FEMA funds disaster work during funding lapse

Summary#

The FEMA Operations Continuity Act of 2025 would create a new law; it does not amend the Stafford Act or the Anti-Deficiency Act. Its goal is to let FEMA keep disaster work funded by the Disaster Relief Fund going during a lapse in appropriations. The bill was introduced in the House and referred to a subcommittee; it is not law.

  • During a funding lapse, the FEMA Administrator would be authorized to continue all disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation work funded through the Disaster Relief Fund.
  • The Administrator would be authorized to use Disaster Relief Fund balances for existing and future disaster declarations, including individual and public assistance under named parts of the Stafford Act.
  • The Administrator would be authorized to maintain personnel and contract support needed to keep claims and payments processing without interruption.
  • Unspent Disaster Relief Fund balances would remain available during a lapse. The bill bars withholding, sequestering, or reprogramming that money during a lapse, except as needed to comply with the Anti-Deficiency Act.
  • The bill would treat these FEMA operations as essential to protect life and property, exempting them from shutdown restrictions under that Act.

What it means for you#

  • People and communities affected by disasters: FEMA could keep processing claims and payments during a funding lapse, using available Disaster Relief Fund balances. The bill does not guarantee any particular person or community aid or change the terms for receiving it.
  • FEMA staff and contractors: The Administrator would have authority to keep necessary staff and contract support in place during a lapse. The bill does not require a particular staffing level.
  • Taxpayers: The bill would allow use of existing Disaster Relief Fund balances during a lapse; it does not create a new tax or specify a new funding amount.

Money#

The bill allows Disaster Relief Fund balances to be spent during a lapse, but no cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • It does not specify a dollar amount or provide a new appropriation.
  • The amount spent would depend on available balances and disaster operations. No publicly available information on an estimate is included in the supplied material.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “lapse in appropriations” or set a process for deciding which operations or staff are necessary.
  • It does not set priorities or limits for spending balances across existing and future disaster declarations.
  • It does not add timelines, reporting rules, or oversight requirements for spending during a lapse.
  • The bill refers to the Anti-Deficiency Act but does not explain how its exception would interact with other shutdown rules. The text of the existing law was not supplied, so that interaction cannot be verified here.

Case for#

  • A lapse in appropriations could interrupt disaster claims, payments, recovery, or mitigation work. The bill appears intended to keep those operations running.
  • Allowing FEMA to use already available Disaster Relief Fund balances could help avoid interruptions without creating a new appropriation in the bill.
  • Keeping necessary personnel and contract support available could help maintain claims and payment processing.

Case against#

  • The bill gives the Administrator broad authority to continue all Disaster Relief Fund operations and use unobligated balances, without setting spending priorities or limits.
  • It does not specify how FEMA should decide what staff or contract support is necessary, or how the public would know how the money was used.
  • The bill’s broad exemption from shutdown restrictions may leave important questions about the Anti-Deficiency Act and other shutdown rules unanswered.