A federal judge has ruled that a Trump administration plan to cut the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) workforce in half was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawfully seized FEMA's authority over its own personnel and pursued cuts to disaster-response jobs.
According to federal law enacted after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, DHS is prohibited from substantially reducing FEMA's authorities, responsibilities, or functions. Illston determined that DHS violated this law last year by preventing FEMA from renewing temporary contracts for thousands of on-call reservists who assist in disaster responses.
"There is no evidence in the record reflecting reasoned decision-making for this about-face or for the subsequent conditions DHS placed on FEMA’s renewal authority," Illston wrote in her ruling. The judge noted that the planned cuts projected FEMA's staffing levels for the upcoming fiscal year at 11,383 employees, about half of previous levels, without providing a rationale for this specific number.
Unions representing FEMA employees had argued that the planned reductions were unlawful because they would compromise FEMA's core disaster-response mission, lacked congressional approval, and were ordered by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem instead of FEMA officials.
The administration had maintained that FEMA possessed considerable flexibility in setting staffing levels, with former President Donald Trump having previously suggested the elimination of FEMA and the transfer of emergency preparedness responsibilities to the states.
Illston's ruling on Friday did not include specific remedies or penalties, stating that these would be addressed in a separate decision scheduled for next month. Both parties are expected to submit briefings by Oct. 9 regarding any outstanding relief.
In a related matter, the judge also criticized FEMA and DHS officials for discussing staffing cuts via the Signal messaging app on personal cell phones and subsequently deleting the messages. Illston stated that these deleted messages would have been relevant to the lawsuit, and she would now presume they would have been unfavorable to the defendants, serving as further evidence of unlawful conduct.