Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Achieves Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness

TLDR

The executive order referenced by this “fact” sheet shifts from an “all-hazards” to a “risk-informed” approach, creates a potentially redundant National Resilience Strategy and Risk Register, proposes decentralizing power from federal to state levels, promises to streamline federal functions without clear specifics, establishes a FEMA assessment task force that may duplicate recent efforts, and emphasizes reducing complexity which could eliminate important safeguards. These changes may represent regression rather than improvement in emergency management.

This “fact sheet” for a recent executive order on enhancing state and local preparedness contains several questionable claims.

The order claims to shift national critical infrastructure policy from an “all-hazards” approach to a “risk-informed” approach. However, this represents a potential regression rather than advancement in emergency management. The all-hazards approach has been a cornerstone of modern emergency management precisely because it enables flexible response capabilities that can address multiple threat types. Risk-informed approaches have always been part of the all-hazards framework, not separate from it.

The creation of a “National Resilience Strategy” appears to duplicate existing frameworks. The U.S. already has a National Preparedness Goal and National Response Framework that articulate resilience priorities. This rebranding may create confusion among state and local emergency managers who have built systems around existing frameworks.

While the order proposes creating a National Risk Register to identify and measure infrastructure risks, similar mechanisms already exist through CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) and FEMA’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process. This appears to be creating redundant systems rather than streamlining existing ones.

The order’s emphasis on shifting power from Washington to states assumes that federal involvement inherently impedes local response. However, the current emergency management system is designed as a partnership where federal resources supplement local capabilities when overwhelmed. The National Response Framework already operates on a principle of locally executed, state managed, and federally supported response.

The order claims to “streamline federal functions” but provides few specifics on which functions will be consolidated or eliminated. Previous attempts to streamline disaster response have sometimes resulted in reduced capabilities, as seen when FEMA was incorporated into DHS after 2001.

The mention of a FEMA assessment task force in Trump’s “first week back in office” is curious given that FEMA underwent a comprehensive review during the previous administration that led to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. This suggests potential duplication of recent evaluation efforts.

The order’s focus on “reducing complexity” could potentially eliminate important safeguards and coordination mechanisms that ensure equitable distribution of disaster resources. Previous attempts to simplify federal disaster response have sometimes resulted in slower, less effective responses, as seen during Hurricane Katrina.

The emphasis on “risk-informed” approaches could potentially lead to underinvestment in preparing for low-probability, high-consequence events that don’t appear cost-effective until they occur.