Rosanna Arias/FEMA
A structure built as part of a hazard mitigation housing project in Beach Haven, New Jersey, funded by BRIC, August 2021.
It’s easy for us to think of disasters as something that happens to someone else, somewhere else. But the truth is that we’re all witnessing the consequences of the climate crisis unfolding in real time, in communities across the country.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is not only dismantling our capacity to prepare and respond to environmental disasters, but also cutting the very programs that protect communities from floods and other hazards.
While no single factor is responsible for damaging floods—whether they’re localized emergencies, or the unimaginable catastrophes of Hurricane Helene or the Guadalupe River—there are real, tangible things we can do to reduce risk and prevent future tragedy.
Unfortunately, carrying out those actions got a lot harder with the cancellation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program, which was a critical line of defense for communities facing climate and weather risks.
In 2018, the Republican-controlled Congress created BRIC to fund infrastructure projects that would help protect communities against future disasters, and President Donald Trump signed it into law. In the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) press release announcing the first round of grants, the Trump-nominated administrator, Pete Gaynor, said, “Now we are taking an active step in ensuring we build our nation’s infrastructure to withstand the hazards we face.” These investments make clear economic sense. A 2024 report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that every $1 of federal resilience grants saves $13 in future disaster damages and other losses.
The benefits of investing in resilience are even greater when you factor in the prevention of injuries, loss of life, displacement, and human suffering. But when the administration canceled the program on April 5, the rug was pulled out from under some 2,000 projects that had previously been approved for funding. That’s up to $4.5 billion in promised funding that will likely disappear; using the 13-to-1 ratio, those projects could have saved upwards of $58 billion.
The decision to terminate BRIC will make it much harder for state and local governments across the country to prepare for future disasters. For many communities that have already invested time, money, and planning in federally supported projects, there is no alternative.
BRIC wasn’t perfect. Communities had to jump through a lot of hoops to get the funding, which was particularly hard for small towns in rural states. There also wasn’t enough money to go around.
A big part of my job as an analyst with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) over the past five years has been documenting challenges with the program and advocating for improvements, so that support reaches the people that need it most and communities can build their own capacity to handle disasters. There were growing pains, but the administration could and should have taken action to strengthen the program, rather than dismantle it. It’s time to prioritize risk reduction and do it right.
We’re living in a world where we literally can’t afford to leave communities unprotected. Sadly, the recent Texas floods—not to mention the extreme rain in New York and New Jersey, flash floods in New Mexico, and wildfires in the Grand Canyon—are just the beginning.
Sooner or later, flood waters will wash our tax dollars down the drain, or wildfire flames will send them up in smoke. Last year alone, there were twenty-seven extreme weather disasters that cost more than $1 billion dollars. But this is about so much more than just money. Taking action to prevent disaster damage means that the lights stay on, hospitals stay open, and roads stay safe. It means families’ lives aren’t torn apart.
Communities across the country understand the threats they face. They are seeing the hotter heat waves, the stronger hurricanes, and the unprecedented rainstorms. What they need is help from the federal government to protect their residents, but the Trump Administration has cut them loose.
Given what so many communities across the country have experienced, it’s time for the administration to reconsider its decision, deliver the grants that Congress authorized and FEMA had promised, and work to build a stronger, better program for the future. Anything less is a cruel abandonment of Americans in harm’s way.
This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.