Washington, October 15 — The story begins with a promise: that preventing disasters saves money, lives, and heartache. At its heart was the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, known as BRIC, launched by FEMA in 2020 after congressional authorization in 2018. Designed to fund projects like flood walls, stronger buildings, and safe rooms before disaster struck, the program aimed to shift federal focus from reaction to preparation.
Over its initial years, FEMA allocated approximately $4.8 billion to support community resilience efforts across the country. What unfolded, however, was a slow erosion of momentum.
By the time FEMA announced in 2025 that the BRIC program would end, only about half of the allocated funds had been awarded, and minimal amounts had reached local communities. An 11-month period of minimal communication followed, leaving states and towns in limbo. Some communities halted or abandoned projects already underway, leading to increased costs as delays piled up.
Though the program was later reinstated, it returned from a weakened position, its early promise dulled by lost time and eroded trust. The delays were not accidental.
A Government Accountability Office review found systemic bottlenecks in grant processing, particularly in environmental and historical preservation reviews, engineering assessments, and intergovernmental compliance. These steps often took seven to 11 months to complete. Chris Currie, a director for homeland security and justice at the GAO, noted that while the program’s novelty contributed to slow adoption, the core issue was the lengthy and complex approval process — a challenge consistent with problems seen in post-disaster FEMA projects.
Conflicting requirements across federal, state, and local levels created bureaucratic hurdles that stalled progress even when communities were ready to act. Despite these challenges, demand remained strong. Over $16 billion in funding requests came from communities nationwide, spanning both red and blue states, showing broad interest in mitigation efforts.
Yet in early 2025, amid broader federal efforts to cut spending, the BRIC program faced cancellation — a decision made without substantial data to support it. The resulting lack of communication disrupted local planning and eroded trust among officials who had invested time and hope in the initiative.
Now, as the program operates from a diminished stance, the experience underscores a difficult truth: even when the idea that prevention saves money is widely accepted, turning that principle into action requires more than good intent. It demands streamlined processes, reliable funding, and consistent communication. What follows will be watched closely — whether the reinstated BRIC can regain momentum, or whether another cycle of delay and disappointment will shape the future of federal resilience efforts.
