); Santos v. FEMA, 327 F. Supp. 3d 328, 343 n.12 (D. Mass. 2018).
[8] See, e.g., Hazzouri v. W. Pittston Borough, 416 F.Supp.3d 405, 414–416 (M.D. Pa. 2019); Ass’n of Cmty. Organizations For Reform Now (ACORN) v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (FEMA), 463 F. Supp. 2d 26, 34 (D.D.C. 2006).
[9] 6 U.S.C. § 318.
[10] As of this writing, FEMA had 14,202 staff in its incident management (IM) workforce, with a staffing target of 17,670.
[11] LSC organizations serve households at or below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. In 2025, that threshold would be $40,188 per year for a family of four.
[12] Exec. Order No. 11,988, 42 Fed. Reg. 26,951 (May 25, 1977). President Obama amended the order in 2015, which President Trump revoked in his first term. President Biden restored the Obama-era order, and President Trump again rescinded the order on the first day of his second term.
[13] Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations to Implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, 89 Fed. Reg. 56,929, 56,930 (July 11, 2024) (codified at 44 C.F.R. pt. 9).