
Experts link Texas tragedy to deep cuts at National Weather Service
The torrential rains and sudden floods, which claimed the lives of at least 11 people—including more than two dozen girls and counselors attending a summer camp near the Guadalupe River—have led to fierce criticism of federal preparedness, particularly concerning weather forecasting capabilities.
Local officials expressed frustration over what they described as inadequate forecasts, though few directly blamed Trump's actions. However, Democrats wasted no time linking the catastrophe to deep staffing reductions at the NWS. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for an inquiry into whether these shortages contributed to what he termed a "catastrophic loss of life."
The NWS office responsible for the area had five staff members on duty during the overnight hours of July 3, which is standard for severe weather situations. According to former officials, these staffers issued urgent flash flood warnings before the river levels surged.
Brian LaMarre, a recently retired meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS Tampa office, praised the quick issuance of a "catastrophic flash flood warning," emphasizing that the alert demonstrated the meteorologists' alertness and dedication. "There is always a challenge in pinpointing extreme rainfall," LaMarre said, "but issuing that warning first shows the urgency they felt."
Still, questions remain about the level of communication between the NWS and local emergency managers during the critical hours. Under Trump's administration, staffing at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices has been cut by at least 20 percent, and some offices are no longer staffed around the clock. Many seasoned forecasters were encouraged to retire early, weakening institutional expertise across the agency.
The cuts have not stopped at the NWS. The Trump administration has proposed slashing the budget of the agency's parent organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), by 27 percent, with plans to eliminate key federal research centers that study weather, climate, and ocean patterns. The NWS office for Austin/San Antonio, which covers the flood-hit area, currently shows six of its 27 positions as vacant. One of the unfilled roles is a crucial manager responsible for coordinating emergency alerts—a position vacated in April shortly after employees were sent emails urging early retirement.
While Trump has downplayed the impact of the job cuts, claiming the floods occurred without warning and that "no one saw it," former officials disagree. Louis Uccellini, who led the NWS under three presidents, warned that the reduction in staff is pushing the system to a breaking point. "People are exhausted," he said. "They're working nights, covering extra shifts. It increases the risk that something vital in the forecast might be missed."
The staffing crisis follows executive orders issued by Trump earlier this year, allowing the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut federal staff and contracts without Congressional approval. Initially headed by billionaire Elon Musk, the department's influence persists even after his departure and public rift with Trump. The result has been chaos across many federal agencies, with tens of thousands of jobs impacted.
These changes are in line with a longstanding Republican effort to privatize much of NOAA's functions. Trump's administration has installed officials with ties to private weather firms—entities that would benefit from weakening the publicly funded forecasting system. The Project 2025 policy blueprint, which Trump distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign but has implemented since returning to office, calls for the dismantling of NOAA and a greater push toward commercialization.
The staffing shortages have already affected operations. Several field offices have reduced weather balloon launches and cut the frequency of regional forecasts. In April, the NWS abruptly ended non-English translations of forecasts and emergency warnings, though this decision was reversed after public outcry.
More alarmingly, Trump's proposed budget includes plans to close critical climate monitoring facilities, such as the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This site has been central to tracking carbon dioxide levels for decades. In another blow, NOAA recently announced that the Department of Defense will stop transmitting data from three vital weather satellites—systems experts say are crucial for forecasting hurricanes.
LaMarre warned that losing satellite data "removes another piece of the public safety puzzle." With fewer tools available, the quality and precision of weather warnings will suffer, he said.
At a Senate hearing last month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick denied any staffing cuts had occurred, calling reports of layoffs "fake news." He insisted, "We are fully staffed," and claimed public safety had not been compromised.
Yet, in response to the backlash, NOAA recently said it would seek to fill more than 100 "mission-critical" vacancies and reassign staff to plug holes at regional offices. However, those jobs have not yet been posted, and forecasters on the ground remain overstretched and under-supported.
As the Texas tragedy demonstrates, the price of weakened forecasting isn't theoretical. It's measured in lives lost and eroded public trust.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
30 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Chart of the Day 7/7/25: Will Trump Threat Break the BRICS?
President Trump is coming for the 'BRICS.' Or more accurately, countries that align with the policies of the BRICS nations. The acronym stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Representatives for those countries – and other Middle East and emerging market nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia – are currently meeting in Brazil. They slammed Trump's policies and warned against 'unjustified unilateral protectionist measures.' Trump then responded by saying he'd slap an additional 10% tariff on nations that ally with the BRICs. So far this year, though, investors have profited handsomely from targeting BRICS markets. Just look at the MoneyShow Chart of the Day. It shows the year-to-date performance of the iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI), iShares MSCI Brazil ETF (EWZ), iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA), and iShares MSCI India ETF (INDA), as well as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY). As a reminder, trading in US-listed, Russia-focused ETFs was halted due to sanctions tied to the Ukraine war. EWZ, INDA, FXI, EZA, SPY (YTD % Change) Data by YCharts You can see that even the worst-performing ETF – INDA – is up 5.9% YTD, almost even with the SPY. Meanwhile, FXI is up more than 19% while EWZ and EZA are both up more than 30%. Funds that track foreign markets are benefitting from a falling US dollar, expectations for stronger growth overseas, and relatively strong commodities markets. Only time will tell if Trump's latest threat will break the BRICS markets. But so far in 2025, they've given investors a solid portfolio foundation. Finally, if you want to get more articles and chart analysis from MoneyShow, subscribe to our Top Pros' Top Picks newsletter here.


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Is the U.S. involved in plot to remove Colombia's Petro?
Opinion The South American country of Colombia has had a long history of political violence, attempted and successful political assassinations and deeply embedded corruption. At one time, the country was known pejoratively as the 'cocaine capital of the world,' and the illicit white powder still remains a critical sector of the Colombian economy. It has also been labelled the 'murder capital of the world,' though both guerrilla and murderous paramilitary activities have subsided in recent years. Still, deadly drug cartels, a powerful military and an influential business community have all played significant roles in shaping Colombian democratic politics in the last few decades. One should also not forget the willingness of official Washington to interfere in Colombian political, economic and security affairs. Columbia's Gustavo Petro, left, celebrates with former Bogota's Mayor Antanas Mockus after winning a runoff presidential election in Bogota, Colombia, in 2022. There are questions about U.S. involvement in a recent coup attempt against Petro. So, I'm not shocked to hear about the latest episode on Colombia's precarious political situation — that is, the attempted coup d'état (supposedly involving drug cartels and armed criminal syndicates) against the country's leftist president, and former guerrilla member, Gustavo Petro. What we don't know, though, is the precise nature of the role, if there was any, of U.S. President Donald Trump's involvement in the scheme to remove Petro. According to the respected Spanish newspaper El País, it was former Colombian foreign minister Álvaro Leyva who actually plotted the overthrow of the Petro government. Evidently, audio recordings of Leyva reveal that he had sought support from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to somehow use 'international pressure' to get Petro to step aside. There are also references on the recordings that Leyva spoke with U.S. Republican Party politicians (including members of Congress from Florida) and political operatives. How close any of these individuals are to Trump's inner circle is anyone's guess — though Trump's team is in complete denial mode. It is no secret that Trump wouldn't be saddened by the abrupt removal of the left-leaning Petro. Recall that it was Petro who initially refused to accept Colombian deportees from the U.S. back in January. Of course, he quickly had a change of heart when Trump threatened to impose stiff tariffs on Colombian imports and visa restrictions on its citizens. In addition to its ideological aversion to Petro, the Trump White House has also differed sharply with the Colombian government on a wide array of policy matters (such as China, migration and Israel). But it has mostly parted company with Petro on how best to combat the drug trade in Colombia (a key supplier of cocaine to the U.S.). As for the Leyva coup plan itself, it was intended to unfold rapidly so as to replace Petro with Vice-President Francia Márquez. However, she has been quick to deny any involvement in the plot. Still, her relationship with Petro is no doubt dysfunctional (and has been for months) and thus her days in office are likely numbered. In an interview with El País, Petro said that 'Leyva has betrayed me in the worst way.' He subsequently told reporters in Spain the following: 'The scheme proposed by Álvaro Leyva is nothing but a conspiracy with drug trafficking and the far-right, apparently Colombian and American, to overthrow the President of change in Colombia.' It is important to note that Leyva was fired as Petro's foreign minister in 2024 over allegations of misconduct over a contract involving government passports. Leyva has since disparaged Petro as a polarizing figure (who refused to hire his son) and said that he had evidence that Petro had participated in erratic governmental decision-making, sought to do an end-run around the Colombian Congress and even alleged that he has a serious drug addiction. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. It is worth remembering that Colombia is slated to hold presidential elections in May 2026, which Petro is certain to seek re-election. Incidentally, all of the opposition presidential candidates have rallied around Petro and called for Leyva to come clean with his involvement in the sordid scheme. This is not the first time, though, that Petro has raised the issue of coup-plotters and his unlawful removal from power. He has been saying it from the moment that he was inaugurated in August 2022 — even claiming that he had a huge target on his back. There needs to be more light shed on what, if any, discussions took place between Leyva and members of the Trump administration. Call me a cynic, but this would not be the first time that the U.S. tried to insert itself covertly into the politics of governmental destabilization in Latin America. And it won't be the last. Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.


Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire will hear arguments Thursday on whether to certify a class-action lawsuit that would include every baby affected by President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants, is among numerous cases challenging Trump's January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, the plaintiffs are seeking to have their case certified as a class action and to block implementation of the order while litigation continues. 'Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order's myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,' lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed Tuesday. At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The Trump administration says the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. 'Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,' government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.' Legal battles continue in multiple states Several federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump's order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18. 'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview. In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge. As in New Hampshire, the plaintiff in a Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic. 'No one has to move states right this instant,' she said. 'There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.' New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. 'I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,' she wrote. 'I fear our family could be at risk of separation.' Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. 'My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,' he wrote. ___ Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.