The CLEAR Act of 2025 authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development to award formula grants to States, territories, and Indian tribes to create or sustain offices charged with resilience planning and implementation. Those offices would develop regular resiliency frameworks, provide technical assistance, coordinate across jurisdictions, and integrate resilience into grantmaking and recovery activities.
For practitioners, the bill matters because it shifts some resilience capacity-building out of ad hoc federal disaster programs and into dedicated, locally administered offices with built-in equity and coordination requirements. The measure ties federal funding to defined duties (planning, coordination, technical assistance) rather than to specific construction projects, and it embeds priorities—such as attention to disadvantaged communities and prevailing wage considerations—into grant selection criteria.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a HUD-administered, formula-based grant program that funds the creation and operation of resiliency offices at the State, territorial, and tribal level, allows subgrants to local governments, and directs HUD to consult with FEMA, Commerce, and Interior on implementation. Grants may cover establishment and program costs, analytic tools, and non-Federal shares for related federal programs.
Who It Affects
State emergency management and planning agencies, newly formed or existing State/territorial/tribal resiliency offices, local governments as potential subgrantees, HUD and partner federal agencies providing technical assistance, and labor stakeholders where prevailing wage rules apply to subgrants.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a standing federal funding stream aimed at institutionalizing resilience at sub-federal levels rather than funding one-off projects. It also formalizes equity and coordination requirements that can influence how communities prioritize mitigation, recovery, and grant spending across multiple sectors (infrastructure, housing, health, workforce).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute authorizes HUD to run a formula-driven grant program for jurisdictions that either already have or are prepared to create a dedicated office responsible for resilience. To qualify, a jurisdiction must show it can maintain an office whose duties include producing a resiliency framework, coordinating across agencies, and implementing programmatic responses—ranging from technical assistance to integrating resilience into competitive grants.
HUD must work with FEMA, Commerce, and Interior when administering the program and providing technical support.
A core duty of each office is to develop and refresh, at least every five years, a resiliency framework created with input from vulnerable and impacted communities. That framework must identify risks and vulnerabilities from extreme weather and other challenges and provide recommendations across five domains: environmental and natural hazards, economy and workforce, infrastructure, health and social services, and housing.
Grant funds can be used to stand up or sustain these offices, develop planning and analytic tools, strengthen community capacity for mitigation and recovery, and fund the non-Federal share of other federal programs that advance the same objectives.HUD will accept formula-based applications and prioritize awards to applicants that demonstrate greatest need, target disadvantaged communities, offer broad resilience approaches, and plan to issue subgrants that honor Department of Labor prevailing wage rules. The statute limits HUD’s administrative take to 1 percent of program funds (for program administration and technical assistance), requires grantees to report annually on activities and costs within 90 days after each fiscal year, and defines key terms while directing HUD to set a regulatory definition of “disadvantaged community.”Funding language authorizes $100 million per fiscal year from 2025 through 2030 for the program, and requires HUD to reserve 10 percent of annual appropriations for Indian tribes, to be allocated via a competitive process under criteria the Secretary will promulgate in regulation in consultation with Interior.
The bill therefore pairs predictable program-level resources with regulatory choices that HUD will have to make to operationalize eligibility metrics, the formula, and the tribal competition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $100 million per year for fiscal years 2025–2030 for the resiliency office grant program.
HUD must reserve 10 percent of annual program funds for Indian tribes and distribute those tribal funds through a competitive selection process.
Grants must be sized to fund at least 24 months of activities for a grantee, ensuring multi-year support rather than single-season awards.
HUD may use up to 1.0 percent of program funding for administration and to provide technical assistance to applicants and grantees.
Eligible resiliency offices must develop or update a resiliency framework at least once every five years that addresses environmental hazards, economy/workforce, infrastructure, health/social services, and housing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
HUD grant authority and interagency consultation
This subsection gives the Secretary of HUD explicit authority to make grants and requires consultation with FEMA, Commerce, and Interior. Practically, that means HUD will lead the grant program but must coordinate program design, guidance, and technical assistance with agencies that hold subject-matter expertise—FEMA on disaster mitigation and response, Commerce on economic considerations, and Interior on tribal and natural resource issues. The interagency requirement creates a built-in crosswalk for technical assistance products and expectations for coordination during implementation.
Eligibility: institutional requirement for a resiliency office
To receive funds, a State, territory, or tribe must already have, or demonstrate the ability to create and sustain, an office dedicated to resilience. The statute attaches concrete duties to that office—regularly updated resiliency frameworks, coordination, technical assistance, and integrating resilience into existing grant processes—so applicants must articulate staffing, governance, and operational plans that satisfy those duties. This makes the program a capacity-building vehicle rather than a project grant for capital improvements.
Permitted uses and subgrants
Grant proceeds can pay for establishing or maintaining resiliency offices, developing planning and analytic tools, enhancing coordination, and providing technical assistance; they may also be used to pay required non-Federal shares on other federal programs that support the same goals. Subgrants to local governments are explicitly allowed, which extends the program’s reach but raises downstream compliance questions (reporting, prevailing wage compliance, and audit trails) that applicants must manage.
Application process, prioritization, and grant size
HUD will set application forms and run a formula-based allocation; the statute directs prioritization for applicants showing greatest need, targeting disadvantaged communities, broad resilience approaches, and subgrant plans that follow prevailing wage rules. Grants must be sufficient to fund a minimum of 24 months of activity, which obligates HUD to think multi-year when designing the formula and obligates grantees to plan beyond a single fiscal year.
Technical assistance and administrative cap
HUD must provide technical assistance in consultation with partner agencies and may draw up to 1 percent of program appropriations for administration and TA. The low administrative cap signals congressional intent to put most money into grantees but may constrain HUD’s ability to deliver intensive, hands-on support to jurisdictions that lack planning capacity unless HUD secures other resources or relies heavily on partner agencies.
Reporting requirements
Each grantee must file an annual report within 90 days after the fiscal year ends describing activities, costs by service, and an assessment of program effectiveness with recommendations for improvement. These reports create an evidence base HUD can use to refine guidance and the formula but also add regular compliance obligations to program recipients that will require data systems and staff time.
Definitions and funding mechanics
The statute defines terms like resilience and the universe of eligible jurisdictions, but delegates the definition of “disadvantaged community” and tribal selection criteria to HUD (in consultation with other agencies) via regulation. It also authorizes appropriations and specifies a tribal set-aside and competition process. Those delegations mean that key program thresholds and prioritization mechanisms will be determined in rulemaking rather than the statute itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- State and territorial governments — receive dedicated multi-year funding and capacity-building support to establish offices that coordinate resilience planning, enabling more strategic use of federal mitigation and recovery dollars.
- Indian tribes — guaranteed a 10 percent set-aside and competitive access to funds tailored for tribal resiliency offices, which can improve tribal capacity to plan and access technical assistance.
- Local governments (subgrantees) — can obtain technical assistance and subgrants through their State/territorial/tribal offices to implement resilience projects or planning activities that they otherwise could not afford.
- Vulnerable and disadvantaged communities — the statute prioritizes projects benefiting these populations and requires framework development in consultation with impacted communities, which can channel resources and planning attention to neighborhoods historically under-resourced.
Who Bears the Cost
- HUD — must administer a new formula grant program, coordinate interagency technical assistance, and design regulatory definitions and selection criteria while operating within a 1 percent administrative cap.
- State, territorial, and tribal grantees — face obligations to establish offices, develop five-domain frameworks, report annually, and potentially cover or manage non-Federal cost shares for related federal programs.
- Local governments receiving subgrants — will need to comply with prevailing wage rules where applied, meet reporting requirements, and invest staff time to engage with statewide resiliency planning processes.
- Department of Labor and other enforcement entities — may see increased enforcement responsibilities tied to prevailing wage provisions on projects funded through subgrants, implicating oversight resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between building flexible, locally tailored resilience capacity with modest, multi-year grants and the reality that meaningful resilience—especially in infrastructure, housing, and workforce—often requires large capital investments and sustained federal funding; the bill prioritizes institutional capacity and equity checks but may under-resource the hands-on technical and capital needs required to translate planning into durable projects.
The bill sets a clear objective—to institutionalize resilience at sub-federal levels—but leaves many critical program design choices to HUD rulemaking. Delegating the definition of “disadvantaged community” to regulation creates flexibility to adopt nuanced, place-based metrics, but it also generates uncertainty for applicants until HUD publishes those rules.
The 1 percent cap on administrative spending preserves most funds for grantees but may limit HUD’s ability to offer intensive technical assistance: jurisdictions that need hands-on support to stand up offices may outstrip the program’s built-in TA capacity unless HUD leverages partner agencies or other funding streams.
The statutory mix of priorities—need, equity, broad approaches, and prevailing wage compliance—creates competing pressures. Prioritizing projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and enforcing prevailing wage requirements increases labor standards and equity but also raises project costs and administrative complexity, which can disadvantage smaller or resource-poor jurisdictions.
Similarly, the 10 percent tribal set-aside guarantees access but the requirement that tribal awards be competitively allocated under criteria set by regulation could favor better-resourced tribes unless selection criteria are carefully tailored and outreach is robust.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.