Federal judge rules Trump administration cannot reallocate billions meant for disaster mitigation
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns in Boston granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 Democrat-led states while their lawsuit over the funding moves ahead.
The states argue the Federal Emergency Management Agency lacks the authority to end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program and redirect more than $4 billion of its funding. The program aims to harden infrastructure around the country against potential storm damage.
FEMA initially announced it was ending the program, but later said in a court filing that it was evaluating it.
'Although the Government equivocates about whether it has, in fact, ended the BRIC program, the States' evidence of steps taken by FEMA to implement the announced termination portend the conclusion that a determination has in fact been made and that FEMA is inching towards a fait accompli,' Stearns wrote in his ruling. 'The agency has cancelled new funding opportunities and informed stakeholders that they should no longer expect to obtain any unobligated funds.'
Noting money for the program was allocated by Congress, the states' lawsuit says any attempt to redirect it would run afoul of the Constitution.
A lawyer for the government, Nicole O'Connor, argued at a hearing in July that the funds can be used both for disaster recovery and disaster prevention and that FEMA should have discretion to use the money how it sees fit.
The program has provided grants for a range of disaster management projects, including strengthening electrical grids, constructing levees for flood protection and relocating vulnerable water treatment facilities. Many of the projects are in rural communities.
FEMA said in a news release in April that it was 'ending' the program, but the agency's acting chief, David Richardson, later said in a court filing that FEMA was merely evaluating whether to end or revise it.
The states, including California, New York and Washington, argue that the threat of losing the funding alone has put numerous projects at risk of being cancelled, delayed or downsized. And they warn ending the program would be highly imprudent.
'By proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs,' they wrote in the suit filed in July.
FEMA said in a court filing an injunction on its use of the funds could hamper its ability to respond to major disasters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Bay Area county could raise taxes to offset Trump Medicaid cuts
In response to recent federal legislation that cuts billions of dollars to Medicaid, Santa Clara County supervisors on Thursday unanimously voted to add a ballot measure to November's special election that would increase local sales tax by five-eighth cent (0.625%) for five years to try to backfill some of the projected lost federal revenue. The federal legislation HR 1 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in July. It includes the biggest cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income Americans, in the program's history. These cuts are expected to lead to devastating reductions in critical medical services, especially at public hospitals that rely primarily on Medicaid reimbursement, and to many people losing access to benefits and care. Santa Clara County's effort to raise local sales tax for this purpose appears to be one of the first such actions by a local jurisdiction to fill the gap in health care funding created by HR 1. If approved, the sales tax would generate an estimated $330 million a year, a fraction of the roughly $1 billion in estimated loss of federal funding over the next few would take effect April 1, 2026, and help fund health services, including the county's four public hospitals and 15 clinics. The current countywide sales tax rate is 9.125%; it would go up 0.625% to 9.75% if the measure passes. Some cities in the county have higher tax rates, such as San Jose (9.375%) and Campbell (9.875%). In those places, the tax would go up 0.625%. 'We cannot afford to sit back and tell ourselves it won't be that bad because it will, for all of us,' said Supervisor Susan Ellenberg. 'While no one is excited about new taxes, particularly in this volatile time, my view is this is a direct and necessary response to the enormous threats to a vast array of county services.' The special election, to be held Nov. 4, was called to replace county assessor Larry Stone, who stepped down in July. The county said the special election presented a unique opportunity to put the sales tax measure before voters quickly, since waiting until the regular election in November 2026 would increase the potential harm from the Medicaid cuts.
Los Angeles Times
17 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
EPA eliminates $7 billion rooftop solar grant program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced that it will eliminate a $7 billion grant program designed to help low-income households install solar panels on their homes. The so-called 'Solar for All' program was awarded to 60 recipients including states, tribal groups, regions and nonprofits under the Biden administration's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program geared toward addressing climate change. The Solar for All funds would have delivered residential solar projects to more than 900,000 households nationwide. In a post on X, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin described the program as a boondoggle in which not enough was actually going for solar. 'One of the more shocking features of Solar For All was with regards to the massive dilution of the money, as many grants go through pass-through after pass-through after pass-through after pass-through with all of the middlemen taking their own cut — at least 15% by conservative estimates,' Zeldin said. 'What a grift.' 'With clear language and intent from Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is taking action to end this program for good,' Zeldin added, referring to President Trump's budget reconciliation bill. Solar energy is widely considered one of the best ways to address climate change, by eliminating emissions that come from burning coal or natural gas to make electricity. Earlier this week, Los Angeles celebrated the opening of one of the nation's largest solar and battery power plants, the Eland facility in Kern County, which is now supplying 7% of the city's power. California is home to multiple projects that received funding from the Solar for All program, according to the federal project database. They include a $250 million award for California's Solar for All Program, intended to fund solar initiatives statewide. The California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency were going to oversee and distribute the grant funds, which were particularly focused on low-income and disadvantaged communities and California tribes. Two nonprofits — the Community Power Coalition and GRID Alternatives — each had $250 million awards for separate efforts to develop community solar and multifamily solar projects across several states, including in California. Environmental groups were outraged by the announcement. Estimates were that the program would have saved low-income households $400 a year on electricity bills, created more than 200,000 jobs and eliminated more than 30 million metric tons of air pollution, according to the nonprofit Climate Power. 'This is a deliberate choice to make life harder for working Americans,' said Alex Glass, Climate Power's communications director, in a statement. 'The Trump Administration isn't just walking away from climate solutions — they're ripping affordable energy away from the families who need it most.' Trump — who received record donations from fossil fuel companies during his 2024 presidential campaign — is making a number of efforts to slow the transition to clean energy while encouraging the use of fossil fuels, including canceling credits for solar and wind projects by the end of 2027. The president has said these efforts will help save taxpayers money and strengthen American energy independence. Senator Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), a member of the Environment and Public Works committee, denounced the EPA's decision to cancel the program as illegal. The funding for the program had already been fully obligated and contracts for all recipients were signed, he said. 'This latest heist from the Trump administration will cause energy costs to rise, keep Americans beholden to monopolistic electric utilities, and make our grid overburdened and less reliable,' Markey said in a statement. 'Trump and Zeldin's attacks on the Solar for All program and their attempts to cancel legally-binding contracts will mean energy bills are going to continue to spike nationwide.' The program would have created more than $8 billion in overall savings across all fifty states, Markey said. The Environmental Protection Network, composed of more than 600 former EPA employees, described the decision as an 'abrupt and arbitrary' betrayal of public health, environmental justice and economic opportunity. 'Communities promised relief from punishing energy costs are now left in the dark,' said former EPA senior adviser Zealan Hoover, in a statement. 'Nearly a million families will pay hundreds of dollars more each year for their electricity bill because the Trump administration killed a program that would have more than paid for itself.'
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump orders colleges to release data proving they don't consider race in admissions
Colleges will be required to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions under a new policy ordered Thursday by President Donald Trump. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination. 3 President Donald Trump is requiring colleges across the nation to prove they are not using race as a factor in upcoming admissions. arrowsmith2 – The role of race in admissions has featured in the Trump administration's battle against some of the nation's most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the new policy is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to be audited by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Trump says colleges may be skirting SCOTUS ruling Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race. 'The persistent lack of available data — paired with the rampant use of 'diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' says the memorandum signed by Trump. The memo directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to require colleges to report more data 'to provide adequate transparency into admissions.' The National Center for Education Statistics will collect new data, including the race and sex of colleges' applicants, admitted students and enrolled students, the Education Department said in a statement. If colleges fail to submit timely, complete and accurate data, McMahon can take action under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which outlines requirements for colleges receiving federal financial aid for students, according to the memo. It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges. Current understanding of federal law prohibits them from collecting information on race as part of admissions, said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents. 'Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,' Fansmith said. 'But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.' Because of the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have been barred from asking the race of students who are applying, Fansmith said. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. 3 Despite the Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in 2023, collegiate institutions could still consider race as a determining factor in their admissions process. AP In this political climate, many students won't report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup. Diversity changed at some colleges — but not all The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. 3 Conservatives say using race as a factor in the college admissions process is illegal discrimination. AP Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrollments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025.
