The acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, David Richardson, has submitted his resignation after a turbulent stretch leading one of the nation’s most critical emergency-response institutions. His departure, confirmed this week, comes amid rising internal frustrations, public scrutiny, and major structural changes underway at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Richardson, who formally notified DHS on Monday, will remain in place through the end of hurricane season before stepping aside. While his resignation was presented publicly as voluntary, multiple officials familiar with the matter say plans were already circulating within DHS leadership to replace him. Those familiar with the situation described the decision as part of a broader organizational reset rather than an isolated personnel move.
A Short Tenure Begins Under Scrutiny
Richardson’s time leading FEMA began earlier this year when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem selected him to temporarily head the agency. The choice drew attention because Richardson, despite having served in multiple national-security positions, had no history in disaster management or large-scale emergency operations.
His background is an unusual one for a FEMA administrator. Before arriving at the top post, Richardson had directed DHS’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office. Outside government, he worked as a martial arts instructor, painter, and private-sector consultant. Supporters often highlighted his military service as a Marine combat veteran and his reputation for drive and discipline. Critics, however, pointed to the enormous gap between his experience and the high technical demands of leading FEMA during peak disaster season.
That concern grew louder as several high-profile missteps emerged during his tenure.
Public Moments That Sparked Backlash
One of the earliest controversies occurred at a FEMA staff meeting in June, when Richardson joked — according to DHS — that he “did not know the United States had a hurricane season.” Although DHS later framed the remark as humor, it landed poorly among employees already concerned about the agency’s direction under new leadership. Internally, the comment became symbolic of broader worries about preparedness and experience.
The situation escalated further in July, when severe flooding struck parts of Texas, triggering widespread evacuations, major infrastructure damage, and a full-scale emergency response. At the height of the crisis, Richardson was reportedly on vacation and unreachable for several hours. His temporary absence during the early stages of the disaster drew immediate criticism from state officials, federal partners, and members of Congress.
Richardson later testified that he had been monitoring the situation from his truck, coordinating with staff remotely. Yet he did not appear publicly during the unfolding emergency and did not visit the affected communities until more than a week later. By the time he arrived — unannounced and wearing a straw hat, cowboy boots, and no visible FEMA gear — top federal officials including President Donald Trump and Secretary Noem had already toured the damage.
His visit became a talking point among FEMA personnel, not because of its timing, but because of how unusual it appeared compared to the typically highly coordinated field presence FEMA administrators maintain during disasters.
Despite the public criticism, Richardson defended his performance, telling lawmakers that FEMA’s response in Texas should be considered “a model for how to respond to a disaster.” That assessment was met with skepticism on Capitol Hill, where multiple committees had already requested briefings related to delays in early coordination, staffing shortages, and communication issues inside FEMA during the flood response.
A Leadership Shake-Up Underway at DHS
Richardson’s resignation lands at a moment of significant transition within DHS. According to officials familiar with the decision, Secretary Noem has been working on restructuring several key agencies under DHS oversight — including FEMA — to streamline internal operations, tighten coordination between departments, and modernize certain emergency-response capabilities.
Those plans include leadership changes, the most immediate of which is Richardson’s replacement.
Karen Evans, FEMA’s recently appointed chief of staff and a longtime public-sector official with experience in multiple federal administrations, is expected to assume the acting administrator role starting December 1. She has previously worked in positions focused on cybersecurity, information systems, and federal budgeting, earning a reputation as an experienced agency manager familiar with the complexities of government operations.
DHS released a brief statement acknowledging Richardson’s resignation and expressing appreciation for his service:
“We thank Acting Administrator Richardson for his dedication and wish him continued success as he transitions back to the private sector.”
Internally, FEMA employees were notified that more changes could follow as DHS leadership examines several divisions within the agency, particularly those responsible for communications, logistics, and field operations.
Richardson’s Final Statement: A Defense of His Tenure
In his departure announcement, Richardson emphasized that he had taken on the role at a time when few others were willing to do so.
“I agreed to be the acting administrator through hurricane season when others wouldn’t,” he said.
“Hurricane season ends on 1 December. Since the danger has largely passed, I can now leave for other opportunities. Many were asked. One raised his hand and said, ‘I’ll do it.’”
His framing of the job as a temporary, high-pressure assignment seemed intended to answer recurring questions about why he had accepted a position outside his area of expertise and whether he intended to lead the agency long-term.
Richardson did not directly address the controversies that marked his tenure but reiterated that he believed FEMA met its responsibilities during key crises. His allies within DHS argue that many of the challenges he faced — including staffing shortages, outdated systems, and strained coordination between federal and state levels — were longstanding issues predating his leadership.
Still, his critics within FEMA say the agency requires highly specialized expertise and experience, especially heading into future seasons where climate-related disasters are expected to increase in frequency and severity. Some employees described this leadership transition as an opportunity to return the agency to more traditional emergency-management leadership.
What Comes Next for FEMA
With hurricane season ending and a new internal structure taking shape, FEMA now enters a period of reassessment. Multiple officials say the agency faces several priorities in the coming months:
1. Rebuilding Internal Confidence
Employee morale took notable hits during recent disputes and operational challenges. The arrival of new leadership could offer a chance to reinforce stability and rebuild trust within the workforce.
2. Operational Review of Disaster Responses
DHS is already conducting after-action assessments of FEMA’s performance during major disasters this year, including the Texas floods. These reviews will likely inform structural changes moving forward.
3. Strengthening Disaster Preparedness
With storms becoming more unpredictable and emergency demands rising, FEMA is expected to expand investments in early-warning technology, data analysis, and community-level preparedness planning.
4. Improving Interagency Coordination
One of the recurring concerns during recent disasters was the difficulty coordinating across federal, state, and local entities. DHS is expected to explore new protocols to improve that coordination before the next major disaster season.
A Transition Amid Broader Challenges
Richardson’s resignation closes a chapter marked by controversy, uncertainty, and strained operations — but it also opens the door to potential reform. With new leadership stepping in and DHS directing sweeping internal changes, FEMA is now positioned to evaluate what went wrong, reinforce what went right, and prepare for the rapid-evolving challenges of modern emergency management.
Though much about the agency’s future direction remains in transition, one certainty remains: FEMA’s role will continue to be central to national resilience, and the leadership choices made today will shape how effectively it responds to the next major crisis.