I have run many marathons and recognize that to finish a grueling 26.2 mile run and smile the next day, one needs to train and gradually build up the capacity and capability to run and finish an endurance event. Although it is possible to run a marathon without hard work and training (I have done this a few times), it is not recommended and often leads to slower times, post-run aches and pains, or even injuries.

Over the past decades, the federal government has researched, identified, supported and funded mitigation efforts to increase resilience and reduce future disaster suffering. Many of the programs were housed at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA’s mission is ​“to help people before, during, and after disasters” and many of these mitigation programs focused on the ​“before” part of the mission.

As a Senior Executive at FEMA, I directed approximately thirty programs focused on the ​“before” by helping individuals and communities understand and manage their risk. These programs included natural hazard risk identification, building codes development, flood risk mapping, earthquake risk reduction, national dam safety, identification of at-risk vulnerable communities, risk communication, individual and community preparedness and mitigation planning.

Under the Trump Administration, US federal budgets are constrained. States are overwhelmed and may need to prioritize limited funding to supplement traditional federal support (e.g., for food, medical, housing) while simultaneously trying to address competing emerging issues such as increasing residential resiliency in the face of climate change. As the Trump Administration has made several decisions cutting funding for these efforts, there are six key principles to consider:

1. Rather than assume funding and implementation of these mitigation efforts, State, Local, Tribal and Territorial (SLTT) governments will need a ​“a glide path to build capacity and capabilities”.

Turning over these programs without sufficient time, knowledge-sharing, or resources could be considered as the Federal government thrusting unfunded mandates to SLLT partners. Appropriate glide paths will be determined by a variety of factors, including level of political commitment, current funding levels and capabilities, number and severity of natural hazards to address, staffing capacity and levels, and pressures on funding. States have different levels of ambition; some will lead in mitigation efforts, while others may not be as motivated. Marathoners recognize the need for sufficient training time to build up mileage.

2. It is important to understand whether centralization or decentralization will optimize program outcomes.

FEMA had dozens of mitigation programs where FEMA provided oversight, direction, and funding for these activities. Some of the programs are place-based and can be taken up by SLTT partners, while others may benefit from a centralized delivery model, requiring quality standards, consistent oversight, and economies of scale (e.g., in purchasing). As the Federal government is looking to push many of these programs to SLTTs, we run a risk of spinning mitigation efforts through disconnected programs and effectiveness of these programs across the 50 states, 4 territories, and 575 federally recognized tribal nations. As every marathoner has different training requirements, it is important to understand whether centralization or decentralization will optimize program outcomes. When training for a marathon, some may prefer focused and fixed training plans, while others may prefer the spontaneity of deciding on training runs on a day-by-day basis.

3. Some mitigation efforts can best be handled on a state basis, while other efforts might be more conducive or effective on a regional and/or compact basis.

Two examples of mitigation efforts handled on a regional basis include the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that seeks to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the power sector and mutual aid agreements such as Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMAC) signed by utilities. CO₂ emissions are not bound by states boundaries so efforts to reduce emissions in one state have a societal benefit beyond the state boundaries. Utility mutual aid agreements help during emergencies as utilities share resources like skilled crews and equipment to restore power or services more quickly. These are voluntary partnerships, often coordinated through industry networks, that allow a company to temporarily increase its workforce to a scale that would be impossible on its own. While these are response activities, not necessarily pre-disaster mitigation efforts, these regional response efforts can be more effective than standalone state programs. As the federal government looks to devolve mitigation responsibilities to SLTTs, it may make sense to leverage these existing regional and/or compact level arrangements. Some marathoners may prefer to train alone, while others may enjoy the camaraderie of group training runs.

4. Mitigation efforts should leverage existing partnerships and organizations.

Rather than create new initiatives, organizations like the Regional Plan Associations of NY, NJ and CT, can serve as effective multipliers to get information and knowledge to drive actions across their members. Rather than creating new organizations, it might be best to explore existing organizations driven by a desire to share mitigation ideas. As examples,

• the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) is a 501(c)(3) scientific and educational nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing flood loss in the nation,
• the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) is an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit scientific research and communications organization supported by property insurers, reinsurers, and affiliated companies that identifies real-world solutions for home and business owners, helping to create more resilient communities,
• the International Code Council (ICC) is a leading global source of model codes and standards and building safety solutions that include product evaluation, accreditation, technology, training, and certification. The Code Council’s codes, standards, and solutions are used to ensure safe, affordable, and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide, and
• the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) connects research, policy, and practical application to advance innovation in the built environment. NIBS’ mission is to create a safer, more resilient, and technologically advanced infrastructure that serves American communities and strengthens the nation’s future.

Some marathons might leverage personal trainers or running groups like the New York City Road Runners to develop effective training programs.

5. Explore publicly available bills, laws passed, and/or leadership intents

Explore publicly available bills, laws passed, and/or leadership intents such as Connecticut’s Severe Weather Mitigation & Resiliency Advisory Council, Final Report (June 2025) that recommends looking at retrofits as ​“essential to reducing insured losses, improving building resilience to reduce the impacts of weather-related losses on consumers”. Similarly, marathon runners may leverage existing tools to help their marathon training.

6. Study other successful state programs

Study other successful state programs, such as the Alabama state initiative called Strengthen Alabama Homes (which provides grants and incentives for homeowners to retrofit their homes to meet the FORTIFIED standard, a set of building codes designed to strengthen homes against severe weather like hurricanes, high winds, and hail), could be expanded in to improve building resilience and to reduce the impacts of weather-related losses to consumers. CT, NJ and NY have many notable subject matter experts who can help build resiliency, but other states across the nation have developed successful programs and initiatives to address the challenges that they face, and RPA membership should leverage these leading practices. In the RPA region, CT has several initiatives not requiring new legislation that should be leveraged including the CT Dept of Housing’s CT Homes, Energize CT, Habitat for Humanity North Central CT, and CT’s Green Bank Smart-E Program (please note that NJ and NY have similar leading practices). Marathoners may leverage other programs, for instance, training for triathlons, that create a balanced training plan that includes regular swim, bike, and run sessions, along with strength training, to build endurance, prioritize rest and recovery, and pays close attention to nutrition and hydration.

Building upon previous accomplishments, leveraging existing capability and capacity, and promoting standards and consistency of effort are critical to protect individuals and communities from various sources of natural hazards. As the Trump Administration has other priorities, it is looking to devolve the identification, management and risk management responsibility to SLTTs and this may lead to fragmentation of effort and complication of preventative measures. Until federal administration priorities change, the unfunded mandates and burdens will fall to SLTTs, who might not have existing capabilities and capacity to address the natural hazards. While the federal government does not have an exclusive or irreplaceable role in these areas, it has enjoyed federal funding to build up the capacity and capabilities over the previous decades. SLTTs will be able to develop these capabilities and capacity, but they may need additional runway to develop them. Just as training for an endurance event like a marathon requires focused effort, building capacity and capability and developing grit, the federal government’s efforts to devolve responsibilities to SLTTs, it is imperative for SLTTs to leverage existing programs, partnerships, and initiatives and develop common sense strategies and have sufficient time to develop required capacity and capability to address natural hazards.