David Richardson has stepped down as the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after only six months on the job. His sudden resignation comes amid growing frustration inside the agency and public criticism, with FEMA facing a critical moment in its role responding to disasters across the country.
Richardson took over as acting administrator in May, following the departure of his predecessor who clashed with the administration’s plans to reduce FEMA’s size and role. Before joining FEMA, Richardson led the Department of Homeland Security’s office focused on countering weapons of mass destruction. His time leading FEMA was marked by a tough, no-nonsense style. Early on, he told staff at an all-hands meeting, “Don’t get in my way,” and made clear he alone spoke for the agency.
However, insiders say Richardson was often absent from key briefings and kept to himself. His unavailability became a serious concern during the deadly floods in Texas over the Fourth of July weekend that killed at least 130 people. While state and federal teams worked against the clock in those vital first days, Richardson was reportedly on a weekend trip and could not be reached until late Sunday, a delay that upset many at FEMA and strained relationships with state officials.
Following this, the Department of Homeland Security limited Richardson’s public appearances and stopped him from speaking to the press. Colleagues noted that Richardson seemed to expect his time as FEMA administrator would be brief, even suggesting he didn’t think he would last past Thanksgiving.
The timing of Richardson’s resignation poses challenges for FEMA, which plays a key role in the nation’s disaster response, including managing federal aid and running the National Flood Insurance Program. The insurance industry, which relies on FEMA’s data and leadership during disasters, is closely watching what this change means. FEMA’s guidance shapes how insurers assess risk, set prices, and handle claims after major events.
Concerns have been growing among policymakers and industry leaders about plans to shrink FEMA’s mission. Richardson’s dual role—continuing to lead the weapons destruction unit while running FEMA—sent a signal to some that the agency was losing priority. Now, without a permanent leader and with FEMA’s future unclear, insurers worry about delays in disaster declarations, slower aid distribution, and inconsistencies in flood risk management, especially as FEMA rolls out changes to flood insurance pricing.
This comes at a time when weather-related disasters are increasing. Severe storms, wildfires, and inland flooding have driven up insurance losses. At the same time, reinsurers are raising rates and reducing coverage options, leading some insurers to pull back from risky areas or limit what they offer.
With FEMA’s role less certain, insurance companies may have to handle more responsibility in disaster response. They also face pressure to maintain coverage in vulnerable regions amid public expectations for quick government help.
For now, career staff within FEMA will guide the agency through the coming winter storm season. The insurance sector hopes to see signs that the federal government will continue to support and strengthen FEMA’s disaster response rather than scale it back. Richardson’s resignation may bring an end to one chapter of struggle inside the agency but raises an important question: will FEMA continue as the foundation of disaster response in the U.S., or will changes reshape its role and affect the insurance market connected to it?