IAEM releases official statement because of petition

[u/ArtichokeKooky6361]

TLDR: “What IAEM is not is the judge and jury of the emergency management community, nor should it aim to be. We do not exist to referee the profession or elevate one viewpoint over another. What we do stand for—unequivocally—is that emergency management exists to safeguard lives and property, protect communities, and foster resilience through thoughtful, evidence-based strategies.“

https://www.iaem.org/Groups/Councils-Global-Regions/IAEM-USA-Council/August-2025-President-Statement

[u/CommanderAze]

You draw a distinction between advocating for the profession and "politicizing" it. I understand the desire to remain non-partisan, but I believe this is a false dichotomy when policy that fundamentally shapes our profession is on the line. Policy is inherently political. Decisions about funding, agency structure, and the legal authorities under which we operate are all made in the political arena. To advocate for our profession is to engage in that arena. My concern is not about partisan alignment, but about professional ethics and survival. Let’s consider some concrete, albeit hypothetical, examples:

If there were a serious legislative proposal to dismantle FEMA and scatter its functions, should our leading professional body remain silent to avoid being "political"? Or should it forcefully advocate against a policy that would cripple our national response capability?

If emergency management personnel and resources were directed to be used in a manner that violates fundamental humanitarian principles—for instance, to enable and operate mass concentration camps in the Everglades—is that a "political" issue we should ignore? Or is it a profound ethical crisis that demands our collective and vocal opposition?

To me, the answers are obvious. Staying silent in the face of such threats isn't being constructive; it’s being complicit. You mentioned civic illiteracy. I would argue that true civic literacy for an emergency manager involves recognizing that our work is inseparable from the civic and political structures we serve. It requires understanding that threats to our communities and our profession can come not just from a hurricane or an earthquake, but also from a harmful policy or a destructive budget cut.

Choosing silence when the foundational structures and ethical integrity of our profession are threatened is not neutrality; it's a failure of our professional duty. My point, which I stand by, is that our field needs a major professional organization to take a clear, unwavering stance for what is best for all emergency managers and for the safety of the communities we are sworn to protect. That is not divisive; it is leadership.

[u/[deleted] → u/CommanderAze]

please list other respected EM associations that have made a strong political stance on this issue

[u/CommanderAze → u/[deleted]]

Take NEMA. They are absolutely a political powerhouse and are very effective. But their mandate is to be the voice of the state and territorial EM directors. They represent the interests of state government agencies. Their advocacy is top-down, focused on the architecture of federal policy, funding streams like the DRF, and how federal agencies interact with the states. They do their job well, but they are not, nor are they intended to be, the voice for the thousands of individual practitioners at the local, tribal, private sector, and non-profit levels. They represent the institution, not the professional.

Then you have vital, mission-driven groups like the Black Emergency Managers Association (BEMA), which does heroic work advocating for equity and vulnerable communities, or the big healthcare lobbies like the American Hospital Association, which are powerful advocates for their specific sectors. These groups are essential, but they are, by design, focused on a specific mission or industry. They aren't set up to be the guiding professional body for the entire field of emergency management.

This brings us back to the fundamental problem with IAEM. With over 6,000 members, it is positioned as the largest professional association for the individual practitioner. It's supposed to be our collective voice. But when the profession faces foundational threats—the devaluing of expertise, the politicization of our work, and policies that undermine our ability to protect our communities—IAEM retreats to a position of "neutrality."

While they do some necessary legislative work on things like EMPG funding, they consistently fail to take the strong, principled, ethical stands that define a true professional guiding body. They refuse to be the "judge and jury" at the very moment our profession needs a clear-eyed arbiter and a fierce defender.

its also important to note NEMA speaks for the states, not the practitioners of emergency management as a whole. Other groups speak for specific missions or industries. IAEM is supposed to speak for us, the professionals. Its failure to do so with a strong, ethical voice on the issues that threaten the integrity of our work leaves a massive void. We lack a true standard-bearer, and that's precisely why I am so critical of their inaction. The field is adrift without that leadership.

[u/[deleted] → u/CommanderAze]

always the exception, and yet those who cast stones rarely do anything other than anonymously pound away at the keyboard. IAEM speaks for its paying members. full stop. understanding tax law is also essential before bashing organizations in which you clearly have very little knowledge. a quick google search of their IRS filings and articles of incorporation shows that they cannot make any political statements whatsoever. condemning the administration's use of FDEM (as the recent petition requests) is, in fact, a political statement. looking at their social media, iaem has been on capitol hill more than any other em association this year. and they also published 2 commercial-grade PSAs that clearly articulate what em is. but go ahead, you obviously hold the highest of virtues and we are all here as peons.

[u/Wodan11 → u/[deleted]]

Without jumping into the deep end of this discussion, IAEM professes more than to speak for its members. From the mission statement: The mission of IAEM is to advance the profession by promoting the principles of emergency management; and, to serve its members by providing information, networking and development opportunities.

[u/[deleted] → u/Wodan11]

they don't speak for me. they speak for their members. and it's quite possible to speak for members AND advance the profession

[u/CommanderAze → u/[deleted]]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is certainly a strategy to win people over... let's stick to discussion about the facts, in this case of nonprofit law.

Your central point is incorrect. The IRS explicitly allows 501(c)(3) organizations to lobby and engage in policy advocacy. The legal prohibition is on partisan campaigning—endorsing or opposing candidates for office.

So for example condemning the administration's use of FDEM is absolutely within the legal abilities of a 501(c)(3) organization.

Taking a stance on how a government agency is being used or whether a policy undermines the profession is policy advocacy, not partisan campaigning. It is a legally protected and essential function of many nonprofits. My argument isn't about virtues; it's about the strategic and ethical choices of a professional association that is specifically designed to be a voice for emergency managers.

But what would I know about promoting voices of the people in our field? I only built a community here on reddit that is now more than triple the size of IAEM.

[u/[deleted] → u/CommanderAze]

a community largely made up of people who troll anonymously? so proud!