Ex-Biden official scolds Trump on climate change after Texas floods
"First of all, I just want to say how heartbreaking this is for any parent to imagine this kind of a horrible thing happening to their child. And I hope that this will mean that the president will stop mocking climate change as an existential threat," Medina said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday.
Medina, wife of Biden's former chief of staff Ron Klain, served as the State Department's first Special Envoy for Biodiversity and Water Resources.
"Because for those hundred souls, it was an existential threat, and it is an existential threat for Americans all across the country. It's touching everyone," Medina continued.
"What I take away from this is that it was preventable. There are things that we can do. I know sometimes we feel powerless in the face of climate change, but we know that weather is getting more and more extreme," she said.
Medina said that the particular part of Texas that was flooded was called "flash flood alley."
"We had the ability to make small changes to be able to prevent something like this," Medina said. "NOAA weather radio. It's something that's available, and you can buy it in stores, and it will warn you in the middle of the night, you don't have to have a siren system if you don't have one in place, and it may take a while before Texas decides to put one in place."
Prior to her State Department job, Medina was a Georgetown University professor and co-founder of Our Daily Planet, "an e-newsletter on conservation and the environment," the Biden White House said at the time.
Medina backed the Green New Deal in 2019, writing in a Huffington Post column, "The Green New Deal is a unifying political message that gets back to the basics of creating an economy that works for all people and protects the planet as a result."
Medina said weather services were stretched to the breaking point during her appearance on "Morning Joe."
Over 100 people, including children and counselors at a girls' camp, were killed in central Texas in flash flooding that began early on the morning of the Fourth of July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tariff case pits Cato Institute against Trump over ‘unlimited' executive power under emergency law
The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump's use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution's separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended."This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants," Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an interview with Fox News Digital. "There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn't offered one."TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PREVAILS AS APPEALS COURT PAUSES LOWER COURT DECISION BLOCKING CONTESTED TARIFFS "Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China," he said. "And the president's lawyers couldn't offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there's no real cap, and that's a problem."Cato's brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president's statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president's use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. "They couldn't articulate a cap," he said. "There's nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That's a job for Congress."The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America's trade vulnerabilities qualify. "There are real emergencies, no one disputes that," Skorup said. "But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers."Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. "It's a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way," he said, adding that's why courts should "step in and draw the line." For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly. Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a "matter of survival" when tariff rates change unexpectedly. "V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can't get products to their distributors as planned," he said. "And that's true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don't have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight." If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight."It would bless Congress' ability to hand over immense economic power to the president," he said. "That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect."A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year. The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
an hour ago
What would it take for Elon Musk to create a new political party in America?
On the heels of the Fourth of July -- and amid his feud with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over the president's tax policy bill -- tech billionaire Elon Musk announced plans for a brand new political party, dubbed "America Party," to represent what he called "the 80% in the middle." Musk, who recently left his temporary government post as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, told his X followers that his new party will "give you back your freedom." In a series of posts over the weekend, Musk said his party would use "extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield" to target "2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts," which he believes "would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." So what would it take for Musk to launch his third-party effort? Here's an overview. Getting on the ballot To start, Musk would have to get his party on the ballots in the states where he wants to compete -- each with its own process for qualifying. In many states -- including Kentucky, where the race to fill retiring Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's open seat in 2026 is heating up -- a party-designated candidate must win a nomination from a state-recognized political party that has received a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential election -- or else a candidate has to run as an independent or a write-in candidate. In other states, the America Party's name itself could present a problem -- like in New York, where state law prohibits political parties from having the word "American," or any part of it, as part of their party names, according to Election Law Blog. Bankrolling these state-level efforts would take significant resources. Experts would be needed to navigate each state's election laws and political systems in order to identify and nominate promising candidates, and canvassers would have to gather thousands to tens of thousands of signatures for each candidate to get them on the ballot. Traditionally, candidates and their parties spearhead these operations, working together to strategize signature-gathering, voter registration, and campaign fundraising and spending. But Musk's America Party is unlikely to become a certified political party anytime soon, because the Federal Election Commission, which reviews political organizations' qualification as political parties, has not been in quorum to do so since a commissioner resigned in April, leaving the agency with just three commissioners. FEC commissioners can only be appointed by President Trump himself. It's not yet clear if Musk has filed any paperwork for his America Party, and an FEC spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency has received any paperwork from Musk's team. Going the PAC route Faced with the long odds of gaining party certification, some election experts say that Musk, at least for the time being, could focus on House and Senate candidates through a super PAC. That's because ballot access for congressional races is governed by the states -- not the federal government -- so the America Party could still put its designated candidates on the ballot without the FEC's certification, as long as they pass state qualifications. And because super PACs are unconstrained by fundraising or spending limits, an America Party super PAC could be funded by unlimited donations from supporters including Musk himself, and could independently spend an unlimited amount of money in support of its candidates. The only catch is that super PACs are unable to work directly with campaigns the way FEC-certified political parties can -- but election lawyer Matt Sanderson of Caplin and Drysdale told ABC News that the efficiency of a super PAC can actually outweigh the advantages of a political party. "Form a super PAC, just call yourselves a political party -- that's not against the rules. The FEC blessing is not needed," said Sanderson, who was legal counsel for the No Labels movement during the 2024 election. "I actually don't think it makes a lick of sense in this day and age to try to form yourself as a national party committee." "They can call themselves whatever they want," Sanderson said, explaining that the FEC doesn't prohibit a super PAC from calling itself a political party as long as it doesn't coordinate directly with campaigns. "Just skip right past this very cumbersome and not-all-that-beneficial process, hold themselves out as a political party, and move forward." Joining forces Additionally, Musk could enlist the help of existing third parties, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. However, third parties historically have had little success in gaining office in the United States. During the 2024 election, the centrist group No Labels led a third-party presidential movement but ended its efforts months before the Republican and Democratic national conventions, after failing to find their candidate before their self-imposed deadline. Longstanding Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver ran in the 2024 presidential race but received less than 0.5% of the total vote. Still, a possible collaboration could be in the works: Musk has been in touch with one-time Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who in recent days has spearheaded a third party centrist effort of his own, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. Caleb Burns, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein, acknowledged the potential significance of obtaining an official party status through the FEC instead of bypassing that step with a super PAC -- stressing the role of a political party as a "brand for politicians." "The success of any new political party will turn on whether there are sufficient candidates -- and, by extension, members of the public -- interested in aligning with that new brand," Burns said. "If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to do everything possible to enhance and promote that brand -- which means proceeding with the organizational and legal burdens necessary to create and formalize a new political party." "The critical predicate, however, is the political question of whether or not there is sufficient interest in a new brand of politician," Burns said. "For that, it seems we will have to wait and see what Mr. Musk concludes."
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Pentagon policy chief's rogue decisions have irked US allies and the Trump administration
'He basically asked them, 'Is it too late to call it back?'' said the person familiar with Trump administration dynamics. 'Because we don't want you there.' A second person familiar with the meeting confirmed this account. The British team on the other side of the table 'were just shocked,' the first person added. 'He was basically saying 'you have no business being in the Indo-Pacific.'' Colby has also irked allies by pushing them too hard to boost defense spending — or telling them to simply get out of America's way. 'DOD has been telling a European partner that we don't need the Europeans to be doing anything [in the Indo-Pacific],' said one U.S. official familiar with the conversations. In the spring, Japanese officials believed the Trump administration might push them for a modest increase in defense spending. Initially, Colby publicly called on Japan to spend ' at least 3 percent of GDP on defense as soon as possible,' which angered Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. But that number soon increased to a much steeper target of 5 percent , which reportedly contributed to the collapse of plans for a high-level meeting between Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their Japanese counterparts.'The Japanese were very frustrated,' said a person familiar with the talks. 'They thought that they were agreeing to at least negotiate on the basis of 3 or 3.5 percent. Then Colby, all of a sudden, got DOD to say 5, and the Japanese got angry, because that's not what they just agreed to.' The incident caused heartburn within Japan's ruling party, with officials worried about triggering a domestic political backlash ahead of a sensitive election, the person added. The hawkish wing of the Republican Party has expressed concerns that Colby's 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach is sapping Trump's foreign policy of its strength at a key moment. 'The president's leadership at NATO and his decision to strike Iran gave Russia and China good reason to fear America's resolve,' said a senior GOP aide. 'But Colby has just undercut the president and squandered his boss' leverage.' The AUKUS review surprised some State Department officials who dealt directly with the pact. The department's immediate guidance on how to respond to media questions about the topic appeared to underscore the lack of coordination, a State Department official said. The instructions told diplomats to say to reporters: 'We are not aware of a review of the AUKUS agreement. The secretary of Defense has not requested a review of the agreement from the secretary of State.' 'The way that one person from State put it to me is: 'Who is this fucking guy?'' said a former U.S. official familiar with the policy discussions. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce praised Colby's leadership. 'The world is changing rapidly and Elbridge understands the moment. His innovative leadership is critical to addressing the challenges head-on and helping to deliver on President Trump's America First agenda.'
