PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 57 - 3.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 23, 2025
Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act of 2025 or the FEMA Act of 2025
This bill reestablishes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (currently within the Department of Homeland Security) as an independent, cabinet-level agency. It also makes broad changes to FEMA’s disaster and hazard mitigation assistance programs.
The bill generally transfers FEMA’s current functions and authorities to the independent FEMA, except for certain security-related programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill makes various changes to the Public Assistance program, including by
establishing new grants for expedited funding to repair or replace disaster-damaged facilities,
establishing block grants that recipients may choose instead of Public Assistance for smaller disasters,
expediting and expanding uses of funding for emergency response and debris removal, and
allowing use of excess administrative funds for increasing recipients’ disaster management capacity.
The bill makes various changes to the Individual Assistance program, including by
expanding eligibility for housing assistance,
expanding mitigation and direct (non-financial) assistance for residences,
reducing certain restrictions on funds duplicating program benefits, and
establishing a unified disaster application system.
The bill makes various changes to FEMA’s mitigation programs, including by
establishing mitigation plans with preapproved projects,
authorizing an entire Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant to be provided before costs are incurred,
changing pre-disaster mitigation assistance to noncompetitive formula grants, and
allowing recipients to combine mitigation project funds from multiple federal programs.
Additionally, federal entities must publish various information relating to disaster assistance and conduct various studies on related topics (e.g., preliminary damage assessments, fast-moving disasters, and government emergency alerting systems).
People & committees
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 57 - 3.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Oct 7, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4669 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4669 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4669 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4669 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.