In December 2024, state and local governments across the nation were allocated disaster recovery funds to help address the impact of extreme weather on affordable housing, local economies, and public infrastructure.
These funds, known as Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) flow through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and have the extraordinary potential to re-shape communities for the better. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is already undermining this valuable investment program.
Influencing recovery
Positive recovery outcomes aren’t guaranteed, especially given the growing politicization of disaster recovery. One counter to that politicization, which can delay or divert funds from reaching the most impacted communities, is robust local attention to recovery programs from design to implementation. A recent memo from the Trump administration both clarified points of confusion and rescinded previous guidance to state and local governments that was influenced by years of advocacy from disaster survivors.
Right now, state and local governments, referred to as grantees, are in the process of submitting draft recovery plans to the federal government for initial approval. I’ve previously written about principles these plans should embody. Once plans are approved by HUD, state and local governments must hold a public comment period. The exact dates of public comment will vary by each grantee, but this is a crucial opportunity in the disaster recovery process to shape programs and build community with other disaster survivors.
We’ve compiled a spreadsheet that lists the amounts allocated to each grantee and links either to the initial plan for spending CDBG-DR funds or to the grantee website for disaster recovery. Most of the public comment periods are still open and last week’s memo floated the possibility of an extension of the current timeline.
We encourage residents in impacted communities to engage in the public comment process to shape recovery plans and demonstrate the urgency of advancing resilience. Once public comment periods have closed, feedback is considered for incorporation for a final plan that is submitted to HUD for approval before programs are stood up and long-awaited funds begin to flow. Recent executive orders—and the agency’s insistence that state and local governments abide by them—are complicating an already complex process.
Disaster recovery and executive orders
A week before the memo that rescinded Biden-era guidance to grantees, HUD Secretary Scott Turner rejected the City of Asheville’s initial plan for spending Hurricane Helene recovery dollars on the grounds that the plan’s mention of supporting minority and women-owned businesses in economic recovery efforts contradicted President Trump’s executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Asheville, which has a 15-million-dollar revenue shortfall after Helene, has since amended its plan.
Cities and states trying to help residents and local economies recover shouldn’t have to spend precious time balancing recovery needs against legally spurious executive orders to access critical funds. As plans are submitted, we’re tracking both how they address housing and infrastructure needs and the potential for politically motivated interference in the recovery programs.
In addition to the anti-DEI executive order, HUD is also requiring compliance with the executive order on English as the Official Language of the United States. Depending on how state and local governments choose to interpret this guidance—recovery may be placed further out of reach for non-English speakers. Ignoring equity in disaster recovery is costly and deadly.
It’s important to remember that many of the Trump administration’s executive orders conflict with federal law and the constitution. The prevailing wisdom of the courts, and the reason for this administration’s rebukes by the judiciary, is that federal laws passed by Congress and approved by the executive branch supersede executive orders.
These recovery funds are allocated for six years, survivors engaging with the CDBG-DR process should keep in mind that disaster recovery is a long process. Survivors from places as different as Texas, New Jersey, and Hawaii have demonstrated the power of residents to shape state, local and national recovery processes.
As authoritarianism ramps up, we should expect that everything from formal processes like public comment on disaster to recovery to direct action to come with risk. But as anyone on the climate frontlines can tell you, storms and fires are continuing no matter the political whims—a fact that makes getting recovery and mitigation right even more important.