Loss of FEMA program spells disaster for communities and their projects

Apnews - Apr 28th, 2025

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has eliminated the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which was set to provide $4 million to Mount Pleasant, North Carolina, for infrastructure projects aimed at boosting the town's economy and disaster preparedness. This decision affects hundreds of communities across the U.S., like Mount Pleasant, which had planned to use these funds to improve stormwater systems and secure electrical lines. Many of the affected areas are in Republican-leaning, disaster-prone regions, leading to widespread concern among local officials and residents who viewed the program as essential for safeguarding lives and economies.

The cancellation of BRIC, which was created during President Trump's first term, has sparked a significant backlash, particularly in states that were set to receive substantial funding for crucial infrastructure projects. The program's termination returns more than $3.6 billion to the federal Disaster Relief Fund, with some funds also being redirected to the U.S. Treasury. This move has prompted lawsuits from states seeking the release of obligated funds, and calls from politicians like Senator Bill Cassidy for the program's reinstatement. The impact of this decision is felt nationwide, with communities facing increased financial burdens to fund necessary disaster-preparation projects independently.

Donald Trump Climate Change Federal Funding Fema Bill Cassidy Infrastructure Projects Bric Program Mount Pleasant Disaster Resilience

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the impacts of FEMA's decision to terminate the BRIC program, highlighting the significant consequences for various communities across the United States. It is timely and relevant, engaging readers with personal stories and bipartisan perspectives. However, it could improve in areas of transparency and source quality by providing more detailed attribution and methodology. Overall, the article effectively raises awareness of an important issue, although it might benefit from more in-depth analysis of potential solutions or alternative funding options.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the termination of FEMA's BRIC program and the subsequent impact on communities like Mount Pleasant, North Carolina. The claim that FEMA revoked upwards of $3.6 billion in funding is consistent with FEMA's announcement, although the exact amount of funding and the specific impacts on each community require further verification. The article does well to include quotes from local officials affected by the funding cuts, providing a truthful account of their perspectives. However, some figures, such as the exact amount of funding lost by specific states like Louisiana and Oregon, need additional source confirmation to ensure precision.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from both Republican and Democratic officials, as well as affected community members. It highlights the bipartisan nature of the criticism against FEMA's decision, mentioning both Republican and Democratic voices. However, it could enhance balance by including more details from FEMA's perspective beyond labeling the BRIC program as 'wasteful' and 'politicized.' The article does well to avoid overt favoritism towards any political party or group, providing a fair representation of the various stakeholders involved.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the issue of the BRIC program's termination and its impacts. It uses straightforward language and effectively communicates the urgency and significance of the funding cuts. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations about the BRIC program's purpose and history could improve comprehension for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, such as direct quotes from local officials, U.S. senators, and representatives. However, it would benefit from more explicit attribution to official FEMA statements or documents to substantiate claims about the program's termination and the redistribution of funds. Additionally, while it mentions a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the article does not provide direct access or specific references to this study, which slightly undermines the reliability of that claim.

Transparency

The article provides a clear narrative about the impacts of the BRIC program's termination but lacks transparency regarding the methodology behind some of its claims, such as the calculation of the $3.6 billion figure. It also does not disclose potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting. The inclusion of more detailed sourcing and methodology would enhance transparency and allow readers to better assess the basis of the claims presented.