Trump administration sued by 20 states for cutting disaster prevention grants
The lawsuit filed in Boston federal court claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) lacked the power to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program in April after it was approved and funded by Congress.
Fema, part of the US Department of Homeland Security, has come under scrutiny for its response to deadly floods in Texas earlier this month, which has put renewed focus on the administration's moves to shrink or abolish the agency.
'By unilaterally shutting down Fema's flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles,' said the states, led by Washington and Massachusetts.
Fema and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Bric program, created in 2018 as an upgrade of existing grant programs, covers up to 75% of the costs of infrastructure projects, or 90% in rural areas, meant to protect communities from natural disasters. The funding has been used for evacuation shelters, flood walls and improvements to roads and bridges, among other projects.
Over the past four years Fema has approved roughly $4.5bn in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, much of which went to coastal states, according to Tuesday's lawsuit.
When Fema announced the termination of the program in April, the agency said it had been wasteful, ineffective and politicized.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in May urged Fema to reinstate the grants, saying they were particularly crucial for rural and tribal communities, and to work with Congress to make the program more efficient.
The states in their lawsuit say that Congress made mitigating future disasters a core function of Fema, and the US constitution and federal law bar the Trump administration from altering the agency's mission without working with lawmakers.
They also claim that Cameron Hamilton, who was the acting director of Fema when the program was terminated, and his successor, David Richardson, were not properly appointed and lacked the authority to cancel it.
The states said they would seek a preliminary injunction requiring the program to be reinstated while the case proceeds.
The lawsuit is the latest attempt by states to rebuke the Trump administration's approach to disaster funding. Many of the same states sued the administration in May over a policy tying grant funding for emergency preparedness to states' cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Massachusetts attorney general, Andrea Campbell, in a statement said the recent flooding in Texas, which caused more than 130 deaths, has made clear how critical federal funding is to helping states prepare for natural disasters.
'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,' said Campbell, a Democrat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
South Korea to prepare mutually agreeable trade package as US tariff deadline looms
SEOUL, July 26 (Reuters) - South Korea will prepare a trade package that is mutually agreeable with the United States ahead of minister-level meetings planned next week and a U.S. tariff-pause deadline of August 1, the presidential office said on Saturday. The package will include shipbuilding cooperation, a sector of high interest to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who discussed the matter with South Korea's Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan on Friday, it said in a statement. South Korea's Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol and Foreign Minister Cho Hyun will also hold meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and State Secretary Marco Rubio, respectively, next week.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Why Starmer has more to worry about than his inability to play golf when he meets Trump at Turnberry
Keir Starmer has confided that he has never played golf before, which may prove to be a problem when he holds a bilateral with Donald Trump at the US president's Turnberry course in Scotland on Monday. The location partially explains the nervous energy around the prime minister when he discusses this last-minute arranged meeting as Trump spends a few days relaxing at his own Scottish courses. 'Golf is not something you can pick up in a weekend,' a source close to the PM said, envisaging the two holding their bilateral around 18 holes on the championship course. But a potential crash course in golf is the least of Sir Keir's concerns as he prepares for yet another crucial bilatera l with a US president he has struck up a politically unlikely friendship with. Top of the agenda will be the steel industry followed by Ukraine and Gaza - all issues where Sir Keir and Trump still seem far apart. Men of steel If sorting out the trade deal was the equivalent of a green on a golf course, Starmer would be on his third attempt with the putter trying to sink a ball which initially rolled invitingly near to the flag. Already we have effectively had two signing ceremonies for a trade agreement to tackle Trump's 'freedom day' tariffs. The first occasion in May when it was described as 'the big and beautiful deal' seemed to have resolved almost everything. Then nothing happened until the two men appeared together in Canada last month with a signed deal which the president almost immediately fumbled on to the floor. But even after that there was one crucial issue left over - steel. Trump put tariffs of 25 per cent on steel and then increased them to 50 per cent for the rest of the world, with a threat that the UK would go from 25 to 50 per cent if it did not sort the issue out. Time is running out and with the taxpayer now in hock to the future of British Steel and the entire industry staring at a precipice, Starmer needs to get the zero per cent tariff he was promised back in May. Unfortunately, there appears to be no immediate sign of that happening. Palestinian recognition There is a lot of speculation within Labour this weekend that Keir Starmer wants to recognise the state of Palestine as French president Emmanuel Macron did on Thursday. But he cannot do it until after he has had his meeting with Trump - otherwise the inevitable row over it would dominate proceedings. US secretary of state Marco Rubio made it clear that the US was disgusted with France and thought Macron was 'rewarding terrorism' by Hamas. A similar angry view would be taken with the UK. But the two do need to discuss the issues with the crisis coming to a head. Somehow Trump's enthusiasm for brokering a ceasefire there needs to be renewed and some think Starmer is the man to do that. His ability to boost the president's ego has become the blueprint for international leaders to deal with the second Trump term. Without US leadership there is a danger that the war will just go on and thousands of people trapped in Gaza will simply starve to death. In many ways Starmer will be speaking for the so-called E3 group of UK, France and Germany on the issue after the emergency phone call with Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz on Friday. Not forgetting Ukraine The Middle East may not even be Starmer's biggest international priority in these talks. He is desperate for a solution to the Ukraine problem and recently with Macron and Merz has been pushing ahead with the 'coalition of the willing' to provide a safeguard for Ukraine after a peace deal. He and Macron announced new details and plans for the coalition of the willing after the French president's recent state visit. But they are moving ahead without the one thing they need - a promise by the US to back them up militarily if things go wrong. Trump has resisted this idea, much preferring to get a share of Ukraine's mineral resources. He has shown no interest at all in Starmer's plan. But the British prime minister needs to somehow to get him on side on Monday. The State Visit While this is a private trip for Trump to look at his personal business interests (play golf on his own courses), it is a precursor to a much bigger visit in September. The invitation for a state visit came from the King and was delivered by his prime minister but details of the political side of the historic trip will be discussed. There may be an awkward moment regarding why Macron got to address a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament and Trump will not. The excuse that it is the day after Parliament rises does not hold water because MPs and peers came back to hear the late Pope Benedict address them in 2010 in identical circumstances. There will be no shortage of rightwing British Trump friends visiting him over the next few days, including Nigel Farage and fellow Brexit bad boy Andy Wigmore, who will point out that others were treated better. How Starmer can win over Trump It is understood that the prime minister came up with a solution to deal with the diplomatic problem of having to play golf, at a recent social event in Westminster. 'We toss a coin. If the president wins we play golf, if I win we play football,' the PM is understood to have suggested. Given how much Trump enjoyed himself with Chelsea players after presenting the World Club Cup to them, that may be a solution. But it is going to take more than a coin flip for Sir Keir to persuade the president on these other issues. The one thing that matters though is that Trump values relationships and trusts people who are straight with him and give him their trust. Back at the G7 in Canada Trump made it clear that the UK will do well with him because he likes Starmer. He said: 'The UK is very well protected. You know why? Because I like them. The prime minister has done a really good job. He has done what other people have been talking about for six years and he has done it.' Starmer is going to need all the charm that he seems to have reserved for his international duties to get what he wants on Monday. But recent history suggests that it could all be within his grasp.
