Sponsors (13)
Broadening the 'major disaster' definition would expand federal assistance to more state/local governments and relief organizations, but it raises federal spending for taxpayers and could create legal and administrative uncertainty during implementation.
State and local governments would be more likely to qualify for federal disaster assistance under a broadened 'major disaster' definition, increasing access to FEMA aid and recovery funding.
Nonprofit disaster relief organizations would receive increased federal support and funding because more events could qualify as major disasters, improving response and recovery capacity.
Taxpayers could face higher federal spending, potential deficits, or reallocation of funds if the broader definition increases the number or scope of disaster declarations.
State governments and federal agencies (including the President's administration) could face legal uncertainty and additional administrative burden implementing and interpreting the new language, potentially delaying aid or increasing compliance costs.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Inserts new language into the Stafford Act's definition of “major disaster” to explicitly cover extreme heat events, affecting eligibility for federal disaster declarations and assistance.
Official title: To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include extreme heat in the definition of a major disaster.
Introduced July 17, 2025 by Sylvia Garcia · Last progress July 17, 2025
Adds new language to the statutory definition of “major disaster” in the Stafford Act so that extreme heat events are explicitly captured (the bill inserts additional text into 42 U.S.C. § 5122(2)). Because it changes the scope of the legal definition, the amendment would affect whether federal disaster declarations, Stafford Act assistance, and related federal programs can be triggered for extreme heat incidents. The text of the inserted language is not provided in the excerpt, so the exact scope and any limits or conditions are unknown. The change is procedural/substantive in that it alters an eligibility definition rather than creating a new program or specifying funding amounts.