S 320: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025

S 320 in plain English: This bill reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) through FY2028 and expands the activities that four federal agencies must carry out under the program. It adds new requirements related to secondary earthquake effects like tsunamis and fires, post-earthquake infrastructure recovery, and seismic risk assessment, and explicitly includes tribal governments in program activities.

Stated purpose

To reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program through 2028 and expand what federal agencies must do under it, including addressing secondary earthquake effects like tsunamis, improving how buildings and infrastructure recover after earthquakes, and including tribal governments in the program.

Key points

• Reauthorizes NEHRP through FY2028, coordinating earthquake hazard work across FEMA, USGS, NIST, and the National Science Foundation
• Authorizes $92,427,000 per year (FY2024–FY2028) for USGS, with at least $36,000,000 annually for the Advanced National Seismic System
• Authorizes $54,000,000 per year (FY2024–FY2028) for the National Science Foundation
• Authorizes $8,500,000 per year (FY2024–FY2028) for FEMA and $5,900,000 per year for NIST
• Expands program scope to cover secondary hazards (tsunamis, fires), post-earthquake recovery, and seismic risk inventories for public infrastructure

Arguments supporters make

• Earthquakes cause an estimated $14.7 billion in losses every year, and expanding this program could reduce those costs by improving how buildings and infrastructure are built, evaluated, and retrofitted.
• Including tribal governments closes a long-standing gap and ensures that Native communities in earthquake-prone areas get the same protections and resources as state and local governments.
• Addressing secondary effects like tsunamis and fires, and focusing on how quickly communities can return to normal after a quake, makes the program more realistic about how disasters actually unfold.

Arguments opponents make

• Reauthorizing and expanding a federal program adds to government spending and regulatory requirements at a time when many argue the federal budget should be reduced rather than grown.
• Some critics may argue that earthquake preparedness and infrastructure decisions are best handled by states and localities that know their own conditions, rather than being directed by federal agencies.
• Expanding the program's scope without guaranteed funding increases or clear enforcement mechanisms may mean the new requirements are unfunded mandates that agencies cannot fully carry out.

Tradeoffs

Broader federal involvement and expanded requirements may improve earthquake safety nationwide, but they also increase federal spending and could shift decision-making authority away from states, localities, and tribes who may prefer to manage their own preparedness efforts.

Current status in Congress: Passed Senate.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week