
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry.
In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades.
This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms.
For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape?
A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by)
Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent.
Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs.
If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises.
State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority
Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities.
Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match.
The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void
Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish.
Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves.
If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory.
Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears.
Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses.
Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't?
Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes.
Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack:
That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash.
What Business Leaders Should Do Now
While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should:
FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Maria Shriver rips GOP bill to rename Kennedy Center after Trump: 'This is insane'
Maria Shriver is blasting a GOP congressman's bill that aims to rename the Kennedy Center after President Trump, calling the move "petty" and "small minded." "This is insane," Shriver, a women's health advocate and former President John F. Kennedy's niece, said about a bill introduced this month by Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) that would "designate the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as the 'Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts." "It makes my blood boil. It's so ridiculous, so petty, so small minded," said Shriver, the daughter of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Sargent Shriver. "Truly, what is this about? It's always about something," Shriver, 69, said. "'Let's get rid of the Rose Garden. Let's rename the Kennedy Center,'" Shriver said. "What's next?" the "I am Maria" author asked. Trump said in February that he planned to pave part of the Rose Garden at the White House — which was redesigned during the Kennedy administration — to create a patio similar to one at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida. In a statement about the bill potentially stripping Kennedy's name from the prominent Washington performing arts institution, Onder praised the commander in chief, saying, 'I cannot think of a more ubiquitous symbol of American exceptionalism in the arts, entertainment, and popular culture at large than President Trump.' The congressman's legislation came after House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee approved an amendment in July that would rename a space inside the Kennedy Center the "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House" as a way to recognize her "support and commitment to promoting the arts.' In a controversial move that prompted backlash, Trump ousted the Kennedy Center's board and named himself its chairman in February. He's accused the Kennedy Center, named in honor of the 35th president, of being too "woke." After touring the Kennedy Center in March, Trump vowed to "fix it up."


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Russia kills 22 in Ukraine despite Trump threats
Russia has continued its offensive, killing at least 22 people in Ukraine by launching ballistic missiles and glide bombs into multiple cities despite President Trump's threats to slap sanctions and shorten the timeline for Moscow to agree to a ceasefire. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 73 cities and villages came under Russia's overnight attack, including a hospital in Kamyanske and a correctional facility in the Zaporizhzhia region. Russia's military struck the city hospital in Kamyanske, killing three people, including a pregnant woman, according to Zelensky. 'Late yesterday, near midnight, Russian aircraft dropped bombs on the grounds of a correctional colony in the Zaporizhzhia region,' Zelensky said in a Tuesday morning post on social media platform X. 'It was a deliberate strike, intentional, not accidental. The Russians could not have been unaware that they were targeting civilians in that facility,' he added. 'Many were killed, and another 43 people were wounded, some of them with very severe injuries.' Trump said Monday during his trip to Scotland that he would move up the timeline to impose sanctions against Russia to 'about 10 or 12 days from today,' telling reporters that, 'we just don't see any progress being made.' 'You have bodies lying all over the street. And I say that's not the way to do it. So we'll see what happens with that. I'm very disappointed. I'm disappointed in President Putin,' the president said, standing alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. When asked about the president's remarks, Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin has 'taken note' of Trump's statement. 'We remain committed to a peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement,' Peskov told reporters on Tuesday, according to Reuters. Trump said in early July that he would slap 'severe' tariffs on Russia if Moscow did not reach a ceasefire with Kyiv within 50 days. The president also signaled the administration would institute a 100 percent 'secondary' tariff, going after countries that do business with Russia.


CNBC
6 minutes ago
- CNBC
Senate introduces bill for tariff rebate checks after Trump suggestion
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Monday introduced a bill to send tariff rebate checks to American families, which would be similar to the stimulus checks sent during the Covid-19 pandemic. If enacted, the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025 would provide "at least" $600 per adult and dependent child, or $2,400 for a family of four, according to a statement from Hawley. The bill allows for a larger rebate if tariff revenue exceeds projections. Whatever the final amount, the benefit would be reduced by 5% for joint filers with an adjusted gross income above $150,000 or single filers earning more than $75,000. The Senate bill comes after President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters the administration was "thinking about a little rebate" for Americans from tariff revenue. More from Personal Finance:Trump's tariffs could soon bring higher food prices for some AmericansAhead of the Fed meeting, here's where borrowing rates standEven many high-earning Americans don't feel wealthy. Here's why "Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country," Hawley said in a statement. However, it's unclear whether the proposal has broad Republican support, particularly among fiscally conservative lawmakers. Earlier this year, Trump and Elon Musk floated a $5,000 dividend check for Americans, funded by savings from the Department of Government of Efficiency. However, that idea has not happened. The Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus for June, with a boost from tariff revenue. Customs duties totaled roughly $27 billion for the month, compared to $23 billion in May. The duties reflect a 301% gain from June 2024. The tariff rebate check proposal comes as a chorus of lawmakers and policy experts voice concerns about the federal budget deficit. "I don't think [a rebate] would be particularly good policy," Tax Foundation senior economist Alex Durante told CNBC on Friday. "I would prefer that the revenue was used for deficit reduction rather than just cutting checks to people." Enacted in early July, Trump's "one big beautiful" tax-and-spending package could add an estimated $3.4 trillion to the deficit through 2034, according to a conventional score released by the Congressional Budget Office this week. The motivation for sending the direct payments would be different than they were during the Covid pandemic, when many households were losing income or unable to work, said Joseph Rosenberg, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's tax and income supports division. Now, the federal government is imposing tariffs that will cost U.S. households, and this would be a way of helping those individuals and families, Rosenberg said. Tariffs are a tax imposed by foreign nations, paid by domestic companies that import goods or services. U.S. consumers are expected to pay higher prices via companies negatively impacted by the trade policy. An analysis from The Budget Lab at Yale released Monday found Trump's tariffs could cost U.S. households an average of $2,400 in 2025. Because Congress just passed the very expensive "big beautiful" budget and tax legislation, rebates to individuals could exacerbate the effects on the federal budget deficit, he said. The rebates would reinforce the inflationary effects of the tariffs that already exist, Rosenberg said. "People will go out and spend some of that money, and that would further put upward pressure on prices and probably magnify inflationary effects," Rosenberg said. Pandemic-era fiscal stimulus contributed to an increase in inflation of about 2.6 percentage points in the U.S., according to 2023 research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.