The U.S. got lucky. Earlier this year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted an above-normal hurricane season. After 13 named tropical storms and five hurricanes, including four “major” ones, that turned out to be accurate. But no major storms made landfall in the U.S. this year (Other places in the North Atlantic weren’t so lucky, Jamaica was devastated by record-breaking Hurricane Melissa). However, devastating wildfires, plenty of local flooding, persistent droughts, and massive heat waves did happen. And the frequency and intensity of all disasters are only expected to become more common. The time to strengthen federal disaster response is now—before, not after the next inevitable disaster strikes.

Fortunately, a bipartisan storm of solutions is brewing. The FEMA Independence Act of 2025, introduced in both the House and Senate, recognizes the scale of today’s disaster challenge and elevates FEMA to cabinet-level status, reversing a two-decade-old mistake. In the House, the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act of 2025 (FEMA Act) passed out of committee by a 57-3 margin. It would also elevate FEMA and implement a host of other, much-needed reforms to better help communities and make federal disaster spending more fiscally sustainable. These are truly positive developments, but it’s not all clear skies and much more needs to be done.

Mitigation remains the most cost-effective use of federal disaster dollars. For decades studies have found that by spending one dollar on mitigation taxpayers and communities can save four to seven dollars in post-disaster recovery costs. Yet we consistently do the opposite—underspend on the front end, which is followed by overspending on the back end. The FEMA Act takes steps in the right direction by rewarding communities that implement pre-disaster mitigation measures with a lower share of the bill for post-disaster recovery grants.

Decades of disaster response show that states need predictability to effectively plan and budget for mitigation activities. The FEMA Act partially addresses this by creating an annual, formula allocation for mitigation aid. Creating a system where states know when and how much federal support they will receive in a given year, that’s great. But the bill sets aside 40% of available mitigation funds to be shared equally among all eligible states, regardless of need, with the remaining funds distributed based on vulnerability and economic need. This is a recipe that could keep funding away from projects with a higher return for taxpayers and communities. Funding formulas should be based on need and impact, not political expedience.

The FEMA Act would also make important changes to better incorporate mitigation in disaster recovery, curbing repeat costs. The bill bakes rebuilding to updated codes and implementation of other hazard mitigation measures into the costs of post-disaster grants, ensuring communities have the resources to build back more resilient. But this is only the first step – using federal funds to rebuild stronger needs to be feasible and required. Tax dollars shouldn’t subsidize rebuilding to the level of protection that just failed to protect against a flood, fire, or other disaster. Instead, aid should be tied to community-scale mitigation efforts, like buyouts, community buffers, stronger land-use plans and zoning regulations, proven to make communities and individual properties stronger.

The bill also creates a new way to address disaster assistance: a block grant alternative for smaller disasters, where a state could request a lump sum of the estimated damages in lieu of any assistance under the existing Public Assistance Program. But block grants are a double-edged sword. While they are often sold as a way to more quickly and efficiently deliver aid, we can’t let the block grant option become a way to side-step all the accountability and mitigation measures implemented elsewhere in this bill. Any block grant needs to help communities rebuild stronger, not just more swiftly.

The block grant debate brings up another, often underappreciated point. Communities don’t just need money after a disaster, they need the expertise that comes with FEMA’s people-power—trained personnel with institutional knowledge that only comes from continuity of service. A community may go years, or decades, without a major disaster. At FEMA, disaster response, recovery, and preparation, are their day job. We need to make sure FEMA can be ready at a moment’s notice to provide that missing expertise. The FEMA Act’s studies and retention initiatives are useful, but we need measurable workforce benchmarks to demonstrate readiness and assess whether new authorities and resources are translating into real-world capacity.

Importantly the FEMA Act includes some structural changes to make it easier for those in need to recover quicker and stronger. The bill would transition the Public Assistance Program from a reimbursement-based model to a grant-based model, allowing communities and individuals to receive funds upfront for repairs and mitigation projects instead of needing to front costs and wait for reimbursement.

On the individual assistance side, the FEMA Act would make huge steps in addressing the fragmented, confusing application process that survivors face by establishing one portal for all federal disaster programs. By further standardizing applications and application requirements across federal disaster recovery programs, Congress can simplify the process for survivors and allow federal dollars to more quickly be allocated.

But of course, no reform to federal disaster response is truly possible until we get a better handle on what is happening now and where the gaps remain. Transparency and accountability aren’t optional, they’re essential. The FEMA Act would take an important first step — a disaster aid tracking platform. This publicly accessible website would track disaster assistance, including who is applying for aid and what that money is being used for. But we need more. We need detailed information on recipients and denials to ensure federal resources are directed where they’re most needed. We need data on actual risk reduced, dollars saved, and resilience gained—not just a tallying of obligations and disbursements—to know if our dollars are making an impact. Information is power, and with it other reforms become easier to identify, justify, and implement.

The bipartisan nature of recently proposed legislation is promising. It is a clear indication to the Administration and the American people that federal disaster response is critical and Congress is willing to work together to improve it. Now, lawmakers just need to act on these proposals—and the sooner the better.