In response to The New York Times January 24 article, “Trump Says States Should Manage Disasters,” I argue that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) block grants are not the answer to building true resilience. Proponents claim such grants would cut costs and streamline disaster recovery, but with nearly every U.S. county having received federal aid in the past 15 years, the notion that states alone can manage complex disasters is unrealistic. Shifting disaster recovery responsibilities to the states may seem empowering in theory, but, in practice, it risks replicating the inefficiencies and misaligned priorities seen in programs like the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), ultimately fostering a false sense of readiness.
1. Block Grants Create a False Economy of Recovery
Block grants may appear cost-effective because they provide states with a lump sum, ostensibly for recovery. However, the lack of accountability for spending those funds creates a false economy. States may redirect funds toward immediate, politically favorable projects rather than long-term recovery or preparedness. This “redirection” often leads to mismatched priorities, leaving critical vulnerabilities unaddressed. The result is a superficial recovery, which creates the illusion of progress but leaves states and communities unprepared for future disasters.
Moreover, block grants shift the burden of disaster-related deficits to the states. Once the federal funds are depleted – often inefficiently – states may be unable to finance the rest of the recovery, compounding the financial strain on their budgets and citizens.
2. Lessons from UASI: Misaligned Incentives and Bureaucratic Burdens
The UASI is a cautionary tale in how grants incentivize misaligned priorities and unnecessary competition:
- Threat Inflation: UASI fostered a perverse competition among urban areas, where states and cities inflated their perceived risks to secure a larger share of funding. This distorted resource allocation and created inefficiencies in readiness, as funding often went to areas with political clout rather than genuine need.
- Bureaucratic Overhead: The administration of UASI grants became a nightmare of paperwork, reporting, and compliance requirements, diverting focus and resources from preparedness itself. Any block grant program would face similar administrative challenges, undermining its supposed efficiency.
- Superficial Solutions: UASI often funded high-visibility projects, such as equipment and technology purchases, rather than addressing deeper systemic issues like training, leadership development, or robust resilience planning. Block grants replicate these shortcomings, leaving states ill-prepared for future disasters.
- There is no independent body of evidence or auditing mechanism indicating the effectiveness of UASI. Lack of stewardship and accountability encourages redirection of grant dollars.
3. The True Cost of Disconnected Recovery
Block grants risk fragmenting disaster recovery efforts. If states are given unrestricted authority to allocate funds, there is no guarantee of consistency or alignment with national preparedness goals. This creates a patchwork of responses and readiness levels, where some states may prioritize resilience while others fail to act as responsible stewards of public resources.
Disaster recovery often spans decades, requiring a long-term, coordinated approach. A block grant system would incentivize short-term solutions rather than sustained investments in resilience. Once funds are exhausted, the federal government may find itself bailing out states again, doubling the recovery cost.
4. FEMA’s Core Problem: Mission Drift, Not Funding
The “failure” of FEMA to effectively manage disaster recovery is not primarily a financial or talent issue. It results from mission drift, a lack of strategic clarity, and a broken national culture of preparedness. FEMA competes with various opinions and pressure points that attempt to define the organization’s mission and identity. These friction points create false and elevated expectations to be everything from a rapid-response agency to a long-term recovery institution. Without a clear focus, no amount of funding – block grants or otherwise – will fix the underlying problems.
FEMA’s leaders and personnel should approach enterprise disaster response and recovery as a strategic process rather than a series of reactive efforts by integrating the principles of readiness, “warfighting,” and campaign planning. Fostering a culture that values innovation alongside necessary bureaucratic compliance can enhance efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring a more proactive and coordinated response.
5. A Path Forward: Reimagining and Rebranding FEMA
Instead of relying on block grants or other superficial funding schemes, FEMA must be reimagined and evolve into a 21st-century crisis leadership organization.
- Focus on Stewardship: States should be held accountable for building resilience and preparedness, with federal funds tied to measurable outcomes rather than unrestricted block grants.
- Eliminate Perverse Incentives: FEMA must avoid systems that encourage threat inflation or state-state competition. Instead, funding should be based on transparent, needs-based assessments.
- Streamline Bureaucracy: FEMA must reduce administrative burdens and focus on outcomes rather than compliance for its own sake.
- Redefine the Mission: FEMA must both reimagine and re-emphasize its core mandate of coordinating the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. This redefining of the mission could be akin to the National Security Act of 1947, the legislation that fundamentally reshaped the U.S. national security apparatus in response to the evolving geopolitical landscape after World War II.
Conclusion: Block grants are the wrong tool for FEMA’s challenges.
While block grants may seem like a cost-effective solution, they risk replicating the failures of programs like UASI and others by fostering inefficiency, competition, and a false sense of readiness. FEMA’s challenges are not about funding alone but focus on accountability and strategic clarity. It’s time to reimagine FEMA, not throw money at a broken system. A new FEMA must embrace its role as the nation’s lead agency for resilience and preparedness, empowering states to act as responsible stewards while ensuring the American public is prepared for future disasters. Plan for order, and you’ll succumb to chaos. Prepare for chaos, and you’ll thrive in any condition. The choice is ours.
(The author is responsible for the content of this article. The views expressed do not reflect the official policy or position of his employer.)