A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to cut staffing at the Federal Emergency Management Agency by half was unlawful, according to the Associated Press. The decision, issued Friday, blocks one of the largest proposed reductions at the agency that handles federal disaster response.
What the judge decided
US District Judge Susan Ilston found that the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA's parent agency, broke the law when it moved to cut the workforce by 50 percent. The AP reported that Ilston wrote that the FEMA staffing plan did not follow the legal steps required for such a reduction.
The ruling is the latest court check on the administration's efforts to restructure federal agencies. It also arrives after the agency's own review process had already softened its position.
The review that changed course
A FEMA Review Council created by executive order was asked to assess how the agency operates and to recommend changes. A December 2025 draft reviewed by the AP included a recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50 percent. The final version backed away from that number and instead called for a "strategic review" to set appropriate staffing levels.
Leadership at the department has also changed. Former Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma replaced Kristi Noem as Homeland Security secretary in late March 2026. He has reversed some policies that agency staff said slowed their work, including a requirement that the secretary personally approve any spending over $100,000. Trump has nominated Cameron Hamilton to lead FEMA.
Disaster aid and the political fight
The staffing case sits inside a broader argument about how disaster money is handed out. A memo compiled by Democrats on the House committee that oversees the department said Trump approved 89 percent of disaster aid requests from Republican governors and 23 percent from Democratic-led states.
Bipartisan legislation on FEMA reform is awaiting action in the House. Supporters say the review council's report, new agency leadership and stakeholder backing give Congress and the White House what they need to change the agency on paper.
What remains unsettled is the workforce question itself. The court ruling means the 50 percent cut cannot proceed as written, leaving the agency's size to be decided through the review process and further litigation.