FEMA lifts Immediate Needs Funding restrictions
Author

Brett Mattson

Naomi Freel
Upcoming Events
Related News

Key Takeaways
On October 1, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) lifted the Immediate Needs Funding (INF) restrictions that were imposed on place on August 7 to manage the rapidly depleting balance of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). These restrictions paused funding for non-lifesaving and non-life-sustaining activities, enabling FEMA to focus on urgent disaster response. However, this decision significantly strained local governments, as many long-term recovery projects were halted.
The restrictions were lifted after the Continuing Resolution, signed on September 26, provided FEMA access to $20 billion, allowing the agency to resume processing over 3,000 projects that had been delayed, totaling approximately $9 billion.
INF & counties
The lifting of INF is significant for counties across the U.S. that have been awaiting funding to support recovery and mitigation projects. These projects, which often include essential repairs to infrastructure, are critical to ensuring that communities can recover more quickly after disasters. The end of INF brings several important impacts:
- Timely Recovery Projects: Counties can expect INF delayed projects to be funded within the next several weeks, allowing vital recovery work to resume. These projects had been paused under INF, meaning that many local governments were waiting for necessary funding to complete repairs and mitigation efforts.
- Relief for Strained Resources: With the DRF backfilled, counties can resume recovery work that had been on hold, ensuring that essential public services and facilities are repaired and prepared for future disasters. This includes repairs to infrastructure that is critical for community well-being and disaster resilience.
- Future Funding Concerns: Despite the current access to additional funds, FEMA has warned that if current spending rates persist, INF restrictions could be reimplemented before the end of the calendar year. This uncertainty means counties may face delays in the future, underscoring the importance of advocating for sustainable disaster funding mechanisms.
NACo has been a strong advocate in this space, requesting additional federal funding to replenish the DRF. On September 11, NACo submitted a letter urging Congress to backfill the then-$6.1 billion in halted projects and provide an additional $10 billion to support ongoing recovery efforts. Ensuring a fully funded DRF is critical to preventing future disruptions in disaster recovery.
For counties, the lifting of INF restrictions marks an important step in resuming recovery efforts. However, the continued uncertainty surrounding disaster funding highlights the need for long-term solutions to ensure predictable and stable funding for communities recovering from disasters.
Advocacy
NACo urges Congress to address Disaster Relief Fund shortfalls
On August 7, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that the Disaster Relief Fund had become depleted, forcing the agency to transition to Immediate Needs Funding and halting more than $6.1 billion in recovery activities across the country.

Related News

County Countdown – March 25, 2025
Every other week, NACo's County Countdown reviews top federal policy advocacy items with an eye towards counties and the intergovernmental partnership. This week features budget reconciliation, FY 2025 funding and more.

NACo testifies on the critical role of counties in disasters
NACo Intergovernmental Disaster Reform Task Force Co-Chair and Harris County, Texas Commission Adrian Garcia testifies before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

White House signs executive order examining state and local preparedness
On March 18, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at aligning federal preparedness and response doctrines, while examining state and local preparedness capabilities. The order does not shift any responsibilities or costs to state and local governments, rather producing a set of recommendations for better collaboration across all levels of government.