National Coordination on Adaptation and Resilience for Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a comprehensive federal framework to coordinate and improve national resilience to natural hazards, focusing on interagency collaboration, non-federal partnerships, and strategic planning to bolster national security.
What it actually does
This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) within the National Security Council, tasked with coordinating federal efforts to build resilience to natural hazards. It mandates the creation of interagency working groups and a Partners Council on Resilience to facilitate collaboration with non-federal entities. The bill also requires the CRO to develop a comprehensive National Resilience Strategy and an Adaptation and Resilience Clearinghouse to support communities and enhance national security.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides a much-needed, centralized approach to address growing threats from natural hazards, which increasingly impact national security. They would emphasize the importance of proactive adaptation, efficient federal investment, and robust collaboration with state, local, tribal, and private sector partners to protect communities and critical infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill creates unnecessary bureaucracy and potentially duplicates existing federal efforts, leading to inefficiencies rather than improvements. They might also raise concerns about the scope of federal involvement in local resilience efforts or the potential for mission creep within the National Security Council.
The bill is moderately complex but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(a) to the National Security Act of 1947
Establishment of Chief Resilience Officer
This provision requires the President to designate an employee of the National Security Council (NSC) to serve as the Chief Resilience Officer (CRO). The CRO will be responsible for coordinating the interagency process regarding the resilience of the United States, elevating the issue within the national security apparatus.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that centralizing and elevating resilience efforts within the national security apparatus ensures a coordinated federal response to complex threats, improving overall national preparedness.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could add another layer of bureaucracy to the NSC, potentially overlapping with existing roles or creating turf battles among federal agencies.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between the benefits of centralized coordination for national security and the potential for increased bureaucratic overhead within the NSC.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(b)
Mandated Duties for Chief Resilience Officer
This section outlines four core duties for the CRO: coordinating efforts to build resilience to natural hazards (domestically and abroad, including military installations), analyzing federal resilience investments, and improving the efficiency of federal resilience expenditures to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(c)
Interagency Working Group Requirement
This provision requires the CRO to establish one or more interagency working groups to facilitate coordination on resilience and the development of the National Resilience Strategy. Heads of represented agencies must approve requests for participation and ensure the working groups have necessary personnel and resources, including detailing employees.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(d)
Creation of the Partners Council on Resilience
This section establishes a 'Partners Council on Resilience' to provide recommendations to the CRO on how the federal government can better support non-federal partners (state, local, territorial, tribal governments, Freely Associated States, NGOs, and the private sector) in building resilience to natural hazards. The Council is specifically tasked with focusing on rural and underresourced communities and will submit triennial reports to Congress and the President.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(e)(1)
Mandate for a National Resilience Strategy
This provision requires the CRO to submit a National Resilience Strategy to the President and Congress within two years of enactment, with updates every three years thereafter. The strategy must describe federal and non-federal partner approaches to address vulnerabilities to natural hazards, emphasizing proactive adaptation, prioritization of vulnerable communities, and efficiency improvements in federal investments.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(e)(1)(D)(ii) and (iii)
Federal Funding and Metrics in National Resilience Strategy
The strategy must include information on developing federal metrics to consistently measure resilience and track progress. It also requires detailed information on federal funding and expenditures for resilience activities, including a review of cost-benefit analysis methodologies, identification of funding disparities, and recommendations to improve programs to reflect the value of predisaster mitigation and nature-based solutions.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(f)
Establishment of Adaptation and Resilience Clearinghouse
This provision requires the CRO to establish an online adaptation and resilience clearinghouse within one year. This clearinghouse will provide accessible federal data, information, and technical assistance to non-federal partners on adaptation and resilience planning and response, including streamlining access to federal grant programs and standardizing information.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(g)
Sunset of Requirements
This provision stipulates that the requirements of this section (establishing the CRO, Council, Strategy, and Clearinghouse) will terminate on the earlier of two dates: when the Comptroller General submits the third assessment report (after the third strategy update) or 10 years after the date of enactment.
Defines 'best available science' for the purposes of the Act, requiring quality, objectivity, peer-reviewed data, documented risks, reproducibility, and, to the extent practicable, the incorporation of indigenous knowledge.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(h)(1)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end, the inclusion of 'indigenous knowledge' represents a significant policy choice that could be missed due to its placement.
Case for: Supporters argue that incorporating indigenous knowledge provides valuable, time-tested insights into environmental conditions and resilience strategies, particularly for vulnerable communities, promoting more holistic and equitable solutions.
Case against: Critics might argue that 'indigenous knowledge' is less quantifiable or standardized than conventional scientific data, potentially introducing subjectivity or legal challenges if not carefully integrated into federal scientific processes.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for how resilience strategies are developed and implemented, especially in areas with strong indigenous populations, influencing the scientific basis of federal policy.
States that Section 1013 of title 5, United States Code (the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA), shall not apply to the Partners Council on Resilience.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(d)(6)
Why it matters:This exemption is often included to streamline the operations of advisory bodies by reducing administrative burdens, but it also lessens transparency requirements, which can be a sensitive issue.
Case for: Supporters would argue that exempting the Council from FACA allows it to operate more efficiently and flexibly, without the administrative burdens and procedural requirements that can slow down advisory committees, enabling quicker recommendations.
Case against: Opponents might contend that a FACA exemption reduces transparency and public accountability for a council providing recommendations on significant federal policy and funding, potentially limiting public access to meetings, records, and membership information.
Estimated impact: Affects the operational transparency and procedural requirements of the Partners Council on Resilience, potentially limiting public scrutiny of its activities and recommendations.
Requires the National Resilience Strategy to include an analysis of the need for and opportunities to support the retreat or relocation of communities in the United States that are at increasing risk from natural hazards.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 101A(e)(1)(D)(i)(IV)
Why it matters:This is a politically sensitive topic, as 'managed retreat' can be controversial. Placing it within a long list of strategy inclusions makes it less prominent than if it were a standalone provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that for some highly vulnerable communities, retreat or relocation may be the most cost-effective and sustainable long-term adaptation solution, saving lives and resources in the face of unavoidable hazards. Analyzing this option is crucial for comprehensive planning.
Case against: Critics might view this as a potentially coercive or disruptive policy, forcing communities to abandon their homes and heritage. They might argue that federal efforts should prioritize protecting communities in place rather than planning for their displacement.
Estimated impact: Could lead to federal policies and funding mechanisms to support managed retreat, affecting thousands of residents in high-risk areas over time, with significant social and economic consequences.