As we reported last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing nearly $1 billion in cuts to grant programs that fire, EMS and emergency management agencies use to strengthen disaster preparedness and homeland security. Now, FireRescue1 community members are sounding the alarm, with one member stating the move could “cause loss of life” and another stating that the cuts are a “recipe for disaster.” The proposal is part of a broader effort to restructure FEMA and shift greater responsibility for disaster preparedness and response to state and local governments.
Several FireRescue1 readers shared their comments with the editors, all voicing their concern about the proposal — share your feedback here. The commentary was more divided on Facebook — join that conversation here.
“This will be very bad for the fire service. A lot of volunteer fire departments depend on the AFG grants. There are a lot of other areas where spending should be cut before FEMA grants.”
“I do not agree at all with these grant cuts. The smaller counties and departments depend on those funds to keep our equipment up to date, and it saves people’s lives as well as property.”
“This is a recipe for disaster. Shifting federal oversight of disaster response to states is going to create 50 outfits operating differently. It will also hamstring some states that do not have robust FEMA teams in the event of a disaster. It seems shortsighted to cut AWS funding after flash floods killed hundreds of people in Texas. Simply put, some states will not be able to shoulder the load of disaster response.”
“This move would be disastrous for the volunteer fire departments, especially regarding the FEMA AFG grant program. There isn’t nearly enough money in this grant program to fund all the requests each year. The cost of equipment and personal protective equipment is almost out of reach for volunteer fire departments. I have been writing grants for our fire department for almost 20 years, and it is more competitive every year. Trying to keep current with all the safety changes and the end-of-life requirements for protective gear and SCBAs is extremely important to maintain services vital to our communities. The amount of time spent on fundraising activities exceeds the amount of time available for training. In 2003, a new engine cost us $127,000. Today, a basic new engine starts at around $850,000. Our state of Pennsylvania offers a state grant each year. They increased it this year from $15,000 to $20,000, but we received nearly $4,000 less than the previous year. Putting the burden on the state will not work. Fire stations are already being closed due to limited personnel, poor equipment and other challenges. I am speaking only from the volunteer standpoint. The amount of money saved by taxpayers because of the services we provide is irreplaceable. We are being called to more emergencies today than ever before. Keep the current programs and fund them accordingly.”
“There is no rationale for these cuts, which will result in greater costs in the long run, as reduced preparedness always leads to greater and more costly disasters. The states are not prepared to pick up the increased costs of this decision. ‘Penny wise, dollar foolish’ — except this time, it could result in the loss of life for first responders and the public. Stop tax breaks for the wealthy and fund essential community preparedness.”
“As a former employee of FEMA as well as a retired fire chief, I can state categorically that the only way the fire service and the nation’s emergency management system don’t come out as the losers with cuts of this magnitude is if those services are removed from FEMA and placed under a new organization that’s funded separately, such as the U.S. Fire Administration. This was the original intent when that organization was created anyway. Shifting the responsibility to the states would only accomplish two things: (1) having 50 different approaches to disaster management instead of the singular approach we have now, and (2) elimination of national funding for emergency training and disaster recovery. The states would be left to beg for funding, and the entire process would be turned into a political fiasco.”
“Our firefighters and EMS are critical in everyday life. Eliminating funding for warning systems is not right.”
“As a fire department serving two municipalities in Wisconsin, and operating under strict levy limits imposed by the state, we rely heavily on FEMA grants to fulfill our mission. Programs like AFG have enabled us to replace aging equipment, enhance training, and strengthen regional coordination—investments our local budget cannot support on its own. Eliminating these funds would directly impact our readiness. Without them, we face delays in critical upgrades and a reduced capacity to respond to emergencies. Preparedness is not optional; it’s essential. Cutting these programs puts departments like ours, and the communities we serve, at greater risk.”
“Elimination of FEMA will eliminate our nation’s capability to deal with major natural and manmade disasters. We could also see the elimination of our National Fire Academy, Emergency Management Institute and our National Response Teams in the process. Just another brain-dead idea by a know-nothing administration, and our citizens would be the ones to suffer for their ignorance.”
“This is going to cripple our ability to manage natural disasters at the local and state level and have a huge negative impact on the volunteer fire service throughout the country, as well as on our ability to be prepared for natural or manmade disasters. This will impact all of us, and we will not be able to properly manage disasters. In addition, there will be a major impact from not having safe equipment for the volunteer fire service, which most small rural towns cannot afford without these important grants that help our communities.”
“Appalling action by an administration attempting to marginalize emergency services — an administration that states verbal support but takes contrary actions.”
“I am with a fire company in central PA. We need a new radio system. This cut could cause loss of life.”
Share your thoughts with FireRescue1.
