Federal judge rules Trump administration cannot reallocate billions meant for disaster mitigation
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns in Boston granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 Democrat-led states while their lawsuit over the funding moves ahead.
The states argue the Federal Emergency Management Agency lacks the authority to end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program and redirect more than $4 billion of its funding. The program aims to harden infrastructure around the country against potential storm damage.
FEMA initially announced it was ending the program, but later said in a court filing that it was evaluating it.
'Although the Government equivocates about whether it has, in fact, ended the BRIC program, the States' evidence of steps taken by FEMA to implement the announced termination portend the conclusion that a determination has in fact been made and that FEMA is inching towards a fait accompli,' Stearns wrote in his ruling. 'The agency has cancelled new funding opportunities and informed stakeholders that they should no longer expect to obtain any unobligated funds.'
Noting money for the program was allocated by Congress, the states' lawsuit says any attempt to redirect it would run afoul of the Constitution.
A lawyer for the government, Nicole O'Connor, argued at a hearing in July that the funds can be used both for disaster recovery and disaster prevention and that FEMA should have discretion to use the money how it sees fit.
The program has provided grants for a range of disaster management projects, including strengthening electrical grids, constructing levees for flood protection and relocating vulnerable water treatment facilities. Many of the projects are in rural communities.
FEMA said in a news release in April that it was 'ending' the program, but the agency's acting chief, David Richardson, later said in a court filing that FEMA was merely evaluating whether to end or revise it.
The states, including California, New York and Washington, argue that the threat of losing the funding alone has put numerous projects at risk of being cancelled, delayed or downsized. And they warn ending the program would be highly imprudent.
'By proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs,' they wrote in the suit filed in July.
FEMA said in a court filing an injunction on its use of the funds could hamper its ability to respond to major disasters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
Trace Gallagher: This US congresswoman said she was most proud of Guatemala?
'Common Sense' Department: Call us old fashioned but here at the CSD, we believe those who are in government should probably be loyal to America first…
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nixing Tailpipe Emissions Rules Will Spike Gas Prices, Trump Admin Report Says
Nixing Tailpipe Emissions Rules Will Spike Gas Prices, Trump Admin Report Says originally appeared on Autoblog. The EPA touted savings for Americans On July 29, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was in the process of rescinding the landmark 2009 endangerment finding, a decision that set the course for regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions, such as those from cars and power plants. In its announcement, the EPA noted that if its proposal is finalized, greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines would be repealed, which it claims would restore consumer choice and give Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their families, thereby decreasing the overall cost of living. 'With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,' EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. "[...] If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families." Revoking emissions policies will make gas expensive, the US EIA finds Despite promising $54 billion in annual savings for Americans, a new report from CBS News, using data from the EPA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), shows that one vital resource that enables everyday transportation will become more expensive over time if the EPA successfully rescinds the 2009 endangerment finding. According to EIA projections cited by both CBS and the EPA, gas prices are expected to increase over time in a scenario where emissions policies are revoked under the Trump administration, as there would be a higher demand for gas-powered cars to travel and fuel to power them. Although gas prices are subject to intense market volatility due to various factors, USEIA data indicate that gas prices would largely fall if the environmental policies of the last administration were to remain intact, and that prices would increase under a proposed rollback of environmental regulations. Under the Biden administration, the EPA set a new goal for new gas-powered cars to achieve 47.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2027 and then reach around 61.2 miles per gallon by 2035. Without those Biden-era policies, cars made in 2027 are only expected to meet a lower standard of 43.6 mpg, gradually increasing to 50.5 mpg by 2035. In an emailed statement to CBS News, former EIA administrator Joseph DeCarolis explained that if the EPA under the Trump administration "disincentivizes electric vehicle purchases, more consumers will purchase gasoline vehicles, resulting in higher gasoline consumption and high gasoline prices for everyone." "There's a clear causal connection between rescinding measures promoting electric vehicles, such as EPA tailpipe standards, and the projection of higher gasoline prices," he said. In an interview on CBS's The Takeout with Major Garrett, Zeldin did not address how the plan to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding would affect gas prices. Instead, he argued that the previous administration's policies were costing trillions of dollars, as they were heavily restricting "[…] entire sectors of our economy, and specifically our energy economy.' 'It's important that we are applying common sense," Zeldin said, "that we are cognizant of these economic demands and that, wherever possible, when we can protect the environment and grow the economy that we will choose both." Final Thoughts Be that as it may, the American consumer is already at a penny-pinching point of contention, and experts warn that these proposed EPA rollbacks would add to the already expensive operating costs of gas-powered cars. In a statement to CBS News, Peter Huether, a senior transportation research associate at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, warned that "Drivers would pay thousands of dollars more in fuel and maintenance costs over the life of a vehicle, and businesses could lose billions annually from higher trucking costs" if the Zeldin-led EPA gets its way. He added that the added cost for fuel costs "would ripple through the economy, raising prices for everyday goods and undercutting job growth." Nixing Tailpipe Emissions Rules Will Spike Gas Prices, Trump Admin Report Says first appeared on Autoblog on Aug 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by Autoblog on Aug 6, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will pro-Trump Latinos vote Republican in the 2026 midterms? A new poll casts doubts
A quarter of Latinos who supported President Donald Trump in the November election are not guaranteed to vote for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, according to a new national poll by Equis, a leading research and polling group. Last week Equis, alongside progressive think tank Data for Progress, released a July memo that summarized key findings from a national poll of 1,614 registered voters, conducted between July 7 and July 17. This time frame coincides with some notable turning points in politics: namely, when Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" into law, as well as his execution of mass deportations and controversial handling of the Epstein files. Respondents were asked, "If the 2026 election for United States Congress were held today, for whom would you vote?" Only 27% replied that they would vote for a Republican candidate, marking a significant political party drop from the 45% who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. A quarter of those polled said they were not sure whom they would vote for (16%), would vote for someone else (5%), or would not vote at all (4%). This shaky political alignment comes at a critical time for Republicans, who are banking on continual Latino support in 2026 — especially as Texas Republicans plan to flip five blue seats under a newly proposed congressional map. The Equis study also found that 63% of Latinos disapproved of Trump's job as president in July, a slight uptick from polling numbers in May, when 60% disapproved. This rating seems to reflect broader sentiments regarding the state of the U.S. economy: 64% of Latinos rated the economy as "somewhat or very poor," while only 34% viewed it as "somewhat or very good." However, a disapproval of Trump does not mean Latinos have rushed to back the Democratic Party. Half the Latinos polled said Democrats care more about people like them, versus the 25% who said Republicans care more. Meanwhile, 17% said they believe that neither party cares. Swing voters — including those who Equis calls "Biden defectors," or voters who elected Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024 — are twice as likely to say that neither party cares about people like them (38%). "Growing dissatisfaction with Trump offers Democrats an opportunity, but only if they are willing to capitalize on it," the July memo states. Overall, Trump's national approval ratings are taking a nosedive, according to aggregate polling by the New York Times, which notes that Trump's approach to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation has angered his base. On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department for the files; lawmakers believe they could implicate Trump and other former top officials in the sex-trafficking investigation. Trump's anti-immigration policies have also likely shifted his popularity. Early July Gallup polling revealed that Americans have grown more positive toward immigration — 79% of Americans say immigration is a "good thing" for the country, which marks a 64% increase from last year and a 25-year record high. Get our Latinx Files newsletter for stories that capture the complexity of our communities. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
