Rethinking state‑led disaster assistance
As a senior executive, Colt Hagmaier directed multiple national programs exceeding $40 billion annually, led teams of more than 10,000, and drove major program reforms where the consequences of failure were measured by impacts to people, communities, and public trust. Colt’s responsibilities included the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Individual Assistance programs, through which he authorized and oversaw dozens of complex post-disaster housing missions supporting thousands of displaced individuals in states and territories across the nation. Colt now advises governors, agency leaders, and corporate executives facing politically sensitive, high-consequence challenges where policy, operations, and public scrutiny collide. His work spans crisis management, institutional transformation, and infrastructure resilience – translating policy into performance at scale. Colt holds a master’s degree in emergency management and is a licensed attorney.
During the Private Sector Committee Meeting at the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) Mid-Year Forum 2026, Colt joined a panel discussion titled “State Led Disaster Assistance Programs.” NEMA brings together state emergency management directors, federal partners and private sector organizations at its annual conference and at its winter policy forum in Washington DC. This year’s discussion created an opportunity to reflect on how states can prepare for the changes emerging across the disaster assistance landscape.
A shifting federal state balance
I joined the panel to open the conversation and frame the challenge we are all now confronting. At its heart, that challenge involves a significant shift in the long-standing balance of federal and state responsibilities for disasters – essentially, a reshaping of federalism in emergency management.
For more than 75 years, federal involvement in disasters has steadily expanded. Over those years, Congress has passed many statutes seeking to reform and improve the nation’s readiness and ability to recover after a disaster. And in every case, that legislation has expanded the role of the Federal Government. Over time, states and localities have become reliant on these programs. In some cases, almost entirely. Now that pattern is changing. Both the current administration and the previous Secretary of Homeland Security have signaled that FEMA is too deeply involved in state and local operations. As a result, we are already seeing early signs of a pullback.
Having led FEMA’s disaster recovery programs nationally, I believe that significant changes are needed to make those programs more effective. At some level, those changes must include a realignment of roles and a mutual understanding of expectations. Looking across the nation, disasters occur too frequently now for the Federal Government to have a lead role in so many. The system is stretched too thin, the Federal Government is too far removed from the lives and cultures of individual families and communities to tailor its programs to their needs, and states and local governments have not made the necessary investments to build their own resilience and be self-sufficient following modest emergencies.
Two major developments will shape what comes next. The President has appointed a Review Council to assess the future of FEMA and Congress is considering another major legislative reform, Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act of 2025 (the FEMA Act). These two efforts are not fully aligned and the outcome is uncertain. What we do know is that states will be expected to take on more responsibility while federal assistance becomes less predictable.
Why this matters for states
This uncertainty matters. Disasters have real and lasting consequences. When recovery slows, debris sits uncollected. Schools stay closed longer than they should. Damaged buildings remain untouched and mold and rot set in. Tax bases shrink. People struggle to regain their footing, and communities may permanently lose population. Elected officials also feel the pressure because emergency management ultimately rolls up to governors. If states are unprepared as federal roles shift, the consequences will be felt everywhere, and the impacts will be felt in lives, livelihoods and elections.
That is why states should be reassessing their readiness now. Many are not. Too many are waiting for clarity from Washington before taking any steps to assess their current capabilities and to decide for themselves what capabilities they want to develop for the future. That approach carries risk – risk that may not be fully recognized or understood by elected and appointed officials that will be held responsible for it.
Lessons learned from a recent exploratory workshop
Recently we partnered with the State of Maryland to host a full day workshop with more than 75 officials, including members of the governor’s cabinet and local government officials. We used two planning scenarios; one was based on the FEMA Act and the other reflected what we expect the Council’s report may recommend. The workshop exposed many important matters to consider, but highlighted two critical insights that are worth sharing.
- Existing programs can be repurposed.
The workshop revealed that several state programs with no formal disaster nexus today have real potential to support disaster needs in the future. Expanding or repurposing existing structures may be faster and more efficient than building entirely new, disaster-bespoke systems from scratch.
- Flexibility creates responsibility.
Almost everyone I talk to believes federal disaster programs need to be more flexible. I believe that too. However, increased flexibility comes with increased responsibility. When FEMA sets strict requirements, everyone knows what is required and decisions are based on compliance. When guidance loosens and grants become more pliable, recipients must decide what they think is best and the administration becomes increasingly complex. Who will decide how flexible disaster funding is allocated and spent? The governor, the legislature, agency leaders or local governments? Without a clear and transparent decision-making framework, flexibility can become a burden rather than a benefit.
Three actions states should take now
- Engage elected officials early.
They need to understand the risks they may be carrying. For example, if FEMA stops providing temporary housing during a crisis, will the state fill the gap, or will governmental support simply disappear? If grant deadlines are accelerated, how will emergency managers gather the information needed to submit accurate applications? These types of significant public policy decisions should not be made during a crisis. They should be carefully weighed and agreed to well in advance.
- Assess current capabilities with honesty.
Many states have disaster funds that are too small or too rigid. Most have limited or no disaster programs to support individuals and families. Up to 80 percent of emergency management staff are funded directly or indirectly with federal dollars, creating significant capacity vulnerabilities. Each layer of government needs to consider what they have the ability to do today and where they must reprioritize or realign resources to build capacity.
- Build frameworks for future decision making.
If states are to carry more responsibility, they need clear, auditable and consistent processes to guide program design and delivery. If states delay, the consequences will be significant. Slower recovery. Greater economic strain. Deepening social vulnerabilities. Overall, a long-term loss of public trust. Structural constraints make this situation even harder. Many states have balanced budget requirements that limit financial flexibility and some legislatures only meet every other year. Those realities make rapid adaptation difficult even when leaders are willing to act.
The role of the private sector
In this environment, the private sector plays an important role. We work across many states and see a broad range of approaches. This allows us to help governments understand their options, weigh trade-offs and design programs based on proven practices.
No single organization has the entire solution. The private sector committee at NEMA provides a valuable space to connect ideas and strengthen approaches that might otherwise remain isolated.
A final message to policymakers: do not wait
If I could leave policymakers with one message from this year’s conversations it would be simple. Do not wait. Do not wait for the federal landscape to settle and do not wait for a disaster to expose gaps that could have been addressed earlier.
Even if the changes ahead unfold differently than expected the fact that you have assessed your capabilities, discussed your risks and planned for different scenarios will place you far ahead when a crisis arrives. Change is coming and the time to prepare is now.
If your state is beginning to think through these questions or would benefit from a structured conversation about upcoming changes, AECOM is ready to support you. Connect with us to talk through your needs and explore how we can help you prepare with confidence.