Following intense flooding in Texas last week, 20 attorneys general are suing the Trump administration for its elimination of a key grant program under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.). The lawsuit, filed in Boston, Massachusetts, claims that the administration’s cancellation of the program overreached executive powers by dismantling a crucial program without approval from Congress. The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (B.R.I.C.) program was created to aid states and communities in funding local projects that protect against natural disasters. Among other concerns, the lawsuit additionally questions the legality of Trump’s pick for F.E.M.A. administrator and the new rule that requires states to aid immigration efforts if they wish to receive more F.E.M.A. aid.

Following supposedly slow relief efforts in Texas reported by some F.E.M.A. officials, states are worried about the impact federal funding cuts may have on their ability to handle a similar natural disaster in their region. While bigger states may have the ability to fund disaster relief efforts, not all states are capable of such funding. Among the attorneys general in the lawsuit, the Attorney General of Massachusetts has made her concerns clear by stating, “In the wake of devastating flooding in Texas and other states, it’s clear just how critical federal resources are in helping states prepare for and respond to natural disasters.” She continues, “By abruptly and unlawfully shutting down the B.R.I.C. program, this administration is abandoning states and local communities that rely on federal funding to protect their residents and, in the event of disaster, save lives.” According to Politico, the Attorney General of California has similar distaste for the decision, saying, “President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding.” The attitude among these leaders is desperate as they express concern that Trump has stripped away an essential resource to states in need of funding for weather-related incidents.

Since Trump took office, there has been a renewed attitude within his administration to decrease the federal government’s hand in disaster relief. Trump has even toyed with the idea of dismantling F.E.M.A. as a whole, which he has walked back on after the Texas flooding, and now insists on reform rather than dismantlement. While the desire to give more power to the states seems admirable, states need the federal government to deal with emergencies beyond their financial means. If smaller states no longer have grants available for mitigation projects through programs like B.R.I.C., the risk that they will not be able to handle future disasters is high. Disaster mitigation is crucial as it decreases the impact of natural disasters before they occur. Moreover, the administration’s overreach is interpreted as an assault on the legislative branch’s power since Trump has repealed an institution that Congress created without its approval. The executive decision to cancel B.R.I.C. did not go through the proper channels and creates concern for the current state of the U.S. balance of power. If the current administration does not want to alienate the very thing this country was founded upon — the people — it must not make decisions that ignore their concerns and jeopardize the current system of checks and balances.

B.R.I.C. was created in 2018 by Congress through the Disaster Recovery Act of 2018 to support local governments in reducing risk from disasters and replaced another F.E.M.A. program called the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. According to F.E.M.A.’s website, the program “supports states, local and territorial governments, and Tribal Nations as they work to reduce their hazard risk.” The program was cancelled in April, along with any applications for grants from 2020 to 2023, meaning any projects already in progress would be put to a halt. The administration called the program “wasteful and ineffective,” as well as over-politicized.

Ultimately, the program’s cancellation will be felt in the coming years as an increasing number of local communities and states face more natural disasters due to a warming climate. The decision to cut the program will be challenged in court, and only time will tell whether the courts decide to rule in favor of the states that filed the lawsuit or the administration that caused the program’s demise.