- Potential benefitSupports household-level mitigation investments, potentially reducing future property damage and recovery costs.
- Potential benefitLikely increases demand for construction, retrofit, and mitigation-related jobs and businesses.
- Potential benefitProvides tax exclusions and a 30% credit, incentivizing private spending on mitigation measures.
Disaster Resiliency and Coverage Act of 2025
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
This bill creates an Individual Household Disaster Mitigation Program under the Stafford Act to provide grants to States and Indian tribes for pre-disaster mitigation on at-risk residential households. It directs the President (through FEMA and the Federal Insurance Office) to define eligible disaster areas, set mitigation standards, convene an advisory committee, and require State plans assessing insurance availability.
Liberals emphasize equity and stronger public funding; conservatives fear federal overreach
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clearly articulated substantive policy: a new individual household disaster mitigation grant program with detailed lists of eligible activities and linked tax provisions.
This bill creates an Individual Household Disaster Mitigation Program under the Stafford Act to provide grants to States and Indian tribes for pre-disaster mitigation on at-risk residential households.
It directs the President (through FEMA and the Federal Insurance Office) to define eligible disaster areas, set mitigation standards, convene an advisory committee, and require State plans assessing insurance availability.
The bill caps household grants at $10,000 (CPI-adjusted), bars grants for individuals above specified AGI thresholds, enumerates qualifying mitigation activities, and adds related tax code changes: exclusion of grant amounts from gross income, a 30% tax credit for mitigation expenditures, and other conforming provisions.
Substantive, technically framed mitigation bill with bipartisan potential, but fiscal cost, tax changes, and Senate hurdles reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clearly articulated substantive policy: a new individual household disaster mitigation grant program with detailed lists of eligible activities and linked tax provisions. It assigns responsibilities to federal agencies and requires state plans and an advisory committee, providing a moderate degree of operational specificity.
Liberals emphasize equity and stronger public funding; conservatives fear federal overreach
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Federal agenciesCreates additional federal and State administrative and regulatory workload to certify areas and manage grants.
- Federal agenciesGenerates federal budgetary costs from grants and foregone revenue due to tax exclusions and credits.
- Potential burdenThe $10,000 per-household cap may be inadequate for many meaningful mitigation projects.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Liberals emphasize equity and stronger public funding; conservatives fear federal overreach
Overall supportive: advances proactive resilience, targets funding to households, and connects mitigation to insurance affordability.
Likely to praise the program's focus on pre-disaster spending and inclusion of nature-based and fire-resilience measures.
May criticize the relatively small per-household cap and seek stronger guarantees of equity for low-income and frontline communities.
Cautious support: a policy-oriented, federally guided but state-administered mitigation program that uses technical standards and stakeholder input.
Appreciates income targeting, tax incentives, and multi-tiered standards, but concerned about costs, administrative complexity, and measurable insurance market effects.
Would look for clear performance metrics and budget offsets.
Skeptical: welcomes homeowner risk reduction but concerned about federal expansion, cost, and market interference.
Appreciates incentives but sees grants and tax expenditures as federal spending that may distort private markets.
Likely to push for state control, limited federal role, and protection of insurer underwriting autonomy.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive, technically framed mitigation bill with bipartisan potential, but fiscal cost, tax changes, and Senate hurdles reduce odds.
- No authorization or appropriation level specified
- Absent CBO score or estimated revenue effects
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Liberals emphasize equity and stronger public funding; conservatives fear federal overreach
Substantive, technically framed mitigation bill with bipartisan potential, but fiscal cost, tax changes, and Senate hurdles reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clearly articulated substantive policy: a new individual household disaster mitigation grant program with detailed lists of eligible activities and link…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.