20 states sue FEMA for canceling grant program that guards against natural disasters
The lawsuit contends that President Donald Trump's administration acted illegally when it announced in April that it was ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. FEMA canceled some projects already in the works and refused to approve new ones despite funding from Congress.
'In the wake of devastating flooding in Texas and other states, it's clear just how critical federal resources are in helping states prepare for and respond to natural disasters,' said Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, where the federal lawsuit was filed. 'By abruptly and unlawfully shutting down the BRIC program, this administration is abandoning states and local communities that rely on federal funding to protect their residents and, in the event of disaster, save lives.'
FEMA did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment. It said in April that the program was 'wasteful and ineffective' and 'more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.'
The program provides grants for a variety of disaster mitigation efforts, including levees to protect against floods, safe rooms to provide shelter from tornadoes, vegetation management to reduce damage from fires and seismic retrofitting to fortify buildings for earthquakes.
During his first term, Trump signed a law shoring up funding for disaster risk reduction efforts. The program then got a $1 billion boost from an infrastructure law signed by former President Joe Biden. That law requires FEMA to make available at least $200 million annually for disaster mitigation grants for the 2022-2026 fiscal years, the lawsuit says.
The suit claims the Trump administration violated the constitutional separation of powers because Congress had not authorized the program's demise. It also alleges the program's termination was illegal because the decision was made while FEMA was under the leadership of an acting administrator who had not met the requirements to be in charge of the agency.
The lawsuit says communities in every state have benefited from federal disaster mitigation grants, which saved lives and spared homes, businesses, hospitals and schools from costly damage.
Some communities have already been affected by the decision to end the program.
Hillsborough, North Carolina, had been awarded nearly $7 million to relocate a wastewater pumping station out of a flood plain and make other water and sewer system improvements. But that hadn't happened yet when the remnants of Tropical Storm Chantal damaged the pumping station and forced it offline last week.
In rural Mount Pleasant, North Carolina, town officials had hoped to use more than $4 million from the BRIC program to improve stormwater drainage and safeguard a vulnerable electric system, thus protecting investments in a historic theater and other businesses. While the community largely supports Trump, assistant town manager Erin Burris said people were blindsided by the lost funding they had spent years pursuing.
'I've had downtown property owners saying, 'What do we do?'' Burris said. 'I've got engineering plans ready to go and I don't have the money to do it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's pivot from aid to trade leaves Africa wary as it faces tariffs and uncertainty
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — When U.S. President Donald Trump met five African leaders in Washington in July, his lack of familiarity with the continent was on display. He praised Liberian President Joseph Boakai's English — Liberia's official language — and gestured at another leader to wrap up remarks. But the bigger takeaway was Trump's pledge to transform U.S.-Africa relations: a shift from aid to trade, even as the region reels from steep tariffs and sweeping aid cuts. African leaders offered minerals from manganese to uranium and possibly lithium. Senegal's president even sought to leverage Trump's love of golf by inviting him to build a course. Yet many nations are anxious about Washington's new path. After slashing billions in foreign aid, including shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development — which provided over $12 billion in humanitarian assistance in 2025 alone — the Trump administration says it is forging a new approach: 'commercial diplomacy.' Trade, not aid, is the order of the day. 'It is now truly our policy for Africa,' said Troy Fitrell, the top U.S. diplomat for Africa, when announcing the strategy in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, in May. Ambassadors will now be judged not by aid projects but on 'how well they support' local businesses and 'how effectively they advocate for U.S. business and the number of deals they facilitate,' he said. Africa accounts for less than 1% of U.S. goods trade, but Fitrell called it 'the world's largest untapped market,' projecting its purchasing power could surpass $16 trillion by 2050. Early deals, lingering doubts Washington touts quick progress: 33 agreements worth $6 billion in Trump's first 100 days, plus $2.5 billion in commitments at a U.S.-Africa business summit in June. Projects span grain storage and digital infrastructure in Angola, energy ventures in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Congo, and tourism in Ethiopia. Still, many worry about the costs. Job losses and economic pain from tariffs are mounting even as Washington celebrates these wins. Trump did not invent the idea of trade over aid. African leaders have pushed for this since the 1970s. The problem, critics say, is the caveat: steep tariffs and uncertainty over the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the U.S. flagship program for trade with the continent. 'In reality, these tariffs are not about trade balances. It's economic warfare,' said the Alternative Information and Development Centre, a South African NGO. Fears that jobs could go Trump has imposed a 30% tariff on selected South African goods and threatens another 10% for nations aligned with the BRICS bloc of developing economies. South Africa's Automotive Business Council says vehicle exports to the U.S. have plunged over 80%, warning that tariffs 'strike at the heart of South Africa's industrialization agenda.' More than 100,000 jobs, mostly in auto and agriculture, are at risk, the council says. Smaller nations are also reeling. Lesotho declared a state of disaster after being hit with 50% duties — the second-highest rate after China — before Trump announced a 90-day pause. About 12,000 textile jobs hang in the balance, according to Lesotho's Minister of Trade, Industry, and Business Development, Mokhethi Shelile. From vanilla farmers in Madagascar to cocoa growers in Ivory Coast and oil exporters in Nigeria, tariffs have shaken economies and raised doubts about Washington's intent. 'The U.S. certainly can't have it both ways,' said Bester Brendon Verster, an economist at Oxford Economics Africa. 'The 'aid to trade' stance risks leaving Africa behind once the U.S. has gotten what it wanted, which will probably be critical minerals." An agreement on the brink AGOA, enacted in 2000 and renewed in 2015, allows duty-free U.S. access for nearly 2,000 goods from 32 African nations. It expires in September, with no clear sign that it will be renewed. South Africa's trade minister warned it will be 'very difficult' to keep AGOA under current conditions. Fitrell said he is a 'big fan' of the deal but told African leaders they must do more to lobby Congress. Future arrangements may require 'much greater attention toward some form of reciprocity' to reflect Trump's push for U.S. economic interests, he said. Meanwhile, China is leveraging zero-tariff policies to expand its influence. In June, China — already Africa's biggest trading partner — said it plans to grant duty-free market access to 53 African nations. Still, Verster said some African nations might be cautious about strengthening ties with China, for fear of triggering retaliation from the U.S. 'Aligning with China … could possibly bring about more economic punishment from the U.S.," he said. Farai Mutsaka, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The California governor is currently suing the Fox News host for $787 million.
Gavin Newsom showed no remorse to Fox News' Jesse Watters after the host was forced to issue a groveling apology over the network's reporting on Donald Trump's phone call to the California governor. Newsom filed a $787 million defamation lawsuit against the network—the same amount Fox had to cough up to Dominion Voting Systems for airing false claims about the 2020 election—claiming it misrepresented calls between him and Trump about unrest during the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. On his Thursday night show, Watters backpedaled, admitting Newsom was right to fire back at Trump's claim that he spoke to him on June 9. Newsom posted on X last month: 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail.'
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it's so challenging for Trump to fire Powell
A firing of Jerome Powell by President Trump would likely open up a legal war never before seen in the US, without any guarantee of a courtroom victory for the White House. That may be why Trump hasn't done so. Yet. Powell has made his intentions clear. He said earlier this year that he wouldn't leave if Trump tried to fire him and that his removal is 'not permitted by law.' Fed officials privately have been preparing for a legal battle as far back as Trump's first term, when the president also toyed with removing the chair, according to the Wall Street Journal. The strength of Powell's case is based on some protections of Fed autonomy already embedded in US statute. The Federal Reserve Act, which created the central bank in 1913 and was amended in 1935, states that each member of the Fed board shall hold office for 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President." The intention of the "for cause" condition was to enhance the Fed's independence by making it more difficult for a president to fire its board members, who are appointed by the president. There are also signs that the Supreme Court would step in if Trump were to act, although the high court's views on the topic are unclear. In an ambiguous ruling earlier this year, Supreme Court justices allowed Trump to temporarily proceed with the firings of board members at two other independent agencies. In granting the administration's request, the court said that in its judgment, the government "is likely to show" that the fired board members exercised "considerable executive power," a view that suggests the president possesses broader power to remove the officials at will. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Legal challenges from those board members are still playing out at an appeals court. But Powell got a good sign Thursday when a Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled that another Trump firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was illegal and that she should be reappointed. The judge cited a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits the power of the president to dismiss independent agency board members except in cases of neglect or malfeasance. That precedent offers Powell a layer of protection. It was set in a 1935 case titled Humphrey's Executor v. US that challenged President Franklin Roosevelt's termination of the US Federal Trade Commissioner. The court held that the president's authority to terminate agency officials at will was limited to purely executive officers, and not those leading independent agencies that engage in regulation and adjudication. Congress, the court said, had power to limit the president's removal power over those officials "for cause" — then described that term to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Trump is challenging whether that precedent applies across various independent agencies, but the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on whether it should stand. If the precedent falls and leaves no explicit protection for the central bank, a Powell firing could certainly be a lot easier to pull off. 'For cause' Powell does have one major vulnerability, however. That 'for cause' language embedded in the Federal Reserve Act hasn't really been defined or tested in court. The statute also doesn't have any language that specifically addresses the chair of the Board of Governors. And the White House has been using a new line of attack against Powell that could offer a path to a 'for cause' dismissal, as the president and his allies raise concerns about a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters. "I mean it's possible there's fraud involved with the $2.5 billion renovation," Trump told reporters on Wednesday, after saying earlier that the project "sort of is" a fireable offense. He said he wasn't planning to fire Powell but also left the door open, saying, "I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.' National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett — one of Powell's potential successors — said last Sunday on ABC News's "This Week" that whether the president has the legal authority to fire Powell before his term is up next May "is being looked into" and that "certainly, if there's cause, he does." But he also acknowledged it was a 'highly uncertain legal matter.' Politico reported that outside lawyers told the White House counsel's office it would likely lose a legal fight with Powell if Trump removed Powell solely over accusations that he mishandled renovations and that White House officials were also unsure whether it would work. Politico quoted one official who said, 'Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know. But is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah.' The White House is certainly showing no signs of letting up on its pressure. They are seeking a site visit to see the Fed's renovations in person. Powell has asked the Fed's inspector general to review the costs involved. He also sent White House budget director Russ Vought a letter Thursday offering a point-by-point rebuttal of questions raised about the project and denying reports of a VIP elevator and VIP dining rooms. "We take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources," he said, and "we have taken great care to ensure the project is carefully overseen.' Case Western Reserve University business law professor Eric Chaffee said he thinks Powell would win any legal battle with the White House on the 'for cause' clause, but he doesn't think such a confrontation will come to pass given that Powell only has 10 months left as chair. "We're just so close to the end of the term that I think the Trump administration is very likely just to wait things out,' he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
