Twenty states filed suit in federal court on Wednesday against the Trump administration, alleging that the sudden termination of a long-standing disaster mitigation program violates federal law and places millions of Americans at greater risk from natural disasters. The lawsuit, filed in Boston, challenges the April decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to eliminate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program—a key federal grant initiative designed to help communities strengthen defenses before disaster strikes.
The complaint argues that the Trump administration unlawfully dismantled BRIC without congressional approval, defying statutory mandates and the constitutional separation of powers. Attorneys general from the twenty Democratic-led states say the shutdown has already disrupted hundreds of local projects and could have catastrophic consequences if not reversed.
“Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding,” the complaint states. “Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. And in the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.”
Established in 2018, BRIC has been a cornerstone of FEMA’s efforts to shift away from reactive disaster response and toward proactive risk reduction. The program provides competitive grants for infrastructure improvements such as levees to prevent flooding, stormwater system upgrades, safe rooms for tornadoes, seismic retrofitting, and vegetation management to reduce wildfire threats. According to the lawsuit, mitigation programs like BRIC have helped avert over $150 billion in costs by preventing catastrophic damage and displacement.
“For the past 30 years, the BRIC program has provided communities across the nation with resources to proactively fortify their infrastructure against natural disasters,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha in a press release. “By focusing on preparation, the program has protected property, saved money that would have otherwise been spent on post-disaster costs, reduced injuries, and saved lives.”
In recent years, BRIC has expanded significantly. Nearly 2,000 projects were selected for funding over the past four years, amounting to approximately $4.5 billion in federal support. The program received a major boost under President Biden through the bipartisan infrastructure law, which requires FEMA to make available at least $200 million annually for disaster mitigation grants through fiscal year 2026.
Despite this funding, the Trump administration moved to eliminate the program in April. FEMA canceled active projects and halted new approvals, calling the program “wasteful and ineffective” and claiming it was “more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.” President Donald Trump had previously signaled plans to overhaul FEMA, and initially suggested eliminating it entirely. However, following deadly floods in Texas, the administration said the agency would be reformed rather than dismantled.
Critics say the decision has already put lives and livelihoods at risk, particularly in vulnerable and disaster-prone communities. “This illegal cut endangers the communities most vulnerable to natural disasters,” said Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown. “Communities and states face devastating consequences when the federal government doesn’t meet its obligations to the public, and I will hold the Trump administration accountable for abandoning their safety.”
The lawsuit asserts that FEMA’s actions are not only dangerous, but illegal. According to the complaint, neither the termination of BRIC nor any major reduction in FEMA’s core capabilities was authorized by Congress. “In fact, Congress has specifically barred it,” the lawsuit states. “Therefore, the BRIC termination violates these statutes and the Separation of Powers.” The plaintiffs also allege that the decision was made under an acting FEMA administrator who had not met the legal requirements to hold the position, further undermining the program’s cancellation.
The real-world impact of the shutdown is already being felt. In Hillsborough, North Carolina, a nearly $7 million BRIC-funded project to move a wastewater pumping station out of a floodplain was halted before work could begin. The station was later damaged and forced offline after the remnants of Tropical Storm Chantal swept through the area. In Mount Pleasant, North Carolina, town officials had secured more than $4 million to improve stormwater drainage and protect an aging electric grid serving the downtown business district. That funding is now gone.
“I’ve had downtown property owners saying, ‘What do we do?’” said assistant town manager Erin Burris. “I’ve got engineering plans ready to go and I don’t have the money to do it.”
Some of the hardest-hit communities are rural or conservative-leaning, where residents had long supported Trump’s policies. The sudden loss of anticipated federal funds has left many local governments scrambling to re-prioritize budgets or seek state-level support that may not materialize in time.
“In the wake of devastating flooding in Texas and other states, it’s clear just how critical federal resources are in helping states prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. “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.”
The lawsuit also highlights the broader constitutional implications of the Trump administration’s move. Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is that FEMA’s dismantling of the BRIC program represents a breach of the separation of powers—specifically, an executive branch agency overriding the explicit will of Congress. According to the complaint, Congress not only authorized the BRIC program but also explicitly mandated its continuation through binding appropriations. The suit contends that FEMA’s unilateral action violates statutes requiring the agency to carry out congressional directives and maintain its disaster mitigation responsibilities.
The constitutional challenge is compounded by concerns over FEMA’s leadership at the time of the program’s termination. The lawsuit claims that the decision was made while the agency was under the control of an acting administrator who had not fulfilled the legal requirements to lead FEMA, casting further doubt on the legitimacy of the shutdown.
Though the Trump administration framed BRIC as wasteful, local officials across the political spectrum argue that the program’s benefits are clear—and that its termination will lead to greater federal spending down the line. BRIC grants were designed to make communities more resilient, reducing the need for emergency disaster declarations and costly post-disaster aid. Cutting the program, officials say, not only abandons these communities in the short term, but also increases the long-term financial burden on federal taxpayers.
Advocates and state officials note that BRIC projects often take years to develop, with towns and cities investing substantial local funds into environmental reviews, planning documents, and engineering studies before a single shovel hits the ground. The abrupt cancellation of funding for these projects has upended local budgets and timelines, while threatening public safety in areas already vulnerable to climate-related disasters.
“Communities and states face devastating consequences when the federal government doesn’t meet its obligations to the public,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown.
The states bringing the lawsuit are now calling on the federal courts to compel FEMA to restore the program and resume processing applications and disbursing funds for approved projects. Legal observers expect the case to proceed swiftly given the looming threat of more extreme weather events this summer and fall.
At the heart of the case is not only the survival of BRIC, but the broader question of whether the executive branch can unilaterally eliminate programs established by law and funded by Congress. With climate change accelerating and disaster costs escalating, the decision could set a significant precedent for how the federal government approaches future risk mitigation and emergency preparedness.
“In the wake of devastating flooding in Texas and other states, it’s clear just how critical federal resources are in helping states prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. “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.”
COMMENTS