Skip to content

Administrative Branch Halts Reduction of Financial Aid for Federal Emergency Management Agency by Trump Administration

Trump administration's plan to redirect disaster mitigation grant funds blocked by court order: Judge issues temporary halt.

Administration's FEMA Finances Halted by Court Decision Under Trump Leadership
Administration's FEMA Finances Halted by Court Decision Under Trump Leadership

Administrative Branch Halts Reduction of Financial Aid for Federal Emergency Management Agency by Trump Administration

In a significant ruling, a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, preventing the federal government from reallocating millions of dollars in disaster mitigation grants from the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.

The judge's decision, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general, including California's Rob Bonta. The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration's actions violate federal law and the constitutional separation of powers by eradicating the BRIC program.

According to the court filings, FEMA's decision to abruptly terminate the BRIC program contradicts the legal authority of Congress, which established and funded the program. Judge Stearns wrote that he is "not convinced" that Congress ever intended for funds meant exclusively for BRIC to be used for other purposes.

The judge emphasized that halting the BRIC program jeopardizes crucial disaster mitigation projects that protect lives and infrastructure from increasing natural disasters caused by climate change. Thus, public harm outweighed any government interest in fund reallocation during litigation.

The BRIC program, established in 2020, supports hazard mitigation projects like flood control, wildfire prevention, and infrastructure resilience. Its cancellation and fund reallocation under the Trump administration represent a significant shift toward state and local responsibility for disaster preparedness.

However, the judge allowed that in the case of an unprecedented emergency disaster, the government could seek court permission to access these funds on an emergency basis.

Bonta described Judge Stearns' ruling as a significant step forward against an administration that routinely flouts the rule of law. He vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable for abandoning the safety of vulnerable communities.

Many communities across the country have used BRIC grants to invest in longstanding, ongoing disaster mitigation projects. Without BRIC, many—likely most—of these projects will either falter or fail. Bonta stated that shuttering the BRIC program would not prevent waste, fraud, and abuse or improve government efficiency.

The ongoing litigation will determine the future of the BRIC program and the billions of dollars in disaster mitigation funds at stake. The states involved in the lawsuit argue that ending BRIC undermines disaster preparedness nationwide. If successful, the lawsuit could pave the way for the restoration of the BRIC program and the continuation of vital disaster mitigation projects across the United States.

  1. The ongoing litigation, centering around policy-and-legislation related to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, could pave the way for re-establishing the program under federal law, as the states involved argue that its termination undermines disaster preparedness nationwide.
  2. The judge's ruling in the BRIC program lawsuit, alleging violations of federal law and the constitutional separation of powers, implies that the politics surrounding disaster mitigation funding will greatly impact general-news concerning the preparedness of communities across the United States for increasing natural disasters caused by climate change.

Read also:

    Latest