DENVER — Colorado Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen co-introduced a package of 6 bipartisan bills today aimed at helping communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from destructive wildfires.
The legislation comes after the Aspen Acres and Willow fires burned more than 100,000 acres across Colorado, destroyed 300 homes, and disrupted the lives of families and small businesses across the state.
"The recent Aspen Acres and Willow fires were devastating to our communities and natural environment. Our Colorado families understand that wildfire season is no longer just a few months of the year. The threat is constant and increasing due to climate change, and we need an all-hands-on-deck approach," Pettersen said. "These bills will help us turn wildfire research into action, streamlines and removes partisanship from our processes, protect every firefighter exposed to dangerous conditions, combat the devastating mountain pine beetle outbreaks that make our forests more vulnerable to destructive fires, and ensure communities receive the disaster-mitigation resources they need on time, when it matters."
Since 2012, Colorado has experienced 17 of its top 20 wildfires in history. In total, nearly 2,800 homes in Colorado have been lost to fires in the past 14 years, according to the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control.
"We need urgent action and it's really making sure we're streamlining the process with our agencies so we're coordinating, getting resources to people as quickly as possible but also looking at what we can do in the long term for prevention and mitigation and then recovery dollars," said Pettersen.
The 6 bills
Wildfire Research Coordination Act — Introduced by Pettersen and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), this bill directs the Department of Defense's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program to coordinate with the Department of Interior's Joint Fire Science Program when establishing fire-research priorities. The goal is to support increased collaboration among federal agencies to improve wildfire research and prevention strategies and to better ensure that recommendations are deployed in the field when wildfires strike.
Wildfire Responder Protection Act — Also introduced by Pettersen and Lawler, this bill expands the definition of "firefighter" to include all personnel who support fire activities and are exposed to fire-related hazards. It ensures all those who fight fires are entitled to proper health care coverage when exposed to hazardous conditions.
Emergency Mountain Pine Beetle Response Act — Introduced by Pettersen and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO), this bill would establish a Mountain Pine Beetle Emergency Response Program within the U.S. Forest Service. The program would provide grant opportunities to on-the-ground partners working in coordination with the Forest Service to mitigate mountain pine beetle threats on National Forest System land. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks can kill large numbers of trees, damage watersheds and outdoor recreation areas, and create dangerous conditions that can worsen the threat of wildfires.
Mountain Pine Beetle Coordination Act — Also introduced by Pettersen and Neguse, this bill would direct the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements with states to prevent, monitor, and respond to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. It would give localities additional resources and a stronger framework for responding to emerging outbreaks before they cause widespread and lasting damage.
The pine beetle bills are endorsed by Governor Jared Polis, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and the Colorado State Forest Service.
Guaranteed Disaster Assistance Act — Introduced by Pettersen, this bill would ensure that Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding is distributed to states following a major disaster or when Fire Management Assistance Grant funding is provided to respond to a wildfire. Currently, access to certain long-term hazard-mitigation resources can depend on whether the president issues a major disaster declaration. This legislation would make mitigation funding automatically available, allowing states and communities to begin recovering and reducing future risks without waiting for an additional presidential declaration.
HUD Disaster Information Improvements Act — Introduced by Pettersen and Rep. Tim Moore (R-NC), this bill would require the Department of Housing and Urban Development to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration to support families and businesses when a disaster strikes. The increased coordination would allow federal support to reach communities affected by wildfires and natural disasters more efficiently.
The US Department of Energy has conceded in a court filing that it cancelled 7.6 billion dollars of clean-energy grants last year based only on whether recipient states voted Democratic.
The US Department of Energy has admitted that politics alone drove one of its largest funding decisions. In a filing dated 15 July, the department said last year’s cancellation of 7.6 billion dollars in clean-energy grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state”. The New York Times first reported the filing on 24 July.
DOE cancelled 223 clean-energy project grants in October 2025. Every one sat in a state that voted for former Vice-President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Several of those cancellations have since been overturned in court.
What the filing says
The filing conceded that none of the 2025 cancellations rested on “any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor”. The department said the grants were included “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State”.
DOE offered these details to avoid the court’s discovery process. The admission contradicts earlier statements that the projects were dropped on merit.
Backlash from lawmakers
Democratic lawmakers reacted sharply. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut called the filing a “stunning admission” that the administration is “weaponizing the federal funding process to punish people who did not vote for President Trump”. She warned that a wider proposal could normalise the approach.
The Sierra Club said it would keep fighting what it called a “retaliatory agenda”. Holly Bender, the group’s chief program officer, said the administration was “brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach” that ignored job losses, air pollution and higher bills.
A wider funding fight
The dispute sits inside a broader argument over federal grants. In May, the Office of Management and Budget proposed a process giving agencies more control over how grants are awarded. Representative Brittany Pettersen of Colorado led a coalition urging OMB to withdraw it.
In a letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, the lawmakers said the rule would shift decisions “away from an established, neutral criteria” and let appointed officials choose which communities receive support. They called it a sharp break from long-standing guidance.
DOE’s position
A DOE spokesperson told the New York Times that an initial review of the 2025 cancelled grants was completed without political considerations. The department has not reconciled that account with the language in its own filing.
The courts may settle the question. Judges have already reversed some cancellations, including 82.1 million dollars in grants struck
The US Department of Energy has conceded in a court filing that it cancelled 7.6 billion dollars of clean-energy grants last year based only on whether recipient states voted Democratic.
The US Department of Energy has admitted that politics alone drove one of its largest funding decisions. In a filing dated 15 July, the department said last year’s cancellation of 7.6 billion dollars in clean-energy grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state”. The New York Times first reported the filing on 24 July.
DOE cancelled 223 clean-energy project grants in October 2025. Every one sat in a state that voted for former Vice-President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Several of those cancellations have since been overturned in court.
What the filing says
The filing conceded that none of the 2025 cancellations rested on “any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor”. The department said the grants were included “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State”.
DOE offered these details to avoid the court’s discovery process. The admission contradicts earlier statements that the projects were dropped on merit.
Backlash from lawmakers
Democratic lawmakers reacted sharply. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut called the filing a “stunning admission” that the administration is “weaponizing the federal funding process to punish people who did not vote for President Trump”. She warned that a wider proposal could normalise the approach.
The Sierra Club said it would keep fighting what it called a “retaliatory agenda”. Holly Bender, the group’s chief program officer, said the administration was “brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach” that ignored job losses, air pollution and higher bills.
A wider funding fight
The dispute sits inside a broader argument over federal grants. In May, the Office of Management and Budget proposed a process giving agencies more control over how grants are awarded. Representative Brittany Pettersen of Colorado led a coalition urging OMB to withdraw it.
In a letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, the lawmakers said the rule would shift decisions “away from an established, neutral criteria” and let appointed officials choose which communities receive support. They called it a sharp break from long-standing guidance.
DOE’s position
A DOE spokesperson told the New York Times that an initial review of the 2025 cancelled grants was completed without political considerations. The department has not reconciled that account with the language in its own filing.
The courts may settle the question. Judges have already reversed some cancellations, including 82.1 million dollars in grants struck down in June. Further legal challenges are likely as recipients test the basis for the cut
