20 states sue the Trump admin for cutting disaster prevention money
The BRIC programme, established in 2018, was designed to cover up to 75 per cent of infrastructure project costs, or 90 per cent in rural areas, aimed at protecting communities from natural catastrophes. Over the past four years, FEMA had allocated approximately \$4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, many benefiting coastal states, funding initiatives from evacuation shelters to flood walls and improvements to roads and bridges. The administration, however, cited the programme as wasteful, ineffective, and politicised when announcing its termination.
"By unilaterally shutting down FEMA's flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles," the states, spearheaded by Washington and Massachusetts, asserted in their filing. Neither FEMA nor the US Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.
The legal action comes as FEMA faces heightened scrutiny following its response to deadly floods in Texas earlier this month, which claimed over 130 lives. This event has intensified focus on the administration's broader efforts to reduce the agency's scope or even abolish it. A bipartisan group of lawmakers had previously urged FEMA in May to reinstate the grants, emphasising their particular importance for rural and tribal communities, and called for collaboration with Congress to enhance the programme's efficiency.
The states further argue that Congress designated disaster mitigation as a core function of FEMA, asserting that the US Constitution and federal law prohibit the Trump administration from altering the agency's mission without legislative input. They also allege that Cameron Hamilton and his successor, David Richardson, who served as acting directors of FEMA when the programme was terminated, were not properly appointed and therefore lacked the authority to cancel it. The states are now seeking a preliminary injunction to compel the programme's reinstatement while the case proceeds, marking the latest in a series of challenges by states against the Trump administration's approach to disaster funding. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, underscored the critical need for federal funding in light of the recent Texas floods. "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," she stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump's short fuse could set off Russian oil sanctions timebomb
LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump unexpectedly shortened his deadline for hitting Russia with the most severe sanctions on its oil exports to date. While the market has called the president's bluff thus far, the sheer scale of the threat may force investors to start pricing in this meaningful tail risk. Speaking alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland on Monday, Trump said he was giving Moscow only 10 to 12 days to reach a deal to end the war in Ukraine before he would impose so-called secondary sanctions on its oil exports, cutting short his previous 50-day timeframe set on July 14. The sanctions would slap 100% tariffs on buyers of Russian oil, with the biggest customers being India and China. This move has the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, given that Russia exported 4.68 million barrels per day of crude oil in June, around 4.5% of global demand, as well as 2.5 million bpd of refined products, according to the International Energy Agency. Will Trump actually follow through on his threat? That's anyone's guess. Going through with the secondary tariffs on Russia risks causing a severe spike in oil prices that could put upward pressure on U.S. inflation, an outcome that could stay Trump's hand, even if he is 'disappointed' in Russian President Vladimir Putin. And there have been several headline-grabbing moments in recent months where the Republican president has rowed back on his threats, including the "reciprocal tariffs" originally announced on April 2 that he quickly toned down in the face of market pressure. But Trump has also made good on some of his threats, most notably the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22. Unlike his initial announcement on secondary tariffs, which investors appeared to shrug off, oil prices rose by nearly 3% on Monday. So his erratic Russia policy may make some investors wary of writing off the risk altogether. The next question is, would secondary tariffs – a relatively untested, blunt financial weapon – be effective? The answer is probably yes. One of Russia's key customers, India – the largest importer of seaborne Russian crude in June at 1.5 million bpd – is currently engaged in tense trade talks with the United States. New Delhi is therefore unlikely to want to exacerbate trade tensions with Washington and thus may be apt to ditch Moscow in favour of new, though undoubtedly more expensive, energy sources. On the other hand, China, which imported around 2 million bpd of Russian oil in June via pipeline and by sea, is less likely to change its buying patterns since it already faces several layers of U.S. tariffs and considers its ties with Moscow to be strategic. But the Kremlin's finances would still be squeezed regardless if India were to cease purchasing Russian oil, as China would likely be able to buy it even more cheaply. The scale of the potential new sanctions' impact on the global oil market is hard to gauge, given current supply and demand dynamics. World oil demand is expected to grow by 700,000 bpd in 2025, its lowest rate since 2009, while supplies are forecast to rise sharply by 2.1 million bpd to 105.1 million bpd this year, according to the International Energy Agency. The growth in supply has been driven in recent months mostly by output increases by the Saudi Arabia-led oil producing group collectively known as OPEC+. The group in April started unwinding 2.2 million bpd of production cuts and upped the United Arab Emirates' production quota by 300,000 bpd. The OPEC+ production increases have led, naturally, to a decline in the group's spare production capacity, but Saudi still held, as of June, 2.3 million bpd of production it can bring on stream within 90 days, while the UAE and Kuwait held 900,000 bpd and 600,000 bpd of spare capacity, respectively. This means that the three Gulf producers could ramp up output relatively quickly in the event of a sudden supply disruption. But that knowledge is unlikely to be enough to calm markets should Trump impose his secondary sanctions, partly because of the uncertainty surrounding possible retaliatory measures by Moscow. Revenue from oil and gas export taxes accounted for between 30% and 50%, opens new tab of Russia's federal budget in recent years, making these funds the single most important source of cash for the Kremlin. Putin is therefore likely to respond quite forcefully to any western measures constraining his revenue. One such hint was given last week, when Moscow temporarily blocked foreign tankers from loading crude at Russia's main Black Sea ports following the imposition of new regulations. Loadings from the port of Novorossiisk, which account for more than 2% of global supplies, were resumed the following day, meaning Moscow was likely sending a warning that it can easily introduce similar measures. Trump's latest threat could be an empty one, but regardless, it has shortened the fuse of a timebomb that oil markets might struggle to ignore. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As Trump's tariff regime becomes clear, Americans may start to foot the bill
Burying the hatchet with Brussels, Donald Trump – flanked by the leader of the European Commission – hailed a bold new era of transatlantic relations, an ambitious economic pact, and declared: 'This was a very big day for free and fair trade.' That was seven years ago. And then on Sunday, the US president – flanked by a different leader of the European Commission – hailed another new era of transatlantic relations, another economic pact and declared: 'I think it's the biggest deal ever made.' Trumpian hyperbole can typically be relied upon as long as he's in the room, at the lectern or typing into Truth Social. What matters after that is the underlying detail – and we have very little, beyond a handful of big numbers designed to grab headlines. What we do know, as a result of this deal, is that European exports to the US will face a blanket 15% tariff: a tax expected, at least in part, to be passed along to US consumers. The price of key products shipped from the EU, from cars to medicine and wine, is about to come into sharp focus. This pact is not unique. Trump's agreement with Japan also hits Japanese exports to the US with a 15% tariff. Most British exports to the US face a 10% tariff under his deal with the UK. A string of countries without such accords, including Brazil, Canada and South Korea, are set to face even higher US tariffs from Friday. The Trump administration currently has a blanket 10% levy in place for US imports, although the president threatened to raise this to 'somewhere in the 15 to 20% range' earlier this week. Ignore, for a moment, the chaos and the noise. Put to one side the unpredictable stewardship of the world's largest economy, and its ties with the world. And forget the many U-turns, pauses and reprieves which have followed bold pronouncements, again and again and again. If you, like many businesses in the US and across the world, are struggling to keep up, take a step back and look at a single number. Since Trump took office, the average effective US tariff rate on all goods from overseas has soared to its highest level in almost a century: 18.2%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale. Trump argues this extraordinary jump in tariffs will bring in trillions of dollars to the US federal government. On his watch, tariffs have so far brought in tens of billions of dollars more in revenue this year than at the same point in 2024. But who picks up the bill? The president and his allies have position this fundamental shift in economic policy as a historic move away from taxing Americans toward taxing the world. But in reality, everyone pays. Tariffs are typically paid at the border, by the importer of the product affected. If the tariff on that product suddenly goes from 0% to 15%, the importer – as you'd expected – will try to pass it on. Every company at every stage of the supply chain will quite literally try to pass the buck, as much as possible. And the very end of the chain, economists expect prices will ultimately rise for consumers. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates the short-term impact of Trump's tariffs so far is a 1.8% rise in US prices: equivalent to an average income loss of $2,400 per US household. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Big firms that have so far done their best to hold prices steady amid the blizzard of tariff uncertainty are now starting to warn of increases. Inflation, which Trump claims is very low in the US, picked up in June. The president appeared to reluctantly reckon with the reality that Americans may start to foot the bill for his tariffs before setting off for Scotland late last week. Asked about the prospect of using revenue from tariffs to distribute 'rebate' checks to US consumers, Trump said: 'We're thinking about that, actually … We're thinking about a rebate, because we have so much money coming in, from tariffs, that a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.' Given what inflation did to Joe Biden's electoral fortunes, and Trump's keen eye for populist policies, it's hardly a stretch to imagine those cheques – signed by Donald J Trump – landing in bank accounts in time for the midterm elections next November. And such a move would, indeed, be very nice. Especially as it appears increasingly likely that, after this week, Americans will probably be paying more for almost everything.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
After the Spike by Dean Spears and Michael Geruso review – the truth about population
As a member of the 8.23 billion-strong human community, you probably have an opinion on the fact that the global population is set to hit a record high of 10 billion within the next few decades. Chances are, you're not thrilled about it, given that anthropogenic climate change is already battering us and your morning commute is like being in a hot, jiggling sardine-tin. Yet according to Dean Spears and Michael Geruso, academics at the University of Texas, what we really need to be worried about is depopulation. The number of children being born has been declining worldwide for a couple of hundred years. More than half of countries, including India, the most populous nation in the world, now have birthrates below replacement levels. While overall population has been rising due to declining (mainly infant) mortality, we'll hit a peak soon before falling precipitously. This apex and the rollercoaster drop that follows it is the eponymous 'spike'. Most people's lives today are better than they ever were in human history, thanks to the progress, prosperity and brilliant ideas that have come with all those people. The more of us there are, the more human ingenuity there is – 'the ultimate renewable resource'. Spears and Geruso argue that future people who live alongside only a couple of billion others will have significantly worse lives than we have today. Stabilisation, not depopulation, they argue, is the right path for humanity. For that to happen, we need to be having more babies. After the Spike knocks down assumptions like skittles. Population fearmongers from Malthus to Paul Ehrlich are refuted, and evidence laid out to show what worldwide fertility is not linked to: changes in wealth, the invention of contraception or women's rights. Nor can government policies that force people to have, or not have, children do much to change long-term trends. This is as true for China's one-child policy as it is for Ceaușescu's banning of abortion in Romania, which only had short-term effects. Even when non-coercive governments support parents with childcare and comparatively generous parental leave, as in Sweden, these policies have not shifted the needle. Sweden will start to shrink in 2051. The strongest commonsense belief the authors tackle is the idea that lower birthrates are a good thing because the planet is burning and more people means worse climate change. In fact, climate change is such an urgent issue that depopulation will kick in far too late to make any serious impact. Not only that, but the difference between the contribution to climate change made by the current population versus the population at the top of the spike is not significant. Depopulation won't help the climate, then, but it will mean that there are far fewer of us left to deal with part two of cleaning up humanity's mess on Earth: removing excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Creating a good life – whether that's finding cures for disease or ways to reverse environmental damage – relies on the ideas, work and progress produced by large, interconnected societies. Why, then, are we increasingly choosing to have fewer children? The answer is likely to be a combination of cultural, biological, economic and social factors, but the best unifying theory in After the Spike is to be found in a satirical headline from the Onion: 'Study Finds American Women Delaying Motherhood Because the Whole Thing Blows'. As life on Earth has come to offer more and more rich and interesting options for how to spend our time, the opportunity cost of parenting has become increasingly less attractive. There are now more ways to make a meaningful life with fewer or no kids, even if you did want them, as gen Z is well aware. If we agree that we ought to make life good for our descendants, and that this means supporting a stable, sizeable human population, how can we achieve this? The solution proposed by Spears and Geruso is no less than a total restructuring of society around care, in which parenting is so well supported socially, culturally, economically and medically that it is seen as a joy, not a relentless struggle. Were this to have been my reality a decade ago, I might have had the football team of tumbling, laughing babies I sometimes feel a pang for. Whether humanity can achieve anything like it in time to avert depopulation seems doubtful, but if there's one thing After the Spike leaves us with, it's the impulse to back ourselves. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion After the Spike: The Risks of Global Depopulation and the Case for People by Dean Spears and Michael Geruso is published by Bodley Head (£20). To order a copy go to Delivery charges may apply.
