FEMA Divests from Long-Term Resilience Building
On April 4, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the closure of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, including a cancellation of all FY2020-FY2023 BRIC applications. Introduced in 2018 under the first Trump Administration, the BRIC program was described in the announcement as “wasteful and ineffective.” This closure is the latest in a string of efforts to narrow FEMA’s mission to immediate emergency relief and response, thereby dramatically reducing federal investments in long-term capacity-building, disaster mitigation and planning efforts.
As a result of this announcement, BRIC funds that have not yet been distributed will be immediately returned to the U.S. Treasury or the Disaster Relief Fund. BRIC-funded projects that are already underway may not receive the remainder of their awards. Other FEMA programs that may be at risk due to their emphasis on resilience include the Flood Mitigation Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs.
Ongoing Legal Response to Presidential Orders
President Trump’s executive orders have been met with legal challenges since the start. Possibly the most relevant case for cities relates to a Jan. 27 directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would have placed a blanket freeze on federal funds. While the State of Georgia is not party to this suit, a district court judge in Rhode Island issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on Jan. 31 in response to a filing by 23 state attorneys general – a ruling that halted enforcement of the OMB Directive and helped alleviate some concerns. On March 6, the district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the Administration from stopping the disbursement of federal funds to those states on the basis of executive orders.
Federal agencies already moved to pause funding, including to cities, and the question remains whether this is allowed on the grounds of statutory authority. This issue has brought forth an active conversation about the executive branch impounding - choosing not to spend - funds appropriated by Congress and the constitutionality of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. You can read more about impoundment in this Governing for Impact issue brief.
What results from all the litigation has the potential to alter what it means for Congressionally appropriated spending, including billions authorized for state and local projects in recent years. If you are a member of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, IMLA hosts biweekly calls for city attorneys and other city officials to discuss the latest legal developments in the current federal landscape.
Tips to Be Proactive
If your city is a current recipient of any federal funds, be aware of potential disruptions and be proactive by:
Reviewing your city’s financial policies, including cash management and budgeting guidelines, in the event that your project can no longer count on the federal share and you need to find alternative funding sources;
Reaching out to your agency contact about possibly revising your project to remove elements and terminology seen to conflict with the Administration’s priorities;
Requesting regular updates from the agency on the status of your drawdown requests; and
Relaying concerns to Members of Congress about the importance of keeping your federal awards intact and the negative impact on your community if those funds were lost.