The Bush administration’s new plan for linking anti-terrorism funding to the threat of natural disasters met with criticism yesterday from Mayor Bloomberg and a Democratic congressman who last year sought to challenge him for mayor, Anthony Weiner.

For the past four years, Mr. Bloomberg has argued that cities that are the most likely terrorist targets should be the largest recipients of Homeland Security aid. Yesterday, the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, said a “risk based” approach was the department’s goal. But at the same time, he said, the $765 million the department will distribute under the urban area security initiative this year will be linked to the threat of natural disasters, not only to the likelihood a city will be attacked by terrorists.

“I think we should keep monies for the risks of terrorism and the risks of natural disaster separate,” Mr. Bloomberg told reporters at a morning news conference in Brooklyn, soon after Mr. Chertoff made his announcement in Washington.

The mayor, who entered office less than four months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said he is certainly not opposed to federal money being directed at the threat of natural disasters.

“I don’t have a problem if they add extra money and decide how to allocate that, as long as it is done based on threat and not on pork barrel politics,” he said. “So they should come up with a standard for how you decide what cities are threatened from natural disasters. Every city potentially could have something. We plan all the time in this city. We have evacuation plans if there’s a hurricane that strikes. We certainly have plans for what to do if there is an outbreak of a contagious disease that is life-threatening. We deal with what happens if there is a natural disaster like a blackout or if there were to be a strike that takes away mass transit or something else that’s necessary. And we can make the case then as to why we deserve monies in the event of a natural disaster, but I think they are two very separate things and I think they should certainly keep them separate.”

But the new Homeland Security plan doesn’t include “extra money,” as Mr. Bloomberg put it. In fact, this year, the Bush administration will distribute $64 million less under the urban area security initiative than it did last year. The overall budget for the program will be $765 million this year, down from $855 million last year.

Mr. Weiner, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens, had even harsher words about the new Homeland Security plan.

Calling the plan “one step forward and three steps back,” Mr. Weiner said, “Not only will more cities be eligible, but now the money will be used to protect against weather and natural disasters. Homeland Security funding should protect against terrorism, not for any other purpose.”

Mr. Weiner, who is a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, criticized the Bush administration for “slashing” Homeland Security funding and complained that New York City would still have to compete with small cities including Omaha and Milwaukee for the critical money.

The New York Sun reported yesterday that Rep. Vito Fossella, a Republican of Staten Island, also opposes the idea of directing Homeland Security terrorism money to other purposes, such as natural disaster preparedness.

Mr. Fossella said: “It seems that out of left field they are now going to take that limited funding, which is already insignificant for New York, and open it up to other initiatives. I think Homeland Security should put the brakes on this thing until Congress has an opportunity to review what this is all about.”

Yesterday, Mr. Chertoff announced that under the new plan, 35 metropolitan areas – cities and the regions that surround them – would be eligible for the urban area security funds this year, but only if they show an “investment justification” that they will use the money wisely. An additional 11 areas that previously received money under the program are still eligible, but were told they may be dropped from the list next year.

“If we’re not using the money for critical capabilities, then the money is being wasted,” Mr. Chertoff said. “Now, we are being, again, common-sensical and taking a reasonably broad view of what these critical capabilities are.”

Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday that cities should be required to fill out “investment justification” applications, like those detailed by Mr. Chertoff.

“I think that’s exactly what we have been screaming for all along,” he said. “I think, for the last four years, that they should be given out based on risk, and asking cities to make their case is exactly the right direction to go.”

In a statement, Senator Schumer said he is optimistic but is reserving judgment until the money is distributed: “Before Michael Chertoff took over as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he assured us that homeland security money would go to places like New York where the need was greatest. This seems to be a good step in that direction and we applaud it. But the proof in the pudding will be when the funds are distributed to New York and other very high threat areas.”