Trump visits Texas flood zone as damage tests his pledge to dismantle US disaster relief agency
The Trump administration isn't backing away from its pledges to shutter the Federal Emergency Management Agency and return disaster response to the states. But since the July 4 disaster, which has killed at least 120 people, the president and his top aides have focused on the once-in-a-lifetime nature of what occurred and the human tragedy involved rather than the government-slashing crusade that's been popular with Trump's core supporters.
'Nobody ever saw a thing like this coming,' Trump told NBC News on Thursday, adding, 'This is a once-in-every-200-year deal.' He's also suggested he'd have been ready to visit Texas within hours but didn't want to burden authorities still searching for the more than 170 people who are still missing.
Trump's shift in focus underscores how tragedy can complicate political calculations, even though Trump has made slashing the federal workforce and charging ally-turned-antagonist Elon Musk with dramatically shrinking the size of government centerpieces of his administration's opening months.
The president is expected to do an aerial tour of some of the hard-hit areas.
The White House also says he'll visit the state emergency operations center to meet with first responders and relatives of flood victims. Trump will also get a briefing from officials. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz are joining the visit, with the GOP senators expected to fly to their state with Trump aboard Air Force One.
It's relatively common for presidents visiting disaster sites to tour the damage by air, a move that can ease the logistical burdens on authorities on the ground.
Trump's predecessor, president Joe Biden, observed the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina and Hurricane Milton in Florida last fall by air before meeting with disaster response officials and victims on the ground.
Trump, though, has also used past disaster response efforts to launch political attacks. While still a candidate trying to win back the presidency, Trump made his own visit to North Carolina after Helene last year and accused the Biden administration of blocking disaster aid to victims in Republican-heavy areas.
First lady Melania Trump will accompany the president Friday, marking the second time this term that she has joined her husband to tour a natural disaster site.
During his first weekend back in the White House, Trump again visited North Carolina to scope out Helene damage and toured the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles. But he also used those trips to sharply criticise the Biden administration and California officials.
Trump has promised repeatedly – and as recently as last month – to begin 'phasing out' FEMA and bring disaster response management 'down to the state level'.
During Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, Trump didn't mention those plans and instead praised the federal flooding response. Turning to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department oversees FEMA, he said, 'You had people there as fast as anybody's ever seen.'
Pressed this week on whether the White House will continue to work to shutter FEMA, press secretary Karoline Leavitt wouldn't say.
'The president wants to ensure American citizens always have what they need during times of need,' Leavitt said. 'Whether that assistance comes from states or the federal government, that is a policy discussion that will continue.'
Before Trump left on Friday, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, similarly dodged questions from reporters at the the White House about FEMA's future – instead noting that the agency has billions of dollars in its reserves 'to continue to pay for necessary expenses' and that the president has promised Texas, 'Anything it needs, it will get."
'We also want FEMA to be reformed,' Vought added. 'The president is going to continue to be asking tough questions of all of us agencies, no different than any other opportunity to have better government.'
While the focus is on FEMA at the federal level, meanwhile, local officials have come under mounting scrutiny over how much they were prepared and how quickly they acted. But not everyone affected has been quick to point fingers.
Darrin Potter, a Kerr County, Texas, resident for 25 years who saw ankle-high flooding in his home and said he knew people killed, said, 'As far as early warnings, I'm sure they can improve on that."
But he said all the talk about evacuating was missing something important. The area where a wall of water ripped through was a two-lane road, he said.
'If you would have evacuated at 5 in the morning, all of those people would have been washed away on this road," he said.
During the Cabinet meeting, Noem described traveling to Texas and seeing heartbreaking scenes, including around Camp Mystic, the century-old all-girls Christian summer camp where at least 27 people were killed.
'The parents that were looking for their children and picking up their daughter's stuffed animals out of the mud and finding their daughter's shoe that might be laying in the cabin," she said.
Noem said that 'just hugging and comforting people matters a lot' and 'this is a time for all of us in this country to remember that we were created to serve each other'.
But the secretary is also co-chairing a FEMA review council charged with submitting suggestions for how to overhaul the agency in coming months.
'We as a federal government don't manage these disasters. The state does,' Noem told Trump on Tuesday.
She also referenced the administration's government-reducing efforts, saying: 'We're cutting through the paperwork of the old FEMA. Streamlining it, much like your vision of how FEMA should operate.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LBCI
5 hours ago
- LBCI
US envoy Tom Barrack clarifies Syria remarks: Not a threat to Lebanon, but a vision for coexistence
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack sought to clarify his recent remarks on Syria, stating they were intended to highlight Damascus' rapid progress—not to suggest any threat toward neighboring Lebanon. 'My comments yesterday praised Syria's impressive strides, not a threat to Lebanon,' Barrack said in a post on X on Saturday. 'I observed the reality that Syria is moving at light speed to seize the historic opportunity presented by President Trump's lifting of sanctions.' Barrack pointed to signs of Syria's reintegration in the region, citing investment from Turkey and Gulf countries, renewed diplomatic outreach, and what he described as 'a clear vision for the future.' Amid speculation over potential Syrian pressure on Lebanon, Barrack stressed that Damascus' intentions are rooted in regional partnership. 'I can assure that Syria's leaders only want coexistence and mutual prosperity with Lebanon,' he said. 'The United States is committed to supporting that relationship between two equal and sovereign neighbors enjoying peace and prosperity.'
MTV Lebanon
10 hours ago
- MTV Lebanon
More than 1,000 people laid off at US State Department
More than 1,000 employees of the US State Department have been laid off as part of the Trump administration's efforts to reduce its federal workforce. The involuntary staff reductions included 1,107 civil service and 246 foreign service employees, according to a notice sent to State Department employees on Friday and obtained by CBS News, the BBC's US news partner. More than 1,500 other State Department employees took voluntary departures earlier this year as part of the federal government's massive reorganisation effort. Critics have argued the mass cuts will affect the work the department does. CBS News reported that nearly all civil service officers in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration's office of admissions - a programme that resettles refugees in the US - were cut. Individuals who worked for the State Department's Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) office were also among the cuts. Videos shared on social media show civil service members in the lobby of the department, leaving the building with their belongings. Other employees are seen applauding former colleagues and hugging one another. Outside the building protesters gathered with signs that read "Thank you to Americas diplomats" and "We all deserve better". "It's not a consequence of trying to get rid of people," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said while in Malaysia on Thursday. "But if you close the bureau, you don't need those positions. Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people." Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a statement saying the "decision to fire hundreds of members of the Civil Service and Foreign Service at the Department of State undermines our national security". "While there are targeted reforms that our government can pursue to maximize the impact of every tax dollar, that's not what this is," the senators wrote. "Blanket and indiscriminate cuts - the legacy from Elon Musk's failed DOGE effort - weaken our government's ability to deliver for the American people in a cost-effective manner." The layoffs come just days after the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's plan to slash the sized of the federal workforce could move forward. Earlier this year, in a letter notifying Congress of the department's intention to reduce its workforce by 18% through voluntary departures and layoff, the department said it had more than 18,700 US-based employees. The cuts to the workforce originate from a campaign promise from President Donald Trump cut government spending. Earlier this month, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) officially closed its doors, at the directive of the Trump administration. More than 80% of all the agency's programmes were cancelled as of March, and on 1 July the remainder were formally absorbed by the state department.
Ya Libnan
10 hours ago
- Ya Libnan
Lebanon's Moment of Truth
A person holds a sign with the Arabic slogan 'we will not relinquish arms' as Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah supporters take part in a ceremony during the peak of Ashura, in Beirut's southern suburbs on 6 July 2025. Photo by ANWAR AMRO/AFP via Getty Images. The Lebanese government must stop shirking its responsibilities and push Hezbollah to disarm – taking advantage of the historic momentum in the region. By Bilal Y. Saab . Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Program On 19 June, President Donald Trump's Special Envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack delivered a US proposal to Lebanese officials, calling for the Lebanese state to disarm Hezbollah. Until last year, such a goal was unthinkable. But with Hezbollah badly mauled following its war with Israel, which destroyed much of its military infrastructure and decapitated its leadership, the United States sees an opportunity to work with Lebanon's government to remove a long-standing threat to Lebanon's internal stability. The deal is simple: in return for Hezbollah's disarmament, Israel would end its periodic attacks against the group, withdraw from the five Lebanese hilltops it occupied after the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and release Lebanese prisoners held in Israel. In addition, Washington would help reconstruct southern Lebanon and reboot the country's debt-stricken economy. The Lebanese government emphasized in its response that the Lebanese state is committed to regaining its monopoly over the use of force (a clause that has been in the Lebanese constitution for decades). But the government also said that further progress on Hezbollah's disarmament requires Israel first to withdraw from all Lebanese territory and halt what it calls violations of Lebanese sovereignty. Surprisingly, Barrack said he was 'unbelievably satisfied' with this response. Lebanese officials were expecting an uncompromising US position, believing that the Trump administration was losing patience with Beirut for its slow progress on disarming Hezbollah. Barrak was criticized by several White House officials for making such a statement Despite this positive US feedback, there is still a considerable gap between the Lebanese and US positions. Although Lebanese officials are almost certainly relieved, they have hardly any reason to celebrate or think that the Trump administration has suddenly softened its position as evident from comments made by the White officials which triggered Barrak to warn Lebanon over the urgency of resolving the issue of Hezbollah arms when he stated today in an interview that Lebanon faces an existential threat if the issue is not quickly resolved The gap between Washington and Beirut's positions is also not limited to sequencing. The more fundamental problem is Hezbollah's rigid attitude towards its weapons. Even though the Iran-backed group relinquished some of its weapons to the Lebanese army in the area south of the Litani River, it refuses to give up the rest. And its remaining arsenal is considerable , including armed drones and long-range precision-guided missiles stored north of the Litani, in the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs of Beirut. Hezbollah's game plan is to cooperate minimally on disarmament to contain what it hopes is temporary international pressure, while gradually rebounding and staying deliberately vague about the future of its weapons. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah leader since only October 2024 and who fled to Tehran reiterated the group's position in a video speech last weekend before thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut's southern suburbs. He also rejected any notion of potential Lebanese normalization with Israel, implying that his group, not the Lebanese state, still calls the shots on issues of war and peace. Weapons have been integral to Hezbollah's existence since it emerged in the early 1980s. To give them up would be tantamount to throwing in the towel, which is foreign to the group's philosophy of struggle and martyrdom. Hezbollah would rather fight to the end than declare it is surrendering to Israel and the United States , its eternal enemies. It knows that without its guns – which it has directed several times against fellow Lebanese – it would lose most, if not all, its political clout and its appeal among its Shia base. It is highly unlikely to transition to a 'normal' political party. Although it held much of its ground in May's municipal elections , this was under the banner of armed resistance. There are also indications its support may be failing in southern Lebanon . It is therefore unclear whether an unarmed Hezbollah could compete effectively in free elections, within Lebanon's complex political system. Hezbollah's game plan is to cooperate minimally on disarmament to contain what it hopes is temporary international pressure, while gradually rebounding and staying deliberately vague about the future of its weapons. Qassem, like his predecessor Hassan Nasrallah whom Israel killed in September of last year, has tied the weapons issue to a national dialogue, which has been tried before but gone nowhere (a negotiation cannot take place with one side pointing a gun at the other's head). Hezbollah's stance is the reason why the Lebanese government's response to the US proposal lacks any formal or legal commitment to fully disarm the group or a timetable for doing so. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, both reformist leaders with the best of intentions, have voiced two main concerns. First, forcing Hezbollah to completely disarm, especially before Israel stops its attacks and withdraws completely from southern Lebanon, could lead to domestic sectarian conflict. Second, until there is strategic clarity on the unstable relationship between Iran and the United States, making a move on Hezbollah without top cover from Washington is fraught with risks. The first concern is overstated and short-sighted. Aoun and Salam must recognize that the chances of sectarian tensions are higher with the status quo unchanged. Indeed, if nothing is done to seriously address the issue of Hezbollah's arms, Israel will likely strike again and cause more physical damage and human casualties. If that happens, war-weary and economically dispossessed Lebanese could blame Hezbollah for causing even more death and destruction. This would in turn increase the risk of sectarian violence and people taking up arms against Hezbollah and its supporters. What Aoun and Salam should worry about is…the risk that the US loses interest in Lebanon and the country misses the train of peace and prosperity in the region. The second concern is irrelevant. Whether the United States goes to war with Iran to fully destroy its nuclear program or reaches a diplomatic settlement, it does not change Lebanon's own obligations to disarm Hezbollah. For decades, Lebanese officials have linked issues of holistic domestic reform with changes in the international environment. This shirking of responsibilities has led to nothing but national ruin. Taking full responsibility is the only way forward. What Aoun and Salam should worry about is not US backroom dealing or fighting with Tehran but rather the risk that the US loses interest in Lebanon and the country misses the train of peace and prosperity in the region. 'If you don't want change, it's no problem', Barrack said bluntly . 'The rest of the region is moving at high speed'. For Lebanon, the choice should be clear. CHATAM HOUSE
