A federal court has ordered the Trump administration to restore the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, commonly known as BRIC, after finding that its termination violated federal law. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by Washington state and a multistate coalition challenging the administration’s decision to shut down the congressionally funded program.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced the decision on December 13, 2025, describing it as a significant legal development tied to long-standing limits on executive authority over federal spending. According to the court, the administration lacked the authority to withhold funds that Congress had already appropriated for disaster mitigation.
Background of the BRIC Program
BRIC is FEMA’s primary pre-disaster mitigation program. It funds projects intended to help communities prepare for natural disasters before they occur. Congress explicitly funds the program, placing it within federal laws enacted after Hurricane Katrina that require FEMA to protect communities through mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery.
The lawsuit argued that FEMA’s termination of BRIC conflicted with these statutory requirements. The coalition maintained that the executive branch cannot unilaterally eliminate a program that Congress created and funded.
The judge agreed, ruling that FEMA’s actions violated Congress’s spending authority, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Appropriations and Spending Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Court Findings and Legal Framework
At the center of the case is post-Katrina federal law designed to prevent presidents from withholding or delaying disaster assistance approved by Congress. The court concluded that BRIC falls squarely under this framework because Congress specifically appropriated funding for the program.
As a result, the court determined that FEMA acted illegally when it terminated BRIC. The ruling reinforces legal limits intended to ensure that disaster mitigation funding flows according to congressional authorization rather than executive discretion.
Attorney General Brown stated that the ruling enforces these legal guardrails and compels compliance with federal law.
Scope and Impact of BRIC Funding
BRIC funds a range of infrastructure projects that local governments often struggle to finance independently. These projects include evacuation shelters, flood walls, wildfire-hardened utility grids, wastewater and drinking water infrastructure protection, and upgrades to bridges, roads, and culverts.
According to a recent study cited in the case, every dollar spent on FEMA mitigation saves an average of six dollars in post-disaster recovery costs.
Over the past four years, FEMA approved nearly 2,000 BRIC projects nationwide, totaling approximately $4.5 billion. These projects span urban, suburban, and rural communities across the country.
Effects in Washington State
In Washington state, roughly two dozen BRIC-funded projects valued at more than $150 million were stalled following the program’s termination. Many of these projects support small towns and rural areas.
Examples include levee and floodwall construction projects in Aberdeen and Hoquiam, as well as emergency power generation systems in Klickitat County. Those systems are designed to keep hospitals and school districts operational during wildfires or severe weather events.
Attorney General Brown referenced current flooding in Western Washington as context for the importance of mitigation funding. He said, “The devastating flooding hurting communities across Western Washington right now underscores why these kinds of mitigation grants are so vital.”
Next Steps Following the Ruling
The court’s order requires FEMA to fully reinstate the BRIC program and make the previously allocated funds available again. As a result, FEMA must resume administration of the program in accordance with congressional authorization.
A summary judgment order outlining the court’s decision has been released by the coalition that brought the lawsuit.
Brown co-led the case with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. The coalition included attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania also joined the legal action.
Stay informed and ahead of the curve — explore more industry insights and program opportunities at ProgramBusiness.com.