The federal government’s disaster response system is struggling. Disasters are becoming more frequent, more expensive, and more complex, and Washington’s role has expanded. That reality has fueled a growing push by some policymakers, including President Trump, to shift more responsibility for disaster response and recovery to states.

A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) offers a timely reality check on what that would actually mean in practice. Not surprisingly, it’s complicated.

FEMA provided $3.2 billion in direct assistance to more than 1.2 million households across just a handful of recent disasters, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, and the Texas floods. That assistance covers basic needs like temporary housing, repairs, medical costs, expenses that often are not met through insurance or private resources alone.

But the report makes clear that delivering that aid is far from smooth. Survivors struggled to reach FEMA’s helpline, sometimes facing hours-long wait times or calls that went unanswered entirely. Many found FEMA’s eligibility letters confusing, mistaking requests for additional information as outright denials. And long-standing housing challenges like limited supply, high costs, and coordination problems, continued to slow recovery efforts across multiple disasters.

These failures are real, and they reinforce a broader point—that the federal disaster system is not working as efficiently or transparently as it should. That’s the context in which calls for reform and for shifting responsibility to states are gaining traction.

At first glance, the case for shifting more responsibility to states is straightforward. If states and localities bore more of the cost, they would have stronger incentives to invest in mitigation, limit risky development, and manage recovery more effectively. Federal taxpayers would no longer be on the hook for an ever-growing share of disaster spending. Taxpayers for Common Sense has argued that states and localities should take on a greater role in both pre-disaster planning and post-disaster response. But we also know the story is more complicated than that.

Start with capacity. State and local governments are not starting from a level playing field. GAO found wide variation in preparedness, with some states estimating they had just 10 percent of the capability needed to carry out key response functions, while others reported being fully prepared. The median wasn’t close to 100 percent; it was closer to 40 percent. That’s not a system ready to absorb a major shift in responsibility overnight.

In many cases, the infrastructure simply doesn’t exist. Some states lack their own disaster assistance programs entirely. Others operate programs designed to kick in only after federal aid is exhausted. Even where programs do exist, state officials reported relying heavily on FEMA for technical expertise, staffing, and administrative support during major disasters. FEMA officials told GAO that states have not been incentivized to plan for certain needs, like post-disaster housing, because the federal government has historically stepped in to fill those gaps. For many states, especially in large-scale disasters, there is no viable alternative.

Disaster response from FEMA is unlocked when the President declares a major disaster at a governor’s request because the state’s capacity has been overwhelmed. By definition, these are situations where more money alone isn’t the answer. States need assistance in personnel equipment, and coordination from the federal government and other states.

Because even well-resourced states have limits. GAO underscores that catastrophic events like wildfires, hurricanes, multi-state disasters, will always exceed state and local capacity. In those cases, federal involvement is unavoidable. FEMA’s role goes beyond writing checks. As the coordinating agency for federal disaster response, it can marshal resources across the government in ways no individual state can replicate. Without that central role, states would be left navigating a fragmented federal system during a crisis.

Furthermore, disasters are often not confined within one state’s borders, reinforcing the need for a federal response. And FEMA brings a deep, accumulated level of expertise from responding to multiple disasters across the country over many years, something no single state has or frankly should be expected to replicate.

None of this means the current system is working well. It clearly isn’t. But simply shifting costs and responsibilities to states is not a cure-all and could create new problems. If federal support is scaled back without giving states time and resources to build capacity, the likely result is a weaker system. States would face tighter fiscal constraints, potentially delaying recovery and reducing aid to survivors. Smaller or less-prepared states would be hit hardest, widening disparities in disaster response across the country. Inevitably, there will be calls for greater assistance to affected communities, and the federal government will have paid through block grants and post-disaster assistance.

Reform should start with fixing the system we have. That means improving how FEMA delivers assistance: simplifying processes, improving communication, and addressing long-standing bottlenecks in housing and coordination. It also means being more honest about what federal disaster aid is and isn’t intended to do. FEMA assistance is not designed to make survivors whole, yet many expect it to. That mismatch reflects a deeper problem TCS has flagged before, that federal disaster policy often blurs the line between emergency support and long-term subsidy, obscuring risk and encouraging rebuilding patterns that leave taxpayers on the hook for repeat losses. As we have noted in our letters to Congress, disaster dollars should be targeted where they reduce risk, not reinforce it, and paired with stronger incentives for mitigation and smarter rebuilding.

At the same time, there is a real case for strengthening state and local roles, but that requires investment and planning. GAO emphasizes that any shift in responsibilities would need to be accompanied by clear guidance and a realistic assessment of state capacity. The criteria for a major disaster declaration should be clearer and more objective so that they are consistent across administrations. A fact-finding body, similar to the National Transportation Safety Board, should be convened after major disasters to assess what worked, what didn’t, and what lessons can be applied going forward.

In other words, reform is not as simple as sending the bill back to the states. The challenge is to build a system that is both more accountable and more effective. One that encourages better risk management without leaving communities to fend for themselves when disaster strikes. That balance is harder to strike than either side of the debate often admits. But if the goal is a system that actually works for taxpayers and for disaster survivors, it’s a balance we need to get right.