Judge: DHS unlawfully pushed FEMA toward 50% staffing cut

Court traces 50% target to DHS officials

The dispute centered on a fiscal 2026 annual staffing plan submitted on December 4, 2025, by Karen Evans, then FEMA’s senior official performing the duties of administrator. According to the court, FEMA program and regional offices had produced two staffing exercises showing a need for 24,812 and 23,146 employees — figures that would have maintained or increased FEMA’s existing workforce, not cut it in half.¹

Illston found that the 50% figure did not come from FEMA supervisors or its chief human capital officer. Instead, the evidence pointed to senior DHS officials Joseph Guy, then deputy chief of staff, and Kara Voorhies, described in the record as a senior adviser to the DHS secretary on FEMA issues.¹

Evans testified that Guy told her to include an option with a 50% cut in FEMA’s annual staffing plan. Her contemporaneous planner notes also recorded discussions with Guy and Voorhies about “personnel issues,” “Staffing Plan #’s” and, on the day the plan was submitted, a call with Voorhies about the number 11,383 — FEMA’s projected staffing level for the coming fiscal year.¹

The court said the record showed Evans submitted the 11,383 figure first, then directed staff to determine how to support it. A December 11, 2025, Word document titled “Talking Points for FY26 Staffing Strategy” said Evans had tasked staff with developing a strategy to cut FEMA’s workforce by 50% over fiscal 2026.¹

The Associated Press reported that Illston found top Homeland Security officials directed FEMA leadership to submit the cut despite objections from the agency’s supervisors. DHS and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment, AP reported.³

CORE renewals became the mechanism

The court found that cuts to FEMA’s Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees, known as CORE employees, were central to carrying out the DHS-driven staffing plan. CORE employees are full-time, temporary Stafford Act employees who support disaster response and recovery across incidents; they made up nearly half of FEMA’s workforce in the record before the court.¹

Beginning in March 2025, the court said, DHS asserted control over whether FEMA could renew CORE appointments and for how long. FEMA leadership complied with that approval regime even though the court found personnel authority belonged to FEMA under the post-Katrina statute.¹

The staffing plan unfolded alongside decisions not to renew some CORE employees whose appointments were expiring. AP reported that the 50% reduction ultimately was not fully carried out, that FEMA had experienced terminations, and that the agency rehired some staff after leadership changes at FEMA and DHS.³

Reuters reported that FEMA projected 11,383 employees for the upcoming fiscal year, about half of earlier staffing levels, and that Illston found no basis for selecting that number.⁴

Missing Signal messages shaped the record

In a companion order, Illston sanctioned the government over the loss of Signal messages used by high-level DHS and FEMA officials to discuss FEMA business and staffing issues. The court found that Evans used Signal on her personal phone to communicate about FEMA matters with Guy, Voorhies, Corey Lewandowski and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and that some work-related chats were set to auto-delete.²

The sanctions order said Signal was a preferred method for DHS officials and that substantive discussions about FEMA’s future staffing occurred there. The court found that Evans deleted Signal messages after choosing which ones she considered worth preserving, and that plaintiffs were prejudiced because the missing communications could not be recovered.²

Illston ordered that defendants may not rely on later testimony denying the existence of a plan to substantially reduce FEMA staffing, DHS direction over that plan, or implementation through CORE separations. In future proceedings, the court said it would presume the lost Signal messages would have been unfavorable to the government because they would have provided further evidence of the plan, DHS control and implementation actions.²

The court also awarded plaintiffs fees incurred in uncovering and addressing the spoliation. A fee application is due by October 9, 2026, if the parties cannot agree on an amount.²

Legal finding rests on post-Katrina limits

Illston ruled that DHS violated the APA because its control of CORE renewals and the staffing plan ran contrary to the Post-Katrina Act and lacked the reasoned explanation required for agency action. The court did not reach separate ultra vires claims because the APA rulings addressed the same core conduct and relief.¹

The decision does not mean DHS has no oversight role over FEMA. But it draws a line between departmental oversight and DHS direction that substantially reduces FEMA’s functions or displaces FEMA’s statutory control over its personnel decisions. That boundary is central to congressional oversight of FEMA after Katrina, when lawmakers sought to protect the agency’s operational capacity inside the broader homeland security department.¹

Reuters reported that the Trump administration had argued FEMA retained flexibility to determine proper staffing levels, while Trump had previously suggested FEMA should be abolished and states should take greater responsibility for emergency preparedness.⁴

Remedies are still pending

Illston did not immediately impose a final remedy. Plaintiffs are seeking declarations, a permanent injunction against implementing DHS directives that remove FEMA authority over personnel decisions, restrictions on implementing the annual staffing plan, rescission of nonrenewal notices issued since January 1, 2026, and restoration of separated employees to the positions they would have held absent unlawful terminations.¹

The judge said some requested relief appeared broad because FEMA was no longer systematically non-renewing CORE employees after January 22, 2026, and there was no present indication that FEMA was otherwise carrying out the December 2025 staffing plan. But she also found that DHS continued to intrude on FEMA’s authority by limiting CORE renewals to shorter terms than historical practice.¹

The parties must meet and confer on relief. If they cannot agree, they must file a joint statement by October 9, 2026, identifying the remaining disputed remedy issues. The court said it would rule promptly after that.¹

No appeal was identified in the court orders or initial wire reports. The government could seek review after final relief is entered, and any appeal would likely test how far the Post-Katrina Act constrains DHS and White House-directed workforce plans at FEMA.¹