National Coordination on Resilience for Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a comprehensive federal framework to coordinate and enhance national resilience against natural hazards, focusing on interagency collaboration, non-federal partnerships, and strategic planning.
What it actually does
This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish a Chief Resilience Officer within the National Security Council, tasked with coordinating federal interagency efforts on resilience. It mandates the creation of interagency working groups and a Partners Council on Resilience to engage non-federal entities. The bill also requires the development of a comprehensive National Resilience Strategy and an Adaptation and Resilience Clearinghouse to centralize information and support for communities facing natural hazards.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a coordinated national approach is essential to address the increasing frequency and intensity of natural hazards, which pose significant threats to national security, communities, and infrastructure. They contend that the current fragmented federal efforts lead to inefficiencies and leave vulnerable communities inadequately prepared. This bill would streamline efforts, maximize federal investments, and empower local partners with necessary resources and technical assistance.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that creating new offices and councils could lead to bureaucratic bloat and overlap with existing agencies and initiatives already addressing resilience. They might also express concerns about the scope of federal involvement in local resilience efforts or the potential for unfunded mandates, even if not explicitly stated.
The bill is moderately detailed but accessible, requiring a focused read to grasp the new organizational structure and strategic mandates.
Section 2, new section 101A(a)
Designates Chief Resilience Officer within National Security Council
This provision mandates the President to appoint a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) within the National Security Council. The CRO will be responsible for coordinating interagency processes related to U.S. resilience, ensuring a unified federal approach to preparing for and responding to natural hazards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated CRO is crucial for overcoming interagency silos and ensuring a coherent, strategic federal response to resilience challenges, which currently suffer from fragmented leadership.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that this role could duplicate existing responsibilities within agencies like FEMA or DHS, potentially adding another layer of bureaucracy without clear added value.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for centralized leadership against concerns about potential bureaucratic overlap with existing agency mandates.
Section 2, new section 101A(b)
Defines CRO's Coordination Duties
The CRO is tasked with coordinating federal departments and agencies to build resilience to natural hazards, bolster national security posture (including military installations), analyze federal investments in resilience, and improve the efficiency of those investments to minimize waste.
Section 2, new section 101A(c)
Mandates Interagency Working Groups
The CRO must establish one or more interagency working groups to facilitate coordination on resilience and the development of the National Resilience Strategy. Agencies are required to participate upon request and provide necessary personnel and resources, including detailees.
Section 2, new section 101A(d)
Creates Non-Federal Partners Council
This section establishes a 'Partners Council on Resilience' chaired by the CRO, comprising up to 24 members, primarily from state, local, tribal, territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The Council's mission is to provide recommendations to the CRO on how the Federal Government can better support non-Federal partners, especially rural and underresourced communities, in building resilience to natural hazards. It also mandates a report to Congress every three years.
Section 2, new section 101A(e)
Mandates National Resilience Strategy
The CRO must develop and submit a 'National Resilience Strategy' to the President and Congress within two years, with updates every three years. This strategy will outline federal approaches to addressing vulnerabilities to natural hazards, emphasizing proactive adaptation, prioritizing vulnerable communities, and improving efficiency. It must include an implementation plan detailing agency roles, interagency agreements, and how recommendations will be incorporated. The Comptroller General will assess its implementation.
Section 2, new section 101A(f)
Establishes Resilience Information Clearinghouse
Within one year, the CRO must establish an adaptation and resilience clearinghouse. This platform will centralize and improve access to federal resilience data, information, and technical assistance for non-Federal partners. It aims to streamline information, provide locally relevant data, and standardize procedures for sharing resilience best practices.
States that Section 1013 of title 5, United States Code (Federal Advisory Committee Act - FACA), shall not apply to the Partners Council on Resilience.
Section 2, new section 101A(d)(6)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice when Congress intends for an advisory body to operate with greater flexibility and less administrative burden than typically required by FACA, which imposes strict rules on public access, meeting transparency, and record-keeping for federal advisory committees.
Case for: Proponents argue that exempting the Council from FACA allows for more agile operations, fosters candid discussions among members, and reduces administrative overhead, enabling the Council to focus more on its mission of providing timely recommendations.
Case against: Critics might contend that FACA exemptions reduce transparency and public accountability, potentially allowing special interests to exert undue influence without public scrutiny of meetings or records.
Estimated impact: Reduces administrative and transparency requirements for the Partners Council, potentially speeding up its work but limiting public oversight.
Defines 'best available science' to include criteria such as quality, objectivity, peer-reviewed data, documentation of risks/uncertainties, reproducibility, and, 'to the extent practicable, indigenous knowledge.'
Section 2, new section 101A(h)(1)
Why it matters:Definitions sections are inherently technical and often contain crucial details that shape the interpretation and application of the entire bill. The inclusion of indigenous knowledge reflects a modern approach to environmental science and policy, but its placement in definitions is standard.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly including indigenous knowledge alongside scientific data ensures a more holistic and culturally relevant approach to resilience planning, recognizing traditional ecological knowledge as valuable.
Case against: Some might argue that integrating 'indigenous knowledge' into a definition of 'best available science' could introduce subjective or non-quantifiable elements, potentially complicating scientific rigor or legal challenges, though the 'to the extent practicable' clause provides flexibility.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of acceptable knowledge for federal resilience strategies, potentially leading to more inclusive and community-specific solutions.