Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
A coalition of 20 states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to terminate a multibillion-dollar FEMA grant program.
Some shit you should know before you read: Shortly after returning to office, President Trump proposed major reforms to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), arguing that the agency was both inefficient and politicized. Central to his reform agenda was the abrupt termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program—a multibillion-dollar grant initiative established in 2018 to help state and local governments strengthen infrastructure and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters before they occur. BRIC had funded nearly 2,000 projects nationwide, supporting floodwalls, evacuation shelters, and road upgrades, with the federal government covering up to 90% of costs in rural areas. The administration defended the cut by labeling the program as wasteful and announced plans to reallocate its $4 billion in funds toward post-disaster response efforts, rather than pre-disaster mitigation.
What’s going on now: In a notable development, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin have filed a joint federal lawsuit against the Trump administration over its termination of FEMA’s BRIC grant program. The complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, alleges that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by scrapping a program that Congress had already approved and funded. The states claim the decision violates the constitutional separation of powers by bypassing legislative authority over federal spending, and they say that FEMA administrators appointed by Trump lacked the legal qualifications to make such consequential decisions.
The plaintiffs are seeking to reverse the termination of the BRIC program, restore its multibillion-dollar funding, and prevent the Trump administration from reallocating the nearly $4 billion originally designated for pre-disaster mitigation efforts. They argue that hundreds of infrastructure projects across the country—many of which had already received federal approval and undergone years of planning—are now in jeopardy.
State attorneys general have been outspoken in condemning the move. In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said, “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk. New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha added, “The President understands that he and his Administration do not have the power to unilaterally withhold Congressionally allocated funding to the states, and yet here we are again.”
As of now, the White House and FEMA have not issued formal responses to the lawsuit. The Trump administration has defended its decision by calling the BRIC program wasteful and politically driven, but it has not publicly addressed the legal claims or the broader constitutional implications raised by the coalition of states.
