A coalition of 20 U.S. states, led by Washington and Massachusetts, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to terminate a key disaster prevention grant program. The suit, filed in Boston on Wednesday, alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acted unlawfully in ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program in April.
The BRIC program, established in 2018, aimed to help communities better prepare for natural disasters by funding critical infrastructure upgrades. It provided grants covering up to 75% of project costs or 90% in rural areas for initiatives such as evacuation shelters, flood barriers, and road improvements. Over the past four years, FEMA approved approximately $4.5 billion in BRIC grants for nearly 2,000 projects, many in coastal and disaster-prone states.
The lawsuit argues that FEMA overstepped its authority by unilaterally shutting down a program that had been approved and funded by Congress. “By unilaterally shutting down FEMA’s flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles,” the states wrote in the filing.
The legal action comes in the wake of deadly floods in Texas earlier this month, which have intensified scrutiny of FEMA and the federal government’s disaster preparedness efforts. Critics say the timing of the program’s cancellation could not be worse, as climate change continues to fuel extreme weather events nationwide.
FEMA, which operates under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has defended its decision, describing the BRIC program as wasteful, ineffective, and politically biased. However, the states behind the lawsuit argue that the program has provided essential funding to protect vulnerable communities and that its termination leaves many at greater risk.
Neither FEMA nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
The case underscores a broader political and legal battle over the federal government’s role in climate resilience and disaster mitigation, with Democratic-led states pushing back against what they see as reckless policy reversals. The outcome of the case could significantly shape future federal disaster preparedness strategies.
