This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Introduced July 21, 2025 by Shomari C. Figures · Last progress July 21, 2025
Changes how FEMA predisaster hazard mitigation money is distributed by moving from competitive local grants to formula allocations to States and Indigenous & Tribal governments, sets a $75 million minimum for tribes, and requires States to pass at least half of their funds to the local government carrying out a recommended project. It also prioritizes cost‑effective projects that reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to property and critical services, allows rare Presidential exceptions, and prevents the same project from receiving duplicative funding under the two related Stafford Act programs.
The bill provides more predictable, locally directed, and safety‑focused mitigation funding—guaranteeing tribes a minimum amount and requiring local suballocations—but trades off flexibility, local control and competitive targeting, which may leave some high‑need communities or states worse off.
Local governments (and the communities they serve) will receive funding directed to on-the-ground mitigation because at least 50% of State allocations must be suballocated to the local government carrying out recommended projects.
Projects that are cost‑effective at reducing injuries, loss of life, and damage to critical services are prioritized, focusing limited funds on interventions with clearer public‑safety benefits.
State and Indian tribal governments receive predictable formula allocations instead of competing for grants, improving their ability to plan and budget mitigation work.
Local governments and communities may have reduced input and less ability to advance innovative local proposals because States can restrict fund use to Governor‑recommended projects (with only limited presidential exceptions).
Shifting from competitive grants to formula allocations may reduce funding available to certain high‑need or high‑merit local projects that previously succeeded in competitions, disadvantaging some vulnerable communities.
The formula's mix of equal share, population, and critical‑infrastructure vulnerability components could advantage some States and disadvantage others, creating perceived or real fairness and equity issues across states.