Trump to Texas: 'Our Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, will be there shortly'
'Our Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, will be there shortly,' Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform Saturday. 'Melania and I are praying for all of the families impacted by this horrible tragedy.'
The death toll continued to rise after flooding rains rapidly overwhelmed the Guadalupe River in Texas on Friday. That prompted a frantic and ongoing rescue effort that continued into Saturday, including a search for 27 missing from Camp Mystic, a Christian girls camp at the river's edge in central Texas' Kerr County.
'Our Brave First Responders are on site doing what they do best,' Trump said. 'GOD BLESS THE FAMILIES, AND GOD BLESS TEXAS!'
At least 18 adults and nine children have been confirmed dead in the flooding that began Wednesday, including some who have not been identified, Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said at a Saturday morning news conference.
More: At least 27 dead in Texas flooding; over two dozen campers missing from Camp Mystic
Authorities have recovered 850 uninjured people and eight injured people as well, said Leitha, who stressed those numbers could rise. 'We are working hard to locate anyone who is still missing and to ensure they're safe,' Leitha said.
Vice President JD Vance also said Saturday that 'our nation's heart breaks for the victims in Texas and their families. ... I hope everyone affected knows they're in the prayers of my family, and of millions of Americans.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
FACT FOCUS: Trump misrepresents facts about wind power during Cabinet meeting
President Donald Trump expressed his disdain for wind power during a meeting with his Cabinet recently, calling it an expensive form of energy that 'smart' countries don't use. His comments on Tuesday contained false and misleading information about the use of wind power in the United States and around the world, and came on the heels of an executive order he signed Monday that would end subsidies around 'green' energy. Here's a look at the facts. CLAIM: 'Wind is a very expensive form of energy.' THE FACTS: Onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity generation, with new wind farms expected to produce electricity around $30 per megawatt hour. This compares to a new natural gas plant, around $65 per megawatt hour, or a new advanced nuclear reactor, which runs over $80, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration. Onshore wind farms cost less to build and operate than natural gas plants on average in most regions of the United States, even without tax credits. Though natural gas plants are available to produce electricity at any time of the day, unlike wind. Offshore wind is among the sources of new power generation that will cost the most to build and operate, at $88 per megawatt hour, according to the EIA. While electricity rates have risen nationwide over the past decade, states that have added a significant amount of onshore wind power, such as Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, have kept rates from rising as fast as other states , said Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation. For example, the share of electricity generated from wind in Iowa increased from 15% in 2010 to nearly 60% of the state's electricity generation in 2023, while the state's electricity rates grew at a rate slower than that of 42 other states, his research found. Wind power can be expensive if it's built where winds are weaker, but the United States is adding it in places with strong wind resources, he added. 'Wind should be seen as part of an overall portfolio of electricity system resources and is an important part of keeping costs down,' he said Wednesday. Trump has committed to increasing U.S. energy production, particularly fossil fuels. He signed an executive order Monday aimed at phasing out tax credits for wind and solar facilities. CLAIM: Wind turbines are 'almost exclusively' made in China, but President Xi Jinping told Trump they have 'very, very few.' THE FACTS: China is the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, producing more than half of the supply. It is also installing them in China at a record pace. In total, China has 1.3 terawatts of utility-scale wind and solar capacity in development, which could generate more electricity than neighboring Japan consumed in all of 2023, according to a report from the Global Energy Monitor released Wednesday. The report highlighted China's offshore wind development, calling China the undisputed leader in the offshore wind sector, though it also said coal and gas are still on the rise across China. 'The whole narrative that we're led to believe in the West is that China is building coal plants and that it's doing nothing for its carbon footprint,' Tom Harper, partner at the global consultant Baringa, said Tuesday. 'So the surprising thing is China is building a portfolio of zero-carbon resources that are designed to not perfectly complement each other, but to work alongside each other to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.' CLAIM: 'If you look at smart countries, they don't use it.' THE FACTS: At least 136 countries around the world use wind power to generate electricity, according to the EIA , with many countries growing the amount they produce. The top five markets for wind power in 2024 were China, the U.S., Brazil, India and Germany, while Uzbekistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia represent the next wave of wind energy growth, according to the Global Wind Energy Council . Council CEO Ben Backwell said 2024 marked yet another record year for wind energy growth, with the 'industry increasingly pushing into new regions.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, disputed the idea that smart countries don't use wind power. China is soaring ahead in building a massive amount of wind power while Germany, the United Kingdom, Finland, Spain, Sweden, France and many other countries in Europe have large programs of wind construction, he said Wednesday. 'By cutting back on wind power development, the U.S. is ceding the lead to China in this important technology, and killing a lot of U.S. jobs,' Gerrard said in an e-mail. CLAIM: In New England, two whales washed up over 50 years, 'and last summer they had 14 washed up. Now, I'm not saying that's the wind farm that was built, that maybe it is right.' THE FACTS: There are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . NOAA says it analyzes the causes of death whenever possible, following the science and data. Unfounded claims about offshore wind threatening whales have surfaced as a flashpoint in the fight over the future of renewable energy. The nation's first commercial-scale offshore wind farm officially opened in 2024 east of Montauk Point, New York. The nation's second-largest offshore wind farm is under construction off the coast of Massachusetts. A five-turbine pilot project has been operating since 2016 off the coast of Rhode Island. CLAIM: 'The birds are dying all over the place.' THE FACTS: Turbines, like all infrastructure, can pose a risk to birds. However, the National Audubon Society, which is dedicated to the conservation of birds, thinks developers can manage these risks and climate change is a greater threat. An Audubon report found that two-thirds of North American bird species could face extinction due to rising temperatures. In January, the nonprofit said responsible offshore wind development is a clear win for birds, the U.S. economy and the climate. 'While persistent myths claim widespread and devastating effects of offshore wind turbines on wildlife, the science tells a different story. Our findings clearly indicate that we can responsibly deploy offshore wind in a manner that still protects birds and their habitats,' Sam Wojcicki, Audubon's senior director for climate policy, wrote in a January post . The organization also supports wind energy on land when it is sited and operated properly to minimize the impact on birds and other wildlife. CLAIM: 'You can't take them down because the environmentalists don't let you bury the blades.' THE FACTS: Wind turbine blades are challenging to recycle. They are designed for durability to withstand hurricane-force winds. However, the U.S. already has the ability to recycle most wind turbine materials, according to the Department of Energy. It issued a report in January that found 90% of wind turbines can be recycled using existing infrastructure, while new strategies and innovative recycling methods will be needed to tackle the rest. The wind power industry acknowledges that the disposal of wind turbine blades is an issue. Danish wind energy developer Ørsted committed in 2021 to never sending turbine blades to landfill, instead reusing, recycling or otherwise recovering them. ___ Find AP Fact Checks here: .
34 minutes ago
Trump admin decision to pause and restart weapons shipments to Ukraine: TIMELINE
President Donald Trump is continuing to dodge questions on who ordered the pause on U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine last week. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump pushed back to a reporter who asked him on Tuesday who was responsible. He continued to obfuscate on Wednesday, when asked directly who made the order, not taking responsibility for the action and not blaming anyone else. Here's a detailed timeline of events, which shows the White House was aware of the pause in real time and Trump's decision to reverse the action -- following an unproductive phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subsequent series of brutal Russian assaults on Ukraine. July 1: Announcement of pause On the evening of Tuesday, July 1, ABC News reported the White House confirmed it has stopped the shipment of some air defense and precision guided weapons that were on track to be sent to Ukraine. Officials said the decision followed an assessment of U.S. stockpiles. "This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. "The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned -- just ask Iran." July 2: Officials dance around how to describe the pause The next day, Wednesday, Pentagon and State Department officials danced around how to characterize a pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine. Three U.S. officials familiar with the effort said the U.S. has temporarily paused the shipment of air-defense interceptors and precision munitions intended for Ukraine. When asked, the White House confirmed the decision on Tuesday and said it was made "to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe." The Defense Department was calling this a "capability review" of all foreign munition shipments to US allies, with the chief Pentagon spokesman saying "we can't give weapons to everybody all around the world." "What we've done here at the Department of Defense is create a framework to analyze what munitions we're sending where, to help the President and the Secretary of Defense make decisions," said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell. "This capability review, and that's exactly what it is, it's a capability review– is being conducted to ensure US military aid aligns with our defense priorities. And we will not be providing any updates to specific quantities or types of munitions being provided to Ukraine or the timelines associated with these transfers." July 3: Trump speaks with Putin, disputes question on weapons pause Trump wrote on social media that he would be speaking with Putin on Thursday morning. After, speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews, Trump suggested they didn't make any progress. "We had a call. It was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things, including Iran, and we also talked about, as you know, the war with Ukraine. I'm not happy about that," Trump said. Trump also notably disputed a reporter's question that the U.S. was pausing weapons. "We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons, but we are giving weapons, and we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't," Trump said. That same day, ABC News reported relevant congressional leaders were not informed of the Pentagon's decision to pause some munitions intended for Ukraine, two congressional sources told ABC News. July 4: Russia ramps up attacks on Ukraine, Trump speaks with Zelenskyy More than 500 Russian attack drones and missiles were fired at Ukraine overnight, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote in a post on X on Friday. Trump then spoke with Zelenskyy, who later provided a positive assessment. "As for the call with the President of the United States of America, which took place yesterday, I'd say it was probably the best conversation we've had so far, extremely fruitful. We discussed air defense among other things. I'm grateful for the readiness to assist. Patriot systems are the key to defending against ballistic threats. We also discussed several other topical issues, which our teams will follow up on in detail at upcoming meetings," Zelenskyy said. The Wall Street Journal later reported that Trump told Zelenskyy during that he wasn't responsible for the halt in weapons shipments to Kyiv. Trump said that he had directed a review of Pentagon munitions stockpiles after the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites last month but hadn't ordered the department to freeze the arms deliveries, according to people briefed on the conversation, the Journal reported. July 5-6: Russia continues intense strikes on Ukraine Russia targeted Ukraine with 322 drones, according to the Ukrainian air force on Saturday, July 5. Approximately 292 of them were "neutralized", either shot down or suppressed by other means. Eleven people were injured in the Kharkiv, including 2 children, in a drone strike overnight there, according to local emergency services. On Sunday, ABC News reported 14 people were killed and 37 injured in Ukraine as a result of Russian attacks in the last 24 hours. July 7: White House changes tune, Trump says he'll ship weapons On Monday morning, Dozens were injured in Ukraine after another intense Russian drone attack that saw a residential building in Kharkiv take a direct hit. The Trump administration appears still to be blocking the shipment of air defense weapons it froze last week. The White House then changed its tune, saying pause was to review "all aid" to Ukraine during an afternoon press conference. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to walk through the decision to halt weapons to Ukraine. Leavitt stated that this was a standard review by the Pentagon of all weapons and aid to all countries that the U.S. supports. Trump said he would ship weapons to Ukraine during dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. "We're going to send some more weapons. We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves," Trump said. "They're getting hit very hard. Now. They're getting hit very hard. We're going to have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons, primarily. But they're getting hit very, very hard." Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the munitions previously designated for Ukraine will be sent at Trump's direction. July 8: Trump says he doesn't know who approved pause During a meeting of his Cabinet on Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sitting next to him, Trump said he didn't know who signed off on the weapons pause. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump told a reporter who asked who ordered the pause. Trump also repeated he was "very unhappy" with Putin and said he was looking into sanctions on Russia as a consequence. July 9: Trump continues to say he's unsure who issued pause On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials reported the largest aerial assault on Ukraine from Russia since the start of the war. Trump was asked about the conflict and the weapons pause again as he met with African leaders in the State Dining Room. "Yesterday, you said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out?" a reporter asked the president. "Well, I haven't thought about it, because we're looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but I have, no I have not gone into it," he said. The reporter followed up by asking, "What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing?" "I would know if a decision was made, I will know," Trump stressed. "I'll be the first to know. In fact, most likely I'd give the order, but I haven't done that yet."
Atlantic
34 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Another Angry Billionaire Wants His Own Political Party
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. If you're old enough, you've seen this movie: An eccentric billionaire, full of bile and nursing grudges against the incumbent Republican president, wants to create a third major political party and shake up the system. In 1992, the billionaire was H. Ross Perot, and his vehicle for attacking the incumbent president, George H. W. Bush, was something called the Reform Party. Perot had a few good ideas; he wanted to balance the federal budget, for example, which is never a bad thing. But mostly, he was something of a rich crank who had a vendetta against the Bush family: In one of many strange moments, Perot claimed that his abrupt exit from the race in the summer of 1992 was because Bush had been plotting a smear campaign against his daughter, something for which he never offered proof. It wasn't a very good movie, and it certainly didn't need a reboot, but we might be getting one anyway. Elon Musk has announced the formation of the 'America Party,' a new political organization whose main idea is … well, the goal isn't clear. Musk hasn't said much about it, other than that it would be dedicated to stopping wasteful government spending. But mostly, his announcement seems dedicated to aggravating President Donald Trump, with whom Musk has had a very public falling out. And Trump is plenty aggravated. 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social site on Sunday, adding that the 'one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS.' Trump's trademark punctuation aside, the president has a point, at least about the possible disruption of the GOP. Even if Musk is serious—and one never knows with planet Earth's richest jumping jester —the odds of this new party coming into existence are low: Third parties don't get much traction in the U.S. political system. The chances that it will become a force in American politics are even lower. But if that's the case, why is Trump so angry? A few days later, perhaps realizing how panicky his initial reaction sounded, Trump changed his tune. 'It'll help us,' he said of Musk's new party. And here, Trump is wrong: If Musk creates a new party to appeal to disaffected members of the now-defunct coalition that he, Trump, and some of the MAGA movement all cohabited, such a party—if it has any impact at all—is likely to hurt Republicans more than Democrats. Musk is a deeply unpopular figure in American politics, but what public support he enjoys comes heavily from the GOP itself. For now, he seems to be taking Perot's approach, rooting the America Party in anger about the bloated and irresponsible One Big Beautiful Bill that Trump and the Republicans squeaked through Congress. But who's the audience for this appeal? It's not big business or economic conservatives; Musk's record as a business leader has taken a major hit, and those groups have already thrown in their lot with Trump and the GOP. It's not the national-security Republicans, who know that Musk is no better than the fringiest and most isolationist Trumpers when it comes to foreign affairs. It's certainly not the Never Trumpers, who, if Musk even wanted their support in the first place, would never forget his sycophantic embrace of Trump. The real worry for Republicans is that Musk will peel off small numbers of people in two groups, both of them important to Trump's grip on Capitol Hill. One group consists of swing voters who don't much like Trump but who have stayed with him for various reasons; Musk might be able to get them pumped up about another celebrity movement. They could be swayed by Musk's supposed anger about budgets the same way some of them bought into arguments about egg prices and inflation, allowing Musk's candidates to shave away a few points here and there from the GOP. But more worrisome to the Republicans is that Musk will corner the crackpot vote. When Musk first broke with Trump, he claimed on X that the president was named in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile who committed suicide in prison and with whom Trump had a long friendship. Some of Trump's supporters, including FBI Director Kash Patel, had earlier teased the possibility of great revelations from 'the Epstein files.' Then they gained power and perhaps realized that some of these files either didn't exist or didn't contain anything explosive. Musk might sense that he should avoid openly courting this part of the Trump coalition, but it's too late: The MAGA fringe will likely see a natural ally in Musk anyway, not least because Musk engaged in various forms of conspiracism even before he tried to play the Epstein card against Trump. If a number of people in MAGA world think the 'deep state' is even Deeper and Stater now that it's ostensibly captured administration officials who were once trusted by Trump supporters, such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, they are going to look for a new vehicle for their beliefs. Musk and his party could fit that bill. But the actual damage to any party is likely to be small. Even if Musk could present himself as the face of fiscal conservatism, that's not enough to sustain a party in the age of reality-TV politics. Musk can form a party, but he can't run for president as its head, preventing him from taking the Green Party gadfly Jill Stein's role as the spoiler in American elections. Even Perot at the height of his influence won only 19 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election; he didn't gain a single electoral vote, and his Reform Party exists now mostly as memorabilia that people have stashed in attics for some 30 years. (He tried again in 1996. He got 8 percent of the popular vote.) In the end, this whole project is likely to go nowhere, and I will admit that this suits me fine as an American who likes the two-party system and distrusts third parties in general—even if I am no longer a member of either major party. When I used to teach political science, I would remind students that large parties are meant to serve a useful purpose of aggregating interests, rather than dividing them. Big parties in a winner-take-all system (where the person who gets the most votes wins the seat outright) force people with differing agendas to get along with one another and accept compromises in order to elect candidates who might not be acceptable to any one of them but who overall represent their general desires. Independent and swing voters can make similar judgments, joining or leaving coalitions in various elections. The party system in America has problems: Too many people don't vote—especially in primaries—and many of those who do vote don't comprehend even the rudiments of the issues before them. A fair number of voters have also embraced cruelty and ignorance as virtues. But these are social problems, not constitutional or structural issues. If Musk throws billions of dollars into creating a party that siphons off voters who think the name DOGE was a clever acronym and who worry about chemtrails, thus weakening Trump's power in the short term, so be it. But another party headed by another billionaire who doesn't understand the Constitution, the U.S. government, or democracy itself is not the path to a healthier nation. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: The 'Russia hoax,' revisited He spent his life trying to prove that he was a loyal U.S. citizen. It wasn't enough. The David Frum Show: The courts won't save democracy from Trump. Today's News At least 119 people are dead after the flash flood in central Texas; 161 people are still missing from one county alone, according to officials. President Donald Trump sent letters to seven more countries threatening tariffs as high as 30 percent. Russia launched its largest drone attack on Ukraine last night, with 728 drones and 13 missiles, according to Ukraine's air force and its president. Evening Read The Work of Caring for My Daughter Will Never Be 'Efficient' By Julie Kim After Izzy was diagnosed, in 2018, I wrote about my grief over not knowing if she would ever talk, walk, or recognize me as her mother. I still grieve those milestones. Yet I also marvel at Izzy's many accomplishments: how she has mastered navigating the busy menus on her 'talker,' an augmentative communication device provided by the New York City Department of Education; her stamina during physical-therapy sessions, wedged into breaks between classes; how during social studies, her least-favorite subject, she has figured out that pointing at her diaper and then the exit sign will promptly get her out of class. I am confident that she knows and loves me, even if she might not fully grasp that I'm the one who birthed her. At the same time—and here I think of her orbit of loving teachers, therapists, and other caregivers, particularly those at her school—I would not be surprised if Izzy believes, deep down, that she has many mothers, of which I am but one. Culture Break Watch. My Mom Jayne (streaming on HBO Max) is a documentary about Jayne Mansfield directed by her daughter Mariska Hargitay. It's also a reminder that the star was more than the next Marilyn Monroe. Enjoy the show. When Hulk Hogan turned heel, pro wrestling—and America?—was never the same, James Parker writes.
