New York joins multistate lawsuit after Trump administration's FEMA cuts
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in a press release that her state has joined 19 others in litigation against Federal Emergency Management Agency chief David Richardson, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the federal government that seeks the restoration of FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, program.
"I'm suing the federal government with a group of [Attorneys General] over its deadly decision to end FEMA's BRIC program and slash billions of dollars that protect communities from natural disasters," James wrote in an X post Wednesday.
According to the release, BRIC had "supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen" with the provision of billions of dollars to state and local governments in order for municipalities to prepare for natural disasters.
In a press release that has since been deleted from the FEMA website, FEMA announced in April it was ending BRIC, and canceled all applications sent to BRIC from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, then canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity. Any grant funds that hadn't been distributed were reabsorbed and returned to either the U.S. Treasury or the Disaster Relief Fund.
The dissolution of BRIC followed an Executive Order made in March that, among other decrees, ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security to "propose changes to the policies" related to "national preparedness and response policies and recommend to the President the revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to reformulate the process and metrics for Federal responsibility."
The statement from James noted that the loss of the BRIC program could specifically affect New York, which is noted as being "among the states receiving the most BRIC funding" due to its coastal communities.
New York currently has 38 BRIC projects that total over $380 million located across its boundaries, which would be jeopardized by the termination of BRIC.
New York City alone was expected to receive BRIC funds for almost 20 different projects, including a $50 million mitigation action plan intended to provide protection from flash flooding of the Harlem River.
"This administration's decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk," said Attorney General James in the Wednesday press release from her office.
"New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes," she continued. "This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
College sports leaders shouldn't get too excited about Trump NIL executive order
It's not a great sign for President Trump's potential involvement in college sports when people who work in college sports are caught off-guard after word of a forthcoming executive order leaks out of the White House. And yet that was the case Wednesday after CBS reported the night before that Trump intended to sign one 'establishing national standards for the NCAA's Name, Image and Likeness program' in the coming days. What does that mean exactly? People who are generally informed on the interplay between college sports and the federal government didn't seem to know an executive order was imminent or what exactly would be in it – even folks with a direct line to Trump and who have engaged with about potential federal action that would bail college sports out of its current dysfunction. So now we wait. For something – or maybe nothing. With the Trump Administration, you can never quite tell. What we do know, however, is that the White House has, in fact, been working on something in the form of a likely executive order since Trump met with former Alabama coach Nick Saban at the school's graduation ceremony in May. Regardless of what's ultimately in it, however, coaches and administrators should resist the temptation to get excited about the possibility of Trump saving the day for a few simple, but important reasons. An executive order isn't a law. College sports and the NCAA do not operate under the purview of the executive branch of the federal government, thus any executive order compelling them to do anything would be legally questionable at best. And finally, any so-called 'fix' for college sports made with the stroke of one man's pen can be undone by the next one who occupies that office. UNWANTED TALK: Nick Saban rumor is last thing Alabama needs Sorry, college sports executives. You're going to have to actually do the work on this one. We know that's not easy, which makes the temptation to rely on Trump more tempting. It's been nearly six years since the NCAA pivoted toward begging Congress for relief from its never-ending string of lawsuits, and so far they've gotten no reward for their effort. Unless, of course, you consider it a reward to be dragged into more committee hearings to answer ridiculous, superficial questions from legislators who know as much about college sports as they do about the Finnish language. Oh sure, there's another bill on the way. And this one apparently has bipartisan support in the House. But then there's the Senate, where the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., last week called it 'the National Championship of all heists' because it is too favorable to the NCAA's interests. Remember, any bill must get 60 votes due to filibuster rules in the Senate, which means a minimum of seven Democrats will need to sign off on it. That's not going to be easy, especially if it puts hard caps on how much college athletes can earn and eliminates the potential to bargain collectively for their rights in the future. Purely from a political standpoint, I'm not sure why Senate Democrats would cooperate at all here. If a bill finally passes that fixes some issues with the NCAA, they won't get credit – because Trump will take it. And he'll play it to the hilt, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to their electoral goals heading into the midterms next year. That's just how stuff works in Washington, and both parties play that game on issues far more serious and important than the NCAA's ability to regulate the transfer portal. It's part of why the NCAA's 'let Congress fix our mess' strategy has been a complete failure thus far and may never pay off. At the end of the day, there's a lot more upside for Congress to use college sports as a political plaything than to make a law that will only impact a relatively small number of people and isn't an urgent matter of national interest. But a 'let Trump fix it' strategy could be worse, particularly right now as institutions are scrambling to implement terms of the House vs. NCAA settlement that allow athletic departments to pay their athletes directly. At the moment, the House settlement and the College Sports Commission – a regulatory body created by the power conferences to enforce the settlement rules – hold the key to how college sports will operate over the next several years. Will the CSC get sued by athletes and booster collectives whose deals get denied because they aren't considered true NIL? Of course, but they already knew that. Unless Congress quickly grants college sports some type of antitrust exemption, the CSC will have to go in front of a judge and show that it follows the law to continue having regulatory power over college athletes' paychecks. That's really the only issue worth talking about right now, regardless of what Trump may write in an executive order. And what can he possibly do anyway? Maybe he can decree that college athletes can't be made employees through some type of National Labor Relations Board policy -- but they already aren't. So unless the NCAA is going to become a federal agency, where the president would have significant legal authority to regulate it, anything in an executive order is mostly going to be performative. And anything that touches actual NCAA business like the transfer portal or limiting how athletes earn money stands on far shakier legal ground than the guardrails that were already installed through the House settlement. Regardless of which direction a president wants to take college sports – any president, for the record – the fundamental problem will not change no matter who's in the office or how many executive orders they write. By refusing to engage in a true collective bargaining effort that mimics the relationship between the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB and their respective players associations, the college sports industry left itself in a vulnerable position where any attempt to enforce its rules will face legal scrutiny. For better or worse, that's the American Way. And at this point, the focus of college sports should be long-term stability through the appropriate legal and legislative means instead of a flimsy proclamation. Colleges need to be especially careful right now. We've seen how the Trump Administration strongarms schools it has ideological disagreements with: Withholding federal grants, deporting international students, pressuring university presidents to resign. His involvement in college sports issues on behalf of the NCAA's immediate interests is going to inevitably create the appearance of long-term leverage. As frustrated as college sports executives might be with Jeffrey Kessler and other sports attorneys who keep them in court, creating space for tussles with this White House might not be the best tradeoff. Keep all that in mind when Trump issues his mysterious executive order. Because at the end of the day, only the people in charge of college sports can truly save it – no matter how much a president is itching to claim credit for doing so. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump NIL executive order shouldn't excited college leaders
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump says Coca-Cola has agreed to use real cane sugar in Coke
President Trump said Wednesday that Coca-Cola has agreed to use "REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States." Why it matters: The beverage giant has been under pressure to reduce sugar in its drinks. The company currently uses high fructose corn syrup in the original soda recipe, according to its website. What they're saying: Trump said he's been speaking with the Atlanta-based company about using cane sugar, which it does in its Mexican Coke. " I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. Zoom in: Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey told investors in April that "we continue to make progress on sugar reduction in our beverages." He noted that the company has "done this by changing recipes as well as by using our global marketing resources and distribution network to boost awareness of and interest in our ever-expanding portfolio." The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
900 DOJ attorneys urge Senate to reject Bove nomination
More than 900 former Justice Department attorneys are urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the nomination of Emil Bove for a lifetime judicial appointment. Bove, who previously served on President Trump's criminal defense team, is now in the No. 3 role at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and has been nominated for a judgeship on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The extraordinary outpouring came from attorneys from the Kennedy administration to the current Trump administration who pinpointed Bove as a key figure behind numerous firings and policy shifts, calling him a 'leader in this assault' on the Justice Department. 'Emil Bove has been an architect and enforcer of many of the attacks on DOJ and its employees,' said Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection, which organized the letter. 'His nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sent shockwaves across DOJ's workforce, and should alarm all Americans concerned about the Department's future and the survival of the rule of law.' The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider Bove's nomination Thursday, as well as that of Fox News host Jeanine Pirro to serve as a U.S. Attorney. The letter runs through a string of recent controversies in which Bove has played a role. He was central in pushing the dismissal of the bribery charges brought against New York Mayor Eric Adams, prompting a wave of resignations from members of the department's Public Integrity Section. He was behind terminations of prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases and a request to turn over a list of FBI agents who investigated riot cases. It also focuses on recent allegations from a DOJ whistleblower who said Bove told top department officials they may need to consider saying 'f— you' to judges who might block the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to send migrants to Salvadoran prison. Bove has said he couldn't recall whether he used the expletive, but told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing that he 'certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation.' 'Each one of the undersigned would testify, under oath, that we have never — and would never — tell a Justice Department attorney to consider defying a court order. Moreover, the Justice Department's later defiance of judicial mandates in the cases where Mr. Bove previewed doing so further suggests that disregarding court orders was Mr. Bove's intent all along,' the letter states. Bove's nomination looks poised to proceed, as Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), the only Republican on the panel to previously oppose a Trump nominee, has said he would follow the staff recommendation. 'We ask that before the Judiciary Committee votes on this nomination, you rigorously examine the actions Mr. Bove has taken at DOJ and the effects they've had on the Department's integrity, employees, and mission-critical work,' the attorneys wrote. 'It is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land, as it should be intolerable to anyone committed to maintaining our ordered system of justice.'
