The bill gives the FEMA Administrator an explicit statutory authorization to continue disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation activities paid from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) when Congress fails to enact appropriations. It directs FEMA to keep claims processing, payments, personnel, and contracts active for both existing and future disaster declarations and references specific individual and public assistance authorities in the Robert T.
Stafford Act.
This matters because the bill would remove a key operational vulnerability during shutdowns: FEMA’s ability to halt DRF-supported operations when general appropriations lapse. The change preserves continuity of payments and services funded from the DRF but raises questions about congressional control over spending, the scope of DRF availability, and how agencies will account for and audit expenditures made without fresh appropriations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes FEMA to obligate and disburse Disaster Relief Fund balances for disaster declarations during a lapse in appropriations, to maintain personnel and contractor support, and to continue operations specifically listed under several Stafford Act authorities. It also bars withholding, sequestration, or reprogramming of DRF balances during a lapse except to comply with the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Who It Affects
Directly affects FEMA’s operations teams, contractors, state and local emergency management agencies that rely on federal payments, and recipients of individual and public assistance under the Stafford Act. It also affects OMB and appropriations committees because it alters the practical leverage associated with funding gaps.
Why It Matters
Professionals in emergency management, finance, and compliance should note this shifts continuity risk from political timing to statutory interpretation and administrative accounting. The bill could become a model for statutory carve-outs that preserve mission-critical functions during shutdowns, altering how Congress, OMB, and agencies manage funding lapses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates an explicit statutory pathway for FEMA to keep disaster response and recovery functions funded by the Disaster Relief Fund running when Congress does not pass appropriations. It tells the FEMA Administrator that, notwithstanding other laws, she may continue ‘‘all disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation operations’’ supported by the DRF and must keep the personnel and contract support needed to process claims and make payments without interruption.
That instruction covers both declared disasters already on FEMA’s books and future declarations that would normally await appropriations action.
On money, the bill treats any unobligated balances in the DRF as available for expenditure during a lapse. It also imposes a narrow prohibition on diverting or reprogramming those balances while a lapse is underway, except where necessary to comply with section 1341 of title 31 (the Anti-Deficiency Act).
In practice this means FEMA is authorized to use DRF cash on hand for statutory Stafford Act programs listed in the bill—individual assistance and several public assistance authorities—while agencies and OMB will still have to navigate Anti-Deficiency Act boundaries and any criminal or administrative limits connected to unauthorized obligations.The bill further states, for the purposes of the Anti-Deficiency Act, that FEMA operations authorized here are ‘‘essential to protect human life and property’’ and therefore exempt from shutdown restrictions. That legal framing attempts to insulate DRF-supported activity from the typical trigger that forces non-excepted activity to stop during a funding lapse.
Implementation will require FEMA and OMB to set up accounting and internal controls to track which obligations are DRF-authorized and which are not, and to preserve audit trails for GAO and inspectors general review.Importantly, the bill does not appropriate new funds and does not alter other agencies’ shutdown status; it only governs how FEMA treats DRF balances during lapses. It also leaves unresolved operational questions: how FEMA will prioritize exhaustible DRF balances across simultaneous large-scale disasters, how reimbursements to state and local governments are handled if funds are later reduced, and how to reconcile this statutory authorization with existing appropriations riders or court orders that limit DRF uses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 authorizes the FEMA Administrator to continue all disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation operations funded through the Disaster Relief Fund during a lapse in appropriations.
The bill explicitly allows FEMA to obligate and disburse DRF balances for existing and future disaster declarations, citing Stafford Act sections 403, 406, 407, 408, and 502 (42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5192).
Section 3(a) preserves availability of all unobligated Disaster Relief Fund balances for expenditure during a lapse in appropriations.
Section 3(b) prohibits withholding, sequestering, or reprogramming DRF funds during a lapse, except as necessary to comply with 31 U.S.C. 1341 (the Anti-Deficiency Act).
Section 4 declares operations authorized by the bill to be ‘‘essential to protect human life and property’’ for purposes of the Anti-Deficiency Act, creating an explicit exemption from ordinary shutdown restrictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the act’s name: the FEMA Operations Continuity Act of 2025. Mechanically small but important for citation and cross-referencing in future guidance and memos.
Authority to continue DRF-funded operations during a lapse
Grants the Administrator affirmative authority to continue ‘‘all disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation operations’’ paid from the Disaster Relief Fund in the event of a lapse in appropriations. Subsection (2) is operationally consequential: it authorizes both obligations and disbursements for individual and public assistance under specified Stafford Act sections, and subsection (3) requires FEMA to maintain personnel and contract support to process claims. Practically, this converts DRF cash-on-hand into an operational backstop during shutdowns, but it places the burden on FEMA to segregate DRF-authorized activity from other agency functions and to maintain staffing and contractual continuity without supplemental appropriations.
Availability and anti-diversion protections for DRF balances
Declares that unobligated DRF balances remain available for expenditure during a lapse and forbids withholding, sequestration, or reprogramming of those balances during a lapse in appropriations, except to the extent required to comply with the Anti-Deficiency Act. This provision tries to limit executive reallocation or internal OMB holdbacks that would otherwise reduce FEMA’s liquidity, while acknowledging that AD Act compliance could still constrain some actions. Agencies will need contemporaneous legal and accounting advice to apply the ‘‘except as necessary’’ carve-out.
Exemption from shutdown restrictions under the Anti-Deficiency Act
States that, for purposes of section 1341 of title 31, the operations authorized by the act are essential to protect life and property and therefore are exempt from shutdown restrictions. The provision is a statutory declaration intended to blunt AD Act-based work-stoppage requirements for DRF-funded operations, but it does not by itself create new funding and will require coordination with OMB guidance, legal counsel, and internal control frameworks to avoid AD Act violations in borderline cases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Disaster survivors and applicants for individual assistance: preserves continuous processing and payment of claims and benefits during funding lapses, reducing delays in rental assistance, housing repairs, and direct payments.
- State and local emergency management agencies: ensures steady federal reimbursements and public assistance obligations, which stabilizes cash flow for local cleanup and debris removal operations.
- FEMA workforce and contractors: lowers operational disruption risk—staff, deployed teams, and contracted vendors are more likely to keep working and be paid during a lapse.
- Communities facing concurrent disasters: gives FEMA a statutory mechanism to continue support across simultaneous events instead of pausing response activities while appropriations are resolved.
Who Bears the Cost
- Congressional appropriations committees: their leverage over agency behavior during funding gaps is reduced because DRF-supported activity can continue without new appropriations, potentially limiting incentives to negotiate appropriations quickly.
- Office of Management and Budget and agency finance offices: must develop and maintain more granular accounting, controls, and legal reviews to segregate DRF-authorized obligations and ensure compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act.
- Other federal programs and agencies: retain standard shutdown exposure and potential service interruptions, which shifts relative continuity to FEMA and may cause interagency coordination friction.
- Taxpayers and oversight bodies: face heightened oversight needs and potential fiscal risk if large DRF expenditures occur during a lapse and later require justification or reconciliation with enacted appropriations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: protect ongoing, life-saving disaster operations from the blunt instrument of a funding lapse, or preserve Congress’s power of the purse and the accountability that accompanies it. Granting FEMA continuity reduces immediate human risk but also weakens an appropriations-based control that disciplines spending and forces inter-branch negotiation; the bill trades short-term operational continuity for longer-term questions about oversight, resource prioritization, and where budgetary authority ultimately resides.
The bill resolves one operational problem—work stoppages for DRF-funded disaster activity—by relying on statutory authorization tied to the DRF, but it leaves several practical and legal questions open. First, the interaction with the Anti-Deficiency Act is nuanced: while the bill calls FEMA operations ‘‘essential’’ for AD Act purposes, that label will not eliminate all AD Act risk where obligations cross into activities not clearly covered by the DRF or where contract clauses require funds ‘‘available only under appropriations.’u00a0Second, the DRF is a finite pool; the bill does not prioritize among claims or create new revenue, so in a prolonged shutdown or during multiple large disasters FEMA may still face resource allocation choices that the statute does not resolve.
Third, the prohibition on withholding or reprogramming DRF funds ‘‘during a lapse’’ narrows executive options but raises questions about accounting windows and retroactive reconciliations once new appropriations are enacted. OMB and FEMA will need clear rules to tag obligations as DRF-authorized to avoid later disallowances.
Finally, the bill sets a precedent: carving out an explicit continuity authority for one fund and agency invites similar requests from others, which could incrementally erode the conventional political leverage of appropriations decisions and shift disputes from appropriations committees to courts and IG audits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.