Catastrophe Insurers Are Loading Up Their Models – Bermuda-based insurers are increasing loading factors at record margins as climate change and rising claims costs challenge traditional catastrophe models.
Leading With Loss Free – It's a new year and a new opportunity for reinsurers to reset the narrative to the upside despite conditions on the ground.
Hawaiian Fire Sale – The holiday week announcement that Hawaiian Electric Industries would spin off its lucrative bank subsidiary was no surprise, given the hole the 2023 Maui Fire blew into the conglomerate’s balance sheet. But the deal is far from a guarantee of its financial future.
The Future of FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund Under the Trump Administration
As the Trump administration prepares to take office later this month, Washington is bracing for a wave of program cutbacks or eliminations. At the top of the list is the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notably, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has spent recent months issuing updates on the DRF's precarious financial condition and proposing ways lawmakers could control spending or impose new limits. This activity provides key insights into the Republican-controlled Congress's stance on disaster relief spending, as members and staff frequently rely on CRS data to inform future legislation.
Based on CRS reports, here are the key takeaways that may signal potential changes to the DRF:
1. Reevaluating the Budget Process
The DRF’s current funding structure heavily relies on supplemental appropriations to cover unforeseen costs. FEMA’s budgeting process, which is based on a 10-year rolling average of disaster obligations, often underestimates actual needs—especially in the face of increasing disaster frequency and intensity.
CRS suggests that adopting dynamic budget modeling and predictive analytics could improve funding forecasts and reduce reliance on supplemental appropriations. For example, incorporating allowances for catastrophic disasters into the annual DRF budget could create a financial buffer for unexpected demands. Additionally, improving the accuracy and timeliness of cost projections from both state and federal levels would enhance budget precision.
2. Strengthening Interagency Collaboration
More than 30 federal agencies contribute to disaster response, often using their own budgets. Between 2005 and 2014, the Department of Defense received over $6 billion in DRF mission-assignment funding, while other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, relied primarily on their own budgets for disaster-related activities.
Expanding FEMA’s mission to better coordinate these efforts could optimize resource utilization. Defining clearer roles and streamlining operations would minimize overlapping efforts and enhance the overall efficiency of disaster response.
3. Implementing Immediate Needs Funding Restrictions
During periods of financial strain, FEMA has implemented Immediate Needs Funding (INF) restrictions, prioritizing life-saving and essential disaster response activities while deferring long-term recovery efforts. For instance, in fiscal year 2023, INF restrictions delayed $8 billion in obligations, preserving resources for immediate disaster needs.
Although effective as a short-term measure, formalizing INF restrictions into FEMA’s operational framework could allow the agency to respond swiftly during crises without compromising long-term recovery and mitigation efforts.
4. Exploring New Funding Models
Alternative funding approaches could ease the DRF’s financial burden. For example, establishing state-level disaster funds could distribute costs across multiple levels of government. Similarly, private-sector partnerships or public disaster insurance programs could provide consistent revenue streams for disaster recovery, reducing reliance on federal resources.
Potential Impacts of Project 2025 and Policy Changes
The incoming Trump administration, alongside Project 2025, has outlined plans to overhaul FEMA and the DRF. Project 2025 focuses on reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies and increasing accountability for federal spending. Proposed reforms could include stricter oversight of DRF expenditures and a reevaluation of federal-state disaster funding responsibilities.
One potential shift involves empowering state governments to take a more prominent role in disaster response. This could include reallocating federal resources toward state-managed disaster funds or creating incentives for states to invest in disaster preparedness. By streamlining federal processes and emphasizing state-level accountability, these reforms aim to control spending while maintaining effective disaster relief efforts.
Concerns Over Resource Reallocation
The scope of these proposed changes is raising concerns among FEMA officials. In December 2024, Politico reported that some FEMA leaders feared the potential diversion of disaster relief funds to support border security initiatives under the Trump administration.
Such reallocations, officials argued, could compromise FEMA’s ability to effectively respond to natural disasters and other emergencies, especially given the increasing frequency and severity of such events. “It would be demoralizing to the staff, who believe they’re there to support disaster survivors and mitigate against natural disasters,” FEMA Chief of Staff Michael Cohen told Politico.
