FEMA Tried to Kill a $4.5 Billion Climate Program. Twenty States Dragged It Back to Life.

Twenty states, two federal court orders, one permanent injunction, and a five-month standoff — and as of this week, FEMA says it will finally restart the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. The question is whether anyone should believe them yet.

The BRIC saga is not just a story about one grant program. It is the sharpest test case in recent memory for what happens when an administration tries to terminate a congressionally mandated program over the objections of the courts, state governments, and the communities that depend on it. For anyone who holds, has applied for, or plans to apply for federal mitigation funding, the lessons from the last twelve months will shape strategy for years.

How BRIC Became the Largest Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program in Federal History

Congress created BRIC through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to replace the aging Pre-Disaster Mitigation program with something that could operate at the scale the climate crisis demanded. The logic was straightforward: every dollar spent hardening infrastructure before a disaster saves six to thirteen dollars in recovery costs afterward. FEMA launched the first BRIC competition in 2020.

The numbers grew fast. BRIC distributed over $4.6 billion across its first four fiscal years, funding more than 2,000 projects in all 50 states and territories. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act added another $1 billion earmarked for FY2022 through FY2026. By FY2024, BRIC had become the primary vehicle through which states, counties, cities, tribes, and territories pursued large-scale resilience investments — flood barriers, wildfire defensible space, seismic retrofits, stormwater systems, and coastal protections.

Then, on April 4, 2025, FEMA announced it was ending the program entirely.

The Termination and the Legal Response

FEMA's stated rationale was thin. The agency cited a desire to "refocus" disaster mitigation efforts without specifying what would replace BRIC or how the $750 million in FY2024 funding — which had been announced via a Notice of Funding Opportunity in January — would be handled. The NOFO was retracted in mid-February. Projects that had been selected but not yet awarded were suspended. Projects already underway saw their monitoring and disbursement support disappear.

The legal response came fast. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, whose state had roughly $200 million in awarded BRIC funding frozen, assembled a coalition of 20 state attorneys general and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The core argument was simple: Congress created BRIC by statute. Congress funded it by appropriation. The executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally terminate a program that Congress mandated. The administration's position — that FEMA had discretion to wind down the program — was undercut by the explicit congressional language in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act and the subsequent appropriations acts that funded BRIC through FY2026.

Two Court Orders, One Permanent Injunction, Zero Compliance

On December 11, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns issued a permanent injunction. The ruling declared the BRIC termination "unlawful" and ordered FEMA to "promptly take all steps necessary to reverse the termination." The language was unambiguous.

FEMA did not comply.

For months after the December ruling, the agency took no visible steps to restart the program. Two FEMA officials told Government Executive anonymously that they had "not heard a word internally" about reinstatement. A broader DHS spending freeze — requiring Secretary Kristi Noem's personal approval for any FEMA expenditure over $100,000 — created a bureaucratic chokepoint that made large-scale program resumption functionally impossible.

In February 2026, with no funds flowing despite the permanent injunction, the state coalition returned to court. On March 6, Judge Stearns issued a second, more specific order with hard deadlines: FEMA must identify all selected, phased, and pending BRIC projects and provide steps for reversing the termination within 14 days. The agency must open new grant applications within 21 days.

The February 14 DHS shutdown — triggered by a congressional impasse over immigration enforcement — added another layer of delay. With FEMA's mitigation staff furloughed and the grants management system offline, even good-faith compliance became difficult. (Granted News)

What FEMA Is Saying Now — and What It Means

This week, FEMA announced it would "fully resume programmatic support for BRIC awards and sub-applications, such as award monitoring and closeout, and completing pre-award review activities once the lapse in appropriations has ended." The agency added that it will "continue to reconstitute the BRIC program in a way that reflects good stewardship of taxpayer money — including by publishing a new funding opportunity."

Read that language carefully. The commitment to "resume programmatic support" and "complete pre-award review activities" suggests that projects selected under FY2023 and earlier cycles should eventually move forward. The mention of "publishing a new funding opportunity" signals that the retracted FY2024 NOFO may be reissued, though likely with modified terms.

What the language does not contain is a timeline. North Carolina Emergency Management confirmed receiving notification of the restart but stated there is currently "no timeline on expected restart and funding." The North Carolina Department of Justice was more pointed: "FEMA has represented in some public reporting that it will restart the BRIC program, but we haven't seen this go into effect yet."

The Real-World Damage

While the legal drama played out in courtrooms, real projects sat frozen. Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts, lost $50 million in matching state funds after their flood barrier project was paused — state appropriations have expiration dates that federal court orders cannot extend. A California hospital's seismic retrofit remains unfunded. Wisconsin school safe rooms that were approved for BRIC funding are still waiting.

In North Carolina, communities hit hardest by Hurricane Helene had BRIC projects designed specifically to prevent the kind of devastation they experienced. Wastewater treatment protection in Hickory, flood vulnerability studies in Buncombe County, and water pump relocation in Hillsborough — all stalled. The cruel irony of withholding pre-disaster mitigation funds from communities that just survived the disaster those funds were meant to prevent has not been lost on state officials.

Across all 50 states, the freeze affected communities that had spent years developing applications, securing local matching funds, completing environmental reviews, and navigating FEMA's notoriously complex Hazard Mitigation Assistance application process. For many, the BRIC application represented two to three years of planning work that cannot simply be paused and resumed.

What Applicants and Recipients Should Do Right Now

The legal landscape has shifted decisively in favor of BRIC's continuation, but operational reality has not caught up. Here is how to position yourself:

If you hold an existing BRIC award: Document every cost you have incurred and every milestone you have missed during the freeze period. When disbursements resume, FEMA will need to reconcile the gap between original project timelines and actual progress. Organizations with clean, contemporaneous documentation of delay impacts will move through the backlog faster than those reconstructing records after the fact.

If your project was selected but not yet awarded: You are in the strongest legal position. The court order specifically requires FEMA to complete pre-award review activities. Monitor your state hazard mitigation officer for updates. Do not let your local matching funds expire without engaging your state emergency management agency about extensions.

If you were preparing an FY2024 application when the NOFO was retracted: FEMA's statement about "publishing a new funding opportunity" almost certainly refers to a replacement for the retracted FY2024 NOFO. Keep your application materials current. The new NOFO may have modified priorities or evaluation criteria, but the core BRIC structure — competitive national applications evaluated on risk reduction, cost-effectiveness, and community resilience — is unlikely to change fundamentally given the court's mandate.

If you are considering BRIC for the first time: The program is not dead. Congress has funded it, courts have ordered its continuation, and the agency has publicly committed to resumption. Start the hazard mitigation planning process now. BRIC applications require a FEMA-approved state or tribal hazard mitigation plan, a benefit-cost analysis, and environmental and historic preservation review materials that can take 12 to 18 months to develop. Organizations that begin planning during this transition period will be ready when the next competition opens.

The Precedent That Matters

The BRIC case is likely to be cited in federal grant law for years. The core holding — that an executive agency cannot unilaterally terminate a congressionally mandated and funded program — has implications far beyond climate resilience. Every federally funded grant program created by statute operates under the same principle: appropriated funds must be spent for their congressionally designated purpose.

For grant-dependent organizations watching other programs face political headwinds, the BRIC litigation provides a roadmap. State attorneys general proved willing to enforce congressional intent through the courts. Federal judges proved willing to issue specific, deadline-driven compliance orders when agencies ignored initial rulings. And ultimately, the combination of judicial pressure and congressional appropriations language forced the agency's hand.

The program will restart. The backlog will be significant. And organizations that used the downtime to strengthen their applications, maintain their documentation, and preserve their local matching commitments will be first in line when the funding starts flowing again. Tools like Granted can help you track the program's reopening and identify complementary resilience funding sources while you wait.