FEMA’s Gutting of Disaster Mitigation Program Ruled Unlawful (1)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency unlawfully terminated a disaster prevention and mitigation program and tried to spend its $4 billion on other priorities, a US judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by Judge Richard G. Stearns of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts is a victory for states that challenged the Trump administration’s fiscal moves at the disaster relief agency after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called for an overhaul of FEMA.

The agency’s move reflects “unlawful Executive encroachment on the prerogative of Congress to appropriate funds for a specific and compelling purpose,” the judge said, rejecting the government’s concerns about judicial entanglement in policy matters.

Stearns concluded the proposed gutting of FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program qualifies as a “substantial reduction” in its disaster mitigation capabilities—a move prohibited by Congress.

Prior to the Trump administration’s changes, the program was ready to fund hundreds of life-saving projects, including floodwalls, levees, pump stations, earthquake retrofits, tornado saferooms, landslide protection, vegetation management for wildfire mitigation, and shoreline upgrades, the states said.

A study by the National Institute of Building Sciences found every dollar spent on the program avoids roughly $6 in costs, meaning two decades of federal mitigation spending has saved $157.9 billion, according to the complaint.

In August, the court preliminarily blocked FEMA from repurposing the program’s funding, ruling that the states were likely to win on the merits.

Stearns said in the ruling the agency’s redirecting of BRIC’s funding to other post-disaster relief programs and its refusal to provide a minimum amount of disaster prevention funding each year also violated statutory provisions.

The attempted closure of the program threatened various mitigation projects, causing secondary sources of funding to flee and stakeholders to waver in their support, the ruling said, as it downplayed the government’s claim to hardship if the court bars it from canceling the program.

“The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,” Stearns said. “It need not be gainsaid that the imminence of disasters is not deterred by bureaucratic obstruction.”

The judge sidestepped the states’ claims that two FEMA administrators, Cameron Hamilton and David Richardson, were unlawfully installed in the role. He declined to give an advisory opinion on the appointments, since both have resigned from their FEMA roles.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D) said the ruling “will undoubtedly save lives by preventing the federal government from terminating funding that helps communities prepare for and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters.”

Representatives for FEMA weren’t immediately available for comment.

The states are represented by the offices of their respective attorneys general.

The case is Washington v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, D. Mass., 1:25-cv-12006, order issued 12/11/25.