Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness

March 19, 2025

Presidential Actions

View Original

Action Summary

Purpose: Empower state, local, and individual preparedness to enhance national security and resilience through common‐sense infrastructure investments and risk-informed decisions, addressing threats like cyber attacks, wildfires, hurricanes, and space weather.
Strategic Policy: Establish a framework where local governments play a significant role in national resilience, saving lives and reducing taxpayer burdens; streamline federal preparedness operations and simplify government policies.
National Resilience Strategy: Develop and publish a comprehensive strategy within 90 days to outline priorities and methods for advancing national resilience, with reviews every 4 years.
Critical Infrastructure Policy: Within 180 days, review existing policies—including memoranda and previous executive orders—revising them to shift from an all-hazards to a risk-informed approach while excluding policies on misinformation and cognitive infrastructure.
National Continuity Policy: Also within 180 days, revise policies related to national continuity to modernize capabilities and ensure enduring readiness.
Preparedness and Response Policies: Over the next 240 days, assess and reform readiness measures and responsibilities by updating key executive orders and presidential policy directives.
National Risk Register: Within 240 days, create a risk register to quantify natural and malign risks, informing federal, state, private sector investments, and budget priorities, with updates at least every 4 years.
Federal National Functions Constructs: Propose, within 1 year, changes to the federal preparedness framework to improve communication and understanding between federal officials and state/local governments.
General Provisions: Clarify that the order does not affect existing agency authorities, is subject to applicable laws and appropriations, and does not create enforceable rights.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order emphasizes the decentralization of preparedness responsibilities to state and local governments, which could lead to variability in preparedness levels across different regions. This may affect Vanderbilt University if local infrastructure and emergency response capabilities are not adequately developed.
There is a potential risk that the shift towards state and local management of preparedness could result in inconsistent policies and practices, which might complicate Vanderbilt’s ability to plan for and respond to emergencies effectively.
The focus on risk-informed decision-making and infrastructure prioritization could impact funding allocations for research and development projects at Vanderbilt, particularly those related to infrastructure resilience and emergency preparedness.
Vanderbilt University may need to engage more actively with state and local governments to ensure that its interests and needs are considered in the development of local preparedness strategies and policies.

Impacted Programs

Vanderbilt’s School of Engineering could see increased demand for expertise in infrastructure resilience and risk assessment, presenting opportunities for collaboration with state and local governments.
The Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment may play a crucial role in advising on sustainable infrastructure investments and resilience strategies.
Vanderbilt’s Office of Emergency Management might need to adjust its strategies to align with new state and local preparedness policies and ensure effective coordination with local authorities.
The Peabody College of Education and Human Development could contribute to research on the impacts of decentralized preparedness policies on community resilience and education.

Financial Impact

The reallocation of federal funds towards state and local preparedness initiatives could impact the availability of federal grants for Vanderbilt, necessitating adjustments in grant application strategies and partnerships.
Vanderbilt University might experience changes in funding opportunities for research related to infrastructure resilience and emergency preparedness, particularly if state and local governments prioritize these areas.
There may be increased opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure funding for collaborative projects with state and local governments, particularly in areas related to infrastructure and community resilience.
As state and local governments take on more responsibility for preparedness, there could be a shift in the focus of federal funding, potentially affecting Vanderbilt’s research priorities and funding strategies.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks typically involving compliance or ethics, requiring strategic adjustments by the university.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Office of Emergency Preparedness should engage with state and local governments to align its emergency preparedness strategies with the National Resilience Strategy. This will ensure that the university’s infrastructure and community are resilient to global and dynamic threats and hazards.
The Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment should explore partnerships with state and local governments to contribute to infrastructure prioritization and strategic investments. By leveraging its expertise, the institute can help inform risk-informed decisions that enhance community resilience.
Vanderbilt’s Department of Political Science should conduct research on the implications of the National Risk Register and its impact on state and local policy-making. This research can provide valuable insights into how these policies affect local governance and infrastructure planning.
The Office of Federal Relations should monitor updates to federal policies related to national continuity and preparedness. By staying informed, Vanderbilt can adapt its strategies to align with federal priorities and potentially influence policy development.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s School of Engineering to engage in research and development of resilient infrastructure technologies. By collaborating with state and local governments, the school can contribute to innovative solutions that enhance infrastructure resilience.
Vanderbilt can capitalize on the focus on state and local preparedness by developing educational programs and workshops for local government officials. This initiative can position the university as a leader in community resilience education and training.
The emphasis on reducing taxpayer burdens through efficiency offers an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Owen Graduate School of Management to engage in policy analysis and advocacy. By providing evidence-based recommendations, the school can influence how resources are allocated to support efficient governance.
By engaging with the broader community and policymakers, Vanderbilt can position itself as a thought leader in national resilience and preparedness. Hosting conferences, workshops, and public forums on these topics can further establish Vanderbilt as a hub for innovative thought and practice.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents the potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to its emphasis on state and local preparedness and infrastructure resilience.)

Average Relevance Score: 3.4

Timeline for Implementation

Within 90 days of the order date (publication of the National Resilience Strategy).
Within 180 days of the order date (review and recommendations for the National Critical Infrastructure Policy and the National Continuity Policy).
Within 240 days of the order date (review and recommendations for Preparedness and Response Policies as well as development of the National Risk Register).
Within 1 year of the order date (proposal for changes to Federal National Functions Constructs).

Relevance Score: 2

Impacted Government Organizations

The White House / Executive Office of the President: As the originating authority of this order, the White House drives the overall coordination and implementation of the policy.
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA): Tasked with coordinating the development and revision of national resilience, critical infrastructure, national continuity, and preparedness strategies.
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy: Involved in coordinating the National Resilience Strategy and supporting policy updates that affect infrastructure investments.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Collaborates with the APNSA to review and revise critical infrastructure policies to enhance national resilience.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Works in coordination with the APNSA to develop the National Risk Register and advise on budgetary implications for preparedness and continuity measures.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to propose changes to the framework outlining national preparedness and continuity functions, affecting the overall federal response structure.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Through its Council established by the referenced executive order, FEMA is engaged in reassessing national preparedness and response policies.
State and Local Governments: Empowered by the order to take a more active role in infrastructure resilience and preparedness, emphasizing their critical role in national security and risk management.

Relevance Score: 3 (A moderate number of federal agencies and state/local entities are impacted by the directive.)

Responsible Officials

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) – Charged with coordinating the development and revision of the National Resilience Strategy, as well as overseeing the reviews of critical infrastructure, continuity, preparedness/response policies, and the National Risk Register.
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy – Assisting the APNSA in formulating the National Resilience Strategy.
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy – Collaborating with the APNSA in the review of national critical infrastructure policies.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – Coordinating with the APNSA and agency heads in developing a comprehensive National Risk Register.
Secretary of Homeland Security – Responsible for proposing changes to the Federal National Functions Constructs to improve communications and understanding between the Federal Government and State/local entities.
Heads of Relevant Executive Departments and Agencies – Engaged across multiple sections to advise on, review, and implement changes to national resilience and preparedness policies.

Relevance Score: 5 (Directives impact both White House senior advisors and Cabinet-level officials, with a broad mandate involving agency heads and leading executive officials.)