The bill
NFIP Extension Act of 2026
HR. 5577, 119th Congress — read as touching Insurance (P&C and Life).
Sponsored by
Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]
ID: G000597
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 5577, 119th Congress — read as touching Insurance (P&C and Life).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 186-188 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 391.
January 14, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater"! Today's feature presentation is the NFIP Extension Act of 2026, a bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to extend the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for another three years. Wow, what a bold move! I'm sure it took hours of intense debate and soul-searching to come up with this groundbreaking idea. The objective, of course, is to keep the NFIP limping along, rather than actually addressing its underlying issues.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two earth-shattering changes: (1) it updates the expiration date of the NFIP from September 30, 2023, to September 30, 2026; and (2) it retroactively applies these changes if the bill is enacted after January 30, 2026. I'm sure this will have a profound impact on the lives of Americans everywhere.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: homeowners in flood-prone areas, insurance companies, and politicians looking for an easy win. But let's be real, the only people who truly benefit from this bill are the lobbyists and special interest groups who get to keep their gravy train rolling.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "kicking the can down the road." By extending the NFIP without addressing its underlying issues, Congress is essentially putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The program remains unsustainable, and this temporary fix will only lead to more problems in the future.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of "Legislative Lethargy Syndrome" (LLS), characterized by a lack of vision, courage, or intellectual curiosity. Symptoms include:
* A complete failure to address underlying issues * A reliance on temporary fixes rather than meaningful reform * An overabundance of bureaucratic jargon and meaningless updates
Treatment: Unfortunately, there is no cure for LLS. However, I recommend a healthy dose of skepticism and ridicule whenever politicians try to pass off this kind of nonsense as "leadership."
Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: C001103
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000133
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000599
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001217
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000598
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: G000583
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 65 nodes and 34 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $100,449
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.
Section 2(a) and (b) extend the National Flood Insurance Program financing and program expiration to September 30, 2026, providing a clear benefit to flood insurance providers and the insurance industry by maintaining the program's operation.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners — 155 — Department of Homeland Security and (2) national coordination of critical infrastructure security and resilience. Yet CISA has rapidly expanded its scope into lanes where it does not belong, the most recent and most glaring example being censorship of so-called misinformation and disinformation. CISA’s funding and resources should align narrowly with the foregoing two mission requirements. The component’s emergency communications and Chem- ical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) roles should be moved to FEMA; its school security functions should be transferred to state homeland security offices; and CISA should refrain from duplicating cybersecurity functions done elsewhere at the Department of Defense, FBI, National Security Agency, and U.S. Secret Service. Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinforma- tion efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.” The Intelligence Commu- nity, including the NSA or DOD, should counter foreign actors. At the time of this writing, release of the Twitter Files has demonstrated that CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One. For election security, CISA should help states and localities assess whether they have good cyber hygiene in their hardware and software in preparation for an election—but nothing more. This is of value to smaller localities, particularly by flagging who is attacking their websites. CISA should not be significantly involved closer to an election. Nor should it participate in messaging or propaganda. U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) Needed Reforms The U.S. Coast Guard fleet should be sized to the needs of great-power compe- tition, specifically focusing efforts and investment on protecting U.S. waters, all while seeking to find (where feasible) more economical ways to perform USCG missions. The scope of the Coast Guard’s mission needs to be focused on protecting U.S. resources and interests in its home waters, specifically its Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore). USCG’s budget should address the growing demand for it to address the increasing threat from the Chinese fishing fleet in home waters as well as narcotics and migrant flows in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Doing this will require reversing years of shortfalls in shipbuilding, maintenance, and upgrades of shore facilities as well as seeking more cost-effective ship and facility designs. In wartime, the USCG supports the Navy, but it has limited capability and capacity to support wartime missions outside home waters.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.