A Primer: How Federal Changes are Shifting Disaster Resilience in California

In this Primer

Current and Future Disaster Response and Recovery
Policy Changes Affecting FEMA and Federal Funding
Philanthropic Response & Partnerships
 

As California recovers from one of the worst wildfire disasters in its history, there is growing concern and confusion regarding the rapid changes happening to federal emergency management infrastructure and policy.

Fortunately, Philanthropy California has a strong network of partners who are already providing research, policy analysis, and real-time context of the shifting landscape in D.C., which the philanthropic sector can leverage to inform their approach to disaster preparedness and resilience.

Our Philanthropy California Climate and Disaster Resilience Team curated a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about recent changes to the federal disaster management landscape to provide factual information in a moment of critical importance.  The information below reflects the state of play for disaster resilience in California, verified by a panel of experts from think tanks, former and current federal and state disaster management leadership, and frontline organizations supporting communities impacted by recent wildfires and ICE enforcement.

Philanthropic funders can use this FAQ to inform and guide their grantmaking and charitable giving to support communities in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters toward long-term resilience. Please see this FAQ list as a continuing resource updated as new information is learned to support you in engaging with partners and grantees.

Current and Future Disaster Response and Recovery

Is the State of California operationally and financially prepared in the scenario the president refuses to declare a major disaster? 

While California has greater fiscal capacity than other states to absorb the costs of large-scale disasters, a loss of federal support would be a budget challenge. A political shift toward states and local governments absorbing the cost of disaster places added pressure not just on government but also the insurance industry, public-private partnerships, and philanthropy to provide capital for various strategies in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. 

In recent years, the federal government has provided California with significant resources in the aftermath of disasters. For example, California received nearly $210 million in both individual (funding to individuals and households) and public assistance (funding to public agencies and government) after the 2020 wildfires in the Bay Area. Similarly, in the response to the 2025 January wildfires, FEMA has already provided nearly $150 million in individual assistance alone, with the total sent to California passing $2 billion when factoring in public assistance and small business administration loans. 

According to the Urban Institute, with less support from FEMA, “Many states won’t have the emergency disaster funds needed to weather a major disaster.” Notably, the State of California has also been able to respond to disasters that do not receive a major disaster declaration. That said, the Institute’s review of available data shows that California has less funding set aside for disasters than in previous years, likely due to multiple large-scale disasters that have required state support in recent history. Based on 2019 data, California’s Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties held $5.39 billion. While this fund would theoretically cover the costs of something as catastrophic as the L.A. Wildfires, it would reduce emergency reserves significantly throwing the state into uncertainty should there be multiple large disasters in the same fiscal year. Without federal support for disasters, the state may need to invest in additional staffing, personnel, and expertise that would typically come from FEMA and other federal resources.

Will FEMA continue to respond to disasters in California and other states? Will households and Tribes continue to receive FEMA assistance for current and future disasters?

In order for FEMA to respond to disasters in California, the President must approve a major disaster declaration from the Governor. An approved major declaration for disaster potentially unlocks federal support such as individual and public assistance, various recovery programs, federally-funded debris removal missions, disaster recovery centers, and other streams of public funding through the Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and others. FEMA has staff deployed across the country and U.S. territories in response to requests for federal assistance.

FEMA is still tasked with responding to disasters and providing Individual Assistance, which can only be unlocked by a major disaster declaration. However, the President has broad discretion to limit, delay, or condition that aid. Recent Department of Homeland Security actions with the Texas Flood show a willingness to challenge FEMA’s standard operational procedures. 

According to a recent FEMA Operations Daily Brief, there are currently 13 requests for federal disaster declarations in process, with these requests dating back to May 2025.  In total, there have been 32 disaster declarations and requests for hazard mitigation assistance that remain outstanding, either pending or denied since February 2025. These declarations include requests for support for severe storms, flooding, landslides/mudslides, tornadoes, straight-line winds, fire hazard, and hazardous materials. Declarations have been made by various states as well as Tribes. Whereas in past administrations disaster declarations were made on a rolling basis to provide federal resources quickly, we have seen this administration hold on approving declarations until several have been requested.

While we are still likely to see federal assistance for disasters, the threshold for a presidential declaration may change. In the future, it may be more difficult for California to receive an approval for a presidential declaration, as more responsibility for disaster management will fall on the states. Proposed changes to the disaster declaration process include raising the damage threshold for a presidentially declared disaster, denying major disaster declarations for snowstorms, and limiting the federal cost share for public assistance funding after a disaster to 75 percent or less. With a major disaster declaration, federal support can also include the Hazard Mitigation Grants Program (HGMP), which is a resource for building back better but which has yet to be authorized by the current administration. 

Notably, Tribes do not need to go through Cal OES for disaster declarations. They can go directly to FEMA to request support.

Historically, the amount that is allocated to FEMA’s Individual Assistance program per state varies depending on how many people apply. According to the Carnegie Endowment’s Disaster Dollar Database, “Since 2015, across 170 disasters, the median average assistance amount per approved application from FEMA’s Individuals and Households Programs (IHP) is $4,995. On average, just 39 percent of applicants are determined to be eligible for IHP.” Grant sizes for Individual Assistance can vary depending on the disaster and extent of damage. Without individual assistance and supplemental federal resources through the Small Business Administration (SBA) or Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) for large-scale disasters, philanthropy may need to play an even bigger role in filling funding gaps. Even when federal disaster programs are activated, there tends to be significant funding gaps.

Is it safe for non-citizens to receive help at evacuation centers or shelters? 

In the current political landscape, there is an increased risk for non-citizens at evacuation centers and shelters. Historically, shelters have been treated as places where routine immigration enforcement is limited, but recent actions by the current federal administration have changed the landscape and made undocumented people, and even legal permanent residents, more vulnerable when applying for federal assistance and when at shelters. 

There is no absolute guarantee that shelters are “safe” from immigration enforcement under the current administration. The risk has meaningfully increased. Immigration enforcement may also be enforced in areas surrounding shelters. In Los Angeles, non-governmental organizations like the American Red Cross took additional measures to plan ahead in the event that ICE tried to enter. Even so, undocumented individuals and families should verify local shelter policies, prioritize community or faith-based options that limit data sharing, and connect with local immigrant-rights groups for real-time guidance. Additionally, routes to and from safe shelters might pose a threat and should be monitored closely during a disaster. Philanthropy should consider all available information on risk before making any specific recommendations to undocumented communities on where they should seek help during a disaster.

FEMA’s eligibility guidance for many disaster-assistance programs still ties certain assistance (e.g., housing assistance) to citizenship/qualified-alien status. In August 2025, the Department of Homeland Security moved to bar states and volunteer groups from serving undocumented immigrants. This does not automatically mean Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will arrest people at disaster centers, but it does mean some federal programs are limited to people with certain immigration statuses. That said, the federal environment is actively more enforcement-oriented in this current administration, and it is possible that there might be more limits on who does and does not get help when FEMA is involved. There is practical concern over risk that information gathered during disaster response could be used in immigration-related actions or be shared with enforcement. 

Will California receive Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding for the LA Wildfires? What happens if we don’t receive this appropriation?

At the time of writing, no new CDBG-DR (Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery) funds have been allocated to California for the recent L.A. wildfires. Recent CDBG-DR allocations—such as the $416.6 million distributed to California—were designated for 2023–2024 disasters like severe winter storms, floods, landslides, and mudslides. There will likely be a packaged appropriation request presented to Congress with all disasters that occur in 2025 for long-term recovery funding, including the LA Wildfires and flooding in Texas. This should make the process less political as both Republican- and Democrat-led states depend on these resources for long-term recovery. 

CDBG-DR can be used for a wide array of housing, infrastructure, and economic recovery activities. To date, California has administered numerous recovery programs with CDBG-DR, including owner-occupied reconstruction, home hardening, multifamily rental housing, homebuyer assistance, infrastructure recovery, hazard mitigation, workforce development, public services, and planning. These prior CDBG-DR grants covered less than 15% to 20% of unmet recovery needs. Congress and HUD require that no less than 70% of a CDBG-DR award support low- and moderate-income households or communities. Additionally, awards include a 15% set-aside for forward-looking hazard mitigation activities that reduce the risk of future losses in disaster-affected areas.

While CDBG-DR assistance may become available, the timing and amount are uncertain. The time lapse between a major disaster event and a supplemental disaster appropriation is largely dependent when the prior appropriation had been made how many other major disasters occur in the same year. Without a supplemental appropriation for CDBG-DR, recovery programs and projects will need to rely more on SBA loans, insurance, and state, local, and philanthropic sources.

Policy Changes Affecting FEMA and Federal Funding

What policy changes have been made that may or will impact FEMA’s response to future disasters in California?

The federal government is unlikely to be ready for significant disasters this year. Elaine Kamarck’s July 2025 Brookings Institute article points to widespread instability and political interference at FEMA as key reasons for concern. Mass firings, suspension of staff, leadership changes, and deferred resignations have left the agency understaffed throughout hurricane and wildfire season. 

These structural and leadership gaps at FEMA strongly suggest the federal government will not be fully ready to handle major disasters during and after this year. The dismantling of the National Weather Service, FEMA, and other federal agencies has weakened our national security infrastructure, as seasoned staff with decades of expertise have been dismissed. Despite congressional requirements that FEMA be led by experienced emergency managers, acting heads without such backgrounds now run the agency, while staff and funds are diverted to support ICE. New layers of bureaucracy have slowed disaster response (e.g., Texas floods), resilience funding (BRIC), and recovery aid (e.g., funds for North Carolina). With less federal funding for proactive risk reduction, it is imperative that risk-informed, risk-reducing, resilience-building projects become integrated in the strategies of funding agencies and institutions that absorb this responsibility.

Looking ahead, two processes will be critical to watch: the FEMA Review Council, established by the Trump administration to assess “the existing ability of FEMA to capably and impartially address disasters,” and the pending FEMA Independence Act of 2025. Both seek to redefine FEMA’s authority and role in disaster response, with potential long-term implications for how the nation manages crises.

In the absence of federal support, California may increasingly be called upon to provide mutual aid to other states facing crises. The state has already demonstrated this capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it sent ventilators and protective equipment to states in need. Future emergencies may require California to act as a safety net for the rest of the nation.

What federal preparedness or mitigation funding from FEMA has been cut? What funding is still flowing? What does this mean for local communities?

Since January, hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funding for mitigation, resilience, and preparedness has been cut, withdrawn, or cancelled impacting communities across California. In total, more than $800 million in Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) that were intended for California remain in limbo while a court decides on the legality of the cancellation with many communities receiving notice that their grant agreements have been terminated. Funding terminated included projects focused on earthquake retrofits, wildfire resilience projects, and coastal and sea level adaptation projects, among others. 

According to the Urban Institute, across the United States cutting BRIC and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program will freeze more than $3 billion in disaster resilience funding. Research from the US Chamber of Commerce shows that for every dollar invested in resilience, communities save between $6 and $13 in disaster recovery costs, showing the importance of these funds in keeping the costs of disasters low. 

Further, there was concern that FEMA would not release funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant that provides funding to states and local governments for emergency management staff and facilities, including many staff in California at Cal OES and across local agencies. On August 1st, FEMA announced that funding would be available for this program for the 2025 – 2026 fiscal year, however, the delay caused panic across the country as some states use this to fund 80% of their core disaster management and preparedness functions.
 

Philanthropic Response & Partnerships 

Will FEMA still have “Philanthropy Liaisons”? Who can philanthropy work with at the State during disasters?

The FEMA Interagency Recovery Council currently houses the FEMA Philanthropic Advisor program. It is anticipated that this program will still be sustained, although there is a possibility that oversight of the IRC might move under the White House National Security Council. California’s Disaster Recovery Framework (CDRF) was written in 2019 and implemented for the first time in 2020 during the winter storms. State agencies were actively engaged in recovery for the first time in the L.A. wildfires. 

Before, during, and after disasters, philanthropic funders in California can lean on Philanthropy California’s partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). The Chief of Private Sector and NGO Coordination, by way of the Business Operations Center, often works with Philanthropy California to uplift disaster funds, coordinate philanthropic response, and track opportunities for public-private partnership in preparedness, response, and recovery.

Where might philanthropy be asked to fill in gaps widened by changes to FEMA and federal funding for disasters? 

As federal agencies face staffing shortages, policy uncertainty, and narrowed eligibility, philanthropy may need to act faster, with greater flexibility, and be prepared to sustain funding beyond the immediate relief phase. Philanthropy may increasingly be called on to fill long-term recovery and resilience gaps as FEMA and other federal disaster funds face delays, restrictions, or political shifts. Philanthropy will also be called upon to provide concessional capital, first-loss capital, or other types of guarantees that enable large scale private sector investments in the resilience of communities and their ability to recover from events that are not covered by major disaster declarations.

Reduced federal funding will impact all recovery support function areas, and philanthropic dollars may need to be directed toward supplemental strategic investments where federal funding may previously have been used:

• Housing: Rebuilding and repairing homes for survivors who are ineligible for federal aid (e.g., undocumented residents) or whose needs exceed FEMA’s grant caps. This may also include covering rental assistance or temporary housing when federal housing programs end

• Economic recovery: Supporting small businesses, workers, and workforce development; direct cash assistance to individuals and families; support in acquiring leases and land for lost community facilities and commercial properties; job training and placement; support for home-based businesses (i.e., early childcare and education); day laborer and open-air worker support. Particular emphasis on supporting undocumented or credit-invisible individuals for whom loans are not a viable option.

• Natural & Cultural Resources: Supporting parks, open space, and trail restoration and mitigation projects previously covered by federal funding; supporting historical preservation and cultural site restoration/preservation. 

• Community Assistance and Capacity Building: Investing in community-led resilience projects—especially for socially vulnerable areas—that often struggle to secure federal grants; building local capacity to track needs, coordinate aid, and navigate complex funding streams.

• Health, Education, and Human Services: Funding disaster caseworkers, mental health care, and legal aid where federal programs are short-lived or under-resourced.

• Communications and External Affairs: Strengthen external affairs capacity during major disasters by funding trusted, community-based communication channels, translation services, and culturally competent outreach to combat misinformation, ensure accurate and people-centered information reaches at-risk populations, and provide door-to-door survivor support where government no longer does. 

Lily Bui, PhD
Director, Climate and Disaster Preparedness & Resilience
SoCal Grantmakers
lily@socalgrantmakers.org

Katie Oran
Manager, Climate and Disaster Resilience 
NorCal Grantmakers 
kaoran@ncg.org  

Kirin Kumar 
Director, Climate and Disaster Resilience
NorCal Grantmakers 
kkumar@ncg.org

Megan Thomas
CEO/President
Catalyst of San Diego & Imperial Counties
megan@catalystsd.org

Karla Mercado
VP, Philanthropy California & Public Policy
karla@socalgrantmakers.org

This article was reviewed for clarity, consistency, and accuracy by a panel of experts at the following organizations: 

Urban Institute
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Former and current FEMA leadership and staff
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
American Red Cross