20 U.S. States Sue FEMA Over Cancellation of Natural Disaster Relief Grants by Trump Administration
In a significant legal move, 20 U.S. states—mostly governed by Democrats—have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), accusing the agency of unlawfully terminating a critical disaster relief grant program. The program, known as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) initiative, was designed to provide essential funding for projects aimed at minimizing the damage and loss caused by natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes.
States Allege Illegal Shutdown of Life-Saving Program
The states argue that the Trump administration’s decision to discontinue the BRIC program was not only sudden and unjustified but also illegal. The lawsuit contends that FEMA, under the Trump-era policies, arbitrarily shut down the program in April, putting millions of Americans at greater risk during times of environmental crises. According to the complaint, this move has endangered public safety and could significantly hinder efforts to build infrastructure capable of withstanding natural calamities.
The lawsuit further claims that FEMA halted not only future BRIC funding but also suspended several ongoing projects. This came despite the fact that the U.S. Congress had already approved funding for the program, with legal mandates to provide at least $200 million annually between 2022 and 2026.
Attorney Generals Express Deep Concern
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, one of the key figures leading the legal charge, stressed the importance of the program in the face of increasing climate-related disasters. Citing the recent devastating floods in Texas and other regions, she emphasized how critical it is for state and local governments to receive consistent federal support. “By abruptly and unlawfully ending the BRIC program,” Campbell stated, “the Trump administration has abandoned the very communities that rely on these federal resources to protect lives and safeguard infrastructure during emergencies.”
FEMA Defends Its Position, But Critics Disagree
While FEMA did not issue a formal statement immediately after the lawsuit was filed, the agency had earlier justified its decision by labeling the BRIC initiative as “ineffective and politically motivated.” However, critics strongly refute this claim, pointing out that the program was established in 2000 through a bipartisan effort to proactively reduce disaster risks across the country.
The BRIC program provided grants for critical projects such as flood control systems, earthquake-resistant building upgrades, emergency shelters for hurricanes, and wildfire prevention measures. Many of these initiatives were already in progress and were seen as vital by local communities.
Allegations of Constitutional Violations
The lawsuit also accuses the Trump administration of breaching the constitutional principle of separation of powers, arguing that the executive branch overstepped its authority by discontinuing a program funded and mandated by Congress. Notably, the suit points out that the decision was taken when FEMA was led by an acting administrator who did not meet the statutory requirements to head the agency. This, the plaintiffs claim, renders the program’s cancellation procedurally invalid and legally indefensible.
What’s at Stake
At the heart of the issue lies the ongoing battle over federal disaster preparedness funding. With climate-related disasters becoming more frequent and intense, states are demanding that the federal government uphold its responsibility to support local efforts in disaster prevention and resilience-building.
The outcome of this lawsuit could set a significant precedent, determining not only the fate of the BRIC program but also shaping the boundaries of executive authority over federally funded disaster relief efforts in the future.
