Issue Brief | Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025

A Climate Adaptation Analysis

As climate change intensifies, communities across the United States are experiencing increasing frequency and severity of floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plays a central role in helping communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from these disasters – providing essential support for effective climate adaptation through coordinated action at federal, state, and local levels.

Recent actions by the Trump administration have created unprecedented uncertainty about FEMA's future. President Trump has repeatedly suggested^{See footnote 1}  eliminating the agency entirely during disaster visits to states affected by Hurricane Helene and the Los Angeles wildfires. On January 24, 2025, President Trump acted on those suggestions by signing Executive Order 14180,^{See footnote 2} which established a Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council. The executive order explicitly tasks this council with examining "whether FEMA can serve its functions as a support agency, providing supplemental Federal assistance" to states instead of directly controlling disaster relief – language that raises fundamental questions about the agency's continued existence in its current form.

In direct response to these threats to FEMA, members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at restructuring and strengthening the agency. Most notably, on May 8, 2025, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the bipartisan "Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025,"^{See footnote 3} which not only proposes elevating FEMA to a cabinet-level agency but also includes substantial reforms to its disaster response and mitigation programs.The committee has released this as a "discussion draft" to receive feedback from Congress, state and local emergency managers, and other stakeholders before formal introduction.

The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's draft bill contains two divisions. 

• Division A establishes FEMA as a Cabinet-Level Independent Agency and transfers relevant authorities like the Stafford Act and Flood Insurance Act. 
• Division B focuses on substantive reforms to FEMA's programs and operations through four main titles. The four titles in Division B address public assistance, individual assistance, mitigation, and transparency/accountability. Among these, “Title III: Mitigation” stands out as especially significant for climate adaptation efforts, i.e. helping people and communities address increasing long-term climate hazards. 

Understanding these reform efforts is essential for practitioners and policymakers working to ensure that communities can adapt to changing climate conditions and become more resilient to climate-driven disasters. This analysis examines the proposed legislation with particular focus on its implications for advancing comprehensive climate adaptation strategies at a time when they are increasingly urgent.

Section 301: Preapproved Project Mitigation Plans – Building Long-Term Resilience

Section 301 introduces a potentially transformative approach to disaster mitigation by creating "preapproved project mitigation plans." This provision requires states to develop plans listing specific mitigation projects throughout their territories, with at least one project for each county or county equivalent. This could be a significant step in encouraging states to create project driven master plans like those in Louisiana or Texas, a pillar of comprehensive climate adaptation. This provision can help shift disaster mitigation from a reactive afterthought to a proactive planning process integrated into state governance.

This addresses a critical gap in current adaptation efforts – the absence of formalized, project-driven planning frameworks at scale. By mandating these plans, states can:

• Create ready-to-implement resilience project pipelines
• Ensure geographic coverage across all communities
• Build institutional capacity for adaptation planning
• Maintain continuity in resilience efforts across political changes

The bill provision's strength lies in preapproving the projects these plans contain. Once approved through peer review by experts in emergency management, natural hazard mitigation, and insurance underwriting, projects become automatically eligible for post-disaster funding without additional reviews. This approach:

• Eliminates post-disaster planning bottlenecks
• Reduces administrative burdens during recovery
• Enables more innovative adaptation solutions difficult to develop under post-disaster pressures

Proactive Rather than Reactive

For communities facing increasing climate hazards, this shift represents a significant step in resilience governance – moving from ad hoc responses toward systematic, anticipatory planning that acknowledges the ongoing nature of climate risk and ensures adaptation measures are in place before disasters strike rather than conceived in their chaotic aftermath.

This reform addresses a persistent challenge in the current mitigation system: the reactive nature of funding and approval after disasters strike. Currently, communities must develop mitigation proposals after experiencing a disaster, when local governments are already overwhelmed with immediate recovery needs. This creates delays in implementing mitigation measures and misses opportunities to reduce damages in subsequent events.

Science-Based and Peer-Reviewed

Under the proposed system, states would submit plans in advance for peer review by a panel of experts in emergency management, natural hazard mitigation, and insurance underwriting. Once approved, these projects would be automatically eligible for funding after a disaster.

The peer review process represents a science-based approach to project evaluation, potentially insulating mitigation decisions from political considerations. By requiring states to explain any counties lacking proposed projects, the legislation also ensures comprehensive geographic coverage of mitigation investments.

This structured planning framework addresses a key weakness in current adaptation efforts: the lack of formal government structures for long-term project-based planning. By institutionalizing this planning process at the state level while providing federal support, the legislation creates a durable system for advancing adaptation measures across diverse geographic areas.

Section 302: Residential Resilience Pilot Program – A Comprehensive Approach to Home-Level Protection

Section 302 focuses on improving resilience of buildings, which is essential for adaptation given the increasing intensity of storms, floods, wildfires, and other climate-driven hazards. This section contains several critical provisions, with the residential resilience pilot program representing a significant innovation in federal mitigation policy.

The legislation establishes a formal definition of "residential resilient retrofits" as projects designed to increase the resilience of existing homes using mitigation measures that the FEMA Administrator determines will reduce damage from natural disaster hazards most likely to occur in the specific geographic area. Importantly, these retrofits must be consistent with the two most recently published editions of relevant consensus-based codes and standards, incorporating the latest hazard-resistant designs.

The bill specifically identifies a comprehensive range of eligible retrofit measures, including:

• Home elevations and utility elevations to mitigate flood damage
• Floodproofing measures
• Tornado-safe room construction
• Seismic retrofits
• Wildfire retrofit and mitigation measures
• Wind retrofits, including roof replacements, hurricane straps, and tie-downs
• Other measures determined by the Administrator to meet program requirements

This represents a significant shift in federal mitigation policy, which has historically focused more on public infrastructure than private homes. By prioritizing individuals who "demonstrate financial need," the program addresses equity concerns in climate adaptation. Lower-income households often live in more vulnerable housing and have fewer resources to invest in resilience measures, creating a cycle where those least able to recover from disasters face the highest risks.

The program's multi-hazard approach acknowledges the diverse climate threats facing different regions of the country, from hurricanes along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts to wildfires in the West and tornadoes in the Midwest. By providing comprehensive definitions and a wide range of eligible measures, the legislation creates flexibility for communities to address their specific climate vulnerabilities while maintaining consistency with modern building standards.

Section 303: Utility Resilience – Enabling Proactive Grid Hardening with Federal Funds

Section 303 makes a practical but important change to how electric utilities can approach disaster recovery and mitigation. The provision allows utilities to implement "cost-effective hazard mitigation activities" alongside emergency power restoration work using Stafford Act funds – a significant policy shift with far-reaching implications for infrastructure resilience.

This addresses a limitation in the current system where utilities are required to focus solely on restoring service in the immediate aftermath of a disaster (emergency “restoration”  work in FEMA parlance) and then separately pursue permanent resilience improvements (“mitigation” work) later. 

Enabling Proactive Grid Hardening

The practical effect of this restriction was that communities often rebuilt vulnerable power systems multiple times after successive disasters, knowing they would fail again in future events. For ratepayer-funded utilities, especially in economically disadvantaged areas, the financial burden of comprehensive grid hardening fell on local residents already struggling with disaster recovery costs. Section 303 fundamentally changes this dynamic by allowing Stafford Act funds to support permanent resilience improvements simultaneously with emergency  restoration work. The legislative text specifically permits implementing "cost-effective hazard mitigation activities" alongside emergency power restoration work, opening the door for utilities to incorporate resilience measures as part of their disaster recovery efforts.

Beyond the obvious resilience improvements, this provision offers significant economic and practical advantages. Combining restoration and mitigation work creates immediate cost efficiencies by eliminating redundant mobilization expenses and preventing utilities from paying twice for labor and equipment deployment. Over time, hardened infrastructure will likely require less frequent disaster assistance, potentially saving substantial federal disaster spending that would otherwise fund repetitive repairs to vulnerable systems. 

Ratepayer Protection

From a community perspective, perhaps the most significant benefit is ratepayer protection—by allowing federal funds to support resilience improvements, the legislation reduces the financial pressure that previously forced utilities to increase customer rates to fund necessary hardening measures. This is particularly important for disadvantaged communities where residents may already face economic challenges after disasters. 

The provision also accelerates implementation timelines, as resilience improvements can occur immediately during restoration rather than waiting for separate planning, approval, and funding processes that often delay critical infrastructure upgrades for years.

Section 304: Sense of Congress on Pre-Disaster Mitigation - Affirming Critical Programs Under Threat

Section 304's "Sense of Congress" provision, while not legally binding, represents a notable legislative counterweight to the Trump administration's unprecedented rollback of federal mitigation programs. 

In May 2025, President Trump halted allocations from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which has invested nearly $18 billion since 1989 to safeguard 185,000 properties and strengthen critical infrastructure across the nation.^{See footnote 4}  This came shortly after the administration canceled the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and froze $3.6 billion in previously approved funds. 

The timing of Congress's support statement comes as over 50 professional organizations – including floodplain managers, engineers, planners, and environmental groups – sent a letter to President Trump on May 12, 2025, warning that "undermining or eliminating pre-disaster mitigation support would not only reverse hard-won progress – it would leave vulnerable communities exposed and undo decades of bipartisan investment."^{See footnote 5} 

The congressional declaration strategically frames mitigation as a fiscal responsibility measure, emphasizing that FEMA should support "projects designed to reduce post-disaster damage and save taxpayer dollars." This economic argument aligns with evidence cited in the stakeholder letter noting that "every dollar spent on hazard mitigation can yield up to $13 in future savings" according to studies by the National Institute of Building Sciences and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This framing is crucial for building bipartisan support at a time when administrative policy has shifted away from proactive mitigation measures despite their proven cost-effectiveness.

Conclusion: A Legislative Framework for Climate Adaptation

The "Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025" serves as a powerful bipartisan response to both the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle FEMA and the growing challenges of climate adaptation. Title III of the Act creates structural reforms that significantly enhance how communities prepare for and respond to climate-driven disasters.

Section 301's preapproved project mitigation plans transform disaster governance by shifting from reactive to proactive planning, requiring states to develop comprehensive frameworks that identify specific adaptation projects before disasters strike. Section 302's residential resilience pilot program extends adaptation efforts beyond public infrastructure to private homes through a comprehensive definition of "residential resilient retrofits" that addresses diverse regional climate threats while prioritizing those with financial need.

The legislation strengthens adaptation efforts through Section 303, which pragmatically allows utilities to implement resilience improvements alongside post-disaster repairs, enabling more efficient use of federal resources while protecting ratepayers from bearing the full costs of grid hardening. Section 304's affirmation of support for pre-disaster mitigation programs serves as a critical counterweight to recent actions halting Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding and canceling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.

In the context of increasing climate impacts and uncertainty around federal disaster management, the FEMA Act offers a path that strengthens institutional capacity while enhancing community resilience. By creating structures for anticipatory planning, expanding mitigation to residential properties, enabling infrastructure improvements, and affirming support for proactive investment, Title III establishes a more mature approach to climate adaptation that acknowledges the ongoing nature of climate risk rather than treating each disaster as a discrete event.