FEMA’s dissolution of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program will deleteriously affect communities preparing for climate-exacerbated disasters. BRIC provided funding to address risks before disasters happen, such as elevating roads, retrofitting buildings, or creating defensible space around structures in wildfire-prone areas. The program certainly was not perfect, distributing funds in its early years more to wealthier coastal communities than interior states. However, FEMA attempted over the years to correct these disparities.

It is worth exploring the agency’s recent claim that the program was “wasteful and ineffective” and “more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans.” Wealthier, coastal counties tend to vote more Democratic than Republican, so there would seem to be a strong negative correlation between the percentage of GOP vote and selected projects for BRIC funding. But if the program is aimed at helping vulnerable communities, there should also be a strong relationship between social vulnerability and funding.

Figure 1 merges 2020–2023 BRIC funding data with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (CDC/ATSDR) 2022 Social Vulnerability Index and 2024 Presidential Election Results by County. According to the CDC/ATSDR data, social vulnerability includes demographic and socioeconomic factors such as minority status, poverty, limited transportation access, and overcrowded housing. Research has found that these factors increase the negative impacts of hazards and community stressors, such as disasters and disease outbreaks like COVID-19, on affected populations. The only states not included in Figure 1 are Alaska and Connecticut due to variations in how the states’ counties are named in the datasets. These discrepancies create differences, for example, in how they report election data and how BRIC designates non-federal sponsors, which made it difficult to merge the data.

Figure 1

It is certainly not clear what the administration meant by claiming BRIC was more concerned with political agendas, as FEMA did not provide evidence of such actions. Trump’s agenda thus far has been to go after programs based on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) goals or programs that acknowledge climate change. However, BRIC drew bipartisan support, and predominantly Republican states have advocated for and recognized the importance of disaster prevention measures, often without explicitly acknowledging any connection to climate change. The only evidence of anything suggesting a “political agenda” comes from FEMA’s own internal reports on issues with funding disbursements to rural, interior counties — again, an issue FEMA was trying to correct.

The question is whether selected funding through BRIC was influenced by voting patterns or social vulnerability. Looking at simple correlations finds extremely weak relationships between those variables.  First, there is a negative correlation (-0.236) between BRIC funding for projects and the percentage of GOP votes in a county.. The negative correlation between the two variables suggests that as the percentage of the GOP vote in a county increases, the amount of selected funding decreases, and vice versa. However, the low correlation coefficient suggests a weak link between the variables, meaning the relationship is not very strong or consistent across all counties. Other elements have a greater influence on the level of funding counties received.

As for the correlation between social vulnerability and funding, there is a positive relationship (0.153) — meaning that as the social vulnerability index of a county tends to increase, the amount of selected funding also tends to increase, and vice versa. But, again, the low correlation indicates a very weak relationship, meaning the connection is not strong or consistent across all counties. Much like the percentage of GOP vote, other, bigger factors are likely at play.

A quick review of the data does not reveal strong political bias in BRIC funding. Even looking at the weak relationship between GOP votes and funding, the answer would be to do more to ensure funding is distributed fairly, prioritizing socially vulnerable counties all over the US. But the Trump administration chose to eliminate the program, and rural counties with fewer resources face a greater challenge than before in funding projects necessary to protect communities. There are not a lot of alternatives, and the federally funded alternatives are equally in danger of being eliminated or are already being eliminated. Hopefully, Trump or future administrations will revisit this idea of pre-disaster mitigation. It’s more likely that the next administration will be spending a lot of time trying to put the federal government back together again.