Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5961

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025

HR. 5961, 119th Congress — read as touching Insurance (P&C and Life).

The sponsor

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$82,100 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 186-188 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025, HR 5961. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benevolent attempt to aid farmers in flood-prone areas. However, as is often the case with legislation, the true implications are far more nuanced.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures, specifically those located in special flood hazard zones. The proposed amendments aim to provide variances from compliance with existing flood insurance requirements, allowing farmers to construct or repair structures without adhering to traditional elevation and floodproofing standards.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new paragraph (3) to section 1315(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, permitting local authorities to grant variances for agricultural structures in special flood hazard zones. This provision relaxes existing requirements, allowing farmers to construct or repair structures without elevating or floodproofing them, provided certain conditions are met.

Additionally, the bill amends section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, introducing a new subsection (n) that sets premium rates for structures granted variances. These rates will be equivalent to those charged for other structures in similar flood zones.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this legislation are farmers and agricultural businesses operating in flood-prone areas. However, the bill's provisions also impact local authorities responsible for regulating land development and occupancy in these regions. Furthermore, insurance companies participating in the national flood insurance program will need to adapt to the new premium rate structures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a purely economic perspective, this bill presents an opportunity for farmers and agricultural businesses to reduce costs associated with flood insurance and construction requirements. However, it also increases the risk of flood-related damages and losses, potentially leading to increased claims and payouts under the national flood insurance program.

As a self-interested stakeholder, I must consider how this legislation affects my own interests. The relaxation of flood insurance requirements could lead to increased development in high-risk areas, potentially driving up demand for my company's services and products related to flood mitigation and resilience. Conversely, the bill's provisions may also create new liabilities and risks for my business, particularly if the variances granted under this legislation result in increased flood-related damages.

Ultimately, the Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025 is a classic example of how well-intentioned legislation can have far-reaching consequences that benefit some stakeholders at the expense of others. As a rational actor, I will continue to monitor and adapt to these changes, ensuring that my interests are protected and advanced in the ever-evolving landscape of regulatory policy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill for those who apparently didn't pay attention in 8th grade civics class.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025 aims to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures. As I taught you, a bill's purpose is usually stated clearly in its title and introductory section. This one's no exception.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Section 1315(a) now allows for variances from flood insurance requirements for certain agricultural structures, provided they meet specific criteria. This means that farmers can get flood insurance even if their structures don't meet traditional elevation or floodproofing standards.

Section 1308 is also amended to set premium rates for these variance-granted structures at the same rate as other structures in similar flood zones. Remember when we learned about how bills often modify existing laws? This one's a perfect example.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Farmers and agricultural businesses are the primary beneficiaries of this bill, as they'll have greater access to flood insurance for their structures. State and local governments will also be impacted, as they'll need to implement new variance-granting procedures. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will likely play a role in administering these changes.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is twofold: increased availability of flood insurance for farmers and potentially reduced financial burdens on agricultural businesses in the event of flooding. However, as we discussed in class, there are always trade-offs. This bill may lead to increased costs for taxpayers or other policyholders if more structures become eligible for flood insurance.

Now, I expect you all to remember how a bill becomes a law – it's not just a matter of waving a magic wand and making things happen. There are committees, markups, votes, and signatures involved. And, as we covered in 8th grade, checks and balances ensure that no one branch of government has too much power. It's essential to understand these processes to appreciate the intricacies of lawmaking.

Moving on...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 5961, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a benevolent measure to help farmers get flood insurance for their agricultural structures, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story claims this bill aims to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures in special flood hazard zones. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what they're not telling you is that this is just a Trojan horse for further government control and manipulation of rural areas.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by introducing new language allowing for "local variances" in flood insurance requirements. This means local authorities can grant exemptions from standard floodproofing or elevation requirements, supposedly to help farmers. But what's really happening here is that the government is creating a backdoor for special interests to influence zoning decisions and exploit loopholes.

The bill also introduces new premium rates for structures with variances, which will likely lead to increased costs for taxpayers and further enrich insurance companies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers, agricultural workers, and rural communities are the apparent beneficiaries of this bill. However, I'd argue that they're being used as pawns in a larger game. The real winners here are the government agencies, insurance companies, and special interest groups who'll reap the benefits of increased control and profit from these new regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for rural areas, property rights, and individual freedoms. By granting local authorities more power to dictate land use and zoning decisions, we're essentially creating a system where bureaucrats can strong-arm farmers into conforming to their agendas.

Moreover, this bill sets a precedent for further government overreach in the name of "flood protection" or "sustainability." Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a slippery slope toward Agenda 21-style land grabs and control.

Wake up, folks! This isn't about helping farmers; it's about consolidating power and manipulating rural areas to serve the interests of the elite.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, dramatic music plays in the background) Folks, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here! The Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, this is just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives. (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures in special flood hazard zones. Sounds like a noble cause, but let's dig deeper.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by adding new provisions that allow for variances from compliance with floodproofing and elevation requirements for certain agricultural structures. Essentially, it gives local authorities more flexibility in granting exemptions from these regulations. But what's really going on here? Is this just a backdoor way to undermine the very fabric of our flood insurance system?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers, agricultural communities, and local governments are all impacted by this bill. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders - the American taxpayers who will be footing the bill for these subsidies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our country's flood insurance program. By allowing variances from existing regulations, we're essentially creating a two-tiered system where some structures are held to different standards than others. This is a slippery slope, folks! What's next? Will we start exempting entire cities from flood insurance requirements?

(Outrageous tone) And let's not even get started on the premium rates for these variances. The bill states that the chargeable premium rate will be the same as other structures - but what does that really mean? Are we just going to socialize the costs of flood insurance and make everyone else pay for the elites' mistakes?

(Smirk) Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill just trying to help farmers?" Ah, yes, the classic Trojan horse tactic. Make it sound like a noble cause, but in reality, it's just another example of government overreach and crony capitalism.

(Conspiratorial whisper) Wake up, America! This bill is just another piece of the puzzle in the elites' plan to control our lives and undermine our freedom. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's just a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of special interests while pretending to help the poor, defenseless farmers. How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025 is a masterclass in doublespeak. On the surface, it claims to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures. In reality, it's a cleverly crafted bill that allows farmers to opt out of flood-proofing their properties, all while maintaining access to subsidized flood insurance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by introducing a new paragraph (3) in Section 1315(a), which permits local variances for agricultural structures. This means that farmers can now obtain exemptions from elevating or flood-proofing their properties, as long as they meet certain criteria (which are laughably vague). The bill also introduces a new subsection (n) in Section 1308, which sets the premium rate for these variance-granted structures at the same level as other structures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers and agricultural interests will be thrilled to know that they can now avoid spending money on flood-proofing their properties. Insurance companies will also benefit from the increased premiums they'll collect from farmers who opt out of flood-proofing. Meanwhile, taxpayers will foot the bill for the inevitable flood damage and bailouts.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash a torrent of taxpayer-funded bailouts when the next big flood hits. By allowing farmers to opt out of flood-proofing, we're essentially creating a moral hazard that encourages reckless behavior. The increased premiums will only serve to further enrich insurance companies, while the lack of flood-proofing measures will put people's lives and property at risk.

In short, this bill is a cynical ploy to benefit special interests at the expense of taxpayers and public safety. It's a classic case of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses." I give it two thumbs down (and a healthy dose of skepticism).

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025 is all about makin' it easier for farmers to get flood insurance for their agricultural structures, like barns and equipment sheds. The main goal is to increase the availability of flood insurance for these structures, which are often located in special flood hazard zones.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It allows local governments to grant variances from floodplain management regulations for agricultural structures, as long as they meet certain conditions. * These variances can be granted if it's not practical to elevate or floodproof the structure, and if it won't increase flood heights or pose a threat to public safety. * The bill also changes the premium rates for these structures with variances. Instead of payin' higher premiums, farmers will pay the same rate as other structures in the area.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main stakeholders here are:

* Farmers and agricultural businesses: They'll benefit from increased access to flood insurance and more flexible regulations. * Local governments: They'll have more flexibility to grant variances and manage their own floodplain areas. * The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): They'll be responsible for implementin' the changes and ensurin' that variances are granted correctly.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The impact of this bill could be pretty significant, bro:

* More farmers will be able to get flood insurance, which means they'll be better protected against financial losses from floods. * Local governments will have more flexibility to manage their own floodplain areas, which could lead to more effective and efficient management. * However, there's also a risk that variances could be granted too easily, which could increase the risk of flooding and damage to structures.

Overall, this bill is all about findin' a balance between protectin' farmers from floods and ensurin' public safety. It's a pretty chill approach to policy, if you ask me.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 5961 - Flood Insurance for Farmers Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of this bill is to increase the availability of flood insurance for agricultural structures, particularly those located in special flood hazard zones. The legislation aims to provide relief to farmers and agricultural businesses by allowing variances from flood insurance requirements under certain conditions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Allowable Local Variances**: The bill amends Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to permit local authorities to grant variances for agricultural structures in special flood hazard zones, allowing them to deviate from standard flood insurance requirements. 2. **Variance Criteria**: The legislation outlines specific criteria for granting variances, including determinations by state or local zoning officials that neither floodproofing nor elevation of the structure is practicable, and that the variance will not result in increased flood heights or threats to public safety. 3. **Premium Rates**: Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended to provide that structures granted variances under this bill shall be charged the same premium rate as other structures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Farmers and Agricultural Businesses**: The primary beneficiaries of this legislation, who will gain access to flood insurance for their agricultural structures. 2. **Insurance Companies**: Will need to adjust their policies and premiums to accommodate the new variance provisions. 3. **Local Governments**: Will be responsible for granting variances and ensuring compliance with federal regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Flood Insurance Availability**: The bill may increase access to flood insurance for agricultural structures, reducing financial risks for farmers and agricultural businesses. 2. **Potential Increased Costs**: Allowing variances from standard flood insurance requirements could lead to increased costs for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), potentially impacting taxpayers. 3. **Environmental Concerns**: Critics may argue that allowing variances in special flood hazard zones could exacerbate environmental concerns, such as increased flooding and habitat destruction.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

1. **American Farm Bureau Federation**: A key supporter of this legislation, which has lobbied extensively on behalf of farmers and agricultural businesses. 2. **National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)**: Has expressed concerns about the potential impact of variances on insurance premiums and the NFIP's financial stability.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest**

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, which has a history of being influenced by industry groups, including insurance companies and agricultural organizations. The committee's chair, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), has received significant campaign contributions from the insurance industry.

**Donor Analysis**

1. **Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)**: Sponsor of the bill, who has received campaign contributions from agricultural groups and insurance companies. 2. **Rep. John Garam

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$82,100

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$11,100

Committees

Individuals

$71,000

No PAC contributions found

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

1 transaction

$2,000

VANN BROTHERS

1 transaction

$1,500

ONEIDA NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .

1 transaction

$6,600

BURRESON, MARY JO

2 transactions

$6,600

NECHAY, JULIA

1 transaction

$5,000

OSAGE NATION, .

1 transaction

$3,300

MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .

1 transaction

$3,300

BURRESON, DENNIS

1 transaction

$3,300

ETCHEPARE, ALLEN

1 transaction

$3,300

FENN, JOMARIE

1 transaction

$3,300

KISLYANKA, VIKTORIYA

1 transaction

$3,300

KISLYANKA, VLADIMIR

1 transaction

$3,300

KOEHNEN, KALIN

1 transaction

$3,300

LAGRANDE, JULIE

1 transaction

$3,300

LAGRANDE, KM

1 transaction

$3,300

MONTNA, ALFRED

1 transaction

$3,300

RUE, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

WILBUR, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION IND, .

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COM, .

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 46 nodes and 25 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,100

Top Donors - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

+Insurance (P&C and Life)confidence 0.95
Section 2(b) sets premium rates for agricultural structures with variances, and Section 3 expands umbrella policy availability, increasing flood insurance coverage opportunities for insurers.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) amends the National Flood Insurance Act to allow variances for agricultural structures in special flood hazard zones, reducing regulatory barriers and enabling farmers to obtain flood insurance more easily, which benefits agribusinesses that operate such structures.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Section 2(a) provides variances for agricultural structures, which includes facilities used by crop producers (e.g., storage, processing), making flood insurance more accessible and reducing financial risk from floods.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) applies to agricultural structures, which can include meat and dairy processing facilities located in flood-prone areas, allowing variances and insurance access that benefit these industries.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5961 aligns with Project 2025's FEMA reform goals by addressing NFIP sustainability through localized variance authority and premium adjustments, reflecting a shift toward state/local flexibility in flood risk management. However, it does not advance the Project 2025 objective of winding down NFIP in favor of private insurance, instead working within the existing federal framework."

Key themes:FEMA reformNational Flood Insurance Programstate and local flexibilityflood risk managementpremium rate adjustments

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 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

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy address the National Flood Insurance Program, but HR 5961 expands flood insurance availability and subsidies for agricultural structures, whereas Project 2025 seeks to wind down the NFIP and reduce federal flood insurance subsidies."

Key themes:National Flood Insurance Programflood insurance subsidiesFEMApremium ratesagricultural structures

— 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.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses flood insurance variances for agricultural structures, which is unrelated to the HUD-focused Project 2025 priorities such as housing market reforms, DEI/CRT/ESG oversight, Housing First policies, and reducing regulatory delays in housing construction. Any overlap is only tangential, such as general themes of local flexibility or administrative streamlining."

Key themes:local variance flexibilityadministrative streamliningland use considerations

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5961 focuses on expanding flood insurance access for agricultural structures through NFIP amendments, which is unrelated to the EPA-focused Project 2025 objectives concerning air quality, greenhouse gas reporting, HFC regulation, and limiting EPA authority under the Clean Air Act. There is no direct thematic or policy overlap between flood insurance reform and the EPA-specific goals outlined."

Key themes:regulatory reformfederal program administration

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5961 focuses on expanding flood insurance access for agricultural structures under the National Flood Insurance Program, which is unrelated to the EPA-focused Project 2025 policy objectives concerning air quality, greenhouse gas regulations, permitting reforms, and emissions standards. There is no thematic or policy overlap between flood insurance for farmers and the EPA regulatory reforms outlined in Project 2025."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. LaMalfa, Doug

Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act of 2025

119/hr/1849

Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025

119/hr/2400

Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act of 2025

119/hr/2424

Back to All Bills