Photo: public domain, FEMA. Image source (opens in a new tab).

Trump's FEMA Called Disaster Grants Wasteful. A Court Reversed the Shutdown; $2.2bn Had Awaited Decisions.

Factrail | Documented investigation | United States | 2 November 2026

SEO title: FEMA BRIC Grants: Court Reversal and $2.2bn Backlog

Meta description: A court reversed FEMA's disaster-mitigation shutdown. GAO found $2.2bn in applications awaiting decisions and a restart that rewrote the funding rules.

The finding: the government could stop a programme faster than it could explain its results

The Trump administration's FEMA announced in April 2025 that it was ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) disaster-prevention programme, calling it wasteful and ineffective. A federal judge ruled the termination unlawful in December and required practical restoration steps in March 2026. The September 24, 2026 Government Accountability Office audit establishes a narrower but consequential finding: FEMA had not used available programme performance information to decide its future, 700 previously selected subapplications associated with about $2.2 billion were awaiting final decisions as of March 2025, and the agency made no new awards or obligations from April 2025 to early March 2026. The reopened programme is not a return to the same competition. It privileges construction-ready infrastructure, lowers the maximum national award and removes dedicated planning assistance. The record establishes a decision-and-delay problem, not a proven sum of stolen funds, lost lives or profits earned by political allies.

The distinctive accountability question is not whether every proposed flood barrier or seismic retrofit deserved federal support. Some projects were immature, the approval process was slow, and taxpayers had legitimate reasons to demand evidence of value. It is whether executive officials had a documented basis for ending a congressionally financed programme, and whether reopening it after litigation restored the same practical opportunity for communities. Comparing the September 2026 GAO audit (opens in a new tab), the December 2025 court ruling (opens in a new tab) and FEMA's March 2026 restart terms (opens in a new tab) exposes three separate decisions: programme termination, court-enforced restoration and redesign of eligibility.

What the money ledger actually measures

BRIC funds preventive work before a disaster: flood protection, seismic safety, stronger buildings and other hazard-reduction measures. Congress established the statutory pre-disaster mitigation authority in the Stafford Act, subsequently revised in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act added $1 billion over five fiscal years, 2022 through 2026. This is not a private investment fund or a single $4.8 billion cheque waiting to be cashed. Federal awards pass through applications, selections, obligations and reimbursements at different times, as the Congressional Research Service chronology (opens in a new tab) explains.

The GAO reconstructed the fiscal 2020-2023 cycles using FEMA records as of March 24, 2025. Nearly $4.8 billion had been announced as available. FEMA had awarded 1,245 subgrants and allocated about $2.5 billion to them. Of that allocation, roughly $1 billion had been formally obligated, while just $62 million had been reimbursed; 37 subgrants had completed work and initiated or completed closeout. These numbers describe different legal and accounting stages. They do not mean the entire allocation had been spent or that the unspent amount had been stolen.

Another 700 subapplications had passed an initial selection but were still in the second review stage, associated with about $2.2 billion. This is the article's most important denominator: the amount was associated with pending applications, not 700 enforceable grant awards or $2.2 billion of money already owed to contractors. The applications had not received final award decisions. Across the four cycles, 3,820 subapplications requested about $16 billion, more than three times the funds offered. Demand far exceeded capacity even before the administration's intervention. The difference between 'selected for further review' and 'awarded' is central to both the litigation and the public accounting.

A documentary timeline, not a political shorthand

2018-2020: Congress expanded pre-disaster mitigation financing and FEMA launched BRIC in fiscal 2020. The design sought to reduce future disaster costs, but project readiness and review capacity would later become contentious.

April 2, 2025: The federal court's December opinion (opens in a new tab) identifies a memorandum from Cameron Hamilton, then the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator. It directed cancellation of the fiscal 2024 funding notice, no awards for previously selected but unawarded projects, and tighter control over extensions. This is unusually important evidence of the actual administrative decision-maker; a president's general policy preference should not be confused with a personally signed grant-by-grant order.

April 4 and 16, 2025: FEMA publicly announced it was ending BRIC. Its April 16 advisory (opens in a new tab) stated that the fiscal 2024 notice was canceled and described restrictions for projects without construction underway. The agency called the programme ineffective and said funds would return to the Disaster Relief Fund or Treasury. The court later recorded that FEMA had not actually terminated any awarded grants by December 2025. Announcing cancellation and legally terminating individual grant agreements are not the same event.

July-August 2025: States sued in federal district court in Massachusetts. On August 5, Judge Richard Stearns temporarily blocked spending BRIC funds for other purposes (opens in a new tab). The preliminary ruling preserved funds while the merits were litigated; it was not yet a final grant award.

December 11, 2025: Judge Stearns granted summary judgment for the states (opens in a new tab), rejecting the federal government's motion. The ruling required reversal of the programme termination. It did not order approval of each pending application. The government's position that it had not formally ended BRIC or individual grants was considered, but the court evaluated the operational effect of the memoranda and public actions.

March 6-25, 2026: After a state enforcement motion, the court ordered implementation steps, including communications and a funding notice. FEMA announced restoration on March 18 and issued a combined fiscal 2024-2025 funding opportunity on March 25 (opens in a new tab). The Oregon Department of Justice litigation tracker (opens in a new tab) records the intervening procedural orders.

September 24, 2026: GAO released its audit of the earlier cycles and the shutdown. It found no new BRIC subgrant awards or obligations from April 2025 to early March 2026, along with weaknesses in communication, review speed and performance measurement. Its historical snapshot is not a certified November 2026 live grant balance.

The power map: who could decide, who could stop the decision

Congress controls statutory authority and appropriations. FEMA, under DHS, administers competitive grants and retains discretion to assess applications, negotiate terms, and decide individual awards under applicable law. The president and DHS leadership set executive priorities, but cannot simply substitute a press release for Congress's legal framework. The district court reviewed whether agency actions crossed that boundary. States were applicants, programme intermediaries and litigants; local governments and Tribal Nations often submitted subapplications through them.

The court's opinion names Hamilton's April 2 memorandum as an operative document, and lists David Richardson and then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem among official-capacity defendants. That is evidence of institutional responsibility, not proof that Noem personally wrote the memorandum or selected any particular project's fate. The later March 2026 funding advisory was presented by Karen S. Evans, then performing FEMA administrator duties. Her public defence was that the redesign reduced bureaucracy, concentrated on infrastructure and shifted authority to states. The named officials occupied different roles at different dates. Assigning a single motive to all of them would erase that chronology.

The court supplied a veto against programme-wide termination, but not a power to make engineering designs ready, create local matching funds or award every application. FEMA still controlled technical review and the terms of the new competition. This is why a court victory and an actual completed flood-control project can remain years apart. The CRS briefing (opens in a new tab) explicitly distinguishes restoring the programme from compelling specific awards or forbidding a future replacement programme.

The audit found a second problem: the case for ending BRIC did not use its results

FEMA's 2025 announcement described BRIC as wasteful and ineffective. GAO did not conclude that every BRIC project worked. It found something more specific and verifiable: agency officials said they did not use the performance information the programme had generated when deciding its future. FEMA did not present quantitative results to the public explaining its adverse judgement. The audit also identified incomplete goals and missing annual measures.

In fiscal 2022, FEMA had a target to direct 55% of National Competition funding to designated priority projects; its own figures showed 66%. This is not proof that those projects prevented disasters or returned a particular dollar benefit. It does demonstrate that the agency possessed some programme performance evidence, including evidence of meeting an internal allocation target. In fiscal 2023, two of three goals lacked numerical targets, and FEMA did not generate performance information for two goals. The watchdog recommended consistently measuring results and using them in decisions. DHS concurred with the seven recommendations while identifying planned actions. This is an audit of both an old programme's weak measurement and a new leadership's weak use of the information already available.

The strongest disconfirming record is inside the same audit: median second-stage award reviews took seven to nine months, some applications waited much longer, and GAO described a review process with real administrative bottlenecks. The programme did need reform. But a slow process is not proof that every project lacks public value; nor does a favourable 2022 allocation metric prove an efficient disaster-loss reduction. Both facts belong in the judgement.

The redesigned $1 billion competition changed the distribution of opportunity

FEMA's March 25, 2026 notice offered $1 billion across fiscal years 2024 and 2025 combined, not $1 billion per year. It allocated $757 million to the National Competition, $112 million to state and territorial allocations, $50 million to a Tribal set-aside, $56 million to state and territorial building-code grants, and $25 million to Tribal building-code grants. The agency capped each National Competition subapplication at $20 million, down from $50 million in the 2023 round. FEMA said this would favour construction-ready projects and allow more awards. It also set a 15% maximum share for any single applicant across categories.

The changes are not simply 'more' or 'less' disaster protection. Moving $56 million from state/territorial building-code support to the National Competition changes which applications can compete for the money. Lowering the project cap may help distribute awards more widely, but can make a single large protective project harder to finance in one grant. Prioritising advanced designs may speed contracting, but it favours communities able to pay for engineering and permits before they win federal money. The result is a different access mechanism even if the programme's name survives.

FEMA also removed BRIC's non-financial direct technical assistance initiative and excluded standalone hazard-mitigation planning from the restarted competition. Previously, that support helped smaller or disadvantaged jurisdictions develop designs and applications. FEMA said ordinary regional assistance would remain and that responsibility should sit closer to state, local and Tribal governments. The International Code Council (opens in a new tab), an interested building-safety association rather than an independent evaluator, welcomed the retained $81 million in code-related categories. This is a documented policy preference, not proof of a private quid pro quo.

Named communities, visible costs, and the missing counterfactual

In Washington's February 17, 2026 enforcement announcement (opens in a new tab), Attorney General Nick Brown said roughly two dozen state BRIC projects worth more than $150 million remained in limbo. This is a state litigant's account of project exposure, not a GAO-verified total of money unlawfully withheld. The state's argument was that waiting made flood protection harder to deliver; the record does not quantify the resulting property damage attributable to delay.

In Vermont's March 6 statement (opens in a new tab), Attorney General Charity Clark identified a $127,760 federal scoping study for Lower Whetstone Brook in Brattleboro that had been cancelled. The proposed study would examine floodplain restoration in a populated downtown area. The local WCAX report (opens in a new tab) independently described the disruption. A scoping study is not a finished levee and its cancellation cannot be converted into a calculated death toll or insured loss. But it shows how withdrawing planning assistance can interrupt the pipeline before a project is construction-ready.

Wisconsin's Department of Justice (opens in a new tab) identified tornado safe rooms in Grant County and flood protection along the Kickapoo River among affected proposals. These are named prospective public beneficiaries, not verified private vendors paid from a terminated award. The wider list of potential beneficiaries includes households, local public works agencies, emergency managers, design consultants and eventual construction contractors. The available documents do not identify which private contractors would receive particular new awards, their margins, or any political donations tied to them. A legitimate beneficiary analysis must not fabricate that link.

The cost-shifting mechanism is real; its total price is not yet measured

A city waiting for a final federal decision may have to extend a permit, update engineering assumptions, find temporary financing or defer work. GAO recorded that some communities paused, withdrew or shifted applications, and officials warned of rising costs. The 11-month period without actionable headquarters guidance also left regional FEMA personnel unable to give dependable answers. These are observed administrative consequences and reported stakeholder responses. They are not a nationwide audited estimate of inflation-adjusted losses.

The redesign can shift some preparation cost upstream: if FEMA no longer funds standalone planning and rewards near-final designs, communities with in-house engineers or financing can enter the competition more readily than places without those resources. That is a mechanism-based inference, not an observed finding that the 2026 winners are wealthier or politically favoured. To test it, compare applicant income and hazard exposure, design maturity, approval rates, local match capacity and award amounts under the old and new scoring rules. Without the new award-level data, an inequality verdict would be premature.

The strongest government case, and where it stops

FEMA has a substantive defence. Taxpayers should not indefinitely reserve federal funds for projects unable to clear environmental review, permits or technical design. The 2026 notice explicitly sought faster obligations, fewer phased projects, clearer infrastructure outcomes and more state authority. The March 25 official advisory (opens in a new tab) is the primary record of that argument. Reuters (opens in a new tab) and Associated Press (opens in a new tab) reported the restart and legal background from independent newsrooms.

The limit is evidence. A redesigned application rubric is not yet proof of faster construction, better geographic fairness or lower disaster losses. Equally, the prior programme's slow disbursements and incomplete metrics are genuine defects, not just excuses. The court found the administration's termination unlawful; it did not judicially endorse every old BRIC criterion. The most defensible conclusion is therefore mixed: the administration had a plausible administrative reform objective, pursued an unlawful programme shutdown, and then reopened BRIC with material changes whose comparative outcomes require measurement.

Who gains, who pays, and who can veto

Direct, documented beneficiaries of restoring the programme: eligible states, local governments and Tribal Nations regain an application channel, while some existing subrecipients can continue work under their actual grant terms. Prospective beneficiaries of the new scoring system: projects with mature designs and construction readiness, and potentially more smaller projects under the $20 million national cap. Potentially disadvantaged applicants: communities needing early-stage planning or dedicated technical assistance. Those latter categories are reasoned effects of rule design, not a proven distribution of awards.

Who bears risk: residents and businesses exposed to natural hazards; local governments paying to maintain plans and permits; federal taxpayers who may face later recovery spending; and applicants whose project costs change during review. Who controls the next decisions: FEMA programme managers and regional reviewers for individual awards, DHS for policy oversight, Congress for statutory funding and oversight, courts for compliance with their orders, and states for project sponsorship and local matching commitments. None of this establishes an illicit transfer to a named donor or construction company.

The distinction matters because the public can see several very large numbers but cannot add them into a single loss. The $4.8 billion is historical availability; $2.5 billion is allocation to awarded subgrants; about $1 billion is obligation; $62 million is reimbursement; $2.2 billion is associated with pending applications; the 2026 $1 billion is a different combined funding opportunity. Treating all six as payments, cancellations or benefits would manufacture a scandal the ledger does not support.

What would change the conclusion

The decisive missing evidence is a current, project-level reconciliation: each fiscal 2020-2023 selected application, its legal award status, obligated and reimbursed amount, extensions, withdrawal, phase-two decision, and any replacement financing; plus all fiscal 2024-2025 applicants and eventual awards under the revised rules. That would reveal how much of the backlog was genuinely cleared, how much was abandoned, and whether smaller and higher-risk communities lost ground. FEMA should also publish before-and-after review times, construction completions, avoided-loss estimates with methodology, and reasons for adverse decisions. Congress can request these records; the court can enforce its own orders, but it does not serve as a grant programme manager.

GAO's interviews covered a non-generalisable selection of six states and six communities. The report's accounting is stronger than any claim about nationwide household losses, but its qualitative examples are not a representative impact survey. This article did not obtain non-public FEMA correspondence, individual contractor payment ledgers, the current post-September 2026 award database, or direct responses from Hamilton, Noem, Evans or affected local governments. It makes no claim that such outreach occurred. There is no established bribery, personal enrichment or finding of criminal conduct in the documents reviewed.

Factrail's documentary conclusion

The important new connection is between the decision author, the legal veto, the unspent-money accounting and the redesigned competition. The April 2 Hamilton memorandum and April 4 announcement show an executive decision to stop a funding mechanism; the December judgement shows that the administration could not lawfully end it that way; the March enforcement and new notice show how it resumed; and GAO's September audit shows that the agency had not used its own programme results in the termination decision while billions remained at different stages of review. Reopening the door did not guarantee the same applicants would be able to walk through it.

The appropriate accountability test is not a slogan about climate policy or bureaucracy. It is a transparent ledger of what was promised, legally awarded, paid, delayed, redesigned and completed, and a measurable comparison of who can now obtain preventive protection before the next flood, fire or earthquake.

Documentary sources and independent reporting

• GAO-26-107774, FEMA: Billions in BRIC Subgrants Remain Unawarded, 24 September 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• U.S. District Court, Washington v. FEMA, summary judgment memorandum, 11 December 2025 (opens in a new tab)
• U.S. District Court, preliminary injunction, 5 August 2025 (opens in a new tab)
• Congressional Research Service, BRIC recent developments, 10 March 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• FEMA, April 16, 2025 programme-ending advisory (opens in a new tab)
• FEMA, March 25, 2026 $1 billion funding advisory (opens in a new tab)
• Oregon Department of Justice, BRIC litigation chronology (opens in a new tab)
• Washington Attorney General, February 17, 2026 enforcement request (opens in a new tab)
• Vermont Attorney General, March 6, 2026 order and Brattleboro example (opens in a new tab)
• Wisconsin Department of Justice, BRIC enforcement and local projects, March 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• Reuters, FEMA resumes BRIC, March 26, 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• Associated Press, FEMA restart and redesigned eligibility, March 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• International Code Council, response to BRIC restart, March 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• WCAX, Vermont project funding after court ruling, December 11, 2025 (opens in a new tab)

Related Factrail context

For broader background on the institutions and policy issues, consult donald-trump (opens in a new tab), white-house, and household purchasing power (opens in a new tab). These background references do not prove direct responsibility for the transactions discussed above.