Position on the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025
The Federation of American Scientists supports the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025.
This vital bill would create a Wildfire Intelligence Center to provide decision support across the entire wildfire lifecycle of prevention, suppression, and recovery efforts, thereby allowing stakeholders to retain autonomy while holistically addressing the wildfire crisis. Inspired by consensus recommendations from the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, this bill further underscores the strong bipartisan momentum in Congress for a new federal center to improve wildfire detection speed and accuracy, enhance recovery efforts, and better prepare for catastrophic wildfires. FAS has previously supported similar legislation to create such a center. We look forward to working with partners to move forward on a single collaborative effort.
“FAS applauds Senators Padilla and Sheehy for introducing this bill, which would take a crucial step forward in protecting our communities from increasingly severe wildfires. The Wildfire Intelligence Center would bring together expertise at all levels of government to give our firefighters and first responders access to cutting-edge tools and the decision support they need to confront this growing crisis,” said James Campbell, Wildfire Policy Specialist at the Federation of American Scientists.
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed revoking its 2009 “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases pose a substantial threat to the public. The Federation of American Scientists stands in strong opposition.
The Federation of American Scientists supports H.R. 4420, the Cool Corridors Act of 2025, which would reauthorize the Healthy Streets program through 2030 and seeks to increase green and other shade infrastructure in high-heat areas.
The federal government can support more proactive, efficient, and cost-effective resiliency planning by certifying predictive models to validate and publicly indicate their quality.
The cost of inaction is not merely economic; it is measured in preventable illness, deaths and diminished livelihoods.