Senators: “For the FEMA response to recent Texas flooding, please provide a list of all above-threshold disaster-related obligations/expenditures requiring the Secretary’s review… What amount of time elapsed between when each obligation/expenditure was proposed by FEMA and approved/disapproved by the Department of Homeland Security?”
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Gary Peters (D-MI), urged Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to end the policy requiring the Secretary’s personal approval of all expenditures over $100,000, including for disaster related costs. With large-scale disaster response often requiring millions of dollars to be mobilized within hours, requiring Secretary-level approval for expenses of this size is not oversight, but obstruction.
The lawmakers’ letter emphasizes the urgent need to swiftly reevaluate the policy to allow FEMA to operate effectively, coordinate with state and local partners during disasters without worrying about federal support to deliver emergency services, and continue providing relief for Americans across the country in times of extreme crisis and disaster. In an interview with NBC, Secretary Noem denied allegations that her personal signoff delayed any funds, despite significant reporting to the contrary. In their letter, Senators Murray and Peters demand to know the amount of time that elapsed between each expenditure being proposed by FEMA and personally approved by Noem during the response to the fatal Texas flooding.
“We write to convey our deep concerns about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy requiring the Secretary’s personal approval of all expenditures exceeding $100,000, including those for disaster-related costs. This directive, as currently implemented, creates dangerous delays and undermines the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) effectiveness, placing lives at unnecessary risk,” the senators write. “The devastating flash floods in Central Texas last month, which tragically claimed 120 lives, starkly illustrate the consequences of this policy. Reports indicate that FEMA’s ability to respond was severely hampered because routine but urgent expenditures required the Secretary’s personal review. Call centers were left understaffed in the crucial early days of the disaster, leaving thousands of survivors without answers or assistance. Contracts for critical services went unsigned for days, hampering response efforts when they were most urgently needed. The deployment of search-and-rescue teams were delayed, and the Chief of FEMA’s Urban Search and Rescue Unit resigned, citing frustration with the bottlenecks caused by this approval process. These failures are not isolated missteps, but foreseeable outcomes of a policy that centralizes decision-making at the expense of speed and flexibility.”
“The $100,000 threshold is grossly misaligned with the operational needs of FEMA. In the context of large-scale disaster response, where millions of dollars are often mobilized within hours, requiring Secretary-level approval for expenses of this size is not oversight, but obstruction. It has turned what should be rapid action into a system mired in avoidable bureaucracy,” the senators continue. “Moreover, such a rigid review requirement also hinders FEMA’s ability to coordinate effectively with state and local partners who depend on timely federal support to deliver emergency services, provide shelter, repair critical infrastructure, and restore essential services. As extreme weather events grow in both frequency and intensity, delays of this nature have severe consequences for individuals and communities in every part of the country.”
The full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator Richardson,
We write to convey our deep concerns about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy requiring the Secretary’s personal approval of all expenditures exceeding $100,000, including those for disaster-related costs. This directive, as currently implemented, creates dangerous delays and undermines the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) effectiveness, placing lives at unnecessary risk.
The devastating flash floods in Central Texas last month, which tragically claimed 120 lives, starkly illustrate the consequences of this policy. Reports indicate that FEMA’s ability to respond was severely hampered because routine but urgent expenditures required the Secretary’s personal review. Call centers were left understaffed in the crucial early days of the disaster, leaving thousands of survivors without answers or assistance. Contracts for critical services went unsigned for days, hampering response efforts when they were most urgently needed. The deployment of search-and-rescue teams were delayed, and the Chief of FEMA’s Urban Search and Rescue Unit resigned, citing frustration with the bottlenecks caused by this approval process. These failures are not isolated missteps, but foreseeable outcomes of a policy that centralizes decision-making at the expense of speed and flexibility.
The $100,000 threshold is grossly misaligned with the operational needs of FEMA. In the context of large-scale disaster response, where millions of dollars are often mobilized within hours, requiring Secretary-level approval for expenses of this size is not oversight, but obstruction. It has turned what should be rapid action into a system mired in avoidable bureaucracy. Moreover, such a rigid review requirement also hinders FEMA’s ability to coordinate effectively with state and local partners who depend on timely federal support to deliver emergency services, provide shelter, repair critical infrastructure, and restore essential services. As extreme weather events grow in both frequency and intensity, delays of this nature have severe consequences for individuals and communities in every part of the country.
Equally troubling is the suggestion, implied by Acting Administrator Richardson’s testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on July 23, that the loss of 120 lives in Central Texas represents an acceptable outcome under this policy. Such a stance minimizes the gravity of these failures and sends a dangerous message that preventable loss of life is a satisfactory result if it could potentially save taxpayer dollars. If the DHS and FEMA leadership truly view such a result as defensible, then we must ask ourselves: what is the purpose of our disaster response system at all? Lives lost are not statistics to be brushed aside; they are a stark reminder that current leadership is falling short of FEMA’s statutory mission to protect lives and property. Leadership must ensure that policies support—not hinder—this critical mission.
These failures also raise broader questions about FEMA’s preparedness posture. Comprehensive and effective disaster management begins long before an event with meaningful investments in mitigation. FEMA’s recent announcement ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program—which President Trump initially signed into law—undermines this foundation, stripping communities of tools that could reduce risk before disaster strikes. This action, coupled with the Department’s freezing of previously awarded BRIC funds to states, along with policies that slow emergency response leaves Americans more vulnerable at every stage, from prevention to recovery.
When policies and decisions collectively place lives at greater risk, they demand urgent evaluation. We request answers to the below questions, provided no later than August 31, 2025.
1. Has FEMA asked for an exemption from the $100,000 Secretary review threshold for disaster-related obligations/expenditures?
a. If so, when was the request made?
b. Was an exemption granted, and if so, when?
2. What metrics, if any, are being used to evaluate whether the Secretary review policy improves accountability or financial stewardship without compromising emergency response?
3. For the FEMA response to recent Texas flooding, please provide a list of all above-threshold disaster-related obligations/expenditures requiring the Secretary’s review.
a. What amount of time elapsed between when each obligation/expenditure was proposed by FEMA and approved/disapproved by the Department of Homeland Security?
4. For FEMA response to disasters other than the recent Texas flooding, please provide a list of all above-threshold disaster-related obligations/expenditures requiring the Secretary’s review.
a. What amount of time elapsed between when each obligation/expenditure was proposed by FEMA and approved/disapproved by the Department of Homeland Security?
5. Has DHS conducted or commissioned any after-action reviews to assess how the Secretary’s review policy affected the response to the Central Texas floods or other disasters? If so, please share those findings.
6. Have any state or local officials raised concerns to DHS regarding delays or operational difficulties resulting from this policy? Please provide a summary of those concerns and DHS’s response(s).
7. What contingency plans are in place to ensure that any future Secretary-level approval requirements do not interfere with life-saving and other critical operations during disasters?
We thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
###
