Category: Weblogs

Mythmaking: Turning Fact Into Fiction

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

If you’ve been following my blog for any length of time, you’re probably aware that I have a penchant for history. I believe history has a lot to teach us and there are common themes that seem to repeat throughout history that have a bearing on current affairs. For example, Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century takes its title from her premise that the crises of the 14th century were reflected in the late 20th century. Similarly, Heather Cox Richardson’s Wounded Knee: Party Politics and the Road to an American Massacre describes political corruption in the late 19th century that is eerily similar to what we are observing with the current administration.

However, one of the most interesting issues for me has always been the truth behind myths. In many cases, we find that many myths do have a historical basis. The problem is that the facts behind a myth are often altered for a variety of reasons. We must ask ourselves what it is that makes myth so enduring and why do they persist, even when the truth is well known.

Some of variation between reality and myth is understandable and can be put down to misinformation that has changed in the retelling of an event. A myth is often the product of oral tradition, and it may be centuries before it is written down. Consider the classic works of Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey. Homer is believed to have composed them as an oral recitation some 400 years after the events at Troy and were not written down until over 200 years later.

In other cases, events may be deliberately exaggerated to inspire. The Battle of Roncevaux Pass in 875 CE that resulted in the death of the legendary French knight Roland was an ambush of Charlemagne’s rearguard by Basque soldiers in retaliation for his burning of Pamplona. However, the myth changed the Basque to Saracens and had Roland dying heroically, creating one of the most influential myths of the Middle Ages.

Exaggeration can sometimes cross the line into deliberate disinformation, done for political purposes. Nero’s fabled fiddling while Rome burned in 64 CE was propaganda fomented by his political enemies. He was, in fact, heavily involved in coordinating relief efforts. During World War I, British newspapers were instrumental in spreading a false narrative that the Germans had a processing plant that boiled the corpses of dead soldiers to make oil, fat, and soap, dehumanizing the German army and turning public opinion against what was perceived as a brutal enemy.

In addition to misinformation and disinformation, mythmaking also relies on those that create the myths. We’ve mentioned Homer, who may or may not actually existed, but other poets have done their bit. The myth of Paul Revere’s famous “midnight ride” is famous because of the poem written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow during the American Civil War to inspire patriotism. There were two other riders riding with him that night and a young girl of 16, Sybil Ludington, rode 40 miles, twice the distance of Revere, to bring the warning to the militia of a British attack on Danbury. Horatius defending the bridge at Rome against the Etruscans in 508 BCE might have been just a footnote in history if not for Thomas Babington Macaulay’s famous poem. And what would have become of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854 if Alfred Lord Tennyson had not written his famous poem?

Our modern world has largely turned away from poetry, but the mythmakers still exist and are even more effective with advent of social media. X recently unveiled a new feature that reveals the location of users and the results demonstrate that mythmakers are still very much with us. According to news stories, a large percentage of high‑profile MAGA and related right‑wing influencers are based outside the U.S. and thought to be foreign actors using social media to try to reshape American society. Here are some examples gleaned from media sources:
• America First, 67,000 followers, Bangladesh.
• Americaman: 15,000 followers, Indonesia.
• American Patriot: 140,000 followers, Chile.
• Dark Maga: 15,000 followers, Thailand.
• IvankaNews: one million followers, Nigeria.
• MAGA & World: 3,000 followers, East Asia and the Pacific.
• Maga Nadine: 390,000 followers, Morocco.
• MAGA Scope: 51,000 followers, Nigeria, while MAGA Beacon is based in south Asia.
• MAGA: 1000 followers, Germany.
• MAGANationX: 400,000 followers, eastern Europe.

This brings us to the third component of mythmaking: the need for people to believe in the myth. Myths are accepted because people want to believe them. Myths frequently mirror beliefs already held by the recipient, what psychologists call confirmation bias, or speak to emotions that resonant strongly with the recipient. In addition, constant repetition of disinformation creates what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where the constant repetition of a statement makes it more likely to be believed as true. This is why changing peoples’ minds with facts really has little success when a myth has taken hold. There will always be those who are not prepared to surrender closely held beliefs. For the rest, the only leverage we have is to go after the source: the misinformation or disinformation that is at the root of the myth.

In Technology We Trust

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Guest Contribution by Michael Martinet, CEM

Go to a trade show, ANY trade show, and technology vendors of one sort or another, be they physical equipment or digital services, are the dominant presence. Nowhere is this more the case, than at an emergency management, disaster response, terrorism, or crisis management conference.
These cutting-edge technologies, especially including Artificial Intelligence, promise deliverance from whatever shortfalls bedevil the viewer’s respective discipline or program. If there’s a problem, there’s allegedly a technology fix on display, be it faster, more accurate, or more omnisciently able to analyze the respective data.

As is often the case, the individual technology not only promises to provide solutions to both the current perceived problem(s), and whatever unpleasant problems may possibly pop up in the indistinct near future.

Naturally, there is an often-substantial upcharge for these future features, and there is also the matter of the associated training costs, and the annual maintenance fees to maintain the usefulness and viability of the particular product or service in question. Thus, the actual life cycle costs can often be quite indeterminate; especially when the application of the technology turns out to be a spectacular flop.
Twenty or so years ago, in Southern California, during a very large wild fire, a notification technology, as advertised, sent an evacuation warning out to the community via local television, at THREE o’clock in the morning, a brain-dead mis-application of a possibly otherwise useful tool, insofar as almost all of the viewing public would have been asleep at that time.

On the flip side of the coin, the 2018 Hawaii false missile alert sent the Islands into a thoroughly confused status. Approximately one-quarter of the residents believed the alert, and nearly the same fraction did not believe the broadcast, with almost one-half not knowing either way.

An important consideration in the procurement and application of any technology are the inherent promises which the product or system promises to deliver, albeit usually under ideal conditions. Few technological solutions(?) will be able to deliver all that is promised.

Some years ago, I worked with a city of 140,000 population, within a much larger metropolitan area which also had a major petroleum refinery. Thanks to and because of the presence of the refinery, the city had no less than seven different types of notification protocols and technologies, due in part to the unpleasant fact that no single protocol or technology could guarantee 100% notification in the event of a problem at the refinery.

In one instance, when the warning sirens went off, the prevailing winds were blowing opposite from their normal flow, and the sound of the sirens were heard in a neighboring city, where the citizens had no idea what the siren’s warning meant, and naturally the city in which the sirens were located got less than the planned level of warning.

Technology is only a crude tool when mis-applied. It’s using a hammer to cut a board and using a saw to pound a nail.

The key element always is effective, proper, and understanding human control of the technology.
Looking back at the tragic floods that affected Texas this past summer, one of the frequently raised questions was regarding the lack of warning sirens. The sheriff was allegedly asleep, the emergency manager was supposedly off sick, and many of the locals were not concerned in spite of the broadcast warnings. What good would warning sirens have done to bring this picture into sharp actionable focus and actually save lives?

Just weeks earlier, in St. Louis, the responsible parties allegedly failed to use the existing warning siren system when a devastating tornado struck the City. The siren system was, by the way, very old, and apparently ill-maintained, so there’s no way to know if it would have worked, and if so, its warning was believed and acted upon by the citizens.

In the emergency management world, technology often presents the promise of timely and effective warning, often delivering neither. Sometimes indeed it is a failure of the technology itself, but quite often the failure resides in the hands and minds of the human behind the magic button.

Until humans wake up and take serious account of their responsibilities to their citizens will the ephemeral promise of technology begin to be even slightly realized. Signing off on the purchase order for a specific technology is not in and of itself a solution, it is the beginning of a very long-term and serious commitment.

Michael Martinet is Principal with The Martinet Group, LLC, specializing in teaching Disaster Finance and Cost Recovery programs. He is the author of Fighting With FEMA: A Practical Regulations Handbook.

Have We Become Too Dependent On The Federal Government?

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsTagged ,

Those who read my blog regularly know I am not a supporter of many of the emergency management policies espoused by the current Republican administration. Let me be clear from the start. I do not support politicizing disaster relief. Nor do I support withholding relief funds because of the optics of asking for additional allocations to the disaster relief fund or withdrawing funds allocated by Congress for mitigation projects. However, holding to the theory that a broken clock is right twice a day, I do think that the administration’s avowed intention to “return emergency response to the states” does have some merit and raises questions that might be worth discussing.
If we look at disaster declarations over time, we note that they have increased significantly. Based on FEMA data, the average number of Presidential disaster declarations in the 1960’s was 18.6. This rose to 57.1 in the early 2000’s. However, during the period 2020-2024, Presidential declarations averaged 164 per year. This can be partially attributed to the increased frequency and magnitude of disasters resulting from climate change. For example, prior to 1994 the most common disaster in the US was flooding. It has gradually shifted to fires, with recent Palisades Fire in California an example of how climate change has increased the risk of major fires.
However, not all disasters can be attributed to climate change, and the increased frequency of declarations raises the question of whether communities have come to see the federal government as the insurer of last resort. Many communities rely on self-insurance using emergency funds or simply retain the risk, betting that a disaster won’t occur and that the federal government will make them whole. There are also communities that cannot afford to fund the resources needed to adequately respond to disasters. Would limiting the availability of federal disaster relief encourage increased investment in emergency preparedness? It might, but it would require an increase in federal preparedness funding, something that the current administration seems determined to eliminate based on its clawback of mitigation funding and halting distribution of Emergency Management Preparedness Grant (EMPG) funds.
Federal funding under the EMPG program has contributed in an odd fashion to limits on preparedness in some communities. I’ve encountered a few communities where the emergency management budget is limited to the EMPG funds received and any matching requirements. In one jurisdiction, the emergency management program coordination was performed as an additional duty by a secretary because of funding limitations. (In this case, the government got a bargain – she was a real professional who took the job seriously.) Would cutting EMPG funds stimulate communities to better fund local emergency management programs as the current administration seems intent on doing, or would local programs simply cease to exist? Currently funds are distributed based on a fixed amount plus an amount determined by population. Could a reduction to the amount provided to larger communities that have the resources to fund an emergency program be used to provide increased funding to less affluent jurisdictions?
Emergency managers are well aware of the return on investment on funds spent on mitigation. If we are indeed seeking to encourage communities to be more resilient, stimulating investment in mitigation measures must play a critical role. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the opposite occurring. For example, the current administration froze a $20 million grant to Alaska earlier this year that would help mitigate future disasters such as the floods that affected Kipnuk, Kwigillingok, and other Alaskan communities. Funds were frozen so the Environmental Protection Agency could conduct a review of all grants that had to do with what they refer to as “climate justice.” This could well affect any grants that support mitigation projects focused on natural hazards.
I’ve previously written about the importance of FEMA beyond disaster relief (see my blog post What The Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA), so I won’t go into detail here. The issue here is that if we push increased responsibility on states without the support of an agency that coordinates doctrine and standards, we risk each state creating its own version of how disaster relief should be administered. Mechanisms that support mutual aid, such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) or the Incident Command System, would lose their effectiveness, leaving states to “go it alone.”
To summarize, the concept of encouraging states to be more self-reliant is not in itself a bad thing. However, it is not a cost-saving measure nor a simplification of the administration of disaster relief. It would require an increase in pre-disaster funding and a redirection of much of that funding to states lacking the resources to create effective emergency management programs. It could mean the loss of a coordinated national system and its replacement with a patchwork of different programs. Not a good plan.

Returning EM Responsibilities to the States. How’s That Working For You?

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

As we’re all aware, the current administration has constantly stated that they want to return responsibility for disaster relief back to the states. The mechanism to accomplish this is largely through either the elimination or significant restructuring of FEMA and transferring responsibility for administration of the Disaster Relief Fund to the Whitehouse. While we could debate the usefulness of a FEMA with no access to relief funds, the sad fact is that the Whitehouse is already calling the shots on relief funding.

In the past, the President made the decision on declaring a disaster quickly. During my time at FEMA Region IX, it was not unusual to come to work in the morning and be on a plane that evening. Now requests are not processed as received but are batch processed, delaying a response by weeks or even months. According to data compiled by Carnegie’s Disaster Dollar Database, disaster requests are being processed on roughly a bi-monthly basis. The data shows one gap of fifty-one days between July and September, despite a series of severe storms and flooding in the Midwest and Great Plains.

So, what’s the big deal? The problem is that without a declaration FEMA has no authority to provide the direct federal response needed in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. This means it can not deploy, establish a joint field office, or fund mission assignments to other federal agencies. This is important because, by definition, a disaster exceeds the resources available to state and local governments and direct federal response becomes critical in filling the gap. In addition, the federal government has specialized resources not normally available in most states.

The public perception is that FEMA is all about providing disaster relief funding, forgetting this direct response mission. However, programs such as Individual Assistance are also dependent on the timing of a Presidential Disaster Declaration. FEMA cannot take applications for assistance without the funding provided by a declaration, meaning that immediate assistance to displaced survivors suffers from substantial delays. This translates to no immediate assistance such as intermediate sheltering or home repair funds.

To make matters worse, while the Disaster Relief Fund is still solvent, it is expected to end the fiscal year with a barely positive balance according to the August report to Congress. Consequently, FEMA has been operating as if under an Immediate Needs Status by prioritizing immediate response needs over reimbursing jurisdictions for recovery activities. What this means is that jurisdictions in recovery mode are suffering substantial delays in reimbursements, with a resultant impact on municipal budgets. In some cases, the delayed funding can far exceed a jurisdictions annual budget.

The delays in deploying FEMA and reimbursing jurisdictions for recovery expenditures share a common thread: the desire to reduce the impact on the Disaster Relief Fund and prevent the need to request additional funding from Congress before the end of the fiscal year. This a clear case of prioritizing appearance over substance. Given the high likelihood that there will be a government shutdown, the situation is liable to get worse before it improves.

The problem is compounded by the refusal of the administration to recognize the importance of mitigation. On April 4, the President became the first President in 27 years to refuse a request for disaster mitigation funding in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for Virginia. In an April 21st memo, then FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton recommended that the President not automatically approve funding for hazard mitigation in disaster declarations and this has largely been the case since.

Also in April, FEMA ended the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), cancelled all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, and froze $3.6 billion of unspent funds that had been approved for states. The BRIC program was the successor to the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program and was intended to assist communities in preparing for disasters before they occurred. Since funds were allocated and applications approved, many communities had already let contracts and begun capital projects, and the cancellation of federal funding will mean the cancellation of many of these initiatives.

This is the emergency management program we are being offered by the Republican Administration. Expect to handle a crisis that exceeds your resources without the deployment of federal resources to assist. Be prepared to fund relief for individuals and communities. Find your own funding to make your community safer. There’s talk of block grants that can be used by states, but will you be able to administer it? Given the administration’s demonstrated unwillingness to spend money already allocated for disaster relief, can you be assured it will even be available?

Yeah, how’s that working for you?

IAEM-USA Petition Update

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

In last month’s blog, Fighting Back, I asked you to consider signing a petition calling for the International Association of Emergency Managers to enforce its Code of Conduct. While the petition was not formally sent to IAEM, has responded to the concerns we raised in the petition. I recently received the following message regarding IAEM’s response.

Hello friends,

Thank you for adding your name to our petition asking that IAEM enforce its Professional Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Given IAEM’s response to the petition as outlined below, we have decided not to formally send the petition to the IAEM Board of Directors at this time. Below are the four requests included in our letter, and a summary of how IAEM has addressed our requests:

  1. Issue a clear statement clarifying the role of emergency managers in the United States and condemning the participation of emergency managers in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants. On September 4, 2025, IAEM released a written statement making the organization’s position clear that “emergency management exists to safeguard lives and property, protect communities, and foster resilience through thoughtful, evidence-based strategies”; that “[e]very decision we make should reflect our responsibility to uphold public trust”; and that “[a]bove all, emergency managers should do what they can to ensure emergency management remains a discipline rooted in compassion and service to all people as we work to build safer communities.” https://www.iaem.org/Groups/Councils-Global-Regions/IAEM-USA-Council/August-2025-President-Statement.
  2. Hold those who have violated the current Code of Conduct accountable by revoking their Certified Emergency Manager (CEM®) or Associate Emergency Manager (AEM®) credentials of those who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights.
    In a separate statement issued on September 3, 2025, to IAEM member and CEM Matt Green, the IAEM Presidential team stated that it has engaged with the Certification Commission leadership “to examine potential implications for applications that reference any work completed in the planning, construction, and operation of any detention facility for immigrants anywhere in the US and around the world,” and has “emphasized that the Commission must ensure its processes are prepared to evaluate applications that include experience within detention facilities.” The statement further indicates that the Presidential team has directed the Commission to “ensure we conduct a fair evaluation of emergency management work while confirming, and being absolutely certain, that no activity described in an application violates IAEM’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Additionally, they will continue to ensure that any experience or documentation submitted upholds the principles of emergency management.” https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-e1cON6NrSi5ehn9O2vertw08YECy3c.
    IAEM further indicates in this statement that it has “coordinated with IAEM’s legal counsel and the Executive Director to ensure operational readiness to address any complaint that is received, supported by evidence, involving an IAEM member or AEM®/CEM® certification holder. Should any member suspect that another member, or a certificate holder, is violating the code or engaging in illegal activity, our system and processes stand ready to evaluate each complaint . . . .” https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-e1cON6NrSi5ehn9O2vertw08YECy3c.
    The IAEM complaint process can be found at https://www.iaem.org/Complaint-Procedure.
  3. Update the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct to make it clear that emergency managers who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights violate the Code and may be disciplined as a result
    For now, given IAEM’s statements as cited above, it appears the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct addresses the issues presented by participation in depriving people perceived to be immigrants of their rights. See https://www.iaem.org/Portals/25/documents/Bylaws%20and%20Apps/IAEM-USA-APPs-Board-Approved.pdf. (p. 29-31.) For example, the Code provides that “IAEM-USA members have a primary duty of loyalty to the communities they serve and the environments they impact. Their work should uphold high ethical standards and respect for human dignity.” (p. 29.) In addition, the Code requires that members of IAEM act with respect for “the people we serve through compliance with the laws, regulations, and recognized standards is essential in maintaining integrity and trust in our professional and community relationships.”
    Similar requirements apply to those who have achieved IAEM certification as an AEM® or CEM®. See https://www.iaem.org/Portals/IAEMcertified/Documents/Resources/Professional-Ethics-and-Conduct-Guide.pdf.
  4. Keep members of the profession informed on a regular basis as to the steps IAEM-USA is taking to address this issue
    The statements issued by IAEM are a good first step in communicating IAEM’s position and its willingness to enforce the Code in the event of violations. We believe IAEM can do a better job of being transparent in their disciplinary actions while still maintaining privacy, but that is an issue for another day.

All that said, we encourage you to contact IAEM directly to express your thoughts, especially if you feel that the points in our letter were not fully addressed. We believe it is especially important that IAEM hear from anyone who made a decision to renew, rejoin, or to leave the organization based on these issues. We also believe it is particularly important for IAEM to hear from people who refrained from signing the petition out of fear. Anything we can collectively do to address that fear will only help the organization and the profession.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, MPH, CEM
Sarah Miller, PhD, CEM
Edie Schaffer, JD, CEM

Powered by WordPress

Fighting Back

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

EthicsIn troubled times such as these one of the biggest problems for many people is a feeling of powerlessness as we face a much stronger opponent. In lieu of my usual article, I’d like to offer two options for making our collective voices heard.

The first is an email I just received from my colleague, Edie Schaffer, in which she calls for the International Association of Emergency Managers to enforce its Code of Conduct. Edie writes:

 I am reaching out to ask you, as a current or former member of the International Association of Emergency Managers-USA Council (IAEM-USA), or as someone who has achieved the CEM® or AEM® credential from IAEM, to join me in signing a petition to the Board of Directors of IAEM-USA. The petition calls on the IAEM-USA Board to protect our profession by making it clear that emergency managers in the United States who assist in detaining people perceived to be immigrants are acting outside the scope of the profession and may be disciplined.

Over the past months, we have seen a growing number of emergency management agencies actively assisting federal immigration officials in establishing and operating detention centers for immigrants. These actions violate IAEM-USA’s Professional Code of Conduct, which provides that:

  • Emergency managers must “[s]erve communities with dedication, fairness, and impartiality";
  • IAEM-USA “does not tolerate discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, or other protected characteristics"; and
  • Emergency managers must “[t]reat . . . the public with dignity and respect."

Yet, despite the apparent violations of its Code of Conduct by emergency managers who participate in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants, IAEM-USA has taken no action.

The petition calls on the IAEM-USA Board of Directors to take the following steps:

  • Issue a clear public statement clarifying the role of emergency managers in the United States and condemning the participation of emergency managers in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants.
  • Hold those who have violated the current Code of Conduct accountable by revoking their Certified Emergency Manager (CEM®) or Associate Emergency Manager (AEM®) credentials of those who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights.
  • Update the Code of Conduct to make it clear that emergency managers who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights violate the Code and may be disciplined as a result.
  • Keep members of the profession informed on a regular basis as to the steps IAEM-USA is taking to address this issue.

I hope you will join me in signing the petition, which is here: https://forms.gle/A8czpL8iyQAyZw66A

I also encourage you to share the link to the petition with colleagues you trust who are either current or former members of IAEM-USA, or who have earned the AEM or CEM credential.

Even if you are not a member of IAEM, the actions that Edie describes also violate the Foundational Tennents our recently adopted Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Managers Professionals. You can find a copy on my website at https://luciencanton.com/?page_id=293. If we are ever to truly become a profession, enforceable ethical standards are essential. I encourage you to review and sign the petition. You do not have to be a member of IAEM to sign the petition.

The second option is to support the recent action by a group of FEMA employees who recently sent a letter to Congress stating that the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) “… introduced safeguards to ensure the shortcomings of disaster preparation and response would not be repeated. However, two decades later, FEMA is enacting processes and leadership structures that echo the conditions PKEMRA was designed to prevent” (see the full document at https://www.standupforscience.net/fema-katrina-declaration ).

The letter identifies six “Statements of Opposition” that the signatories oppose:

  • The reduction in capability of FEMA to perform its missions.
  • The ongoing failure to appoint a qualified FEMA administrator, as required by law.
  • The elimination of life- and cost-saving risk reduction programs.
  • Interference with preparedness programs that build capacity for state, local, tribal, and territorial partners.
  • The censorship of climate science, environmental protection, and efforts to ensure all communities have access to information, resources, and support.
  • The reduction of FEMA’s disaster workforce.

Further, the signatories petition Congress to:

  • Establish FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency in the executive branch.
  • Defend the agency from further interference from DHS, including illegal impoundments of appropriated funding; ensuring FEMA retains its full authority, responsibilities, functions, and capabilities to perform its missions.
  • Protect FEMA employees from politically motivated firings and ensure continued protection under merit-based personnel systems.
  • Demand transparency from OMB, DOGE, and FEMA leadership regarding internal employment policies and future agency reductions.

Given the current political climate, this is an incredible act of bravery on the part of the 191 signatories, particularly the 36 who have allowed their names to be used. I encourage you to read their petition and to add your name to their Statement of Solidarity and Support https://www.standupforscience.net/katrina-declaration-support-statement.

These may seem like small steps that may have little impact, but I assure you that unless we make our voices heard, nothing will change for the better.

Who’s Really In Charge of a Disaster?

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Black-death-opener.adapt.1900.1 (1)

At the second public meeting of the FEMA Review Council on July 9th, the Secretary of Homeland Security repeated in her opening statement much of the disinformation that has been circulating about FEMA. Among these was the need to return leadership for disasters to the state. This need to “stop FEMA from supplanting the states” was a theme that was repeated by many of the speakers. With August being designated Emergency Management Awareness Month, this question of who leads in a disaster is one that should be addressed with the public.

The role of the federal government in disaster relief is one that has evolved over time, largely in response to focusing events, major disasters that created a demand for action by the federal government. Initially, however, disaster relief was considered a state responsibility. The Constitution does not assign specific powers for disaster relief to the federal government, so under the 10th Amendment, these powers were assumed to be reserved to the states. This issue would resurface frequently as the federal disaster bureaucracy developed.

In those occasions where the federal government did involve itself in disaster relief, it was as the result of individual bills and was normally limited to economic relief from federal excise taxes. There were exceptions, such as compensation for citizens following the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94) and the War of 1812 and the land transference scheme following the New Madrid earthquake in 1811 but generally the federal government did not provide general relief bills. By the end of the 19th Century, however, general relief bills were becoming increasingly common, despite claims that such relief was unconstitutional. By the beginning of the 20th Century a combination of factors such the growth of urban areas with their concentration of people and complex infrastructure, major disasters such as the Great Chicago Fire (1871, the Johnston Flood (1889), and the San Francisco earthquake and fires (1906), and the emerging role of the American Red Cross in disaster relief led to an increased role of the federal government in disaster relief and the beginnings of a disaster bureaucracy.

Despite the growth of the disaster bureaucracy, the leadership of state and local governments in disaster relief was never in question, sometimes to the detriment of citizens. In Plagues in the Nation: How Epidemics Shaped America, historian Polly J. Price traces how the commitment to states’ rights and individual liberties often hindered the response to epidemics. In the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, where Herbert Hoover served as what later become the Federal Coordination Officer, Hoover worked through state governors and local officials rather than taking direct charge.

When FEMA was created in 1979, it was through a transfer of existing funding programs from other agencies. FEMA was considered at the time as a “third responder” that would provide relief funds following a disaster. This would change following Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and particularly Hurricane Andrew in 1992 where FEMA was accused of taking too long to respond. The reason given by FEMA was that the Stafford Act required a governor’s request before FEMA could act. This criticism and the continued public demand would result in changes that allowed FEMA to pre-deploy personnel and resources in anticipation of a major disaster.

Despite this new role, FEMA was expected to defer to the state. FEMA personnel could be deployed to a state emergency operations center to ensure rapid response to state requests for direct federal assistance and, following an event, could establish a Joint Field Office with state representatives but the Stafford Act is clear that the state and, by extension, the local government has the lead on response:

302 (c) When the President determines assistance under this Act is necessary, he shall request that the Governor of the affected State designate a State coordinating officer for the purpose of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.

303 The President shall form emergency support teams of Federal personnel to be deployed in an area affected by a major disaster or emergency. Such emergency support teams shall assist the Federal coordinating officer in carrying out his responsibilities pursuant to this Act…Each emergency response team shall work in coordination with State and local officials and onsite personnel associated with a particular incident.

401…as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct execution of the State’s emergency plan.

So, what’s the problem? The most visible part of FEMA’s response is the Individual Assistance Program. It is also the one that creates the most visible problems. It is a convoluted program that involves multiple funding streams and relies heavily on verification by contract employees with often limited training and familiarity with FEMA regulations. State and local agencies have limited involvement with the program. There is considerable research that strongly suggests that the program is skewed against people of color and those with low incomes. Many attempts have been made over the years to improve the program with limited results. Reforming this program would go a long way to improving both the delivery of disaster relief to survivors and to enhancing the reputation of the agency.

To be clear, both by law and by tradition, state and local governments are responsible for disasters affecting their communities. When they request assistance from the federal government, the Stafford Act requires:

302 Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.

That federal assistance is provided at the request of and in coordination with state and local governments. FEMA does not supplant, it supports.

Is It Possible to Save FEMA?

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

FEMA
Last month I offered some thoughts on why I thought that the fate of FEMA had already been decided (Is FEMA a “Dead Man Walking?). Sadly, this has proven to be prophetic. On June 10, the President announced that he would dismantle FEMA after the hurricane season, which ends on November 30th and shift responsibility for response and recovery to the states. Diminished funding for disaster relief would be disbursed directly from the President’s office.

This renders moot any report that might be prepared by the FEMA Review Council. As I mentioned last April (President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”), the Council membership is clearly stacked against FEMA and the Council has not exactly been making much effort. It’s inaugural meeting was just held on May 20. You can view the proceedings at https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/video/60813.

Of note were remarks by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who co-chairs the Council along with the Secretary of Defence, in which she stated:

Let me be clear about the future of this agency. The president wants it to be eliminated as it exists. So, I don’t want you to go into this thinking that we’re going to make a little tweak here, a little delegation of authority over here, that we’re going to maybe cut a few dollars somewhere. No, FEMA should no longer exist as it is. He wants this to be a new agency, something that understands its role in emergency response. That is our direction from the President of the United States. And as we go forward, everything will be viewed from that lens.

It is clear from this and other comments that many members of the Council are continuing to confuse immediate response, which has always been the responsibility of local government, with the disaster relief FEMA provides. This is a bit surprising, considering that many of the Council members have had direct experience with FEMA support in disasters.

It will be interesting to see how the Council will be able to follow these marching orders and recommend dismantling FEMA when much of the input they are receiving suggests just the opposite. You may recall that in March, DHS requested public input on their experiences with FEMA. By the time the comment period closed on May 15, over 11,000 comments were received. Of those, over 99% were supportive of FEMA and its mission and urged that the agency continue, albeit with good-faith reforms. You can find a breakdown of the data at  https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/FEMA_RFI-Summary_of_Public_Comments-FINAL.pdf.

In addition to this show of public support, on April 14, over 40 community organizations signed a letter to Congress opposing the dismantling of FEMA. National emergency management organizations such as the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and the National Emergency Managers Association (NEMA) also oppose the dismantling of FEMA and support reform.

Given this level of support, can FEMA be saved? It’s clear that the Republican administration has already decided that FEMA must go, so any attempt to save and reform FEMA will be an uphill battle. However, the executive branch does not have the authority to dismantle an agency; that can only be done by Congress. Pressure on legislators may yield results.

So, what can be done? Here are some ideas:

  • Educate elected officials at all levels: IAEM is launching an initiative to make August National Emergency Management Awareness Month. The initiative is essentially a coordinated outreach program intended to reach elected leaders, private sector and nonprofit leaders, and organizational or community decision-makers. The IAEM website contains suggestions for activities and provides resources to help.
  • Mobilize your constituency: Emergency managers don’t often think of themselves as having a constituency, but volunteers that support us such as Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Red Cross shelter teams, and HAM radio groups have already demonstrated a commitment to emergency management. They may well be willing to help with outreach and advocacy and letter writing campaigns.
  • Encourage “official positions” – Many jurisdictions have a procedure for taking official positions on proposed legislation. Learn the process and propose having your jurisdiction support the continuation of FEMA.
  • Leverage lobbyists – Large jurisdictions often maintain paid lobbyists at the state and federal levels. They support a jurisdiction’s official positions at those levels. If your jurisdiction has a team of lobbyists, learn how to use them.
  • Participate in emergency management organizations: Join your state emergency management organization and encourage them to take an official position supporting FEMA. Consider joining IAEM, which has a team that lobbies Congress on our behalf.
  • Monitor and support proposed reform legislation: There are several bills in Congress intended to reform FEMA. For example, R.5599 – FEMA Independence Act of 2023 would make FEMA an independent agency and return it to cabinet rank. In May, Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rick Larsen (D-WA) released a “discussion draft” of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025. The draft bill proposes making FEMA an independent cabinet agency and would mandate many of the reforms that have been suggested over the years. It is essential that you be aware of bills like these and, as appropriate, support them using the methods described above.

Having spent seven years with FEMA, I well know that the agency is not perfect. But over the years, I have seen it grow and adapt under the guidance of professional emergency managers like James Lee Witt and Craig Fugate. It is light years ahead of where it was when I started and has helped build an emergency management system that is not perfect but still damn effective. Dismantling the agency would negate all the gains we have made over the last seven decades. We can’t let this happen.

Is FEMA a “Dead Man Walking?”

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Hamilton
On May 7, the Acting FEMA Administrator, Cameron Hamilton, appeared before the House Appropriations Committee. Hamilton has few qualifications for the job beyond loyalty to the President. So, it came as a stunning surprise when he praised the FEMA staff as “one of the greatest workforces in the entire federal government” and provide a realistic appraisal of needed improvements in the agency. When questioned about the possibility of eliminating FEMA, he replied, “As the senior advisor to the President on disasters and emergency management, and to the Secretary of Homeland Security, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” Hamilton made it clear that this was his recommendation and that the decision about FEMA’s continued existence was not his to make but rather the responsibility of the President and Congress.

Cameron Hamilton was fired on May 8.

While no reason was given for Hamilton’s firing, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem had testified the previous day, “President Trump has been very clear since the beginning that he believes that FEMA and its response in many, many circumstances has failed the American people, and that FEMA, as it exists today, should be eliminated in empowering states to respond to disasters with federal government support.” Noem’s comments and Hamilton’s firing for apparently expressing a conflicting opinion, is yet another indicator that FEMA is on the chopping block.

Hamilton was replaced by David Richardson, Assistant Secretary, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, a part-timer with no emergency management experience. According to CNN, Richardson has replaced over half a dozen long-time FEMA leaders with DHS staffers who have no experience in emergency management or senior management. Like Richardson, they are part-timers who will be splitting their FEMA duties with their current DHS duties. In a meeting with FEMA employees, Richardson threatened that he would “run over” any of the staff that resisted his intentions to implement the President’s agenda and stated. “I, and I alone in FEMA, speak for FEMA.” Employees later told CBS that the speech was “unhinged” and “terrifying.”

Richardson has stated that FEMA has no plan in place for the hurricane season that begins on June 1st. This is not surprising, considering that FEMA lost some 200 employees immediately and over 1000 employees (about 20% of the existing workforce) are expected to take a voluntary buyout. Since many of these employees were assigned to response duties, this represents a significant loss of experience and talent at a critical time for the agency Recall that a 2022 GAO report found that FEMA was understaffed by at least 35%. This is coupled with the cancellation of funding for preparedness and mitigation programs intended to help jurisdictions prepare for disasters such as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. With the lack of plan, a shortage of experienced response staff, the departure of many leaders, and low morale, FEMA is poorly positioned to deal with a major disaster. It will most likely fail catastrophically, adding further fuel to Republican demands for its elimination.

A further indicator that the elimination of FEMA has already been decided is the composition of the FEMA Review Committee. Of the thirteen members of the committee, only three are emergency managers, two of whom are from Republican states. The governor of one of those states is also on the committee, raising doubts that his emergency manager will stray far from the party line. In all, eleven of the committee members are Republicans. You can find more information in my recent article, President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”

So where does the elimination of FEMA leave us? When Republican officials complain about FEMA, they tend to focus on recovery programs. They do not seem to realize that FEMA does not manage a disaster; that is the job of the state and local governments. What FEMA does is coordinate the delivery of direct federal assistance by tasking and reimbursing federal agencies as requested. Are state agencies prepared to coordinate and reimburse the activities of some numerous federal agencies? Does the financial and legislative authority even exist for this?

With regards to recovery programs, FEMA has been accused of being overly bureaucratic. It’s fair criticism but a lot of it is because FEMA must meet application requirements put into place by Congress to reduce fraud. Are states prepared to manage these programs? Do they have sufficient staff to conduct inspections, determine eligibility, disburse funds, and pursue fraudulent claims? What about determining eligible costs for response activities or auditing reconstruction costs?

There are other ways to reduce recovery bureaucracy and streamline the delivery of assistance. On May 8, Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rick Larsen (D-WA) released draft legislation that would significantly reform FEMA. The bill, Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025, would return FEMA to a cabinet position, streamline the public assistance program and reduce the backlog of disasters to be closed out, and simplify application for and delivery of individual assistance. In short, it attempts to address the real problems that hamper FEMA rather than just eliminating the agency to score political points.

But disaster assistance is still only a drop in the bucket. In my recent article, What the Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA, I wrote about the many “behind the scenes" missions that FEMA has. This includes the grants that fund many emergency management offices. Without this funding, many small offices would close unless their costs are assumed by state or local governments. FEMA serves as a source of doctrine that brings cohesion to emergency response. This doctrine provides a basis for both higher education curricula and for professional training by both public and private agencies. Losing FEMA means the end of the cohesive emergency management system that has taken over seven decades to build. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced.

The phrase, “Dead Man Walking” is commonly used to describe a person on their way to execution or someone in a doomed or untenable situation. The deck appears stacked against FEMA but if the President’s own appointee can find the courage to speak the truth, there may still be hope. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, “Only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars.”

President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”

Posted on by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

FEMA

On January 24, 2025, the President established the Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency through Executive Order 14180, Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The goal of the FEMA Review Council is to advise the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, on the existing ability of FEMA to capably and impartially address disasters occurring within the United States and shall advise the President on all recommended changes related to FEMA to best serve the national interest.

On April 28th, the President appointed several new members to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Review Council. Appointed Members:

  1. Co-Chair: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem
  2. Co-Chair: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
  3. Greg Abbott, Governor, State of Texas
  4. Phil Bryant, Former Governor, State of Mississippi
  5. Jane Castor, Mayor, City of Tampa, Florida
  6. Mark Cooper, Former Chief of Staff, Governor John Bel Edwards
  7. Rosie Cordero-Stutz, Sheriff, Miami-Dade County
  8. Evan Greenberg, CEO, Chubb Limited
  9. Kevin Guthrie, Executive Director, Florida Division of Emergency Management
  10. W. Nim Kidd, Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management
  11. Michael Whatley, Chairman, Republican National Committee
  12. Glenn Youngkin, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
  13. Robert J. Fenton, Jr., Region 9 Administrator and two-time Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency

It’s no secret that FEMA needs reform. From its beginning, it has struggled to streamline a system of disaster assistance that is convoluted and bureaucratic. As we are coming to realize, many of our disaster assistance policies do little to help those most in need. This is the result of a combination of factors, many beyond FEMA’s control. But the agency has evolved and has improved over the years.

Many emergency managers have seen the formation of the Council as a long overdue opportunity to reform FEMA. However, the membership of the Council as recently announced by the President does little to indicate that this assessment will be fair and impartial.

First, let’s consider the obvious issue of political affiliation. Instead of a bipartisan commission, five of the six elected officials on the Council are Republican, as are the two co-chairs. The sole exception is the Mayor of Tampa, Jane Castor. The chairman of the Republican National Committee is also included on the Council, an individual with no role in government or experience in emergency management.

The Council includes a representative of the insurance industry, Evan Greenberg, the CEO of Chubb Limited. While the Chubb PAC has provided roughly equal funding to both parties, in the past four years Mr. Greenberg has personally donated over $22,000 to Republican candidates and only $5,600 to Democrats.

Turning to the three emergency managers on the Council, two are from Republican dominated states, Texas and Florida. Both states have already made it clear that they believe that FEMA should be abolished. The Governor of Texas is a member of the Council, which may or may not influence the participation of Mr. Kidd. That being said, both these gentlemen are well qualified, professional emergency managers and their inclusion on the Council is appropriate. This leaves us with the third emergency manager on the Council and the sole representative of FEMA, Robert Fenton. I’ve known Bob since he joined FEMA and have the highest regard for his professional competence and personal integrity. His presence on the Council is a win for emergency management.

So much for the Council. I think the next question is, “Who’s missing?” Aside from the obvious need for bipartisan membership from both parties, there are major gaps. The first is the academic community. Numerous academics have been studying FEMA over the years from a historical and sociological perspective. They create the specialized body of knowledge that provides the basis of emergency management policy and over the years have contributed to both the formation and several reorganizations of FEMA.

Another obvious gap is the absence of past FEMA Administrators who are respected in the emergency management community, such as James Lee Witt or Craig Fugate. Where are those who can speak for local emergency managers? Issues at the state level and in big city disasters often do not reflect what happens at the local level. This is particularly true for tribal governments and communities like Guam or Puerto Rico. What about the many agencies that work with FEMA in a disaster? Shouldn’t VOAD be part of any assessment of FEMA?

I’m not suggesting that we create an enormous Council, and I recognize that the Council can hold hearings that include testimony for multiple participants. What I am suggesting is that the current makeup of the Council, the ones who will make the final decisions, is clearly biased against FEMA and many have already made up their minds. I have little hope that the result will be a clear and balanced appraisal of an agency that, despite the need for reform, is still one of the best in the world at what is does.