MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Tim Burchett (R-TN)

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Tim Burchett (R-TN)

Rep. Burchett to Introduce Legislation to Codify President Trump’s Executive Orders

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Tim Burchett (R-TN)

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA-03) released the following statement after voting NO on Trump and House Republicans’ devastating budget bill:

“Today, House Republicans—at the direction of Donald Trump—conducted the biggest theft in U.S. history. Their budget reconciliation bill is the largest transfer of wealth from the country’s most vulnerable to its richest.

At a time when Trump Tariffs are already causing prices to rise, House Republicans are making the lives of millions of Americans more even more difficult by passing a bill that rips healthcare from nearly 14 million Americans who rely on Medicaid including 300,000 in my district. They are stealing school meals from over 18 million children to pay for another $150 billion to the Pentagon for wasteful and dangerous projects like mass deportation flights, the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, and boondoggles like Trump’s Golden Dome. But guess what? It doesn’t pay for itself; it would add $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” This bill does the exact opposite. The Congressional Budget Office confirms the bill will raise incomes for the wealthiest 10% of Americans while slashing incomes for the poorest 10%. It also guts Medicare, SNAP, and Head Start, cutting vital lifelines from families who are already struggling.

The fact that so many Republicans voted to actively harm their own constituents just to curry favor with Donald Trump is shameful. I’m proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues who fought tooth and nail to delay this disaster. If Democrats were in control of Congress, we would vote on raising wages and cutting costs for working Americans, not handouts to billionaire donors.”

###
 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

WASHINGTON, DC— This week, U.S. Representatives John Garamendi (D-CA-08) and Mike Thompson (D-CA-04) sent a joint letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth following reports that the Trump Administration is considering Travis Air Force Base as an immigration detention facility:

“It’s outrageous and inappropriate for the Trump Administration to use Travis Air Force Base as an immigration detention facility. Converting Travis into an immigration facility would undermine its vital national security mission. Travis Air Force Base has long been known as the ‘Gateway to the Pacific’ because it plays a crucial role in our national security by providing transportation for personnel and materiel around the world, particularly in support to Ukraine.” said the Representatives.

“Unfortunately, this is not the President’s first attempt to inappropriately utilize Travis Air Force Base, hampering its critical mission. In February we uncovered that Trump was using Travis’s military aircraft to transport undocumented individuals at three times the cost of commercial flights. Later that month, we were able to stop his attempt to send trained medical personnel to the proposed migrant detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. Now, the President wants to turn Travis into a mass deportation center. All these instances compromise our national security and are simply absurd.

“We are deeply alarmed by Trump’s blatant abuse of presidential power and his indifference to the rule of law. His utter disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly prohibits using active-duty military personnel for domestic law enforcement functions, is gravely concerning.

“We will continue Congress’s oversight role and work to ensure the American people understand the unlawful, wasteful, and dangerous path Trump is pursuing.”

This letter is the latest in a series of actions by Rep. Garamendi and Rep. Thompson to hold the Trump Administration accountable for misusing military resources in immigration enforcement.

In January, Rep. Garamendi’s office sent a letter demanding answers from the Department of Defense regarding the use of C-17s and C-130s from Travis Air Force Base to deport undocumented immigrants. 

In February, Rep. Garamendi followed up with another letter pressing the Trump Administration over plans to deploy medical professionals to a proposed migrant detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The Department of Defense recently responded to that inquiry, but Rep. Garamendi’s office found the response inadequate.

Read the full letter here and below.

Pete Hegseth
Secretary of Defense
Office of the Secretary of Defense 
1000 Defense Pentagon 
Washington, DC 20301 

Dear Secretary Hegseth, 

We are deeply frustrated and gravely concerned by recent reports regarding the proposed use of Travis Air Force Base (AFB) as a migrant detention site. In our previous correspondence, we requested detailed assessments on the impact of this plan, including its effects on military resources, infrastructure, ongoing construction projects, and overall readiness. To date, these critical details remain unclear.

While the federal government must address immigration challenges with humane and practical solutions, utilizing a military installation for civilian law enforcement and detention operations raises significant concerns about the misuse of military resources, operational readiness, and national security. The decision to use Travis AFB as a migrant detention center would both constitute a dangerous militarization of immigration enforcement and unnecessarily degrade military readiness.

Travis AFB plays a critical role in national security and is responsible for the global transportation of personnel and material. Whether providing aid to Ukraine or transporting personnel and equipment into the Pacific, Travis AFB must maintain its readiness to respond to global crises.

Additionally, military personnel’s involvement in civilian detention and law enforcement contradicts established legal frameworks, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military engagement in civilian law enforcement. Assigning resources toward immigration enforcement risks blurring this crucial distinction and setting a concerning precedent for the use of military installations for purposes beyond their intended scope.

We demand answers from the Department of Defense to the following inquiries, no later than 30 days after receipt:

1. Has the Department assessed the potential impact on Travis AFB’s infrastructure, specifically regarding water and energy, should a detention site be established at the base?
2. How will diverting space and resources for a detention center at Travis AFB impact ongoing or future operations?
3. How many migrants does the Department expect to detain at Travis AFB?
4. Does the Department plan to reassign military personnel at Travis AFB to assist in detention operations?
5. How will the Department ensure military personnel are not performing law enforcement activities at this detention center?
6. What authorized and appropriated funds are being diverted to build and maintain this detention center?

We urge you to provide full transparency on how this decision will affect Travis AFB and to reconsider any action that might compromise military readiness and interfere with ongoing or future operations.

 ###

 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-08) led a letter, along with 24 California Democratic colleagues, urging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimburse the $460 million still owed to California Hospitals for emergency expenses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During COVID-19, hospitals expanded capacity and invested in ventilators and PPE, often at the request of state or local governments. These funds from FEMA are crucial for California’s healthcare system, where nearly half of all hospitals operate at a loss.

In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in California were essential in treating patients while also maintaining their core mission of delivering healthcare services to everyone in need. However, in their response to the crisis, these hospitals faced significant financial burdens as they expanded their capacity—often at the request of state or local governments. They also invested in critical resources such as ventilators, secured substantial supplies of personal protective equipment, and hired additional clinical staff to ensure they could continue providing care to their communities.”

“However, FEMA has failed to fulfill its obligation to reimburse our healthcare systems for the care and services they delivered. Recent data shows that 260 of California’s hospitals and health systems have applied for $3.4 billion in FEMA public assistance and $2.84 billion has been obligated.1 Many of these outstanding claims date back to 2020.2 We appreciate the progress FEMA has made since November in obligating these funds and ask that the remaining funds be promptly obligated to ensure California’s hospitals can continue their vital work.”

The full text of the letter can be found here and below. 

Dear Acting Administrator Hamilton,

We respectfully request that you take immediate steps to expeditiously obligate and disburse the remaining $460 million outstanding claims for eligible expenses incurred in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic submitted by Californian hospitals and health systems.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in California were essential in treating patients while also maintaining their core mission of delivering healthcare services to everyone in need. However, in their response to the crisis, these hospitals faced significant financial burdens as they expanded their capacity—often at the request of state or local governments. They also invested in critical resources such as ventilators, secured substantial supplies of personal protective equipment, and hired additional clinical staff to ensure they could continue providing care to their communities.

However, FEMA has failed to fulfill its obligation to reimburse our healthcare systems for the care and services they delivered. Recent data shows that 260 of California’s hospitals and health systems have applied for $3.4 billion in FEMA public assistance and $2.84 billion has been obligated.

Many of these outstanding claims date back to 2020.2 We appreciate the progress FEMA has made since November in obligating these funds and ask that the remaining funds be promptly obligated to ensure California’s hospitals can continue their vital work.

California’s hospitals were critical in ensuring the health and safety of our communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the failure to deliver on the outstanding FEMA applications has left our hospitals in a precarious position. Nearly half of the state’s hospitals operate at a loss every day while providing care, and an additional 12% are only just above breaking even. Already, our communities are seeing service cuts and facility closures.

Moreover, by 2030, our hospital and health systems will face a critical inflection point as state requirements for seismic safety will go into effect. Current budget deficits, made worse by delayed FEMA payments, will only be exacerbated by the proposed decreases in federal reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid patients. This combination of factors could put California’s healthcare system, particularly for care providers in rural and low-income areas, on the brink of crisis.

It is critical to act quickly to allocate the remaining $460 million in federal reimbursements for hospitals’ costs incurred in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure that our healthcare systems receive the compensation they deserve. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish this.

The letter was co-signed by the following California members: Representative Nanette Barragán, Representative Julia Brownley, Representative Salud Carbajal, Representative Judy Chu, Representative Gilbert Cisneros, Representative Lou Correa, Representative Jim Costa, Representative Laura Friedman, Representative Robert Garcia, Representative Jimmy Gomez, Representative Jared Huffman, Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Representative Ted Lieu, Representative Doris Matsui, Representative Kevin Mullin, Representative Jimmy Panetta, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Representative Raul Ruiz, Representative Linda Sánchez, Representative Mark Takano, Representative Mike Thompson, Representative Norma Torres, Representative Juan Vargas, and Representative George Whitesides.

### 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-08) led a bicameral letter expressing concern about President Trump’s understanding of the important role the United States plays in nuclear weapons safety and nonproliferation. This letter was co-led by the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group Co-Chairs, Representative Don Beyer (D-VA-08), Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), along with Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-37), Representative Bill Foster (D-IL-11), Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07), Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN-05), Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA-02), and Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA-04).

Nuclear nonproliferation refers to efforts to deter the spread of nuclear weapons. This happens via discouraging nuclear buildups by countries that already possess nuclear weapons and by working to prevent non-nuclear states from obtaining nuclear weapons.  

A world with more nuclear weapons is a less safe world. By cutting funding for nonproliferation activities and firing professionals responsible for managing the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate it appreciates this reality.

In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “Nonproliferation is not just about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons – it also includes securing and disposing of dangerous materials, preventing radioactive materials from falling into the wrong hands, and ensuring compliance with international nuclear agreements and export controls. This work is essential to safeguarding public safety, strengthening global oversight, and preventing nuclear accidents or terrorism.”

“Nuclear proliferation is a significant threat to U.S. and global security. At this critical juncture, U.S. allies are reevaluating their non-nuclear status, driven in part by concerns that the U.S. may no longer be a reliable partner. A world with more nuclear weapons is one in which every minor conflict has the potential to cause mass casualties, and where terrorists will have more opportunities to attempt to seize nuclear materials and weapons in nuclear-armed countries. A steadfast U.S. commitment to global nuclear security is more crucial than ever.”

“Underinvestment in nuclear security threatens research and workforce development programs focused on addressing national security challenges such as uranium enrichment, weaponization by foreign actors, the risks posed by artificial intelligence to nuclear security, and technical assistance to U.S. companies developing advanced nuclear reactors.”

The letter requests the President provide answers to the following questions: 

• You have stated clearly your intention to “de-nuclearize.” Will your administration prioritize efforts to secure arms control agreements and nuclear nonproliferation?  

• Does your administration remain committed to the principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Will you sanction or otherwise condemn any country that withdraws from the treaty to pursue a nuclear weapons program? 

• Will your administration prioritize preventing uranium or other nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands? Will you commit to maintaining robust investments in global tracking and accounting for nuclear material? 

• Which specific programs will be affected by the $185 million reduction of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account? Please provide details on specific programs and the amounts their funding will be reduced.  

• How will the reduction of manpower and nonproliferation funding at NNSA impact its ability to prevent nuclear accidents or threats? 

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.  

Dear President Trump:

We write to strongly urge your administration to prioritize nuclear nonproliferation, and to express concern that recent actions suggest a lack of appreciation for the vital role of U.S. leadership in these efforts.  

Nonproliferation is not just about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons – it also includes securing and disposing of dangerous materials, preventing radioactive materials from falling into the wrong hands, and ensuring compliance with international nuclear agreements and export controls. This work is essential to safeguarding public safety, strengthening global oversight, and preventing nuclear accidents or terrorism.

Your administration’s actions have signaled an underappreciation of critical nonproliferation work. These actions include the hasty firing of over 300 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) employees overseeing the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile in February and the redirection of $185 million from the NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account in the recent full-year Continuing Resolution to the nuclear weapons activities account.  

Reports also suggest your administration has suspended two key programs that provide vital assistance to international nuclear inspectors, including those monitoring Iran’s nuclear program. There are vacancies at several high-profile arms control and nonproliferation posts across the administration. The potential for large reductions in the workforce at the Department of Energy, including NNSA experts responsible for maintaining a safe and secure nuclear weapons stockpile, are cause for further concern.

Nuclear proliferation is a significant threat to U.S. and global security. At this critical juncture, U.S. allies are reevaluating their non-nuclear status, driven in part by concerns that the U.S. may no longer be a reliable partner. A world with more nuclear weapons is one in which every minor conflict has the potential to cause mass casualties, and where terrorists will have more opportunities to attempt to seize nuclear materials and weapons in nuclear-armed countries. A steadfast U.S. commitment to global nuclear security is more crucial than ever.

The 2024 Department of Defense Report on the Nuclear Employment Strategy states that “…deterrence alone will not address strategic dangers. Arms control, risk reduction, and nuclear nonproliferation are indispensable in preserving stability, enhancing predictability, deterring aggression and escalation, reducing the consequences if deterrence fails, and mitigating the risk of nuclear arms racing and nuclear war.”

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) account at NNSA, which is being cut by $185 million, funds essential programs that protect U.S. national security. One is the Office of Global Material Security (GMS), which works globally to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear or radioactive materials for attacks on the U.S. GMS also collaborates with international partners to secure nuclear materials and combat trafficking. In addition, the DNN account funds the Office of International Nuclear Safeguards, which ensures that countries comply with International Atomic Energy Agency agreements and do not divert nuclear materials to weapons programs or pursue undeclared nuclear activities.

Underinvestment in nuclear security threatens research and workforce development programs focused on addressing national security challenges such as uranium enrichment, weaponization by foreign actors, the risks posed by artificial intelligence to nuclear security, and technical assistance to U.S. companies developing advanced nuclear reactors.  

These actions raise serious concerns about your administration’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. As such, we respectfully request prompt answers to the following questions:

• You have stated clearly your intention to “de-nuclearize.” Will your administration prioritize efforts to secure arms control agreements and nuclear nonproliferation? 

• Does your administration remain committed to the principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Will you sanction or otherwise condemn any country that withdraws from the treaty to pursue a nuclear weapons program?
•  

• Will your administration prioritize preventing uranium or other nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands? Will you commit to maintaining robust investments in global tracking and accounting for nuclear material?

• Which specific programs will be affected by the $185 million reduction of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account? Please provide details on specific programs and the amounts their funding will be reduced.  

• How will the reduction of manpower and nonproliferation funding at NNSA impact its ability to prevent nuclear accidents or threats?  

To ensure international security, the United States must invest in more than just weapons. We cannot afford to abandon our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation or the technical and policy programs that support it. Prioritizing nonproliferation strengthens deterrence, reduces the risks of nuclear accidents or intentional use, promotes international cooperation, and allows for the peaceful and responsible use of nuclear energy.  

In today’s rapidly changing global environment, the United States commitment to nonproliferation is vital. Continued investment in these efforts will advance international security, stability, and cooperation. For America to lead in creating a safer world, we must reaffirm and uphold our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

### 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (CA-18) issued the below statement following the passing of her colleague, Congressman Gerry Connolly:

“I am saddened by the passing of Ranking Member Connolly. He was a staunch advocate for our democracy and his constituents. 

“My thoughts are with his family and loved ones, and my prayers are with them to find peace and comfort during this time of mourning.”

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Representatives Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Dave Min (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-04) led 18 of their California colleagues in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson and Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) demanding tax relief for Californians. The lawmakers called for no cap on State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions in the GOP’s taxation bill. The letter was first reported by POLITICO. 

The lawmakers wrote, “As the state with the largest economy in the country and the fourth largest economy in the world, California is by far the most generous of the thirteen donor states, meaning its residents paid far more in taxes to the federal government than it received in support. According to a 2022 Rockefeller Institute of Government study, California residents paid $83 billion more in federal taxes than they received in support. This means that for every dollar our constituents pay to the federal government, they get less than 88 cents in return. Our constituents pay more than their fair share of taxes to our nation and deserve tax relief in these difficult economic times.”

The lawmakers continued, writing, “We respectfully request that you honor your commitment to states’ rights and tax relief by not imposing another painful and massive tax on California families and small businesses by creating a new SALT deduction cap.”

The SALT deduction was created at the same time as the federal income tax in 1861 and was the first and only deduction allowed at that time. The SALT deduction has always been seen as the most important tax deduction, and is rooted in the principles of preventing federal overreach into states’ rights and preventing double taxation on hardworking Americans. The SALT dedication is as essential today as it was when it was first introduced in the 19th century.

The full letter is available here. Representatives Gil Cisneros (CA-31), Lou Correa (CA-46), Jim Costa (CA-21), Laura Friedman (CA-30), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Jared Huffman (CA-2), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Norma Torres (CA-35), Derek Tran (CA-45), George Whitesides (CA-27), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Judy Chu (CA-28), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), and Mark Takano (CA-41), co-signed the letter.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif)

Monterey, CA – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) led a bipartisan group of California delegation members, including Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), demanding the restoration of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.  The Trump Administration recently announced its decision to end the BRIC program and cancel all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, a move that jeopardizes pre-disaster mitigation and infrastructure resiliency efforts in California and throughout the country.

The BRIC program was signed into law by President Trump with the 2018 Disaster Reform Act, helping fund local projects that reduce damage from flooding, tornadoes and other weather-related events.  Since its inception, the BRIC program has invested $5 billion in grants for resilient infrastructure.  Projects in the State of California include drought and earthquake mitigation projects in Kern and Tulare counties and wildfire management projects in Santa Cruz, Napa, Sonoma, and Nevada counties, all of which are still working to recover from the 2020 wildfires that were some of the deadliest and costliest wildfires in the State’s history.

“We are deeply concerned about the impact of this decision,” wrote the bipartisan coalition of Members.  “Ending the BRIC Program will result in higher costs for Americans, especially as natural disasters become more frequent and severe.  The BRIC Program allows the State of California and its many communities to shift away from reactive disaster spending and toward research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience.  We urge you to immediately reverse this decision and do all you can to support the work of this vital program.”

For every dollar spent in pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness, between $6 and $13 is saved in damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. California stands to lose over $1 billion in promised disaster resilience funding the Administration proceeds with the cancelation of the BRIC program.

Additional signers of the letter include; Reps. Pete Aguilar (CA-33), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Ami Bera (CA-06), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Judy Chu (CA-28), Gil Cisneros (CA-31),  Jim Costa (CA-21), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Vince Fong (CA-20), Laura Friedman (CA-30), John Garamendi (CA-08), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Josh Harder (CA-09), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Young Kim (CA-40), Mike Levin (CA-49), Sam Liccardo (CA-16), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Dave Min (CA-47), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Scott Peters (CA-50), Luz Rivas (CA-29), Linda Sánchez (CA-28), Brad Sherman (CA-32), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Eric Swalwell (CA-14), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Norma Torres (CA-35), Derek Tran (CA-45), David Valadao (CA-22).

Full letter can be found here and below.

Dear Secretary Noem and Mr. Richardson, 

We write with great concern regarding the decision to end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and cancel all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020- 2023. Given its impact on the State of California, which stands to lose over one billion dollars in promised resilience funding, we urge you to reconsider this decision. 

The BRIC program, established in the 2018 Disaster Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump, has distributed $5 billion in grants since its inception, driving investment in resilient infrastructure. While we understand and support the need to find efficiencies and improve the BRIC program, these grants save federal dollars and help protect our most vulnerable communities through emergency preparedness.

Projects in the State of California include drought and earthquake mitigation projects in Kern and Tulare counties and wildfire management projects in Santa Cruz, Napa, Sonoma, and Nevada counties, all of which are still working to recover from the 2020 wildfires that were some of the deadliest and costliest wildfires in the State’s history. This BRIC funding, which included a match from local homeowners, would have funded home hardening, defensible space fuels reduction, evacuation route fuel reduction, and landscape-scale fuel reduction work. We are deeply concerned about the impact of this decision. If FEMA decides to ultimately withdraw its federal investment, these counties will be forced to abandon these life- and infrastructure-saving projects. 

Moreover, pre-disaster mitigation and up-front investment saves taxpayer dollars. For every dollar spent in pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness, between $6 and $13 is saved in damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. We support the Agency’s goal of reducing the amount of federal dollars spent on disaster recovery and believe the BRIC program helps to achieve future cost reductions. Ending the BRIC Program will result in higher costs for Americans, especially as natural disasters become more frequent and severe. 

Consequently, we respectfully request responses to the following questions by June 13, 2025: 

1. How many projects in California will be impacted by this decision?
2. What is FEMA’s timeline and process for cancelling this funding?
3. In a memo, Director Hamilton noted that not all projects will be impacted if they have already commenced. What stage of project completion will allow recipients to continue to receive funding?
4. Former Director Hamilton also noted that FEMA will create a new, similar program. What are the details and timelines for the rollout of this program? 

The BRIC Program allows the State of California and its many communities to shift away from reactive disaster spending and toward research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience. We urge you to immediately reverse this decision and do all you can to support the work of this vital program.

Sincerely,

###