On a recent Wednesday, a coalition of twenty Democratic-led states initiated a legal challenge against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), taking a stand against the agency’s decision to terminate a longstanding grant program aimed at bolstering community defenses against natural disasters. The program in question, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, has been essential for millions of Americans, providing critical funding for various mitigation efforts. The abrupt halt in funding has raised serious concerns about the capability of states to adequately prepare for and respond to the increasing frequency of natural disasters.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the assertion that the Trump administration violated established legal frameworks when it announced the cessation of the BRIC program in April. Critics argue that FEMA’s actions—cancelling ongoing projects and denying new grants—are not only unjust but unlawful. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell from Massachusetts, the state where the lawsuit was filed, emphasized the importance of federal resources in times of potential calamity, especially in light of disasters such as devastating floods that have ravaged parts of Texas and other states. She stated, “By abruptly and unlawfully shutting down the BRIC program, this administration is abandoning states and local communities that rely on federal funding to protect their residents and, in the event of disaster, save lives.”
In response to inquiries on the lawsuit, FEMA did not offer immediate commentary. However, back in April, the agency characterized the BRIC program as “wasteful and ineffective,” alleging it prioritizes political agendas over the actual needs of Americans affected by natural disasters. This statement adds another layer of complication to the situation, framing the BRIC program’s termination as a controversial decision rather than a straightforward budgetary cut.
Historically, the BRIC program has provided essential grants for multiple disaster mitigation projects. These projects encompass crucial infrastructural developments, such as the construction of levees for flood protection, the establishment of safe rooms for shelter during tornadoes, vegetation management to minimize damage from wildfires, and seismic retrofitting designed to enhance the resilience of buildings against earthquakes. The implications of these varied types of support are profound, as communities across the nation have increasingly depended on such aids to safeguard their residents and infrastructure.
Interestingly, during his presidency, Donald Trump had previously signed legislation meant to enhance funding for disaster risk reduction initiatives. These initiatives received a further boost from an infrastructure law enacted under President Joe Biden, which mandates that FEMA allocate a minimum of $200 million annually for disaster mitigation grants from 2022 through 2026. Therefore, the abrupt termination of BRIC raises significant questions regarding adherence to legislative intent and appropriate resource management.
The legal action taken by the states also argues that the Trump administration’s decision undermines the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, as Congress has not sanctioned the discontinuation of the BRIC program. Furthermore, the suit points to the lack of authority in FEMA’s leadership during the program’s suspension, as the agency was being administered by an acting administrator who had not met the qualification requirements for such a pivotal role.
The consequences of the program’s elimination have already begun to manifest, affecting communities that were set to benefit from federal disaster mitigation grants. In Hillsborough, North Carolina, for example, officials were awarded nearly $7 million aimed at relocating a wastewater pumping station out of a flood-prone area, along with enhancements to the wider water and sewer system. However, circumstances took a turn for the worse following damage inflicted by remnants of Tropical Storm Chantal, rendering the pumping station inoperable.
Rural Mount Pleasant, North Carolina, found itself in a similarly precarious position. Town officials had ambitious plans to utilize over $4 million from the BRIC program to bolster stormwater drainage and protect their vulnerable electrical system—a vital lifeline for historic sites and local businesses. Assistant Town Manager Erin Burris expressed frustration as community members confronted her with questions about the lost funding, pointing out that they had spent considerable time and effort aiming to secure those funds. Now, engineering plans were ready, yet the necessary resources to execute them were no longer available. This sentiment of uncertainty and disruption resonates across many regions facing the fallout from this federal decision.
