Tennessee House Bill HB2560

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/24/26
• Refer: 3/10/26
• Refer: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Refer: 4/7/26
• Engrossed: 4/14/26
• Enrolled: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 9; Title 13; Title 16; Title 39; Title 55; Title 58; Title 62; Title 65; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to emergency management.

Summary

HB2560 reorganizes Tennessee’s emergency management framework by creating a new “Department of the Tennessee Emergency Management Authority” (TEMA) within state law and placing it under a commissioner of TEMA. The bill updates numerous statutes across the Tennessee Code to replace references to the existing “Tennessee emergency management agency” with the new department structure, and it assigns the commissioner the powers and duties tied to emergency management under Title 58 and related laws. The bill also preserves continuity during the transition. It provides that existing contracts, leases, rules, orders, decisions, and policies remain in effect after the reorganization unless changed under law, and it expressly avoids impairing contract obligations. In addition, it updates emergency-management-related provisions involving local emergency organizations, mutual aid, hazardous materials reporting, emergency shelters, and certain law-enforcement and transportation-related references so they align with the new department name and leadership structure.

Impact

HB2560 makes broad conforming amendments to Tennessee law by replacing references to the Tennessee emergency management agency with the newly created Department of TEMA and commissioner of TEMA across multiple titles, including emergency management, criminal law, transportation, utilities, natural resources, and public health-related provisions. It centralizes emergency management authority in a department headed by a commissioner, while preserving existing administrative actions and legal relationships to avoid disruption. The bill therefore changes the organizational structure and terminology used in state law, but it does not appear to create a new emergency management program so much as rename and formalize the existing one under a new statutory framework.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been generally well received and moved through the legislative process with strong support. It passed subcommittee and committee votes overwhelmingly, and it cleared the House floor by a wide margin, suggesting broad agreement on the need for the reorganization and statutory cleanup. The final concurrence vote on the Senate amendment was also strongly favorable, indicating little overall resistance to the measure.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to have been limited to procedural or structural concerns rather than opposition to emergency management itself. The only notable committee-level dissent was a single no vote in the House Government Operations Committee, and the House floor vote included a modest number of no votes, suggesting some members may have questioned the reorganization, the breadth of conforming changes, or the administrative implications of creating a new department and commissioner role. However, the available record does not show any sustained controversy or specific policy dispute in the committee discussions.