Earlier this month, the Federal Emergency Management Agency abruptly shut down the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which provided billions for disaster preparedness. In a press release, FEMA called the program “wasteful and ineffective,” adding it was “more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans.” Ironically, the program was established during Trump’s first term after Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act in 2018.

So what was BRIC, and why are communities concerned about the impact of FEMA shuttering it, especially with hurricane season just around the corner? First, it is essential to distinguish BRIC from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is reactive, kicking in after the president declares a disaster.  With Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds, communities can, to borrow a phrase,  “build back better“— a concept that emphasizes improving upon previous infrastructure rather than simply reconstructing it in a way that doesn’t address future disaster risks.

However, BRIC and its predecessor, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, did not have that disaster declaration requirement. BRIC funding was for preventative measures, made available annually throughout the US. Communities could address future risks before disasters even happen, such as investing in green infrastructure, elevating roads, retrofitting buildings, or creating defensible space around structures in wildfire-prone areas. Examples include $189,000 to raise the access road to a pump station in Sawmills, North Carolina, above base flood elevation, so crews can access the plant during flooding. Another is providing over $200K to provide backup power to a senior center in Pasco County, Florida.

At the time it was established, groups such as the American Flood Coalition, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Nature Conservancy lauded the opportunities BRIC would provide.

Was the program as politicized as the Trump administration claims? In its early days, it did receive a fair amount of criticism, most of which is summarized in a 2020 stakeholder feedback report that has since been removed from FEMA’s website. Small, impoverished, and rural communities found the application process complicated and complained about difficulties with the 90/10 cost-match requirements (which means the federal government would cover 90 percent of the project’s cost and the applicant would cover the remaining 10 percent). Stakeholders from smaller communities also complained about a lack of resources, capacity, and capabilities for implementing projects.

The data shows these communities were absolutely locked out of funding. During its first year (FY 2020), research found that BRIC allocated 94 percent of its grant funding to coastal states and more affluent counties. However, in FY 2021, that began to change with 80 percent going to coastal states and the rest to the interior. By FY 2023, the allocation of BRIC funds had shifted more, with 67 percent directed to coastal states and the remaining portion allocated to inland states. A 2023 FEMA stakeholder report, though no longer available on its website, indicated the agency’s ongoing dedication to improving the project and noted the growing diversity among grant recipients.

Shutdown Will Have Substantial Impacts

Like FEMA, the program was not perfect—  but eliminating it entirely does not solve its issues. In fact, FEMA’s recent action has introduced further uncertainty into an already unstable situation, especially in Gulf Coast states. Last year saw an above-average number of hurricanes, and officials have been preparing for the 2025 season. But many coastal states have only spent a small portion of BRIC funds made available (Figure 1). Florida has only spent $19 million, or around 6 percent, of its BRIC grants, and infrastructure projects, from raising roads to strengthening canals, are being canceled across the state. Meanwhile, Louisiana has seen the cancellation or suspension of over 150 applications for BRIC funding, which together amounted to more than $720 million.

Figure 1

FEMA made $1 billion available each year for projects, except in 2022, when over $2 billion was apportioned because of COVID-19 disaster declarations. An additional $1 billion over five years was provided through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.  According to FEMA’s recent press release, only $133 million of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding had been distributed to about 450 applicants. Applications submitted for FY 2024 will not be reviewed, and leftover grant money from FYs 2020-2023 that had been obligated but not spent, around $3.6 billion, will go to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, and around $882 million to the US Treasury. That move signals the Trump Administration has no intention of creating a new program that will address BRIC’s issues. It also begs the question, where will that $882 million go?

Eliminating BRIC aligns with the administration’s now openly stated goals of reducing federal involvement in disaster relief and mitigation and leaving the work to the states. But the administration is ignoring the damage caused by its actions and abandoning communities in need. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) wrote in a letter to Trump, “When rivers swell, Americans should be prepared. BRIC ensures we are. And if FEMA were to move forward with the plan to cut BRIC, what would the alternative be?” Right now, there is no alternative, and it’s cruel of the administration to pretend otherwise.