Chris Edwards & Jerry Theodorou: Should FEMA Be Eliminated?

Summary

---

Future of Freedom – Episode Summary

Podcast: Future of Freedom
Host: Scott Bertram
Episode: Chris Edwards & Jerry Theodorou: Should FEMA Be Eliminated?
Date: September 24, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the provocative question: Should FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) be abolished? Host Scott Bertram welcomes two guests with contrasting perspectives: Chris Edwards (Cato Institute) argues in favor of eliminating FEMA, while Jerry Theodorou (R Street Institute) defends its continued reform and necessity. The conversation delves into FEMA’s effectiveness, state versus federal responsibilities, bureaucratic pitfalls, and paths for disaster response in the U.S., all within a civil and insightful exchange.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Chris Edwards: The Case For Eliminating FEMA

[00:49–15:20]

a) FEMA’s Redundancy & Federal Overreach

• Edwards asserts that America should employ a decentralized, bottom-up approach to natural disasters—led by “state and local governments and the private sector.”

  “America is supposed to have a decentralized approach, a bottom up approach to responding to natural disasters... The federal government has increasingly encroached on this properly state and local activity over the decades with detrimental results.” (01:12–01:49)

• He uses Hurricane Katrina (2005) as emblematic of federal mismanagement:

  “The federal government probably caused more problems than solved back with Hurricane Katrina.” (01:39)

b) Perverse Incentives and Bureaucratic Inefficiency

• FEMA funding disincentivizes local preparedness; states rely on bailouts rather than prevention.

  “Federal involvement creates a disincentive for states to prepare… because they think the federal government’s always gonna come in and bail them out. And also federal involvement always creates a lot of excess regulations, bureaucracy, waste and fraud.” (03:08–03:39)

• Edwards claims FEMA’s structure inhibits speedy, effective relief:

  “Federal involvement just adds a lot of bureaucracy and regulation and often slows down disaster response.” (04:05)

c) State Mutual Aid & Private Philanthropy as Alternatives

• States and utilities already have mutual aid agreements that function efficiently without FEMA.

  “State governments and electric utilities, telecom utilities, they already have mutual sharing agreements to help each other respond to natural disasters...” (06:08)

• The private sector and nonprofits often step up rapidly, demonstrating robust citizen solidarity:

  “America has the most generous people I think about than any country at any time. It’s really remarkable the outpouring of private charitable efforts after disasters.” (08:14)

• Historical precedent: 1906 San Francisco earthquake response was a vast private-sector effort.

d) Federal Role—Limited but Essential

• Acknowledges unique federal roles for specialized assets (Coast Guard, Air Force), not day-to-day disaster function.
• Non-essential FEMA functions like “flood mapping” should be redistributed; advocates federal excellence by scaling down scope.

  “I think if we peel away a lot of these things the federal government tries to do... then we can focus more on making the remaining federal roles excellent.” (12:24)

e) Predicted Effects of Abolishing FEMA

• Suggests disaster response would be faster, more efficient, and less wasteful without FEMA.

  “I think the responses to disasters would be a lot faster and more efficient and there’d be a lot less waste.” (13:33)

• Points to onerous federal rules hindering volunteers during Katrina (e.g., not accepting unlisted doctors).

---

2. Jerry Theodorou: The Case Against Eliminating FEMA

[15:21–32:53]

a) FEMA’s Evolution & Scope

• FEMA has matured since 1979, learning to handle increasingly complex disasters:

  “It has come a long way. Disaster relief, disaster management is a highly complex activity...” (16:03)

• Points to frequent, severe catastrophes (recent Texas, hurricanes Helene and Milton) demanding large-scale coordination.

b) The Federal “Backstop”

• Disaster management is fundamentally state managed, locally executed, federally supported:

  “Disaster management is state managed, locally executed and federally supported.” (18:42)

• The federal government acts as the backstop, providing scale and resources states and nonprofits cannot.

  “The activities that are performed are really gargantuan. ...In the private sector, you don’t have any one or two charitable, philanthropic organizations that have this sort of capacity.” (20:02)

c) Reform Over Elimination

• Explains current political ambivalence between eliminating and reforming FEMA:

  “On one hand we heard that this is an agency that needs to be eliminated. Other times the administration is saying ...this is an organization that needs to be reformed. So which is it?” (20:35)

• FEMA reform committee is “leaning in the direction of reform rather than elimination”, with focus on trimming bloat and bureaucracy.

d) Importance of Coordination and Accountability

• Privates and nonprofits are vital, but coordination is key to avoid “a messy situation” (23:47).
• Concerns about FEMA’s interference with private rescuers are largely unsubstantiated, but notes ongoing transparency challenges.
• Emphasizes that disaster response should not be politicized:

  “We’re talking about saving lives... So it’s nothing, not something that should be politicized.” (25:43)

e) Problems & Leadership Failures

• Leadership must have “at least five years of disaster management experience”—not always honored.
• Cites low morale and retaliation for criticism as counterproductive:

  “So that creates a climate of fear and watching your back, which does not do anything for productivity. Quite the contrary.” (29:26)

f) Federal Role in Large-Scale Infrastructure

• Large projects (like Dutch Delta Works or Louisiana levees) can only be managed with federal support:

  “The states can’t handle mega infrastructural repair projects... So we need to have additional support beyond what the states can offer for some of the long term projects...” (31:16)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On State vs. Federal Roles:
  Edwards: “State and local governments and the private sector can handle natural disasters.” (01:22)
• On Incentives:
  Edwards: “Federal involvement creates a disincentive for states to prepare…” (03:08)
• On Private Generosity:
  Edwards: “America has the most generous people… the outpouring of private charitable efforts after disasters.” (08:14)
• On Reform vs. Abolition:
  Theodorou: “The direction is really on reform rather than gutting and eliminating and abolishing.” (21:52)
• On FEMA’s Scale:
  Theodorou: “In the private sector, you don’t have any one or two charitable, philanthropic organizations that have this sort of capacity.” (20:15)
• On Politicization:
  Theodorou: “This is not something for political differences… we should have discussions about mitigation, about preventing the magnitude of losses…” (25:43–26:18)
• On Leadership and Accountability:
  Theodorou (with humor): “Scott, can you say shibboleth?... you live.” (28:44–28:47)
• On Infrastructure:
  Theodorou: “The states can’t handle mega infrastructural repair projects like in Netherlands in the 1950s… So we need to have additional support beyond what the states can offer…” (31:16)

---

Segment Timestamps

• [00:49–15:20] Chris Edwards explains arguments for abolishing FEMA, citing inefficiency and the strength of decentralized, private, and interstate responses.
• [15:21–32:53] Jerry Theodorou discusses FEMA’s evolution, its irreplaceable role as federal backstop, defense of reform over elimination, and perspective on agency accountability and large-scale infrastructure.

---

Conclusion

This episode gives listeners a deep, nuanced look at America’s disaster preparedness structure. Edwards spotlights the unintended consequences of federal overreach and highlights local and private capacities, while Theodorou finds value in FEMA’s unique abilities and argues that reform—ensuring transparency, competence, and coordination—is preferable to abolition. Both guests provide practical insights and ground their views in historical precedent and recent experience, offering a well-rounded foundation for anyone interested in the future of FEMA and disaster response policy in the US.

---

Transcript

[Jerry Theodoro]

Foreign.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome to Future of Freedom. I'm your host, Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of Franklin News Foundation. To support this show, go to franklinnews.org donate we bring you interviews today from different sides of the debate over eliminating fema. In a little bit, we'll be joined by Jerry Theodoro, Director of the Finance, Insurance and Trade Policy Program at r Street Institute. Rstreet.org first we talk with Chris Edwards, Kilt's Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at the Cato Institute. Cato.org, also editor@ downsizinggovernment.org Chris, thanks so much for joining us.

[Chris Edwards]

Hey, thanks for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking today about the possibility of abolishing the fema, a piece you wrote earlier this year, Trump is right end FEMA along those lines, let me begin by asking you to give a thumbnail sketch perhaps why do you believe FEMA is unnecessary and why might America be even better off without it?

[Chris Edwards]

What FEMA does is it's the federal agency responsible for responding to natural disasters. We don't need a special federal agency for responding to natural disasters. America is supposed to have a decentralized approach, a bottom up approach to responding to natural disasters where state and local governments and the private sector take the lead. The federal government has increasingly encroached on this properly state and local activity over the decades with detrimental results. Most infamously, everyone of a certain age may remember the federal government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The federal government probably caused more problems than solved back with Hurricane Katrina. So that's the basic argument that state and local governments and the private sector can handle natural disasters.

[Scott Bertram]

You argue that FEMA actually can undermine disaster preparedness for states, for businesses, even for individuals. How and why states and individuals might they behave differently without federal aid?

[Chris Edwards]

Well, the federal government funds three different parts of natural disaster preparation and response. The federal government funds state and local governments to help prepare for natural disasters. They get involved in the immediate response to natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes, of course, and they pay for long term recovery efforts, which is building infrastructure. All three of those items state and local governments can and already do handle by themselves. There's two big problems with federal involvement are that federal involvement creates a disincentive for states to to prepare themselves for natural disasters cause they think the federal government's always gonna come in and bail them out. And also federal involvement always creates a lot of excess regulations, bureaucracy, waste and fraud. And that's sort of a bureaucratic problem. I think states, you know, Florida for Example has hit by hurricanes every year. The state of Florida, they are experts on handling our hurricanes. It's a big state, They've lots of money. They have every ability to prepare and respond to the vast majority of hurricanes themselves, for example, without federal involvement. So federal involvement just adds a lot of bureaucracy and regulation and often slows down disaster response.

[Scott Bertram]

Under a scenario in which FEMA does not exist, would the federal government continue providing even any sort of monetary support? Or is it simply placed now on states and localities to do the job that FEMA used to do?

[Chris Edwards]

That's right. So right now FEMA is mainly not a first responder agency. What FEMA is, is a money handing out agency. But state governments know what risks they have for natural disasters. California gets wildfires. The Gulf coast and the southeastern states get hurricanes. They can and should prepare for those future contingencies by building up rainy day funds in their state budgets to handle those disasters. What the federal government's proper role, in my view, is not to shower the state with money, but the federal government has some unique capabilities that are very important in response to natural disasters. The Coast Guard, for example, is a crucial resource in responding to hurricane disasters. During flooding in North Carolina, I guess last year, the federal government, the Air Force, actually provided aviation support after that disaster. So the federal government has unique capabilities and that's perfectly reasonable to use those in response to natural disasters. But generally the natural disaster preparation and response should be paid for by state and local governments.

[Scott Bertram]

You discuss mutual aid agreements that could be part of your vision without fema. You help my state, I'll help your state. Will these networks be reliable? Have we seen states enter into some of these pacts even with FEMA existing?

[Chris Edwards]

That's right. One of the big sort of behind the scenes response capabilities after natural disasters in the United States is the wonderful sharing of resources that takes place between state and local governments and between utilities across state lines. I mean, I've seen this in Northern Virginia, where I live. Every few years there's really bad storms that pulls down power lines. And the same day or the next day you'll see utility trucks up from North Carolina, for example, helping the local utility respond and repair the damage. So state governments and electric utilities, telecom utilities, they already have mutual sharing agreements to help each other respond to natural disasters. We saw with the California wildfires last year that resources flooded in from states across the country and even Canada. And you know, airplanes that used water bombs, you know, came in from, from across the country and all kinds of firefighting equipment came in from across the country. That is fantastic. And so the federal government can encourage these cross state agreements. And you know, this is another reason why we don't need, we don't need sort of, you know, top down micromanagement if the federal government can provide a coordination function. But really it's states working with each other that is the key to the response to a lot of these disasters.

[Scott Bertram]

When a disaster strikes, be it fires in Los Angeles or hurricane along the Gulf coast, individuals across the country seem to reach out and help via private organizations, Red Cross and others. My point being no one wakes up and says, oh, there's a disaster, I've got to give more money to the government. They say there's a disaster, I need to find an organization who can actually help people on the ground. Does that sort of convey this innate understanding that private responses to these kind of disasters are better than government responses?

[Chris Edwards]

Absolutely. America has the most generous people I think about than any country at any time. It's really remarkable the outpouring of private charitable efforts after disasters. We've seen this recently, so you may remember, for example, after the North Carolina flooding last year, Elon Musk came in. He donated 10,000 Starlink terminals to help people communicate. Walmart and Home Depot rushed in food, water and other sources supplies into those disasters. I've written a lot about the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the private response was absolutely remarkable. Doctors from across the country flew into New Orleans and volunteered their services. And again, private companies like Walmart and Home Depot rushed in supplies. If you look historically, before the federal government involved, this private response was enormous. Some of your listeners may know about the famous 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire that is a horrendous disaster that flattened much of the city. The private sector response at the time was incredible. Millionaires donated their funds and supplies. Railroads rushed in supplies. The private sector provided this massive response. No one told them to, no one asked them to, but they just felt it was their responsibility. And so that, that is the, has been in the past at least the secret to America's natural disaster response. And I fear that the more the federal government gets involved in, it's going to sort of crowd out or displace that wonderful private sector responses we've seen.

[Scott Bertram]

Speaking of Katrina, I did want to ask because the response to Katrina, FEMA was certainly criticized. But Ray Nagin, the mayor, Kathleen Blanco, the governor of the state, also were highly criticized for their responses to Katrina and actions both before and after the hurricane struck. Is it your contention perhaps that If FEMA did not exist, that more pressure would have been placed upon Blanco and Nagin to be better prepared for a disaster like this.

[Chris Edwards]

All three levels of government in terms of preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina were awful. They were terrible. They all failed massively because all three levels of government, for example, were responsible for the levee or flood control system in New Orleans. No one was responsible. And after the disaster happened, there was massive confusion because no level of government kind of knew who was responsible for, you know, the providing emergency supplies for, you know, grisly tasks like dealing with bodies, for example. I remember there was confusion about what, what to do really, all across the board. It was a mess. The so that was in 2005, just a few years after the Bush administration created the giant new Department of Homeland Security. That made the response worse. It used to be that FEMA reported directly to the president. Now FEMA was buried under layers of bureaucracy and it was led by all these political appointees who had no disaster response experience. So there was just, there was really confusion at all levels of government. And so I argue that you take the federal government out of the equation here, state and local governments and can be and would be in my view, much more responsible for preparing and responding to their own localized disasters.

[Scott Bertram]

You note in this piece, Chris, that FEMA does some useful work, flood mapping. I think flood insurance is also mentioned. Is there a way to reassign those tasks to someone else, some other entity that would be more responsible and efficient?

[Chris Edwards]

I think less is more when it comes to government. So I think if we peel away a lot of these things the federal government tries to do, the state and local government governments should be doing properly, then we can focus more on making the remaining federal roles excellent. The Coast Guard's role. The Coast Guard nearly always does a fabulous job after natural disasters. The federal government, of course, can play critical roles in things like responding to chemical or nuclear attacks, God help us, things like that. But really it should be state and local governments that deal with these regular predictable disaster scenarios that happen every few years, wildfires and hurricanes.

[Scott Bertram]

So let's just kind of hypothesize a bit. FEMA is phased out, FEMA's abolished. We've got a late season, strong hurricane here. As we talk, who notices a difference between how things operated formerly under FEMA and how they would operate under a FEMA Lisa Society?

[Chris Edwards]

I think the responses to disasters would be a lot faster and more efficient and there'd be a lot less waste. I mean, one of the problems now, as I mentioned, is that, and we saw this with Katrina. The federal government has all these rules and regulations that delayed the response from the private sector and from state and local governments themselves. For example, doctors were volunteering from across the nation flying into New Orleans, and if they weren't on a FEMA list of approved doctors, they weren't allowed to go and help. So that's the type of horrible regulation the federal government has got in place that blocks rapid response to disasters. So without the feds, I think state governments and local governments would learn to work with the private sector, provide much more rapid response. Another thing is I think we'd see a lot less waste and abuse. Now with all this federal money pouring in, we see that, we see all these supplies, the federal government paying way too much to purchase supplies and emergency housing and this sort of stuff. The federal government just throws this money around and a lot of it ends up being wasted. I think we'd have a much more efficient response if we left the response to state and local governments then. Experts in the charitable sector, like the Red Cross has nearly always done a fabulous job in responding to disasters back over a century now. So I think we need to leave the response to the experts and take the bureaucratic federal government out of it.

[Scott Bertram]

Chris Edwards is Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at the Cato Institute. Cato.org also editor@ downsizinggovernment.org Chris, thanks so much for joining us here today on Future of Freedom.

[Chris Edwards]

Thank you very much.

[Scott Bertram]

Now, to hear another side of the argument about eliminating fema, we talk with Jerry Theodoro. He is director of Finance, Insurance and Trade Policy at the R Street Institute. You can find [e-mail] Jerry, thanks so much for joining us.

[Jerry Theodoro]

Thank you, Scott, for having me with you and your wonderful audience.

[Scott Bertram]

We're talking today about FEMA and the possibility of abolishing FEMA. Wanted to ask first, FEMA's been around since 1979. It's gotten both praise and also heavy criticism at times. From your perspective, what has FEMA learned over the years? Have they gotten better from day one?

[Jerry Theodoro]

Yes, there has been a learning curve. Disaster relief, disaster management is a highly complex activity involving the intersection of state, local, federal agencies, numerous agencies, specialists in recovery and salvage debris removal. So it's a very complex operation. So it's natural that it would start off on a rocky basis going back to some earlier catastrophes like 1992. So it has come a long way. It has come a long way.

[Scott Bertram]

Listeners perhaps mainly hear about FEMA when it's struggling when things are going wrong, when relief might not be as fast or as quick as some people want. Is there a good example, a great example of where FEMA really got things right, where it acted as quickly and efficiently as possible?

[Jerry Theodoro]

Yeah. Well, you're absolutely right that the in journalism one says that what bleeds leads. So bad news is what people are attracted by in the headlines. And with all the good things that go on that don't get mentioned, you do get a sort of distorted picture and it can be distorted on the side of the negative. But Texas had about 10 catastrophes disasters in the past year and you don't hear about that when the, the relief was working in the right direction, people did have access to recovery and things moved along pretty well. So there's many declared emergencies and disasters. Disasters are bigger than emergencies. Disasters are covered by the Stafford act, the legislation there to deal with the largest of the large. So a lot of stuff that doesn't get, it doesn't get mentioned. So there's really dozens. FEMA is a large agency and it gets engaged quite a bit. We've been having more frequent natural catastrophes and more severe. So its role has become more important and has been tested more as well.

[Scott Bertram]

One of the arguments around this discussion about possibly abolishing FEMA is that this kind of disaster response should be left to state governments and local governments. Do you think that a federal agency, a national agency is still necessary as we respond to emergencies and disasters?

[Jerry Theodoro]

Yeah, well, the reality is that the states have been involved at the primary level. It's said in disaster emergency circles that disaster management is state managed, locally executed and federally supported. So the federal involvement is really the third. The main activity is done by responders, first responders at the local level within communities and cities and towns, rural areas. And states are managing that response with their National Guards and their staffing for catastrophes. And then the federal government is, is sort of the backstop, is releasing funds with block grants, you know, as, as needed. So it really is, is more in the background and it doesn't play the leading role. It's more like the accompaniment to, you know, to a duet or a solo that's, that's singing on the background on that point.

[Scott Bertram]

If it is the back, the backdrop or the thing that will catch what sort of falls through. If FEMA didn't exist at its current form, what might we lose that again? States or nonprofits couldn't necessarily replace.

[Jerry Theodoro]

The activities that are performed are really gargantuan. We saw recently with last year's hurricanes Helene and Milton and the tragic, the horribly tragic flash flooding in Texas, that these are major undertakings. And in the private sector, you don't have any one or two charitable, philanthropic organizations that have this sort of capacity. So it would really lead to disorder and people's needs not being met. And actually going back to the first thing that you said, Scott, about eliminating fema, it's a little bit confusing because if you listen to the administration, they're saying contradictory things. On one hand we heard that this is an agency that needs to be eliminated. Other times the administration is saying, oh, this is an organization that needs to be reformed. You know, so which is it, Is it, is it a elimination or is it a fix it job? Now, there have been hearings that have been held. The FEMA reform committee has met three times. And it consists of some governors and emergency managers and some local politicians that have been meeting on a monthly basis. And the direction of the thoughts and the contributions that people were making is sort of, that, hey, you know, just eliminating it and gutting it entirely is going to be too disruptive and we don't want to have that. So they're, they're leaning in the, in the direction of reform rather than elimination. So it's something that is meant to support federal role supports. It does not supplant the state and the, and the local. And one of the items of misinformation is like when Acting Secretary Richardson of FEMA on 23 July, it was a hearing where he was asked questions by members of Congress and he said, well, our plan is to return it to the states, return this activity, return this responsibility to the states. But wait a minute, it has been with the states for decades. So this is nothing revelatory about, you know, returning to the states. It's really about fixing and reforming, trimming some of the bloat, some of the bureaucracy. We know that all federal agencies have got, have got delays in red tape. So it's really focusing, this is the direction of the remarks that one can hear and there you can listen yourself, that these hearings are being taped and available to all to watch. So the direction is really on reform rather than gutting and eliminating and abolishing.

[Scott Bertram]

Yeah, Jerry, you've made the case elsewhere for some more efficient, some market driven solutions. When we talk about reforms to fema, how might those work? How might those be implemented?

[Jerry Theodoro]

Yes, you do have already the activity from private organizations, charitable organizations, churches and other philanthropic organizations. And they have been contributing to the effort, which makes the job of being the sort of the coordinator from the back. All the more important because you've got multiple parties that are in there. And if you don't have clear direction and clear management, then you're going to.

[Scott Bertram]

Have a messy situation when it comes to that cooperation. The private organizations, the nonprofits you talk about. We have heard stories, reports, particularly with Helene recently, about FEMA interfering or precluding some of these private attempts, rescue attempts, helicopter attempts. Is that something we should be concerned about or is that FEMA doing the job it's supposed to be in coordinating these efforts?

[Jerry Theodoro]

I'm not aware of interference and that sort of activity. I mean, there's a lot of questions about some of the facets of what's really going on. For example, with the, the Central Texas flash flooding, there were reports that tens of thousands of calls were unanswered. People that were seeking help and assistance were calling the help desks, and there were tens of thousands of calls that were not answered. And when asked about that, the Secretary of Homeland Security as well as the acting administrator of FEMA said, no, this is, this is fake news. So is it or is it not the. And then with, with Helene, a very, very difficult and catastrophic destructive event, especially in the western parts of North Carolina. You had a tremendous amount of need, but I'm not aware again of any untoward activity. And anything that's counterproductive.

[Scott Bertram]

Disaster response sometimes can get well caught up in politics too, whether it be the issue of funding or speed. Is it important that FEMA continue to avoid being seen as political in nature in any way?

[Jerry Theodoro]

I think so. This is not something for political differences to be influencing. We're talking about saving lives. You know, the number of lives that we lost in Texas, you know, breaks our hearts. So it's nothing, not something that should be politicized. At the first hearing of the FEMA review committee, the secretary of Kristi Noem was blaming the Biden administration for things, you know, we don't need, that we don't need, you know, finger pointing and absolving oneself. One needs dedication to the mission, which is to save lives and property and to restore. So we should have be having discussions about mitigation, about preventing the magnitude of losses that we've been seeing and the elimination of the BRIC program, the building resilient infrastructure and communities. The elimination of the BRIC grants is something that is at odds with the requirement or the need to have more resilient, more resilient country. This is what we should be talking about rather than, you know, the political finger pointing and you know, it's your fault. That's really not needed.

[Scott Bertram]

When FEMA does fall short though, or as we talk about these reforms, right, who should be held accountable? Meaning is it the agency itself, Congress? When it comes to approving funding for fema, the administration in power, who's responsible for maybe being the lead in reforming fema. If there's need for reform, I would.

[Jerry Theodoro]

Say the administration has a big role to play and has a lot of responsibility for making things better. Already the administration has not been acting in accordance with the statutory requirement with the law that the FEMA administrator be someone that has at least five years of disaster management experience. That's not the case. There is an emphasis on when asked, you know, what is the role of fema, some of the senior administrative administration officials that are connected there say it's to achieve the vision of the president. So this should not be a one man show and a test of loyalty or a test of purity. It reminds me of the Old Testament. In the book of Judges, the Ephraimites who were the enemies of the tribe, the branches of the tribe of Manasseh were asked to say the word shibboleth. And if they couldn't say it right because they couldn't pronounce the sh, it said sibboleth, then they were not from, you know, the good guys. So 42,000 of them were slaughtered. So we don't need to have. Scott, can you say shibboleth?

[Scott Bertram]

Shibboleth, yes.

[Jerry Theodoro]

I hope so. Okay, good. You live.

[Scott Bertram]

All right.

[Jerry Theodoro]

So we've been having that. You had the, the letter signed by 200 current and former FEMA staffers asking for changes. And only 36 out of the 200 were able to sign. Brave enough to sign their names. The others remained anonymous because they didn't want retaliation. Well, guess what? Those 36 had signed their names were put on administrative leave. The, the former acting administrator Hamilton Cam Hamilton said that FEMA needs to be, needs to be reformed. He didn't say to be destroyed. So he was fired hours after that. So that creates a climate of fear and watching your back, which does not do anything for productivity. Quite the contrary. So we need to have these voices that are being heard in the committee, in the reform, the FEMA review committee, and to actually listen and to learn because one person can't do it all. They say in business that if you have two people that agree on everything, then one of them is unnecessary. So we need to have these listening sessions and people to take away and to learn what are the measures that should be implemented. The deadline for the final report is November 16th. So just in a couple of months we'll see what the final report looks like. And then will the administration implement some of the recommended changes or will it just gather dust on a shelf?

[Scott Bertram]

Jerry, I want to ask one final question about fema, its presence and its large budget. Are you concerned in any way or is there any evidence that perhaps it disincentivizes states from investing in potential mitigation efforts, meaning they know that backdrop is there to help if disaster occurs and therefore don't spend necessary local state money to prevent a disaster from happening in the first place?

[Jerry Theodoro]

Yeah. One of the troubling things that I've seen is that in following the emphasis on having this led by the states, which it is, and states do a really good job because they love their people, they want their people to be healthy and safe and not to lose their property or their health. So if the theme continues that everything that FEMA did gets gets pushed down to the states. The states can't handle mega infrastructural repair projects like in Netherlands in the 1950s. They had the Delta project, which was a massive undertaking that would prevent Holland from being under, well, it is underwater, but from having destruction from floods. And that was a huge project that involved a big investment from the federal government and it worked. It's been over 50 years now and Holland has not had a massive flood like it did in the early 50s, which was the stimulus for the Delta projects. So we need to have additional support beyond what the states can offer for some of the long term projects like the levies in Louisiana, which held up very well because they were reinforced after Katrina 2005, 20 years ago. It was like, hey, this is going to happen again if we don't build the levees higher and stronger. And they did. And Louisiana survived IDA and a couple of other tests in the form of large hurricanes. So there is a time and a need for federal support, but it should not crowd out other partners.

[Scott Bertram]

Jerry Theodoro is Director of Finance, Insurance and Trade Policy at the R Street Institute. You can find more at R Street. Jerry, thank you so much for joining us today on Future of Freedom.

[Jerry Theodoro]

Thank you, Scott, and thank you to the listeners out there.

[Scott Bertram]

We thank both of our guests for joining us. Chris Edwards, Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at the Cato Institute, cato.org and [e-mail] and Jerry Theodoro, Director of the Finance, Insurance and Trade Policy Program at the r Street Institute. Rstreet.org to find additional episodes of Future of Freedom, go to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, a production of Franklin News Foundation.