On Monday, 191 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, signed a letter to Congress that criticized the Trump administration’s cuts to the agency. While the signatories outlined several complaints, they made specific mention of cuts to FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs.

Sara McTarnaghan, principal research associate at the Urban Institute, co-authored a paper looking at the effects of eliminating FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs, especially the Building Resilience and Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) program, which has award $4.5 billion in grants over the last few years to help cities and towns prepare for future disasters. “Marketplace” host Amy Scott spoke with McTarnaghan about the state of these programs and what comes next should they disappear. The following is a transcript of their conversation.

Amy Scott: So I gave a quick summary of this Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, but how does it work and how does it show up in communities?

Sara McTarnaghan: So most people are familiar with FEMA based on what they do after a disaster. BRIC is one of the ways that FEMA supports communities before disasters. BRIC funds can help them do things like build emergency evacuation shelters, upgrade their utility grids, projects that are really proven to not only reduce the risk of flood, fire, storms, but also to protect property, people and communities as they face these hazards.

Scott: And BRIC, I understand, isn't the only hazard mitigation program that's facing cuts. What else is at risk?

McTarnaghan: Actually, most of our hazard mitigation comes post-disaster through something called the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, or HMGP. FEMA loves its acronyms. And interestingly, that program is also a bit missing in action in 2025. HMGP grants are made through the Presidential Disaster Declaration Process, and so far this year, President Trump has not been accepting the governors' requests for HMGP. We have a lot in the pipeline, pending decisions, and some that have been flat out declined.

Scott: Right? I just saw that in Maryland, for example.

McTarnaghan: Exactly. And HMGP actually represents, like in the Gulf Coast, 75% of hazard mitigation spending. So there's been no announcement of them being formally canceled, but they have not been getting approved.

Scott: The Gulf Coast is especially vulnerable to climate disasters. [The Urban Institute] in another paper found that since [Hurricane] Katrina, every county has experienced at least three federally declared disasters, and some 10 or more. How have these programs helped communities? Do we know that they've paid off in more resilience?

McTarnaghan: It's a great question. So the basic recovery programs have been absolutely essential for bringing basic services back on board, helping people rebuild their homes and businesses. The mitigation programs like BRIC, we kind of understand their value through a slightly different lens. These programs are designed to avoid future losses. It's estimated that for every $1 invested in mitigation, between $6 and $13 are benefited, depending on the different estimates that have been out there. And I think what we see looking at the Gulf Coast is kind of a missed opportunity to have done more of this type of an investment. We looked at how climate change will impact future losses in the Gulf Coast, and they're projected to double by mid-century. But that doesn't factor in what we could protect and avoid in terms of losses through mitigation programs.

Scott: Why do you think the return on investment, you know, speaking in dollars and cents, is so good on this program? I mean, it seems like it's more expensive to rebuild than to prevent disaster in the first place, right?

McTarnaghan: What I would say is that communities, especially across the Gulf, are not experiencing this once in a decade. It's an every-other-year reality for many places. You're avoiding losses, not just for one event, but for the many that we'll face. But also it delivers kind of important social and business-level benefits that should be considered as well. Every time a disaster impacts people's ability to go to school, go to work, shop locally, it has economic effects on the community. The longer they take to get back online after disaster, the more the losses start to compound.

Scott: These cuts or attempted cuts are, you know, part of the Trump administration's goal of shrinking the federal government, shifting more responsibility for disasters to state and local governments. If BRIC goes away, can local communities pick up the slack?

McTarnaghan: It's a question everyone is asking, and I think the answer is a little bit nuanced. There are a few states that have have already had similar programs, and there's the potential that private investment could step in and take an interest in some of these programs. But historically, you know, we haven't seen those sources funding at the at the level of the need that's demonstrated. Places like Louisiana, thinking about the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, that sit on the Gulf Coast at very high risk for flooding and other storm events, but have just overall low fiscal capacity as a state. And so the question of where the money is going to come from is really challenging. BRIC in particular, due to its pre-disaster timing, has been a really unique and kind of one-of-a-kind resource for communities to get ahead of the damages and losses that they're experiencing.