Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Reallocating Billions in Disaster Relief Funds
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Can not Reallocate $4 Billion for Disaster Mitigation
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from reallocating $4 billion for disaster relief projects. mitigation of natural disasters, arguing that the transfer could lead to "irreparable damage" in flood-prone areas.
The federal judge's injunction followed a lawsuit filed in July by 20 states. They argued that FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program had been illegally terminated in April 2025 during the Trump administration, and that more than $4 billion in unused funds, appropriated by Congress, had been redirected without its authorization.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initially announced it was ending the program, but later said in a court filing that it was evaluating it.
Stearns wrote that the court was not convinced Congress had intended to reallocate the FEMA funds.
“The BRIC program is designed to protect against disasters natural disasters and save lives,” Stearns wrote.
Stearns ruled that government officials were temporarily blocked from reusing the funds while the court considers the state’s objections to the cuts.
The July lawsuit alleged that canceling the BRIC program would negatively impact disaster preparedness efforts across the country by preventing communities from accessing crucial funds for hundreds of already-approved resiliency projects.
Prior to its suspension, the BRIC program funded local infrastructure projects such as stormwater management systems and the relocation or elevation of buildings in flood-prone areas.
FEMA officials originally announced in April that they would “terminate” the BRIC program for being “a waste” and more concerned with “political agendas” than helping Americans recover from natural disasters.
However, in a court document filed last week, the disaster response agency walked back its comments, saying it had not cut the program and was still evaluating whether to cancel or review it.
The states, including California, New York, and Washington, argued that the mere threat of losing funding had put numerous projects at risk of cancellation, delay, or reduction. And they warned that ending the program would be extremely reckless.