20 States Sue Trump Administration Over FEMA BRIC Program Termination

(LibertySociety.com) – Twenty states are taking a stand against the Trump administration’s controversial decision to end the FEMA BRIC program, arguing that this move not only defies Congress but also endangers American communities.

At a Glance

• The BRIC program was terminated by the Trump administration in April 2025.
• 20 states filed a lawsuit to block the termination and restore funding.
• The lawsuit claims that only Congress has the authority to end a funded program.
• The decision affects nearly 2,000 disaster mitigation projects.

The End of BRIC and Its Fallout

The Trump administration’s termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program in April 2025 has sparked significant controversy and legal action. Established in 2018 to fund disaster preparedness projects, BRIC has been a lifeline for communities across the nation. Its abrupt end has left nearly 2,000 projects in limbo, jeopardizing infrastructure improvements crucial for mitigating the impact of natural disasters.

FEMA justified the decision by labeling the program as “wasteful, ineffective, and politicized.” However, critics argue that this move undermines years of bipartisan efforts to enhance community resilience. The timing has only intensified scrutiny of FEMA’s disaster response capabilities, especially following recent floods in Texas.

Legal Battle and Constitutional Concerns

On July 16, 2025, twenty states, led by Democratic attorneys general, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. They argue that the executive branch overstepped its authority by terminating a program funded by Congress. This lawsuit highlights a fundamental constitutional issue: the separation of powers and Congress’s control over federal spending. The plaintiffs are not only challenging the program’s termination but also questioning the legality of appointing an acting FEMA administrator without requisite emergency management experience.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to restore the $4.5 billion in canceled funding and halt the administration’s overreach. Prominent figures, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, have voiced their concerns, asserting that the Trump administration’s actions endanger public safety and contravene federal law.

Implications for Vulnerable Communities

The termination of BRIC has immediate and long-term ramifications for communities relying on federal assistance to bolster disaster resilience. Ongoing and planned projects, such as stormwater systems, flood walls, and evacuation shelters, have been halted or scaled back. This disruption increases the risk to vulnerable populations, particularly in rural and disaster-prone areas.

The economic impact cannot be ignored either. Local governments and agencies face increased financial burdens as they attempt to proceed with critical infrastructure projects without federal aid. Construction and engineering firms involved in these projects also face uncertainty and potential financial losses.

The Bigger Picture

The legal battle over BRIC is more than just a fight over funding; it is a microcosm of broader debates about executive authority and disaster preparedness policy. The Trump administration’s decision reflects its broader agenda to reduce federal spending and reshape disaster policy. However, this approach has inflamed partisan tensions and raised questions about the administration’s commitment to protecting American lives and property.

The outcome of this lawsuit could set a significant legal precedent regarding executive power over congressionally funded programs. It also underscores the delicate balance between federal authority and states’ rights, a recurring theme in American governance.

Copyright 2025, LibertySociety.com .