Republicans toe Trump line even in aftermath of deadly Texas floods
But Republicans' default response has been to express fealty to Donald Trump. They lavished praise on the president for providing federal assistance while studiously avoiding questions around the effect of his 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) or threats to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema).
'It is a sign of the sickness and dysfunction of what was the Republican party that they have almost no thoughts about their constituents,' said Rick Wilson, a cofounder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group. 'Their thoughts are, how do I avoid making sure that Donald Trump doesn't look at me as an enemy or a critic?
'Despite the fact that the Doge cuts and the reductions in force and the early buyouts have savaged the workforce of the National Weather Service, they can't even utter the slightest vague, elliptical critique of the administration that is now engaged in these cuts that have cost the lives of the people they supposedly represent.'
The raging flash floods – among the US's worst in decades – slammed into riverside camps and homes in central Texas before daybreak on Friday, pulling sleeping people out of their cabins, tents and trailers and dragging them for miles past floating tree trunks and cars. Some survivors were found clinging to trees. Authorities say the death toll is sure to rise as crews look for the many who are still missing.
Republicans have long been criticised for responding to mass shootings with 'thoughts and prayers', as if the tragedy transcends politics. Similarly, party leaders have sought to blame a freak act of nature rather than contemplating a potential association with Trump's policies – or with the broader threat of the climate crisis, seemingly a taboo subject under the current administration.
Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, praised Trump for approving a major disaster declaration that ensured state and local government have more resources to deal with the emergency. 'The swift and very robust action by President Trump is an extraordinary help to our response,' he said.
Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, tweeted 'Thank you @POTUS Trump' for the declaration and told Fox News: 'The National Weather Service under President Trump has been working to put in new technology and a new system because it's been neglected for years. It's an ancient system that needed to be upgraded and so President Trump recognised that right away and got to work on it when he came into office in January.'
Senator Ted Cruz wrote on the X social media platform that 'President Trump committed ANYTHING Texas needs', while telling a press conference: 'There's a time to have political fights, there's a time to disagree. This is not that time.'
Trump himself has struck a similar tone, deflecting questions about whether he is still planning to phase out Fema. He said he does not plan to re-hire any of the federal meteorologists who were fired this year as part of widespread government spending cuts.
The president told reporters on Sunday: 'That water situation, that all is, and that was really the Biden setup. But I wouldn't blame Biden for it, either. I would just say this is a 100-year catastrophe.'
But scrutiny of whether more could have been done to avoid the tragedy is already under way. Texas officials criticised the NWS, arguing that it failed to warn the public about impending danger.
The NWS defended its forecasting and emergency management, stating that it assigned extra forecasters to the San Antonio and San Angelo offices over the holiday weekend. But a top leadership role at the NWS's San Antonio office has been vacant since earlier this year after Paul Yura accepted an offer from the Trump administration to retire.
Doge, formerly led by the billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, has been pushing the NWS to cut jobs and gave hundreds of employees the option to retire early rather than face potential dismissal.
Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, asked the commerce department's acting inspector general to investigate whether staffing vacancies at the NWS's San Antonio office contributed to 'delays, gaps, or diminished accuracy' in forecasting the flooding. Republicans accused Democrats of seeking to politicise the tragedy.
Wilson, a political consultant who has worked on numerous campaigns, said: 'It is an ongoing family psychodrama inside the Republican party, where everyone is desperately, deeply afraid that they will put a foot wrong with Donald Trump and that's why there's absolutely no candour with these folks about what has happened to the people they represent.'
Some commentators suggest that Republicans will ultimately pay a political price for their blind devotion and for last week passing Trump's cost-cutting Big, Beautiful Act.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: 'It's a vision of the future because every time there is something tragic that happens, not just a natural disaster but a mass shooting or you fill in the blank, somebody is going to find a connection to these deep cuts in government engineered by Trump and Musk.
'I think Trump and the Republicans need to get used to this. It may not hurt Trump, but it could potentially and should hurt some of the members of Congress from competitive states and districts that voted for the BBB.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings
The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reductions in force' while litigation in the case proceeds. The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies. Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: 'I'm disappointed but I'm not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.' Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, though Musk has since departed. In February, Trump announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices. In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump's administration was 'likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order' and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling. Jackson wrote that Illston's 'temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture'. She also described her colleagues as making the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground'. Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' she wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave. The administration had previously challenged Illston's order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganization', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The supreme court's rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: 'Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. The state department wrote on X: 'Today's near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump's dedication to following through on an America First agenda.' In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump's unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.'
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
Supreme Court lets Trump resume plans for mass federal layoffs
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume its plans to carry out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. In Trump's latest victory at the top U.S. judicial body, the justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in several cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies. In addition, Trump last week claimed the biggest legislative win of his second presidential term with congressional passage of a massive package of tax and spending cuts. The court, in a brief unsigned order on Tuesday, said Trump's administration was "likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order" and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston's "temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by his administration. A group of unions, non-profits and local governments that sued to block the administration's mass layoffs said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling "dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the plaintiffs said in a statement, adding that they would "continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent." U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the court's action. "Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel," Bondi wrote on social media. "Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before." Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote. The judge's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce. Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order. "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the Justice Department told the court, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," the plaintiffs told the court, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs." The Supreme Court in recent months has let Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, twice sided with DOGE and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Musk has lost $20bn - and his investors have lost $100bn more - since his falling out with Trump last month
Elon Musk has lost $20 billion and his investors have seen more than $100 billion vanish since the Tesla billionaire's acrimonious public split with his former ally President Donald Trump last month, according to an Axios analysis. 'While the opportunity is outsized the risks are very significant as well," Ivana Delevska, an investor who recently sold her Tesla shares, told the outlet of Musk's complicated entanglement with the administration. The decline comes as Tesla has reported disappointing financials in recent days, including a nearly seven percent stock price slide on Monday, and the disclosure last week that second-quarter deliveries were down 14 percent, as the carmaker has fallen behind Chinese rival BYD in EV sales. Tesla stock has fallen about 14 percent since early June, per the Axios analysis. The split, rooted in Musk's opposition to the administration's so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill' spending package, marks a remarkable change in financial fortunes for the Musk-Trump relationship. The tech entrepreneur spent more than $250 million to help get Trump elected, and his backing initially seemed like a financial master-stroke, as Musk became the first person in the world to be worth $400 billion by December of 2024, amid investor enthusiasm about the future of Musk and his companies under the new administration. The tech billionaire also gained an influential perch as the de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, or DOGE, which scrutinized the finances, data, and personnel at numerous US government agencies, including those with impacts on Musk companies. Despite these gains, warning signs appeared early on over Musk's Trump association, with a man blowing up a Tesla outside of a Trump hotel in Vegas in January and Tesla dealership and chargers facing a string of vandalism and alleged arson attacks. Now, as Musk's feud with Trump has deepened, including with the billionaire threatening to challenge his former Republican allies by founding a new political party, the SpaceX boss could face even more risk to his companies. Last month, Tesla publicly launched its long-awaited robotaxi fleet, a novel business line Musk has described as a key priority, and one that could be deeply impacted by new federal regulation. SpaceX, meanwhile, relies heavily on contracts from the federal government, and has invested considerably towards supplying spacecraft for a future Mars mission.
