Federalism Reimagined
National Academy of Public Administration, Intergovernmental Systems Panel: draft document for plenary discussion on the contemporary federal system, realignment impacts, and possible policy pathways.
Other Information
Source: https://napawash.org/standing-panels/federalism-reimagined ; accessed November 11, 2026. Website metadata dates the source publication November 6, 2026. This rendition reorganizes and paraphrases the draft; goal and objective wording is editorially derived from its stated purposes and pathways. Proposed actions remain options, not adopted commitments. The mission and vision synthesize the source; values reflect principles expressed in it.
The draft describes an urgent redistribution of responsibilities amid federal fiscal stress, grant disruption, state preemption, demographic change, and uneven local capacity. Its numerical estimates, legal interpretations, and political assessments are source assertions, not independently verified findings. It cites $880 billion in Medicaid reductions in its introduction and $911 billion in expected federal savings in its health discussion without reconciling their scope. Its fiscal discussion gives inconsistent last-balanced-budget dates: “FY 20001” and 1997. These are retained here as source inconsistencies rather than silently corrected.
More than 50 Academy Fellows and other experts contributed over approximately 12 months. The analysis considers near-term responses and a 20–30-year perspective, without defining a formal plan period. The source references final-report chapters and appendices that are not reproduced on this page.
Bibliography: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC, 2019. Cameron Hamilton, FEMA Definition of Emergency Management and Professional Framework, memorandum, September 22, 2026: https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/OROEM/2026/09/30/file_attachments/3800875/2026_09_22_F1_Memo_EM101.pdf .
Revision note: Enhanced following comparison with a separately prepared Claude rendition. Added goal- and objective-level stakeholders, separate objectives for contributions and critiques and presentation of findings, and additional emergency-management, healthcare, and transportation background. Existing goal and objective numbers were retained, with Objectives 1.4 and 1.5 appended. All additions reflect the supplied source rather than new commitments. The source uses both commission and task force for the proposed fiscal reform body and includes endnote markers that are not fully resolved by its bibliography.
Submitter's Note: This StratML rendition has been compiled from the source by ChatGPT. I have reviewed and lightly edited it in the form at https://stratml.us/forms/Claude/Part1.html
🏢Federalism Reimagined Project FRIP An initiative of the National Academy of Public Administration Intergovernmental Systems Panel; the logical entity to which this rendition applies.
Stakeholders:
🏢 🏢 👥 👥 👥 👥 👥 | Source & SubmitterSource:https://napawash.org/standing-panels/federalism-reimagined Period: to Published: |
Vision
An effective and efficient federal system delivering the services and results the public needs.
Mission
To describe the contemporary federal system, assess the effects of federal realignment, and identify policy options and role assignments that improve service delivery, governance, and intergovernmental cooperation.
Values
Goal 1: Governance 🔗
Improve governance and service delivery through informed choices about the federal system.
Other Information
The draft identifies three explicit project purposes: describing the current system, assessing realignment since 2025, and identifying practical options. Its analysis addresses constitutional and fiscal arrangements and three service areas.
Objective 1.1: Federal System 🔗
Describe the contemporary federal system and its allocation of roles and responsibilities.
Other Information
Include federal, state, local, regional, and tribal relationships.
Objective 1.2: Realignment Impacts 🔗
Assess the impacts of federal realignment since 2025 on governance.
Other Information
Consider heterogeneous effects across jurisdictions with different resources, political preferences, and administrative capabilities.
Objective 1.3: Policy Options 🔗
Identify practical policy options and role assignments that improve services and intergovernmental cooperation.
Other Information
Consider immediate issues and longer-term pathways; invite critique and present findings to Congress, subnational leaders, and the public.
Objective 1.4: Contributions & Critiques 🔗
Obtain contributions and critiques to inform the project’s findings.
Stakeholders:
👥Federalism Reimagined Project Contributors
👥Contributors and Critics
Other Information
The source welcomes contributions and critiques as the project prepares its findings; this objective makes that invitation explicit without adding a deadline.
Objective 1.5: Findings 🔗
Present the project’s findings to Congress, state, local, tribal, and regional leaders, and the public.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
👥Federalism Reimagined Project Contributors
👥State, Local, Tribal & Regional Leaders
👥Public
Other Information
The source identifies these audiences in its closing invitation.
Goal 2: Constitutional Federalism 🔗
Protect constitutional federalism and clarify intergovernmental responsibilities.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress : Under Article I, Section 8, Congress's principal constitutional duty is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"; through its other specified powers it also has a duty to ensure that the president and the Supreme Court act within the bounds of the US Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.
👥States : Bear significant responsibility for the erosion of federalism and, to some extent, the separation of powers.
Other Information
The draft links centralization, polarized party control, executive expansion, conflicting agency requirements, and state preemption to weakened checks and local authority. It recognizes that autonomy and competition can also produce unequal conditions and outcomes.
Objective 2.1: Responsibilities 🔗
Align policy and program responsibilities with fiscal and management capacities.
Stakeholders:
🏢Federal Government
👥States
Other Information
States and the federal government could establish an intergovernmental task force to delineate assignments.
Objective 2.2: Congressional Responses 🔗
Clarify congressional responses to executive assertions of authority.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Congress could revisit the 1974 Budget Impoundment and Control Act, as named in the source.
Objective 2.3: Federalism Policies 🔗
Strengthen federalism policies through model executive orders and a congressional resolution.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
Other Information
The Academy could lead a national effort to formulate these instruments.
Objective 2.4: Local Authority 🔗
Protect local authority through state-local compacts and reconsideration of constitutional relations.
Stakeholders:
👥States
👥Local Governments
Other Information
Examine the effect of state preemption within each state constitutional system.
Goal 3: Fiscal Federalism 🔗
Modernize fiscal federalism by aligning authority, responsibilities, revenues, and accountability.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
👥State Governments
👥Local Governments
Other Information
The source associates fiscal stress with aging, migration, technological and global economic changes, climate risks, federal debt, Medicaid costs, infrastructure needs, and constraints on local taxation. It argues for predictable federal financing and discretion responsive to local preferences.
Objective 3.1: Fiscal Sustainability 🔗
Improve fiscal sustainability through coordinated intergovernmental reform.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Congress could establish a modernization and fiscal sustainability commission to set priorities, plan implementation, promote reform, and oversee results. Its work could cover outcome measures, role clarity, budget processes, fiscal monitoring, taxes, social insurance, grants, oversight, and national responsibilities.
Objective 3.2: Debt 🔗
Constrain debt through debt-to-GDP targets and automatic enforcement.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Incorporate demographic and immigration scenarios into planning; improve fiscal transparency, public engagement, and accountability.
Objective 3.3: Devolution 🔗
Align devolution with clearly reassigned authority, funding, and accountability.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
🏢Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations : The source proposes revitalizing this body to monitor and evaluate devolution experiments; this is not a statement that it currently operates.
Other Information
Reduce federal oversight before transferring administratively complex, community-oriented, growth-supporting programs such as job training. Consider block grants or discretionary aid. A revitalized Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations could evaluate experiments.
Objective 3.4: State Balances 🔗
Protect state fiscal balances against unfunded transfers of responsibility.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Preserve near-term stability and share related federal revenues. Consider fewer programs, consolidation, deregulation, model devolution plans, and stronger state tax systems.
Objective 3.5: Local Autonomy 🔗
Expand local fiscal autonomy and clarify functional responsibilities.
Stakeholders:
👥State Governments
Other Information
Consider K–12 finance assignments, diversified revenues, predictable formula transfers and equalization, protection against unfunded mandates, and stronger performance reporting.
Objective 3.6: Regional Capacity 🔗
Strengthen regional capacity through cooperation and interlocal agreements.
Stakeholders:
👥State Governments
👥Local Governments
Other Information
States could authorize collaboration addressing climate emergencies, rural health, and transportation problems spanning jurisdictions.
Goal 4: Emergency Management 🔗
Strengthen emergency management capacity while aligning responsibility with resources.
Stakeholders:
🏢Federal Emergency Management Agency
👥States
👥Counties and Other Local Governments
👥Tribes
Other Information
The source contrasts locally executed, state-managed, federally supported arrangements with hazards spanning mass violence, health, cyberattacks, and infrastructure failures. It describes uneven capacity, fragmented systems, disrupted commitments, and insufficient attention to mitigation. It treats the FEMA Review Council proposals, H.R. 4669, and the September 2026 FEMA memorandum as contested directions rather than settled policy. The central issue is whether capacity develops before federal support recedes.Additional source context: The draft contrasts the May 2026 FEMA Review Council proposals with the pending Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669). It describes the Council as proposing replacement of Public Assistance and Individual Assistance, greater use of lump-sum grants instead of reimbursement, and higher disaster-declaration thresholds. It describes H.R. 4669 as proposing an independent, cabinet-level FEMA, optional block grants for states and tribes facing smaller disasters, faster emergency-work and debris-removal funding, and greater consideration of rural and economically distressed areas. These are the draft’s accounts of competing proposals, not independently verified legislative status.The draft interprets the September 22, 2026 FEMA memorandum as narrowing attention to mitigation and omitting explicit reference to local government. It raises the issue of statutory versus administrative authority over the agency’s mission. Its recurring analytical themes are mismatched responsibility and capacity, the vulnerability of high-risk jurisdictions with limited resources, disrupted federal commitments, horizontal cooperation, practiced relationships, and mitigation’s comparatively weak funding and policy attention.
Objective 4.1: Transition 🔗
Enable a planned, transparent transition that gives states and localities time to build capacity.
Stakeholders:
🏢Federal Government
👥State and Local Governments
Other Information
Phase changes over several years and clarify federal responsibilities over the next decade; avoid transferring responsibilities before resources and capabilities exist.
Objective 4.2: Mitigation 🔗
Increase mitigation to reduce disaster losses and recovery costs.
Stakeholders:
👥States
Other Information
The draft cites approximately six dollars of benefit per dollar invested in resilience or prevention; the underlying study is identified in the bibliography.
Objective 4.3: Mutual Aid 🔗
Strengthen mutual aid through horizontal relationships and practiced coordination.
Stakeholders:
👥Peer Jurisdictions
Other Information
The analysis highlights compacts, established relationships, and routine preparation as supports for coordination under stress.
Objective 4.4: Insurance Funds 🔗
Develop state-level catastrophic insurance funds to buffer emergency costs.
Stakeholders:
👥States
Other Information
The draft notes limited existing adoption and proposes funds to protect state and local fiscal capacity.
Goal 5: Healthcare 🔗
Improve public health and Medicaid implementation across intergovernmental partners.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration : Can play a significant role in illuminating the challenges of current and future public health and Medicaid policies, consistent with its charter.
🏢US Department of Health and Human Services
🏢Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
👥Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
Show Hide 2 members👥State and Local Health Agencies
🏢West Coast Health Alliance
🏢Northeast Public Health Collaborative
Other Information
The draft describes shared federal financing, regulation, guidance, and data responsibilities; state legal authority and implementation; local operations; and nonprofit, commercial, tribal, and territorial participation. It emphasizes unequal administrative capacity, Medicaid eligibility changes, provider-tax and payment restrictions, aging-related costs, and threats to health-data availability. It describes emerging regional health coalitions and work with AI companies, without proposing a separate AI objective.Additional source context: The draft identifies HHS as a principal federal health-policy actor, alongside EPA, USDA, and the Department of Labor. It illustrates interdependence through ACIP vaccine recommendations, CDC review, state-level policy and enforcement, and effects on insurance reimbursement. It describes Medicaid work requirements as 80 hours per month for the population specified in the draft, with significant eligibility-system and staffing implications; this summary does not independently interpret eligibility rules or exemptions. It estimates provider taxes supply 18 percent of the state funds used to support Medicaid and describes restrictions on those taxes and state-directed payments as pressures requiring replacement revenues or benefit reductions.
Objective 5.1: Implementation 🔗
Improve efficient, effective, accountable, and nonpartisan implementation of Medicaid and public health programs.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
Other Information
The Academy could advocate these principles while illuminating implementation challenges.
Objective 5.2: Best Practices 🔗
Increase adoption of effective state and local practices in Medicaid and public health.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
🏢Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Other Information
Recognize responses to technological and political changes. Use CMS scorecard data on enrollment, procedural terminations, and ex parte eligibility decisions to identify transferable approaches.
Objective 5.3: Public Health System 🔗
Reform the public health system through a national commission.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
Other Information
Keep this effort distinct from health insurance reform while recognizing effects on affordability and healthcare costs.
Objective 5.4: Administrative Capacity 🔗
Increase state administrative capacity for Medicaid eligibility and substate public health responsibilities.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
👥Allied Health Groups
👥Private Foundations
Other Information
The Academy and allied health groups could prepare a practical guidebook and seek private foundation support. The draft associates new work requirements and renewal rules with systems changes and possible staffing needs.
Objective 5.5: Health Data 🔗
Ensure routine and targeted public health data are collected, stored, and shared.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
👥Associations of Intergovernmental Partners
👥Regional Public Health Coalitions
Other Information
Work with associations of intergovernmental partners on a national strategic plan. Recognize regional coalitions, including the West Coast Health Alliance and Northeast Public Health Collaborative, and offer Academy expertise.
Objective 5.6: Funding 🔗
Stabilize funding for the public health system across levels of government.
Stakeholders:
🏢National Academy of Public Administration
Other Information
Convene a national panel to recommend financing arrangements reflecting the federal system and the importance of fiscal support at each level.
Goal 6: Transportation 🔗
Improve transportation reliability, investment, and inclusive intergovernmental governance.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
🏢US Department of Transportation
👥State Departments of Transportation
👥Metropolitan Planning Organizations
👥Local and Tribal Governments
👥Transit Agencies
Other Information
The source describes overlapping authority, federal conditional grants, uneven administrative capacity, volatile grant decisions, weak coordination with housing and economic development, and inadequate maintenance incentives. It identifies trust-fund insolvency risk, reauthorization uncertainty, fuel-tax erosion, and reduced performance-based accountability. Its assertions about expiration of IIJA authorizations and the status of BUILD America 250 are preserved as draft context, not independently verified legislative findings.Additional source context: The draft attributes roughly three quarters of highway and transit funding to subnational governments and one quarter to the federal government. It also cites local responsibility for 82 percent of transit capital spending and fare coverage of approximately 13 percent of costs, without specifying a common accounting basis for these measures. It identifies fuel taxes, tolls, debt financing, and electric-vehicle registration fees as state revenue mechanisms; inflation and frozen discretionary grants as pressures on regional programs; and diminished fuel-tax yields as vehicles become more efficient or electric.The draft traces policy development through the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, ISTEA, MAP-21, FAST, and IIJA. It cites delays between grant announcements and obligations and in reviewing statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs as examples of uncertainty. Metropolitan planning organizations serving fewer than 200,000 people are described as subject to state control over project selection. The proposed reforms seek stronger data sharing, performance tracking, and connections to housing and economic development.
Objective 6.1: Investment 🔗
Balance multimodal investment across transportation systems.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Congress could rebalance policy to reflect interconnected roads, rail, air, waterways, and transit.
Objective 6.2: Maintenance 🔗
Increase maintenance incentives relative to new construction.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
Consider restructuring the 80/20 construction match criticized in the draft.
Objective 6.3: Formula Funding 🔗
Align formula funding with transportation system ownership.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
Other Information
The draft contrasts local ownership of 48 percent of federally eligible roads with receipt of 16 percent of funding.
Objective 6.4: Revenue Authority 🔗
Expand state and local revenue authority and strengthen metropolitan planning partnerships.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
👥Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Other Information
Elevate metropolitan planning organizations as substantive partners; smaller organizations currently face particularly constrained project-selection authority according to the source.
Objective 6.5: Delivery 🔗
Improve transportation delivery through transparent asset information and streamlined grants and reviews.
Other Information
Complementary options include asset-condition dashboards, expanded Safe System safety funding, better freight connections, and local revenue authority. The source suggests sequencing over five years alongside BUILD America 250.
Objective 6.6: Governance 🔗
Strengthen inclusive governance with regional, local, and tribal partners.
Stakeholders:
🏢Congress
👥Regional, Local, and Tribal Governments
Other Information
Expand metropolitan planning authority and consultation; reward collaborative, transparent project selection; use regional bodies for data and technical assistance to capacity-constrained localities.
Objective 6.7: Coordination 🔗
Improve coordination across transportation, housing, economic development, and environmental agencies.
Stakeholders:
🏢US Department of Transportation
🏢Department of Housing and Urban Development
🏢Economic Development Administration
🏢Environmental Protection Agency
Other Information
Consider extending the IIJA Joint Office approach across USDOT, HUD, EDA, and EPA and aligning funding cycles with comprehensive economic development strategies.