03-21-2025

Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14239, issued on March 18, 2025, shifts the federal government's approach to national preparedness. It prioritizes a "risk-informed" strategy over the long-standing "all-hazards" model, empowering state and local governments to take the lead in preparing for and responding to disasters like wildfires, cyber attacks, and hurricanes.

Money: The order does not appropriate new funds. Instead, it directs federal agencies to review and revise existing policies to enhance efficiency. The stated goal is to reduce taxpayer burdens by making state and local infrastructure investments more effective. The order mandates that a new "National Risk Register" will be used to inform federal budget priorities.

Your Impact: The average American is more likely to see changes in how their state and local governments prepare for disasters specific to their region. This could mean more tailored local preparedness campaigns and infrastructure projects, with the federal government playing a more supportive, rather than primary, role in disaster response.

Status: This is an Executive Order, signed by the President on March 18, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2025. It is in effect.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14239 fundamentally restructures the nation's approach to disaster and emergency preparedness. It mandates a shift from a broad, catch-all "all-hazards" framework to a more focused "risk-informed" strategy. The core idea is that state and local governments, being closer to the ground, are better equipped to identify and mitigate the specific threats their communities face, and federal policy should empower them to do so.

Core Provisions:

  • National Resilience Strategy: Requires the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) to publish a new strategy within 90 days that outlines priorities for national resilience.
  • Policy Overhaul: Mandates a comprehensive review and recommended revision or rescission of major national security and emergency preparedness policies within 180 to 240 days. This includes policies on critical infrastructure, supply chains, national continuity, and domestic incident management.
  • Shift in Approach: Explicitly directs a move away from an "all-hazards approach" to a "risk-informed approach" in critical infrastructure and national response policies.
  • National Risk Register: Orders the creation of a "National Risk Register" within 240 days to identify and quantify major risks to national infrastructure. This register is intended to guide federal budget priorities and state and private sector investments.
  • Streamlining Bureaucracy: Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to propose changes within one year to simplify the complex web of federal "functions" (e.g., Emergency Support Functions, Community Lifelines) to improve communication and clarify the federal role for state and local partners.
  • Exclusion of "Disinformation" Policies: The order specifies that the review of critical infrastructure policies will not include those related to "misinformation," "disinformation," or "cognitive infrastructure."

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to empower state and local governments and individuals to take a more active role in national preparedness.

  1. To enhance national security and create a more resilient nation through commonsense investments by state and local governments.
  2. To save American lives, secure livelihoods, and reduce taxpayer burdens through efficient, risk-informed infrastructure investments.
  3. To streamline federal preparedness operations and reduce complexity to better serve Americans.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Emergency Management, Homeland Security, Critical Infrastructure (including energy, food, and technology), Supply Chain Management.
Timeline: Key deadlines for policy reviews and the creation of the National Resilience Strategy and National Risk Register are set for within 90, 180, and 240 days from March 18, 2025.
Scope: The order has a national scope but its implementation will have significant and varied impacts at the state and local levels.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Post-9/11 Era & The "All-Hazards" Approach (2001-2011):

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government established the Department of Homeland Security. A key guiding principle became the "all-hazards" approach, which sought to build general capabilities that could be applied to any disaster, whether a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or pandemic. This philosophy was codified in policies like Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8). The goal was to create a unified and comprehensive system to manage a wide spectrum of potential crises.

The "Whole Community" Evolution (2011-2020s):

In March 2011, Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) was issued, building upon the all-hazards approach but emphasizing a "whole community" concept. This directive recognized that preparedness is a shared responsibility, involving not just government agencies but also individuals, businesses, and non-profits. PPD-8 aimed to better integrate all levels of government and society into preparedness efforts. During this period, major disasters continued to test the limits of federal and state response, leading to ongoing debates about the proper balance of responsibility and funding.

Supply Chain and Risk-Specific Concerns (2021-2025):

The COVID-19 pandemic and other global events highlighted significant vulnerabilities in U.S. supply chains. This led to Executive Order 14017, "America's Supply Chains," which initiated a government-wide effort to identify and mitigate risks in critical sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology. This marked a growing recognition that some risks are specific and require targeted strategies, moving the policy conversation toward a more risk-based model.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Shifting Political Philosophy: This executive order represents a significant philosophical shift, emphasizing federalism and placing more responsibility on state and local governments, a long-held tenet of conservative governance.
  • Fiscal Pressure: There is an underlying argument about financial efficiency. The order suggests that a risk-informed approach, where states prioritize spending on their most likely threats, is a more prudent use of taxpayer money than a generalized, one-size-fits-all federal approach.
  • Critique of Bureaucracy: The order is a direct response to the perception of a large, complicated federal emergency management bureaucracy. It aims to simplify the framework and make the federal government a more accessible support partner rather than a primary manager.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups, namely state and local emergency management agencies, and indirectly affects most Americans through changes in how their communities prepare for disasters.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • More Relevant Preparedness: Your state and local government may focus preparedness efforts on the threats most likely to affect you (e.g., wildfire mitigation in California, hurricane-proofing in Florida), potentially making those efforts more effective.
  • Increased Local Control: Communities will have a greater say in how they prepare for and respond to emergencies, allowing for solutions tailored to local needs and resources.
  • Clearer Federal Role: In a disaster, the federal government's role may be more clearly defined as providing specific support requested by the state, potentially reducing confusion.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Policy Transition: As federal agencies and state partners adapt to the new strategies, there could be temporary confusion or gaps in coordination.
  • Funding Debates: State and local governments may face new debates over how to fund these newly emphasized responsibilities, potentially leading to local tax or budget discussions.

Long-term:

  • Potential for Disparities: States with fewer resources or less robust emergency management capabilities could fall behind, potentially leading to disparities in preparedness and response across the country.
  • Reduced Federal Backstop: In a catastrophic event, a reduced upfront federal role could slow the delivery of aid if state and local resources are completely overwhelmed.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: State, local, and tribal emergency management agencies; first responders; and state legislators who will have to prioritize and fund preparedness efforts.
Secondary Groups: Businesses involved in critical infrastructure and supply chains; taxpayers whose state and local taxes may be reallocated for preparedness.
Regional Impact: States prone to specific, high-cost disasters (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes) will be most directly impacted by the shift to a risk-based model.

Bottom Line: This order shifts the primary responsibility for disaster preparedness from the federal government to your state and local officials, meaning the effectiveness of your community's safety net will depend more on local decisions and funding.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Empowering Local Leaders, Reducing Federal Bureaucracy"

Core Stance: Generally supportive, as the order aligns with core party principles of federalism, limited government, and local control.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ State and local governments are best equipped to understand and address their own unique risks.
  • ✓ A risk-informed approach is a more efficient and fiscally responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
  • ✓ Reducing the complex federal emergency management framework will lead to better communication and outcomes.
  • ⚠️ There may be concerns from representatives of states that frequently rely on substantial federal disaster aid about ensuring a strong federal backstop remains.
  • ✗ Some may argue the order doesn't go far enough in reducing the size and scope of federal agencies like FEMA.

Legislative Strategy: Likely to support the implementation of the order and use it as a basis for potential legislative reforms to agencies like FEMA. They may also resist efforts by Democrats to mandate federal standards or increase federal oversight.

Democratic Position: "A Shared Responsibility, Not a Shifted Burden"

Core Stance: Generally cautious or critical, concerned that this shifts an unfunded burden onto states and could lead to inequitable outcomes.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Acknowledging unique local risks is important, and federal-state partnerships are key.
  • ⚠️ This could be seen as an attempt to abdicate federal responsibility, potentially harming states with fewer resources to handle catastrophic disasters.
  • ⚠️ An "all-hazards" approach ensures a baseline of preparedness for unexpected "black swan" events that a purely risk-based model might overlook.
  • ✗ The shift could lead to a patchwork of preparedness levels, leaving some communities more vulnerable than others and undermining national resilience.

Legislative Strategy: Likely to conduct oversight hearings on the implementation of the order, focusing on its impact on vulnerable communities. They may introduce legislation to ensure minimum federal preparedness standards and robust funding for states to meet their responsibilities.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to issue this executive order stems from their role as Chief Executive under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the power to oversee and direct the operations of the executive branch.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

[Executive Authority]: The order is a valid exercise of the President's authority to manage the federal government and set policy for the agencies within the executive branch. It directs federal agencies on how to prioritize their resources and coordinate with state and local entities.
[Precedent]: Presidents have long used executive orders to shape national security and emergency preparedness policy, such as PPD-8 and EO 14017. This order follows that precedent by modifying the existing policy landscape.
[Federalism]: The order strengthens the principle of federalism by explicitly aiming to shift power and responsibility from the federal government to the states. It does not commandeer state resources but rather changes the posture of federal support, which is a constitutionally sound approach.

Potential Legal Challenges:

It is unlikely that this executive order would face significant legal challenges on constitutional grounds. The primary debates surrounding it will be political and centered on policy effectiveness and funding implications rather than questions of presidential authority. Challenges are more likely to arise from advocacy groups or state governments if they believe the implementation of the new policies results in a failure of the federal government to meet its statutory obligations under laws like the Stafford Act, which governs federal disaster assistance.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact the White House: Use the White House comment line or website to express your support for the risk-informed approach in Executive Order 14239.
  • Call Your State and Local Officials: Contact your governor and state representatives to encourage them to embrace the new responsibilities and develop robust, risk-informed preparedness plans for your community.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Send a message to your federal Representatives and Senators, encouraging them to support the principles of federalism and local control in emergency management through their oversight and legislative roles.
  • Join an Organization: Support think tanks and advocacy groups that promote limited government and federalism, as their policy work aligns with the principles of this order. (e.g., The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute).

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact the White House: Use the White House comment line or website to express your concern that Executive Order 14239 may weaken the national safety net and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I am concerned about the changes to national preparedness in Executive Order 14239. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to conduct strong oversight to ensure no communities are left behind."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing for the importance of a strong federal role in disaster response and the potential inequities of shifting this burden to state and local taxpayers.
  • Join an Organization: Support organizations that advocate for disaster justice, equity, and a strong, coordinated national response to ensure all communities are protected, regardless of their local tax base.