U.S. Government Affairs

An executive order was signed yesterday that encompasses a wide range of policies to be reviewed. Please see the attached EO and Local Preparedness Fact Sheet.

Overall, I would say this order is pretty vague and lacks specifics. 

As a city, we own the water infrastructure and while local governments are referenced, it only states that "...the National Risk Register shall be used to inform the Intelligence Community, private sector investments, State investments, and Federal budget priorities." 

Additionally, it does not say who will be building the National Risk Register, what data is to be used and who will be involved in that process. Wil the potential recipients be at the table or will the States make that determination?

It is concerning from the standpoint of how any funding may be allocated - if it is left to the States, I am not sure there will be any guarantees of the locals getting adequate amounts when it comes to infrastructure projects. 

It also states that Continuity plans/procedures as well as the multitudes of "functions" will be changed with no indication of what they become, possibly because this FEMA advisory group has yet to present findings. 

Also, it makes no connection to preparedness outside of infrastructure investments. This is not enough to help prepare our organizations and citizens for the disasters we face. 

I think it creates more questions than answers at this point. 

This is an Executive Order.  It is like a Vision Statement.  Of course it is going to be limited on details.  They will need to come out with a Guide to explain the process.  FEMA is good at coming up with numerous lengthy guides to explain their programs.

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 12:48
From: David Donnelly
Subject: Resilience EO

Overall, I would say this order is pretty vague and lacks specifics. 

As a city, we own the water infrastructure and while local governments are referenced, it only states that "...the National Risk Register shall be used to inform the Intelligence Community, private sector investments, State investments, and Federal budget priorities." 

Additionally, it does not say who will be building the National Risk Register, what data is to be used and who will be involved in that process. Wil the potential recipients be at the table or will the States make that determination?

It is concerning from the standpoint of how any funding may be allocated - if it is left to the States, I am not sure there will be any guarantees of the locals getting adequate amounts when it comes to infrastructure projects. 

It also states that Continuity plans/procedures as well as the multitudes of "functions" will be changed with no indication of what they become, possibly because this FEMA advisory group has yet to present findings. 

Also, it makes no connection to preparedness outside of infrastructure investments. This is not enough to help prepare our organizations and citizens for the disasters we face. 

I think it creates more questions than answers at this point. 

Also, anything that we can do to push responsibility down to the local level, the preparedness, response and recovery will be quicker, cheaper and far more rewarding.  The Federal Bureaucracy is strangling emergency management at the loca level with excessive rules, policies, regulations, and other requirments.  I for one am excitied about seeing a total reevaluation of emergency management in the U.S.  

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 15:16
From: Dale Rowley
Subject: Resilience EO

This is an Executive Order.  It is like a Vision Statement.  Of course it is going to be limited on details.  They will need to come out with a Guide to explain the process.  FEMA is good at coming up with numerous lengthy guides to explain their programs.

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 12:48
From: David Donnelly
Subject: Resilience EO

Overall, I would say this order is pretty vague and lacks specifics. 

As a city, we own the water infrastructure and while local governments are referenced, it only states that "...the National Risk Register shall be used to inform the Intelligence Community, private sector investments, State investments, and Federal budget priorities." 

Additionally, it does not say who will be building the National Risk Register, what data is to be used and who will be involved in that process. Wil the potential recipients be at the table or will the States make that determination?

It is concerning from the standpoint of how any funding may be allocated - if it is left to the States, I am not sure there will be any guarantees of the locals getting adequate amounts when it comes to infrastructure projects. 

It also states that Continuity plans/procedures as well as the multitudes of "functions" will be changed with no indication of what they become, possibly because this FEMA advisory group has yet to present findings. 

Also, it makes no connection to preparedness outside of infrastructure investments. This is not enough to help prepare our organizations and citizens for the disasters we face. 

I think it creates more questions than answers at this point. 

I agree with David that this order is pretty vague and lacks specifics. I also feel like it's trying to reinvent Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource efforts. Anyway, it feels more like political fluff than substantive change.

The EO completely leaves Native American Tribes out of the conversation.  This is concerning on many levels especially given the efforts that have been made over the past 10 years.  My concern is that there will be an effort to move tribes back under states which proved unworkable for many decades as some states will not pass funding to tribes.  There is a Treaty responsibility for the Federal Government and this EO along with other conversations taking place around the federal space lead me to believe that it will be neglected.

I'd like to hear what folks think about this line, ""shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach".

Saw something written along those lines recently and my first thought was that they are not independent, separable concepts. The all-hazards approach as I've understood it doesn't mean you prepare equally for every conceivable hazard or threat. No one has the unlimited budget or manpower that would require, so risks are factored in decision making about where to spend money and time building capabilities to respond and recover, as well as where to invest to mitigate, prevent or protect to reduce risk.

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 14:29
From: Sarah Moore
Subject: Resilience EO

I'd like to hear what folks think about this line, ""shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach".

Hi Sarah - 

Yep, that one has me concerned (coupled with the idea of a national risk register) for a bunch of reasons:

1. Are we not doing this now with THIRA/SPRs?
2. One of the precepts (as far as I recall) of All-Hazards is the idea that you only have one team, so it's better to know a little about a lot of things, rather than the other way around. This also goes to that "if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail" view - so if you are the fire chief and your side job is EM, you tend to think of incidents like, well, a fire chief.
3. I really, really hope the risk-informed approach and the risk register are NOT based on past history. Otherwise, we are doomed to not be ready for complex incidents, polycrises, etc.
4. And we will not be able to work through global catastrophic risks - those which impact more than one nation, in this model as well.  

------------------------------
Michael Prasad, CEM®
Executive Director
The Center for Emergency Management Intelligence Research
emint@cemir.org

Please note these comments are mine alone, and may not reflect the official position of the IAEM-USA or its Board.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 14:29
From: Sarah Moore
Subject: Resilience EO

I'd like to hear what folks think about this line, ""shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach".

Is there any possibility that the National Resilience Strategy would replace all other related national strategies? (NRF, NIPP, NPS, NMIS...)

The Executive Order/fact sheet calls for a review of all infrastructure, continuity, and preparedness policies to modernize and simplify federal approaches, aligning them with the National Resilience Strategy. Could this mean eliminating or absorbing long-standing frameworks into a single resilience-focused approach that "reformulate[s] the process and metrics for federal responsibility"?

------------------------------
Stephen Stassen
Emergency Management Administrator
IL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 18:46
From: Michael Prasad
Subject: Resilience EO

Hi Sarah - 

Yep, that one has me concerned (coupled with the idea of a national risk register) for a bunch of reasons:

1. Are we not doing this now with THIRA/SPRs?
2. One of the precepts (as far as I recall) of All-Hazards is the idea that you only have one team, so it's better to know a little about a lot of things, rather than the other way around. This also goes to that "if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail" view - so if you are the fire chief and your side job is EM, you tend to think of incidents like, well, a fire chief.
3. I really, really hope the risk-informed approach and the risk register are NOT based on past history. Otherwise, we are doomed to not be ready for complex incidents, polycrises, etc.
4. And we will not be able to work through global catastrophic risks - those which impact more than one nation, in this model as well.  

------------------------------
Michael Prasad, CEM®
Executive Director
The Center for Emergency Management Intelligence Research
emint@cemir.org

Please note these comments are mine alone, and may not reflect the official position of the IAEM-USA or its Board.
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 14:29
From: Sarah Moore
Subject: Resilience EO

I'd like to hear what folks think about this line, ""shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach".

I have concerns about taking a "risk-informed approach" when the organizations that assess and communicate risk, like CDC, NIH, NOAA, EPA, etc., are currently under fire and/or on the chopping block.

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 14:29
From: Sarah Moore
Subject: Resilience EO

I'd like to hear what folks think about this line, ""shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach".

Original Message:
Sent: 3/20/2025 10:37:00 AM
From: Kristen Capps-Jones
Subject: RE: Resilience EO

I have concerns about taking a "risk-informed approach" when the organizations that assess and communicate risk, like CDC, NIH, NOAA, EPA, etc., are currently under fire and/or on the chopping block.

One thing that really jumped out at me is the push for "revisions, recissions [sic], and replacements necessary" to presidential policies to "move away from an all-hazards approach."

I don't think I can fully capture just how big of a shift this is going to be for emergency management in the U.S. This isn't just a policy tweak. 

------------------------------
Stephen Stassen
Emergency Management Administrator
IL
------------------------------

6 U.S. Code Part 314(b) "All-hazards approach: In carrying out the responsibilities under this section, the [FEMA] Administrator shall coordinate the implementation of a risk-based, all-hazards strategy that builds those common capabilities necessary to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, or mitigate against natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, while also building the unique capabilities necessary to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, or mitigate against the risks of specific types of incidents that pose the greatest risk to the Nation."

The risk only approach to planning isn’t a new concept, that was how planning was done before 1996 before FEMA introduced all-hazards. There has been research done on the effectiveness of the all-hazard approach and if the risk approach would be better. The only reason I know this is because I just had to do a homework assignment on the effectiveness of the all-hazard approach. Both arguments provided valid points to consider but in the end I sided with the all-hazard approach only because unless we start funding local emergency management like it should be it would be hard to switch to a risk only approach in my opinion. If you get some time, read some of the research, I found it interesting.

Also, I agree an EO isn’t suppose to provide details. The guidance that follows will provide the details, just like after 9/11 and NIMS was introduced. EOs just set the direction.

Greg

Do you mind linking to those studies? 

------------------------------
Stephen Stassen
Emergency Management Administrator
IL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2025 19:57
From: Gregory Godish
Subject: Resilience EO

The risk only approach to planning isn't a new concept, that was how planning was done before 1996 before FEMA introduced all-hazards. There has been research done on the effectiveness of the all-hazard approach and if the risk approach would be better. The only reason I know this is because I just had to do a homework assignment on the effectiveness of the all-hazard approach. Both arguments provided valid points to consider but in the end I sided with the all-hazard approach only because unless we start funding local emergency management like it should be it would be hard to switch to a risk only approach in my opinion. If you get some time, read some of the research, I found it interesting.

Also, I agree an EO isn't suppose to provide details. The guidance that follows will provide the details, just like after 9/11 and NIMS was introduced. EOs just set the direction.

Greg

Original Message:
Sent: 3/20/2025 9:51:00 AM
From: Stephen Stassen
Subject: RE: Resilience EO

Do you mind linking to those studies? 

------------------------------
Stephen Stassen
Emergency Management Administrator
IL
------------------------------

I am generally not one to jump to conclusions and act rashly but rather think through things we do know and try to extrapolate form there.  After discussion within the Mitigation Climate Adaptation and Resilience Caucus and the FEMA Reform GA Subcommittee, I really do stand by my theory that this EO sets the stage for reviewing FEMA tasks.  Brock Long spoke to a group in DC 2 weeks ago and indicated that FEMA over the years has seen significant mission creep.  Who knows the reasons why, but in some of those discussion it was indicated that "they were good at solving complex problems".  I am not sure I would say they are stellar at doing so, but they have proven themselves historically capable of taking it on whether they wanted to or not and producing some results.  We are sure to hear about all of the things that didn't go right in the news....  I really think the EO indicates we are going to see some of these missions go to agencies that they belong in (hopeful here) and allow FEMA to be a "Coordinating Agency" as it was intended.  I hope that no matter where you fit in EM you find yourself trying to coordinate other resources that are effective to carryout missions rather than carrying out missions yourself. That is what I am hopeful for here and the message we should be trying to convey especially to the FEMA Review Committee being created.  The National Risk Register... if this is done like CDRZ, SVI or even the "Critical Infrastructure Lists" produced shortly after 9-11, there will be errors and misjudgments due to lack of local or state knowledge and information that is not stored in a location that the program may search.  I am hopeful that it is created with a collaborative effort between State and Local to inform the Federal Register.  Keep telling our message and hopefully these changes may bring us closer to the EM System we believe in.  Locally occurring, locally and state coordinated and federally supported in blue skies and gray skies.