WASHINGTON — A key federal program designed to help cities and states prepare for worsening natural disasters remains frozen more than two months after a federal judge ordered its restoration, leaving hundreds of resilience projects in limbo across the country.
The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, known as BRIC and run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has distributed $4.5 billion in grants since its inception to fund initiatives like wildfire retrofits in Washington State, safe rooms in Oklahoma, and upgraded sewer systems in Detroit. Launched during the first Trump administration, the program received the bulk of its funding from the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, supporting over 2,000 projects nationwide. But in April, the current Trump administration issued a memo announcing its intent to shut down BRIC, calling it a "wasteful and ineffective" effort, according to FEMA's statement at the time.
A federal judge in Massachusetts intervened in December, ruling that the program could not be terminated and ordering FEMA to restore funding and "promptly take all steps necessary to reverse" the shutdown. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in his order that the law "entitle[s] the States to a certain measure of funding for mitigation projects each fiscal year." The agency had until February 9 to appeal the decision, a deadline that passed without action from the administration.
Two FEMA officials, speaking anonymously to Grist to avoid retaliation from agency leadership, confirmed that no steps have been taken to revive the program in compliance with the court order. "I haven’t heard a word internally, at all," one of the officials said. A FEMA spokesperson told Grist that the agency complies with court orders but declined to answer specific questions about BRIC's future.
On Tuesday, attorneys general from nearly two dozen states — the same coalition that filed the original lawsuit leading to Judge Stearns' ruling — accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet. In a court filing, they wrote, "Over two months have passed and Defendants have offered no indication to Plaintiff States, the public, FEMA’s regional offices, or apparently even Defendants’ own attorney that they have complied with the Order." The states requested that the judge compel FEMA to follow through and release the suspended funding.
The attorneys alleged that FEMA has provided no updates to states, grantees, or even its own regional offices about the program's status. According to the filing, a senior agency official informed them that FEMA is "still in the process of connecting with leadership about how BRIC will operate and on what timelines." The states submitted more than a dozen affidavits detailing stalled projects, including a seismic retrofit for a rural California hospital and safe rooms for public schools in Wisconsin, where officials warned that delays could jeopardize completion.
This freeze on BRIC is part of a broader moratorium on FEMA's disaster mitigation spending imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem must personally approve any expenses exceeding $100,000, according to reports. As a result, FEMA has halted approvals for new projects, refused to process paperwork for ongoing ones, and even slowed reimbursements for disaster recovery — a core congressional mandate.
In court filings defending the initial pause, FEMA claimed it was not canceling BRIC outright but rather "continue[d] to evaluate whether to end the…program or to revise it," even as it acknowledged no new funding had been made available. Judge Stearns rejected this argument, issuing an injunction to prevent the shutdown and citing potential irreparable harm to states if projects collapsed midstream.
The standoff has real-world consequences for communities on the front lines of climate change. In the Massachusetts cities of Chelsea and Everett, just outside Boston, officials were counting on about $50 million in BRIC grants for a comprehensive flood protection project. The initiative included a flood barrier and storm surge control system to safeguard a floodplain housing a high school, a rail line, and a regional produce distribution center. The barrier was also planned to expand a park threatened by rising high tides.
But following the April memo, FEMA paused the funding, stalling the project for nearly a year. This led the cities to lose $50 million in matching state funds. "We could just put it on a shelf and wait for federal funding, or we could attempt to break the project into phases," said Emily Granoff, deputy director of housing and community development for Chelsea and the project's lead. "This project needs to happen, but we don’t have the information we need." Local officials are now considering pursuing the storm surge system separately while delaying other components.
Disaster experts have criticized the delays as a failure to prioritize resilience amid escalating climate threats. Shana Udvardy, a senior policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group, said, "It boggles the mind that almost two dozen states had to go back to court to ask Judge Stearns to enforce the existing court order against FEMA." She described the administration's approach in the BRIC case and similar disputes as a pattern of "outright ignor[ing] the law or suggest[ing] it has a plan in place to implement the law, an obvious delay tactic to get away with doing nothing."
President Trump and Secretary Noem have expressed a desire for the federal government to take a reduced role in disaster recovery, aiming to shift more responsibility to states and localities. However, advocates argue that dismantling programs like BRIC undermines that objective. Leo Martinez-Diaz, director of the climate and sustainability program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Grist, "If they’re really concerned about the escalating cost of natural disasters and the burden on the federal government, they should be concentrating on resilience. That’s the only thing that ultimately reduces the losses."
BRIC's origins trace back to 2018, during Trump's first term, as a bipartisan effort to build infrastructure capable of withstanding floods, fires, and storms intensified by climate change. The program's funding surged under the 2021 infrastructure law, enabling proactive measures that experts say save money in the long run by averting costlier post-disaster repairs. At the time of the April shutdown memo, acting FEMA Director Cameron Hamilton described BRIC as wasteful; he was removed from his post weeks later after testifying to Congress that he opposed abolishing the agency altogether.
As the legal battle continues, state and local governments face tough choices. The plaintiff states' filing highlights how FEMA has refused to provide status updates on frozen projects, even when warned of imminent risks. Two agency employees working on disaster adaptation corroborated this, noting that decisions on BRIC's path forward rest with senior DHS officials. Without resolution, projects like the California hospital retrofit and Wisconsin safe rooms risk permanent cancellation, potentially leaving vulnerable communities more exposed.
The broader implications extend beyond individual projects to the nation's overall preparedness. With natural disasters growing more frequent and severe — from wildfires in the West to floods in the Northeast — the freeze on mitigation funding could amplify future recovery costs for taxpayers. As attorneys for the states push for enforcement, all eyes are on Judge Stearns for his next ruling, which could force FEMA's hand and restore the flow of grants essential for building a more resilient America.