The GOP-led House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology held an oversight hearing Tuesday on the "Future of FEMA" to further evaluate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s efficacy and handling of U.S. taxpayer money, as part of a larger probe examining reforms within the agency.
On January 24, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the establishment of a "full-scale review" council tasked with offering recommendations on reforming FEMA, including structurally changing it, over "serious concerns of political bias" among the agency's ranks. Tuesday's congressional proceedings solicited feedback from stakeholders with expertise in emergency response and recovery who can help guide Trump's council.
In opening statements at the House hearing, subcommittee chairman Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL) highlighted areas in need of reform.
Recommended
Since 2019, he noted, in order to offset the costs of caring for illegal aliens, FEMA has administered federal funds to border towns and non-profit immigration groups. At first through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and then via the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), FEMA spent well over a billion in tax dollars on transportation, healthcare, clothing, housing, and food for foreign nationals illegally living in American communities consumed by the border crisis.
In October, House Republicans sent a letter to then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas demanding answers about the Biden-Harris administration's use of FEMA funds for programming that assists illegal aliens after claiming that the agency is too cash-strapped to make it through hurricane season.
Strong lamented the diverting of limited staff and resources to support such operations beyond FEMA's scope and authority.
"As the border crisis ballooned during the Biden administration, I wonder how much time was wasted administering [these programs] when the FEMA workforce was already stretched thin," Strong said. "As we contemplate how best to reconfigure or establish efficiencies within FEMA to support its operations, we must ask whether FEMA's expanding mission set has slowly exhausted the agency's resources and workforce, preventing it from completing its core mission to the highest level of sufficiency."
In addition to this "mission creep," Strong raised concerns about FEMA also enabling wasteful government spending elsewhere.
In 2022, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that FEMA mishandled the administration of funds for its COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Program; at least $4.8 million in aid was approved for duplicate or ineligible applicants.
Strong, pivoting, stressed that it's also of "great importance that FEMA avoid any appearance of partisanship."
In November, the House Homeland Security Committee requested transcribed interviews with FEMA leadership, including the agency's then-administrator Deanne Criswell and ex-employee Marn'i Washington, regarding reports of political discrimination influencing FEMA's response to victims of Hurricane Milton.
Washington, a former FEMA supervisor, told disaster relief workers to "avoid homes advertising Trump" when they were surveying the damage in Florida and allocating aid. In an interview following her firing, Washington said that such guidance, instructing canvassers to skip the hurricane-hit houses of Trump supporters, was actually a widespread practice at FEMA pursuant to a policy permitting personnel to steer clear of "politically hostile" households that make them feel "uncomfortable." In fact, she said, it's standard protocol, "a colossal event of avoidance" that even extends beyond Florida, spanning across several storm-ravaged states, such as Georgia and the Carolinas. Criswell, meanwhile, insisted that this was an isolated incident that does not reflect FEMA's core values.
On the matter of structural changes, as indicated in Trump's directive, some suggested that FEMA should no longer be housed under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) while others debated how to better balance inter-government coordination during disaster response. Trump himself has floated the dissolution of FEMA altogether, saying response efforts should be left up to the states, a "far more efficient" approach to emergency management.
"Based on your experience, what do you think is the appropriate level of FEMA involvement that enables states to maintain the lead in disaster response?" Strong asked the emergency managers assembled before the subcommittee.
WATCH: Chairman @RepDaleStrong asked Jeff Smitherman, Director of @AlabamaEMA, to discuss the appropriate level of FEMA involvement to empower states to take the lead in responding to natural disasters ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/sk6Qd7iGK6
— House Homeland GOP (@HomelandGOP) March 4, 2025
One of the witnesses called to testify, Jeff Smitherman, director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency (AEMA), said there's "a consensus on the lack of speed, consistency, and clarity from FEMA" with regard to federal intervention.
"I believe disaster preparedness, response, and recovery for all incidents start and end at the local level," Smitherman said.
Though they've set up Joint Field Offices (i.e. unified command centers) with FEMA before, Smitherman said, "Often, that's really not necessary for Alabama," given their state-managed disaster response systems. "We have had one small disaster where the cost of FEMA coming in and establishing the Joint Field Office almost exceeded the cost of the disaster itself," Smitherman recounted.
Accordingly, strained FEMA resources should be reserved for "the most catastrophic of events," Smitherman added.
"We are not a state that relies on FEMA during the response phase," Smitherman said. "But as far as I need, the biggest value to us for FEMA is during the recovery phase."
Whenever FEMA does show up on the scene, Smitherman said, "We just have got to figure out a way to make that more responsive, less complex, less bureaucratic, and actually get the funds down to the locals who are trying so desperately to get their communities put back in order after that disaster incident."
Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) commended Alabama, which is no stranger to large-scale natural disasters, for piloting an immediate state-level response, emphasizing how "freeing" it must be to be able to make independent decisions and save massive sums of taxpayer dollars in the process.
Watch @RepBrecheen lay out some of FEMA’s “mission creep” and ask @AlabamaEMA's director to share his experience in the wake of disaster⤵️
— House Homeland GOP (@HomelandGOP) March 4, 2025
“How freeing was that for you all to be able to make your own decisions...that you knew would save taxpayer dollars & immediately respond?” pic.twitter.com/OtnaCFnHfm
Smitherman called for increased priority placed on state and local capacities using existing Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) funding. "The states already build schools, parks, government buildings, etc. I believe we can rebuild better, quicker, and more efficiently in a system more like a block grant than the cumbersome system we currently use," he urged.
Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-NY), ranking member of the subcommittee, defended FEMA, saying they should strengthen the agency's ability to respond rather than limit it.
"Make no mistake about it: There is work to be done to improve FEMA, but dismantling its experienced workforce is reckless and dangerous as climate change fuels more frequent and severe disasters," Kennedy countered.
Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX) agreed. "We know that climate change is an escalating threat to our homeland security," she said, "and we would be lying to ourselves if we said a catastrophe like this is not on the rise and will not ever happen again."
"How can federal, state, and local governments effectively prepare for and respond to the growing climate threats without federal support, and what consequences will these cuts have on underserved communities?" Johnson questioned.
Timothy Manning, an Obama-appointed former FEMA official, replied: "The inability or at least the change in policy to disincentivize or even prohibit the consideration of climate change will have an incredibly detrimental effect on preparedness across the country."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member