Federal judge orders FEMA to restore billions in canceled disaster mitigation funding – AP News

Federal Court Orders Restoration of FEMA Disaster Mitigation Funding

Background and Legal Decision

On Thursday, a federal judge in Massachusetts mandated the Trump administration to reinstate billions of dollars in canceled FEMA disaster mitigation funding. This ruling supports 22 states and the District of Columbia, which had filed a lawsuit against the administration over the canceled grants.

The funding in question pertains to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, initially established under the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and launched by FEMA in 2020. The program received additional funding through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Judge Richard G. Stearns declared the administration’s cancellation unlawful, emphasizing that Congress had specifically appropriated funds for these grants. He highlighted the public interest in ensuring government compliance with the law and noted that the BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The BRIC program directly contributes to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – by supporting infrastructure resilience and disaster preparedness in communities.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – through projects aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change and enhancing community resilience.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure – by funding infrastructure hardening and innovative disaster mitigation strategies.

Program Cancellation and Administration’s Position

1. In April, the Trump administration announced the termination of the BRIC program, labeling it “wasteful and ineffective.”
2. The administration halted $3.6 billion in awarded but unpaid funding and refused to award $882 million in grants for the subsequent fiscal year.
3. This disruption affected hundreds of communities across both Republican- and Democratic-led states, impeding projects such as stormwater drainage improvements, electrical line hardening, and relocation of households in disaster-prone areas.
4. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson stated that BRIC had not been terminated but did not clarify the program’s status.

Controversy and Political Responses

• The Trump administration criticized the Biden Administration’s use of BRIC funds, describing it as a “green new deal slush fund.”
• Despite criticisms of the program’s accessibility for rural and less wealthy communities due to complex application processes and cost-sharing requirements, bipartisan support for BRIC’s reinstatement exists. For example, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana emphasized the program’s efficiency in protecting families and saving taxpayer dollars.

Challenges Facing FEMA and Disaster Preparedness Funding

The court order coincides with ongoing uncertainty regarding FEMA’s future and the abrupt cancellation of a FEMA Review Council meeting intended to recommend agency reforms.

The Trump administration has reduced disaster preparedness funding across multiple FEMA programs, including:

• No approval of hazard mitigation funding requests since February, which are essential for resilience projects post-disasters.
• Freezing of emergency preparedness grants critical for staffing emergency management agencies and purchasing equipment, following lawsuits from 12 states over grant conditions tied to immigration policies.

Economic and Social Benefits of Disaster Mitigation

Multiple studies underscore the importance of proactive disaster preparedness investments. A 2024 study funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that every $1 invested in disaster preparation saves $13 in economic impact, damage, and cleanup costs.

These findings reinforce the alignment of disaster mitigation funding with the SDGs by promoting sustainable economic growth (SDG 8), reducing disaster risks (SDG 11), and fostering climate resilience (SDG 13).

Conclusion

The federal court’s decision to restore FEMA’s BRIC funding highlights the critical role of disaster mitigation programs in advancing sustainable development and protecting communities from climate-related hazards. Ensuring consistent and equitable funding for such programs is essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on resilient infrastructure, sustainable cities, and climate action.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article discusses the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which aims to improve infrastructure resilience against natural disasters.
   • Focus on stormwater drainage, electrical line hardening, and relocating vulnerable households aligns with making cities and communities safer and more resilient.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article highlights efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change through disaster preparedness and mitigation funding.
   • BRIC program’s role in addressing climate-related disaster risks connects directly to climate action goals.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Investment in hardening infrastructure and disaster mitigation projects supports resilient infrastructure development.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The legal ruling by a federal judge to restore funding reflects the importance of rule of law and government accountability.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected by disasters, including water-related disasters.
   • Target 11.b: Increase the number of cities adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators related to SDG 11 and 13:
   • Number and amount of funding allocated and disbursed for disaster mitigation projects (e.g., BRIC funding amounts, $3.6 billion canceled and $882 million not awarded).
   • Number of communities implementing resilience projects such as stormwater drainage improvements, electrical line hardening, and household relocations.
   • Reduction in disaster-related damages and economic losses, as implied by the study showing $1 invested saves $13 in economic impact.
2. Indicators related to SDG 9:
   • Extent of infrastructure resilience improvements funded and completed.
3. Indicators related to SDG 16:
   • Legal rulings and government compliance with appropriated disaster mitigation funding.
   • Transparency and accountability in disaster funding allocation and administration.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: apnews.com