logo
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know

Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know

Forbes4 days ago
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by)
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say

New York Post

time10 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say

WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'

Federal judge tosses Trump administration's ‘sanctuary city' lawsuit against Illinois
Federal judge tosses Trump administration's ‘sanctuary city' lawsuit against Illinois

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Federal judge tosses Trump administration's ‘sanctuary city' lawsuit against Illinois

A federal judge on Friday threw out a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to block sanctuary laws in Illinois that limit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In her ruling, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins said that the Tenth Amendment, which protects people from federal government overreach, shielded the decision of local law enforcement to avoid collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration agencies. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' Jenkins wrote of the suit, which named Illinois, Chicago and a series of local officials as defendants. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Illinois prevents local officials from providing immigration information 'not otherwise publicly available,' while Chicago bars them from responding to inquiries from ICE without a warrant. State officers are also barred from complying with immigration detainers. The Trump administration argued that the local laws were an 'intentional effort' to subvert federal immigration statutes and claimed that they facilitated the return of criminals to the public. Chicago was one of the first major fronts in the Trump administration's aggressive mass deportation campaign, with federal agents swarming the city in the weeks after the inauguration. The lawsuit was one of the first cases filed by the Trump administration against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

Exclusive: Lawyer of Grand Prairie councilman charged with assault says viral video doesn't tell the whole story
Exclusive: Lawyer of Grand Prairie councilman charged with assault says viral video doesn't tell the whole story

CBS News

time11 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Exclusive: Lawyer of Grand Prairie councilman charged with assault says viral video doesn't tell the whole story

CBS News Texas is hearing exclusively from the lawyer representing Grand Prairie Councilman Mike Del Bosque. The attorney said the video showing his client allegedly assaulting a man doesn't tell the whole story of what happened that day. Exclusive video released Wednesday is causing controversy in Grand Prairie. It shows Councilman Del Bosque allegedly assaulting a real estate broker in April. Police arrested and charged Del Bosque with misdemeanor assault and criminal mischief. "My response is the video that was shown does not show the events that took place before the altercation in the parking lot, Phillip Linder said. Attorney Phillip Linder represents Del Bosque. The video shows the councilman allegedly punching 60-year-old David Collantes, pushing him to the ground, and breaking his cell phone. It happened outside a medical office building on Carrier Parkway, which was owned by Del Bosque but in the process of being turned over to another owner after a default judgment. "David Collantes entered our client's private property through a back door," Linder said. "It was in a private office, uninvited. The female staff felt threatened, and when asked to leave, he used expletives," said Linder. Linder said Collantes and three other men entered the building and wouldn't leave when asked. "It really shouldn't surprise me how an attorney and politician can really twist the truth tighter than a large German pretzel that you could buy at the state fair," Collantes said. Collantes said Linder's allegations simply aren't true. "The people there that day were myself and another woman. Not two men, another woman and a male, so there's three people," Collantes said. "I never entered his business in the back door." Linder believes Del Bosque was acting in self-defense. "I've been talking with the D.A. She's given me till next Friday to produce our video, our photographs and our statement, which we're working on putting together," Linder said. "What happened was not self-defense, right? Mr. Del Bosque is not law enforcement, and if he believed that there was something wrong, what's the first thing we do? We call 911 and let the police handle it," Collantes said. Grand Prairie Mayor Ron Jensen sent CBS News Texas the following statement: "I am deeply concerned about what occurred, and the discredit the Councilmember's actions have brought to the City. I have directed City staff to place a vote to censure on the agenda for the next City Council meeting. The City Council will have the opportunity to respond accordingly on August 5." "I would ask them to wait for all the facts to come out, but their city council is their city council," Linder said. "I'm surprised it took this long. I mean, this the assault happened April 4th. Mr. Del Bosque was arrested April 10th, and they're getting around to it now almost four months later," Collantes said. Both sides have very different hopes for the future. "I hope that the Dallas County District Attorney will fairly, and I do mean fairly, properly prosecute this case that will start the restoration of my faith in the legal system," Collantes said. "We're hoping the outcome is the case either doesn't get filed or gets dismissed once it is filed," Linder said. "I mean, he was defending his office staff. The what's not shown on the video was that this man was very threatening." Collantes said it was the councilman who was threatening, even to Collantes' wife, who he said came with him to the property. "I cannot protect my wife from Mr. Del Bosque. That's something I have to live with, and that's why I'm not going to give this up," Collantes said. "I'm still working on getting statements from all of the staff. Some of them may have cell phone video and photographs that we're working on getting," Linder said. The August 5th Grand Prairie City Council meeting, where a vote on whether to censure the councilman is expected to happen, will be held at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store