Acting FEMA Chief Dismissed Amid Ongoing Debate Over Future of Emergency Management

In a sudden leadership change, the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Cameron Hamilton, was relieved of his duties this week following internal discussions and growing debate over the future structure of national disaster response efforts.

The decision to part ways with Hamilton was confirmed by FEMA’s press office, which issued a statement indicating that David Richardson, a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), would assume the role of Senior Official Performing the Duties of the FEMA Administrator. Richardson also oversees DHS’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office.

The leadership change came shortly after Hamilton appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee. During the hearing, he defended FEMA’s role and expressed opposition to suggestions that the agency should be dismantled or replaced with a more decentralized, state-run system.

“I do not believe it is in the best interests of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” Hamilton said during his testimony.

His remarks appeared to diverge from recent proposals being considered by federal leadership, including ideas to reform FEMA or transfer more emergency management responsibilities to state governments. Advocates of this approach argue that empowering local and state agencies could result in more efficient and timely disaster responses, while others caution that a federal safety net remains essential for large-scale or multi-state emergencies.

According to reports, Hamilton had previously considered resigning, particularly during the transition period as the current administration took office. However, he ultimately remained in his position at the request of FEMA staff, sources familiar with the matter said.

In recent weeks, FEMA has been under increased scrutiny after reports surfaced regarding the allocation of agency funds. A small number of FEMA employees were dismissed earlier this month for reportedly approving significant housing payments for migrants in New York City without proper authorization. DHS officials described the payments as inconsistent with the agency’s core mission, which is to provide disaster relief for U.S. residents affected by hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and other emergencies.

The controversy over FEMA’s spending practices prompted calls for reforms, and the administration responded by announcing plans to reassess the agency’s structure. During a visit to North Carolina to inspect hurricane recovery efforts, the president discussed the possibility of a major FEMA overhaul or even transitioning disaster response responsibilities to the state level.

“There’s been a lot of concern that FEMA hasn’t lived up to expectations in some recent events,” the president said during the visit. “We’re looking at ways to improve how we respond to disasters, and one idea is letting states lead the charge.”

He emphasized that local officials are often better equipped to respond quickly and directly to emergencies and suggested that allowing states to manage their own disaster relief efforts could reduce costs and improve results.

“We’re going to look at options that could make the whole process faster, more efficient, and more accountable,” he added. “That includes working closely with state leaders and local responders.”

Many lawmakers remain divided over the future of FEMA. Some believe the agency plays a critical role in coordinating large-scale emergency responses and should not be diminished. Others believe a shift to state-managed disaster relief could result in more tailored, region-specific strategies and reduce reliance on federal bureaucracy.

During his hearing, Hamilton defended FEMA’s track record and stressed the importance of federal coordination, particularly in situations where disasters cross state lines or require resources beyond what individual states can provide.

“There’s no question that local and state agencies are essential to disaster response,” he said. “But FEMA exists to provide support where it’s needed most, especially when disasters overwhelm state resources. It’s not an either-or situation—it’s about working together.”

With Richardson now in charge, FEMA’s next steps remain uncertain. Analysts expect a period of evaluation and possible reorganization as DHS leadership explores how to align the agency’s mission with evolving expectations for disaster preparedness and response.

While the agency continues to manage ongoing recovery efforts in regions affected by recent natural disasters, conversations around FEMA’s future are likely to intensify in the coming months.

As the national dialogue around emergency management continues to evolve, many will be watching closely to see how the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy unfolds—and how it affects the speed and effectiveness of disaster relief across the country.