Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council; Notice of Meeting

A retired law enforcement officer expresses support for FEMA's role in providing essential training and education to first responders. They argue that potential budget cuts could create dangerous gaps in emergency preparedness and public safety.

Texas Appleseed, a nonpartisan nonprofit, opposes the FEMA Review Council's recommendations, arguing they would reduce federal assistance for individuals and under-resourced communities. They contend that the proposed reforms unfairly shift financial and operational burdens to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments that lack the capacity to manage them.

The National Taxpayers Union supports the FEMA Review Council's Final Report, which aims to reduce taxpayer burdens by emphasizing individual responsibility, increasing state and local disaster capacity, and reforming the National Flood Insurance Program. They argue that while the report's goals are beneficial for fiscal responsibility, the council must remain realistic about the political challenges and implementation hurdles involved in transitioning to a more privatized and risk-based system.

A coalition of fire and emergency services organizations, including the Congressional Fire Services Institute, provides a mixed response to the FEMA Review Council's proposed reforms. While they support the recognition of key federal programs and systems like IPAWS and NIMS, they express significant concern that proposed shifts toward a "locally led" model and higher disaster declaration thresholds could unfairly burden local governments without sufficient federal funding and resources.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) opposes the FEMA review council's final report, arguing that it ignores climate science and attempts to shift the burden of disaster response and funding onto state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. They specifically criticize recommendations to reduce federal oversight, privatize flood insurance, and consolidate individual assistance programs, which they argue would harm vulnerable communities.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) opposes many of the significant proposals in the FEMA Review Council Final Report, arguing that they are based on flawed assumptions and would undermine existing federal-state partnerships. They specifically argue against large-scale NFIP privatization, the reduction of state authority in hazard mitigation, and radical changes to Individual Assistance, while instead advocating for increased investment in flood mapping, state capacity building, and workforce support.

A retired military special operations officer and former Senior Intelligence Officer for the Department of Defense proposes a radical restructuring of FEMA into a new "National Disaster Response Agency" (NDRA). The commenter argues that FEMA's current culture is burdened by bureaucracy and "mission creep," and advocates for a "cultural reset" involving stricter performance standards, austere training, and a more disciplined, military-style organizational model.

The Arizona Floodplain Management Association (AFMA) opposes the proposed reforms to the NFIP and disaster assistance funding, arguing that they shift an unsustainable fiscal burden onto state, local, and tribal governments. They contend that the proposals will lead to unaffordable insurance for homeowners, reduced mitigation funding for impoverished communities, and a lack of resources to manage flood risks effectively.

The Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), representing property and casualty reinsurers, supports the Final Report's recommendations for FEMA reform. They advocate for a phased approach that emphasizes public-private partnerships, expands private-sector participation in flood insurance and risk sharing, and maintains federal investment in science-based hazard data and mapping.

Miami-Dade County, Florida, Department of Emergency Management supports the FEMA Review Council's recommendations to reform disaster response and recovery. However, the County emphasizes that any reforms must include sustained funding, technical assistance, and clear definitions of roles to ensure that administrative burdens or significant costs are not shifted onto local governments.