A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration's cancellation of a major disaster prevention and resilience grant program was unlawfully undertaken executive overreach on congressional authority. On December 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns issued an order in Boston federal court requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to promptly reverse the program's termination and restore the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.
The judge's ruling represents a significant legal victory for infrastructure resilience advocates and the 20 mostly Democratic-led states that sued to block the program termination. The decision addresses fundamental questions about the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the court finding that Congress—not the President—has constitutional authority to decide how appropriated funds are spent.
The Trump administration terminated the BRIC program in April 2025, seeking to eliminate federal funding for disaster prevention and resilience infrastructure projects. BRIC provides grants to states and communities to build infrastructure that reduces vulnerability to disasters including floods, hurricanes, and other natural hazards. The program represents federal investment in pre-disaster mitigation—infrastructure improvements that prevent or reduce disaster damage before disasters occur.
The April termination was highly controversial among states, local governments, and construction industry stakeholders. Many communities had pending project approvals or were in advanced planning stages when the termination announcement was made, forcing states to make difficult decisions about project delays, scaling, and cancellations.
Judge Stearns's ruling emphasized that Congress specifically appropriated funds for BRIC, and executive termination of a congressionally-funded program violates federal appropriations law. The judge found the termination unlawful because Congress—through the appropriations process—had already decided that these funds should be spent on BRIC rather than other purposes.
The ruling reflects settled constitutional law principles that the President cannot unilaterally decide not to spend money Congress has appropriated for specific purposes. Congress controls the federal purse, and the President's discretion in spending is limited by congressional appropriations decisions. The judge's order affirms that FEMA cannot simply decide to eliminate a program Congress has funded.
The lawsuit was filed by 20 mostly Democratic-led states seeking to block the BRIC termination. This same judge previously ruled in August 2025 that FEMA was prohibited from diverting $4 billion from the BRIC program to other purposes. The August order blocked an intermediate step—diverting BRIC funds to disaster response and recovery—before the full program termination was announced.
The legal continuity across the August diversion ruling and the December termination ruling demonstrates the judge's consistent application of appropriations law principles across multiple FEMA attempts to eliminate or circumvent the BRIC program. The pattern of rulings suggests the judge views FEMA's actions as persistent attempts to contravene congressional appropriations decisions.
The BRIC program has approved approximately $4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 projects over the last four years. These projects fund infrastructure improvements across the nation, primarily focused in coastal states where hurricane and flood risks are most acute. BRIC funding has supported roads, bridges, flood control systems, hurricane-resistant structures, and other infrastructure designed to withstand natural disasters.
The massive scale of BRIC's portfolio demonstrates the substantial federal investment in pre-disaster mitigation. Nearly $4.5 billion deployed across nearly 2,000 projects represents intensive federal engagement in community resilience and disaster risk reduction infrastructure. The diversity of projects reflects BRIC's broad focus on infrastructure resilience across multiple hazard types and geographic regions.
The BRIC termination forced many states to make difficult decisions about projects that had received preliminary approval or were in advanced planning stages. Hundreds of mitigation projects had to be delayed, scaled back, or cancelled due to the unexpected termination. States had relied on BRIC funding commitments in their planning and budgeting processes, and the sudden termination created substantial disruption.
The termination was particularly disruptive for states with high disaster risk that had prioritized resilience infrastructure investment through BRIC. Communities expecting federal support for critical infrastructure improvements had to scramble to find alternative funding or accept project delays and reduced scope. The disruption highlighted the importance of predictable, stable federal funding for infrastructure resilience.
Judge Stearns found the program termination unlawful under federal appropriations statutes. The judge applied longstanding legal principles that executive agencies must spend appropriated funds in accordance with congressional intent as expressed through the appropriations process. The decision reaffirmed that Presidents cannot substitute their policy preferences for congressional appropriations decisions.
The ruling addresses a fundamental constitutional principle: Congress controls federal spending through the appropriations process. While Presidents have discretion in how to implement programs, they cannot unilaterally eliminate congressionally-created and congressionally-funded programs. The judge's order vindicates the role of Congress in deciding how federal resources are deployed.
The Department of Homeland Security—the parent agency of FEMA—characterized the BRIC program as a "Green New Deal slush fund," suggesting the administration views disaster prevention investment as inconsistent with its policy priorities. This characterization reflects the administration's ideological opposition to federal disaster prevention funding and preference for other budget priorities.
The administration's response suggests continued resistance to the BRIC program despite the court ruling. DHS's harsh characterization of the program suggests the administration may pursue additional legal strategies or congressional action to curtail the program despite the judge's order requiring restoration. The political disagreement over disaster prevention investment priorities may generate continued legal and legislative battles.
The judge's order to restore BRIC has significant implications for the construction industry and infrastructure development. BRIC funding supports substantial construction activity through grants for resilience infrastructure projects. Restoration of the program is expected to generate renewed construction opportunities as states and communities move forward with previously delayed or cancelled projects.
Construction firms, engineering consultants, and materials suppliers have significant economic interest in BRIC program continuation. BRIC funding flows through state transportation departments, water authorities, emergency management agencies, and other entities that contract construction services. The program's restoration is expected to generate new construction project opportunities across multiple infrastructure sectors.
BRIC's focus on coastal states and disaster-prone regions means that the program's restoration will particularly benefit communities facing hurricane, flooding, and other natural disaster risks. Coastal states with significant infrastructure exposed to hurricane and storm surge risk stand to benefit substantially from BRIC's restoration and the resumption of project approvals and funding deployments.
Infrastructure resilience is increasingly recognized as critical to economic development in coastal regions. Communities that have experienced major disasters are often highly motivated to invest in resilience infrastructure that reduces future disaster vulnerability. BRIC provides a federal funding mechanism that helps communities implement resilience priorities that local and state resources alone may be insufficient to address.
Judge Stearns ordered FEMA to promptly reverse the program termination and restore the BRIC program. The order requires FEMA to take affirmative steps to restore the program's operations and resume project approvals and funding deployments. The implementation of the judge's order is expected to involve restoring BRIC administrative operations and processing pending project applications.
The restoration of BRIC is expected to generate renewed activity in project applications and approvals as communities and states resume planning for delayed or cancelled projects. Funding that was previously appropriated by Congress will flow to communities for resilience infrastructure investment, supporting construction projects and community disaster risk reduction efforts across the nation.
The judge's ruling carries broader constitutional significance beyond the BRIC program itself. The decision affirms core principles of the separation of powers and congressional control of federal spending. As administrations of both parties have occasionally attempted to circumvent or redirect congressionally-appropriated funds, the judge's decision provides important precedent for maintaining congressional authority over federal spending.
The BRIC ruling joins a growing body of judicial decisions enforcing limits on executive spending discretion. These decisions collectively reinforce that Presidents cannot use administrative discretion to eliminate programs Congress has created and funded. The cumulative effect of such rulings is to maintain congressional primacy in federal spending decisions and limit executive authority to redirect appropriated funds.
Source: Reuters, published December 11, 2025
OSHA releases seven interpretation letters clarifying workplace safety standards affecting construction, engineering, and industrial operations including confined spaces, training, and equipment use.
Binghamton receives $7.7 million in state financing for new 6th Ward force main and pump station, replacing aging infrastructure and saving $18.8M in interest over time.
New York State approves nine environmental permits for Micron Technology's $100B semiconductor plant in Clay, clearing path for site work to begin on New York's largest private investment.
.svg)
