Editor’s note: Disasters are no longer rare, isolated events. They are increasing in frequency, cost, and complexity, testing the limits of our nation’s emergency response system. Yet, time and again, we see government rushing to react after tragedy strikes rather than preventing or preparing for the worst before it happens. To protect communities, save lives, and ensure swift recovery, the United States must shift from a reactive stance to a truly proactive model for disaster management. This transformation demands ongoing innovation and reform at FEMA, not just to fix what’s broken, but to empower local leaders, accelerate aid, and prioritize resilience over red tape. If we want to build a safer future, it’s time to rethink what proactive emergency management really looks like, and what FEMA must become to lead the way. OODA Analyst and emergency response expert Andrew Gary provides more context on why in this report:

Katrina: Around 6:10 AM CDT on August 29^th, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Buras, Louisiana. By the next day, New Orleans was underwater, and the country could only watch as the situation deteriorated further. It quickly became apparent that nobody was prepared for what happened to the Gulf Coast in August 2005 and as the weeks dragged on, the country demanded answers.

Preliminary investigations and general public outrage after Hurricane Katrina caused Congress to consider major reforms to FEMA. The debate very quickly centered upon two proposals. The first was to keep FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security but better clarify its purpose by enacting statutory provisions to establish its emergency management authority clearly. The other proposal was to separate FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and return it to its status as an independent cabinet agency. An important point to note is that these debates often intersected with a related question: the qualifications and experience of federal leaders and disaster management. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that since 2002, many experienced FEMA employees had left the agency, and outside reporting noted that FEMA leadership tended to be political appointees rather than experienced emergency management professionals. So, the question of the structure of FEMA became intertwined with the question of how best to staff the agency.

The results of these investigations and debates was the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA). The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 significantly restructured FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security by granting it greater autonomy and authority to lead national disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. It mandated the creation of regional offices, multi-agency strike teams, and strategic planning tools like the National Disaster Recovery Strategy and National Disaster Housing Strategy. The Act also amended the Stafford Act to allow for accelerated federal assistance, precautionary evacuations, and expanded support for vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities

Debates over the future of FEMA resurfaced as Obama entered office. Several members of Congress representing the Gulf Coast proposed legislation to reconstitute FEMA as a cabinet agency. This proposal ignited a fierce debate about the future of the organization. The Senate and House Homeland Security Committees came out strongly against the proposal. Advocacy groups and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institute also weighed on the debate. Interestingly, the debate did not neatly fall across partisan lines. The divide was instead primarily based on committee membership and the region a member represented. A bill to reconstitute FEMA as a cabinet agency was advanced through the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure but was killed in the House Homeland Security Committee. The failure of this bill did not completely silence calls for further FEMA structural reform, but the proposal has not gained significant traction since 2010.

A consistent theme throughout investigations into the response to Hurricane Katrina was the need for leadership. The need for effective leadership has only grown as the scale and complexity of disaster response has increased. Recent disasters have shown that it is not the systems which fail, but our leaders. Emergency management is now a multibillion-dollar project, and it is time for the federal government to end its reactive and decentralized approach to emergency management. To improve the federal government’s disaster response infrastructure, it is well past time to reform the institutions that govern it. The United States has created one of the best systems for handling disasters. However, while this system has many excellent qualities, it is not perfect. The system has gotten bogged down with administrative bloat and operational complexity. It is time, therefore, to examine how this system can be improved.

The question of the role of the federal government in disaster operations is complicated. Delays in emergency responses can be devasting as seen in the events that followed Hurricane Katrina. However, the federal government needs to remain highly flexible so that it can manage threats across the entire country. If it is too focused on any single disaster, then it cannot effectively respond to all of them at once. Herein lies the principal benefit of the federal government serving as a supporting actor to state governments. The federal government can have its attention spread across many areas without being too concerned that any one disaster is being neglected.

It is also important that the federal government work to change the perception that it is responsible for directly responding to disasters. There is an expectation that has been created that when disaster strikes it will be the federal government that arrives in force to respond. This expectation has been created by successive federal administrations as well as state and local officials and the press. It will not be easy to change this narrative, but it must be done. A refocused federal emergency management system can work to combat this expectation by creating a new operating culture that emphasizes the importance of local and state government being the principal leaders of disaster response. It is time for the United States to end its reactive philosophy and embrace a proactive approach. Only then can we best protect property and save lives.