While HHS is rightly focused on the health and medical aspects of the response, that statement also means something else: that the full breadth of the federal government’s capabilities have yet to be employed.

A truly “whole-of-government approach” would engage all of the 15 capabilities identified in the playbook, including, for example, Transportation (ESF #1), Mass Care and Temporary Housing (ESF #6), Logistics (ESF #7), Public Safety and Security (ESF #13). There’s even a function called Cross-Sector Business and Infrastructure (ESF#14) that focuses on, for example, “cascading impacts of health or medical infrastructure or service disruptions.” During a major disaster or emergency, it’s FEMA’s role to coordinate all of these capabilities.

An “All-Hazards” Agency

FEMA, traditionally thought of as the agency that supports state and local governments during natural disasters such hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, is actually an “all-hazards” agency ready to respond to a range of crises—including pandemics. And FEMA has the experience and access to resources that could prove essential in the not too distant future.

Before I left FEMA at the end of January I saw firsthand the early actions taken by the administration on coronavirus. I was there for the standup of the president’s coronavirus task force, which at the time was certainly a step in the right direction. The task force, however, is not the totality of the response that one might assume based on the media coverage. Instead it focuses on setting priorities and adjudicating policy issues, while the operational response remains with HHS.

The breadth of the coronavirus challenge can be seen in how states are responding. Governors are increasingly declaring state emergencies and activating their resources. For example, New York Governor Cuomo has deployed the National Guard to a “containment area” he established in the state. And state and local governments could soon require assistance beyond what is being provided today by HHS, including the recent $8.3 billion Congress appropriated to support the public health and medical response.

And certainly if the impacts approach what China has experienced -- thousands dead, food shortages, and disruption of essential services -- it will be apparent to all that this is not only a health emergency, but a major disaster. Virtually every federal agency would have a role in the response to a crisis of that magnitude.

Coordinating operations among numerous agencies with a wide array of missions would present a significant challenge to HHS. And it could take HHS away from its core mission of coordinating the medical response.

Thus if the crisis continue to escalate, FEMA should be pressed into service. Indeed, the task force is now reportedly considering invoking the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which gives the president the authority to declare an emergency or a disaster. This would trigger additional support to state and local governments and position FEMA to coordinate the overall response.

While it might be possible for the president to unilaterally declare an emergency, ideally governors would initiate requests to the president based on the specific impacts to their states. In doing so they should identify any needs that remain unmet by HHS. If approved by the president, additional resources would be available to states. These resources could include, for example, the provision of commodities, sheltering support, and security measures.

The president declaring an emergency would also shift the center of gravity for the response from HHS to FEMA, and place the agency in role akin to how it mobilizes the federal response to a hurricane. FEMA would activate its interagency emergency operations center at its headquarters, FEMA regional offices would directly support states in their regions, and FEMA would lead operational meetings and video teleconferences with officials from federal agencies and impacted states.

Regardless of what presidential actions might follow, the task force should remain focused on policy and strategy, and HHS should continue leading the health and medical aspects of the response. And rest assured if we reach a tipping point that necessitates a more robust federal response, FEMA has capabilities and experience to lead it.

