A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s plan to redirect $4 billion intended for disaster resilience initiatives, effectively blocking the move as legal proceedings continue.
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns of Boston ruled in favor of 20 states, led by Democrats, who argued that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) lacks the authority to dissolve the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.
This program is designed to enhance infrastructure to mitigate the impact of natural disasters.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell expressed determination to ensure communities are equipped to prepare for emergencies.
The lawsuit claims that any attempt by FEMA to reallocate the funds would violate the Constitution, as the money was expressly allocated by Congress for the BRIC program.
Initially, FEMA announced that it would be terminating the program, though recently, it indicated in court filings that it was still evaluating its future.
During a hearing, Nicole O’Connor, a lawyer representing the government, asserted that the funds could be utilized for both disaster recovery and prevention efforts, arguing that the agency should maintain discretion in allocating the funds.
However, Judge Stearns expressed skepticism about the agency’s authority to redirect the budget, citing concerns for the public’s welfare.
“Inherently, there is a public interest in ensuring that the government adheres to the law, and the potential hardship to the States resulting from the rerouting of funds is considerable,” Stearns stated.
He further emphasized that the BRIC program’s primary objective is to safeguard against natural disasters and preserve lives.
The BRIC program grants funding for various vital disaster management projects, which include enhancing electrical grids, constructing flood protection levees, and relocating at-risk water treatment facilities, with a significant focus on serving rural communities.
In April, FEMA announced the termination of the program, but its acting chief, David Richardson, later clarified that the agency was merely reviewing the possibility of revisions rather than an outright end.
Stearns pointed out that FEMA had effectively decided to discontinue the program by canceling new funding opportunities and advising stakeholders to expect no unobligated funds.
The states involved in the lawsuit, including California, New York, and Washington, claimed that merely the threat of losing funding jeopardized numerous disaster mitigation projects, leading to potential cancellations, delays, or cutbacks.
They underscored that ending the BRIC program would be unwise and could have far-reaching negative consequences.
“By proactively strengthening our communities against disasters before they happen, rather than solely focusing on response efforts afterward, we can reduce injuries, save more lives, safeguard properties, and ultimately lower the financial burdens of post-disaster costs,” the states articulated in their suit filed in July.
FEMA has cautioned that the injunction could hinder its capacity to respond effectively to significant disasters.
Nevertheless, Stearns noted that the administration would have the option to return to court to release funding in the event of an extraordinary disaster situation.
This judicial ruling reflects an ongoing and significant legal battle over disaster preparedness funding, illustrating the tension between state governments and the federal administration regarding disaster response priorities.
image source from：pbs
