The BRIC Program Is Essential in Our New Climate Reality

The Trump administration’s abrupt cancellation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program puts thousands of communities at risk by stalling lifesaving projects. Hazard mitigation—taking action to reduce impacts before disaster strikes—isn’t a luxury in a climate-changed world; it’s a necessity. We have to acknowledge that there are no safe havens that let us ignore the harms already at our door. Adapting to today’s climate reality—and not just hoping that things will be like they were before—is essential to keeping people safe. 

A flagship Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program, BRIC was created during President Trump’s first term to fund the efforts of states, Tribes, territories, and local governments to save lives, protect property, and reduce the long-term costs of disasters. Since 2020, BRIC has directed more than $1 billion annually to climate-resilient projects to help break the expensive cycle of destruction and rebuilding.

Over its first four years, BRIC funding supported a wide range of initiatives, from hardening infrastructure against floods, wildfires, and extreme heat to advancing nature-based solutions that restore ecosystems and buffer communities. Schools were building safe rooms to protect students from tornados. Water treatment plants were shoring up their critical systems. Communities were investing in smart planning and resilient building codes, bolstering their capacity to adapt. 

All of that ended when the current Trump administration moved—without any warning or public input—to cancel the program. One day, BRIC enjoyed rare bipartisan support. The next, leaders of communities across the nation were left scrambling, on the hook for billions of dollars toward projects the federal government had pledged to help them build. 

Unfortunately, the impacts of canceling BRIC aren’t being felt in a vacuum. Since March, 16 states have requested Hazard Mitigation Grant Program assistance as part of a major disaster declaration (a standard request, usually granted as a matter of course) and were denied, despite receiving other types of aid. At the same time, the administration quietly pulled down grant notices for the Flood Mitigation Assistance and Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund programs, leaving their futures uncertain. And while some grantees are finding alternative sources of funding to replace FEMA grants, resources are scarce as states and communities simultaneously struggle to make up for federal cuts in housing, health care, and other critical areas. 

Amid many other urgent needs, it can seem hard to prioritize projects whose benefits won’t be seen until sometime in the future. But FEMA getting rid of hazard mitigation is like doctors’ offices getting rid of preventative care. Imagine the avalanche of preventable illnesses and injuries—not to mention the financial costs—if there were no checkups, no cancer screenings, no prenatal vitamins, no dental X-rays. Pulling back on disaster risk reduction is just as shortsighted and illogical. 

No grant program is perfect, but FEMA was listening to advocates and disaster survivors and working on solutions to make funding more accessible. Canceling the program doesn’t solve a problem; it creates a bigger one on top of more delays, damage, and families in harm’s way.

Since FEMA abruptly terminated the BRIC program, a coalition of 20 states have filed suit in federal court, claiming the shutdown violates constitutional provisions and the Administrative Procedure Act. In early August, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction that blocked FEMA from diverting more than $4 billion in BRIC-allocated funds. NRDC is following the litigation closely and, simultaneously, has called on Congress to defend the program. 

BRIC saves lives, cuts disaster costs, and helps communities build resilience before the next storm hits. Eliminating the program only sets the United States, particularly our most vulnerable communities, up for failure.