Federal judge rules Trump administration cannot reallocate billions meant for disaster mitigation
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from reallocating $4 billion meant to help communities protect against natural disasters.
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.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump once hailed mRNA vaccines as a 'medical miracle.' Now RFK Jr. is halting advancement
FILE - President Donald Trump speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, May 15, 2020, in Washington. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, left, and Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listen. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) By AMANDA SEITZ President Donald Trump hailed as a 'medical miracle' the mRNA vaccines developed to combat the deadly COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Now, his health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is effectively halting the vaccine technology's advancement. Kennedy announced Tuesday that the federal government is canceling $500 million worth of mRNA research development contracts, putting an end to U.S.-backed hopes for the vaccine technology to prevent future pandemics, treat cancer or prevent flu infections. It's a sharp pivot from how Trump and top officials described the technology during his first term. Here's a look at what Trump and some of his closest advisers have said about mRNA vaccines that were credited with slowing the pandemic five years ago. 'A COVID-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life,' said Redfield, in a Sept. 16, 2020, statement. Americans were still donning face masks as one of the few ways of protecting themselves from a virus that had killed nearly 200,000 in just over six months. Redfield promised that the new vaccines — developed for the first time using mRNA technology — would offer a return to normalcy. 'Don't let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccines ... because the vaccines were me, and I pushed people harder than they've ever been pushed before .. The vaccines are — there are those that say it's one of the greatest things. It's a medical miracle.' Trump said on Nov. 26, 2020, during a news conference in the White House. Weeks earlier, Trump had lost the election in a bitter race against Democrat Joe Biden. As the Republican grappled with leaving Washington and continued to plan for the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, he reminded reporters that he oversaw the development of the new shots. 'They say it's somewhat of a miracle and I think that's true,' Trump said on Dec. 8, 2020, during a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The event celebrated 'Operation Warp Speed," the government-funded project that accelerated vaccine development with pharmaceutical companies. Trump was promoting the shots as the government prepared to offer them to frontline health workers. 'It's clear that many Americans are learning these vaccines are safe and extraordinarily effective,' Azar said on Dec. 16, 2020, at a news conference. The government was shipping out mRNA vaccines to states, preparing to distributed it to the masses. Azar noted that a vast majority of Americans — between 70% to 80%, according to polls — intended to get the new COVID-19 vaccine that would be available to the public in the coming months. 'It takes somewhere between five and 10 years to put a vaccine on the street. Look what we did. Now, that's because of the great work of the scientists who had done the research on mRNA vaccines and others because of industry working on this, they just didn't wake up one day and start working on it,' Perna said during a podcast interview that aired on May 9, 2023. Reflecting in an interview about his time overseeing 'Operation Warp Speed,' Perna credited the mRNA technology with the government's ability to get shots in arms mere months after the pandemic started claiming lives in the U.S. in 2020. 'Take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives. Take credit. Don't let them take that away from you,' Trump said on Dec. 19, 2021 during a live interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Daily COVID-19 deaths had ticked down to 1,500 compared to 3,000 from a year earlier after Americans began receiving their first doses of the mRNA vaccines. Trump revealed to O'Reilly and the audience that he had just gotten a COVID-19 booster. The crowd booed. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
11 hours ago
- Japan Today
80 years after the Pacific War: Japan's reckoning with history
By Jeff W. Richards This month marks 80 years since Japan surrendered in World War II, ending the Pacific War. In this episode of Japan Today Spotlight, we look at how the country is commemorating the anniversary — and what unresolved questions remain. From memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to continued demands for wartime apologies, Japan's war legacy remains a source of both reflection and controversy. The emperor's visits to former battle sites, renewed debate over the pacifist Constitution, and political pressure from South Korea and China all raise the question: how should Japan remember its wartime past? And what does the future hold? Watch the full episode here: How should Japan approach its wartime history 80 years later? And what responsibility — if any — does the U.S. still bear for the atomic bombings? Chapters 0:00 Intro 0:56 Hiroshima and Nagasaki ceremonies 1:58 Has the world learned anything? 4:39 The question of apologies 6:00 The emperor's role 7:22 The sex slave issue 9:32 Yasukuni Shrine 10:37 The firebombing of Tokyo 11:37 Peace prize winners speak out 12:50 Outro Japan Today sources: See the Japan Today Spotlight series: Don't forget to like, subscribe and turn on notifications so you never miss an update on Japan's biggest news stories on our YouTube channel: Follow us for more updates: The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of GPlusMedia, Inc. © Japan Today
The Diplomat
12 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Philippine House Seeks Reversal of Supreme Court Ruling on VP's Impeachment
The Philippine House of Representatives has challenged a recent Supreme Court ruling nullifying its impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, filing a Motion for Reconsideration urging the court to reverse its ruling. Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives in February for 'violation of the constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.' These include alleged corruption, involvement in extrajudicial killings, and a threat to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. However, in a unanimous ruling on July 25, the Supreme Court said that the impeachment had violated a constitutional rule known as the 'one-year bar,' which states that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated against any official within one year. In its motion to the Court, which was filed on Monday, lawyers for the House argued that impeachment 'is primarily a political process, as emphasized by the Constitution's entrusting it to Congress and not to the Judiciary.' It added, 'Thus, any ruling of this Honorable Court on impeachment must reflect impeachment's true nature. It must give due deference to the branch of government to whom impeachment is entrusted.' The Supreme Court argued that the House violated the one-year bar by accepting and archiving three prior impeachment complaints, and that the fourth should have been barred. But the House motion claimed that this was the result of a factual error, and 'it is rather the fourth impeachment complaint which barred all other impeachment complaints from being initiated.' In a video statement on Monday, House Speaker Martin Romualdez, a cousin of President Marcos, said that the motion was 'an exercise in constitutional stewardship – an affirmation that every branch must act with fidelity to the Charter that gives us all our power.' He added, 'We act not to provoke a clash of institutions, but to prevent the erosion of the people's right to accountability.' Duterte, the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, has denied the charges laid out in the articles of impeachment and described it as a politically motivated witch hunt. In response, her allies have made a number of legal attempts to block to advance of the impeachment, including a resolution in the Senate and several complaints to the Supreme Court. The impeachment drama grew out of the bitter ongoing feud between Duterte and Marcos. Their two political families formed a formidable partnership ahead of the presidential election of 2022, and Duterte and Marcos won their respective elections in a landslide. But the partnership between the two camps has since deteriorated, due to a toxic combination of political differences and personal idiosyncrasies. In June 2024, Duterte resigned from Marcos' cabinet, where she served as education secretary, and immediately came under investigation for her alleged misuse of government funds. This provided the backdrop to her outburst during a livestream in November, during which she claimed that her life was at risk, and that she had had hired a hitman to assassinate the president, his wife, and House Speaker Romualdez, in the event of her own murder. The month after Duterte's impeachment, her father was arrested by Philippine police on an arrest warrant issued by International Criminal Court in The Hague. Duterte is now in the court's custody awaiting trial for crimes against humanity linked to his violent 'war on drugs' campaign. While the Supreme Court said that it had not absolved Duterte of the charges, its ruling offered a last-minute reprieve for Duterte, who was awaiting a Senate trial that could have stripped her of the vice presidency and disqualified her from public office for life. The vice president is widely expected to launch a campaign for the presidency in 2028, in a bid to succeed Marcos, who is limited to a single six-year term in office. If successful, she will no doubt use the powers of her office to pursue retribution against the Marcoses and their allies. If the Supreme Court ruling stands, its net effect may simply be to ensure that the Duterte-Marcos feud continues to dominate Philippine politics up to, and maybe beyond, the next presidential election.
