Jasmine Crockett claims GOP would rather ‘bury their constituents' than fight climate change
She specifically called out the Trump administration and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem for what she claimed was a delayed response to the flash flooding that devastated parts of central Texas over the Fourth of July weekend.
She went on to blame the Republican Party for voting on the 'big, ugly bill' to effectively begin 'clawing back' on ways to help combat climate change and prevent similar disasters.
'The reality is that we are going to continue to face emergencies, especially since as we just got done with the big, ugly bill, they are clawing back those things that would have hopefully started to cool this planet down, because they don't believe in science,' Crockett said on MSNBC's 'The Weeknight.' 'The least that they could do is believe in helping American people. Unfortunately, we continue to see Republicans decide that they want to bury their constituents instead of actually doing everything that they can to make sure that they live amazing and full lives.'
More than 120 people were killed in the flash flooding with dozens reported missing.
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett accused Republicans of wanting to 'bury their constituents' by failing to fight climate change.
Photo byfor ESSENCE
Since last week, several Democratic figures have been quick to politicize the floods by blaming climate change and President Donald Trump's government cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) for exacerbating the damage.
Follow The Post's coverage on the deadly Texas flooding
In a statement to Fox News Digital last week, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called it 'shameful and disgusting' to see Democrats politicizing the tragedy and insisted accusations that the NWS was understaffed had been 'debunked by meteorologists, experts, and other public reporting.'
A makeshift memorial near the Guadalupe River for victims of flooding in Kerrville, Texas.
AP Photo/Eric Gay
Last month, Crockett also agreed with a statement from CNN analyst Michael Fanone that 'Republicans want poor people to die as quickly as humanly possible.'
'I agree,' Crockett responded. 'I don't think that is a glitch, but that's actually part of the design.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Block Vote to Release Epstein Files
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican lawmakers have blocked a move that could have forced President Donald Trump's administration to release the files on the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's death and investigation. All but one of the GOP members of the House Rules Committee voted against a Democrat amendment that would have allowed Congress to vote on whether the files should be made public or not. Republicans in the House Rules Committee just stopped an amendment that, if passed, would force Congress to vote on whether the Trump Administration should release the Epstein files. What are they hiding? — Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (@RepTeresaLF) July 15, 2025 The amendment, introduced by Californian Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, was voted down 5 to 7 on Monday evening. Khanna posted on X, formerly Twitter, saying: "Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks Rep. Ralph Norman. Need to put the American people before party!" Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks @RepRalphNorman. Need to put the American people before party! — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) July 15, 2025 The Epstein case has remained a lightning rod in American political discourse, fueling conspiracy theories and mistrust in governmental institutions over the past several years. The controversy reignited after the Justice Department's recent memo concluded there was no evidence of a client list or blackmail materials, contradicting previous statements. Tesla CEO Elon Musk previously claimed in a now-deleted post that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files, and he called on Trump to release the files "as promised." Trump, who has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, has tried to move the conversation away from the issue and there is no evidence that Trump is mentioned in any unreleased files related to the sex offender. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. New York State Sex Offender Registry/AP This is a developing story. More to follow.
Black America Web
32 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Fox News Insulted Jasmine Crockett Because They Fear Intelligent Black Women
Source: Robin L Marshall / Getty 'Her incompetence is beastly.''She certainly is a mental deficient.''She's a dumb-dumb, and you can't take her seriously.''She is a recalcitrant piece of garbage.' 'She's massively incompetent.' That was Fox News' Lisa 'Kennedy' Montgomery trying to demean Rep. Jasmine Crockett five times in a single rant. But all that petty derision reveals nothing about Congresswoman Crocket and far more about Kennedy's own intellectual bankruptcy, moral squalor, and her talent for cheap, performative cruelty masquerading as political commentary. The only real skill she's honed is making the shallow sound edgy to people too dim-witted to notice. If Kennedy had a real argument, she wouldn't have needed to stack five personal insults on top of each other like a sad little Jenga tower of insecurity. A truly intelligent and competent commentator wouldn't rely on crude, empty attacks in place of reasoned critique. She needed five insults because she had nothing else. No substance. No evidence. No point. No working brain cells. Just spit and bile. Just look how hard she had to work just to prove she had nothing. And ultimately, she demonstrated that she's the one who's actually mentally deficient. Kennedy's rant came after Crockett dared to call out Donald Trump's 'racist and wrong' remarks about the president of Liberia speaking 'such good English.' When Crockett labeled Trump's words for what they were, the GOP rapid-response machine snapped into gear. Kennedy simply picked up that baton for Fox News. She didn't contest a single fact. She went straight for the oldest, most cowardly trick in the racist playbook: smear the Black woman's intelligence. Reduce her to a 'dumb-dumb.' Make sure the audience sees her as unworthy of basic respect. It's pathetic and so damn predictable. Kennedy knows she can't beat Rep. Crockett on substance. She can't out-argue her. Crockett is a civil rights attorney, a sitting member of Congress, a woman who can dismantle Republican talking points with her eyes closed and one hand tied behind her back. She is sharp, fearless, and unbothered by conservative fragility. And that terrifies mediocre bigots like Kennedy. This is the same Lisa Kennedy who made her name being smarmy on MTV in the 90s, who rebranded herself as a libertarian edgelord sneering at working people's needs, and who has built a career in conservative media serving up sarcastic, punchline-level takes for an audience desperate for reassurance they'll never have to take Black women seriously. Kennedy isn't offering critique; she's offering white folks a comfortable fantasy where no Black woman is ever smarter than they are. She's the human embodiment of smug mediocrity. This is a woman who leveraged the aesthetics of rebelliousness into a decades-long gig kissing the ring of right-wing power while pretending she's too hip to care about the damage. She's the type who rails against government overreach but has no problem with state violence at the border or policing Black communities, the kind of libertarian who mocks student debt relief but wants her rich pals' taxes cut. Kennedy has no policy chops. She's not serious. She's a lazy performer who built her brand on eye-rolling, faux-radical snark that crumbles the second you ask her for actual ideas. She's the sort of TV pundit who thinks being mean is the same thing as being smart. She's paid to pander to viewers who want to hear that even the most obviously intelligent Black woman in the room is a 'dumb-dumb,' because that lie is easier for them to swallow than gagging on the fact that she's one of the dullest minds in the room. 'She is a recalcitrant piece of garbage.' That line is a window into who Kennedy is. She's a smug, washed-up cable clown who traded whatever critical thinking skills she once pretended to have for the cheapest form of white grievance theater. She's not a serious commentator. She's a professional bigot-whisperer whose job is to sneer, belittle, and dehumanize Black women who won't stay in the roles her audience finds comfortable. Calling Crockett 'garbage' is Kennedy admitting that she can't match Crockett's command of the facts, her courtroom-honed intelligence, or her refusal to play nice for people who despise her. It's Kennedy revealing that she knows exactly what her audience wants to hear and delivers it with a wink and a sneer. She's not just smug mediocrity. She's a willing foot soldier for white grievance politics, who lacks confidence in her own intellect and the right-wing worldview she's there to defend. At the end of the day, she knows Crockett was right. But instead she says, 'Look at this dumb-dumb.' Kennedy's disrespect of a sitting Black representative was personal, and it was also universal. Every time a Black woman shows up in American public life with undeniable intelligence, whether she's a Representative like Jasmine Crockett, a Supreme Court justice like Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Vice President like Kamala Harris, or a scholar, attorney, doctor, journalist, or educator, there is a reliably ugly backlash waiting for her. It doesn't matter if she graduated from the nation's top schools, served with distinction, or simply out-argues her opponents in debate. As soon as her intelligence shines, the slur emerges: 'mentally deficient,' 'low IQ,' 'affirmative action case,' 'DEI hire,' 'dumb,' 'illiterate,' 'incoherent.' Source: Vinnie Zuffante / Getty This isn't random name-calling. It taps into centuries of propaganda about Black inferiority. It's the same old lie that Black people are less intelligent, especially Black women. It's a deliberate racist strategy that is about policing who gets to be seen as competent, authoritative, or deserving of respect in American public life. Because for people invested in whiteness, a Black woman who is brilliant, articulate, prepared, and unafraid is a threat to the entire hierarchy they depend on. She disrupts the lie that whiteness is the natural home of competence and authority. The psychology behind it is pathetic. If you can't disprove her, you have to degrade her. You have to reduce her to something less than you so you can feel safe, unchallenged, and unthreatened. Calling her 'dumb' isn't an analysis of her arguments; it's an exorcism. It's an attempt to expel her from the realm of people who have to be listened to or taken seriously. It's about making sure the audience doesn't even consider the possibility she's right. This is why these attacks are so formulaic and so emotional. They're not built to rebut a Black woman's logic; they're built to reassure the insecure. They work by triggering a familiar, comforting stereotype for white audiences: that no matter how many degrees she has, no matter how well she argues or writes, no matter how prepared she is, she's still just a dumb, beastly Black girl who should know her place. Calling Jasmine Crockett 'mentally deficient' is the white supremacist mind doing damage control. Kennedy called Jasmine Crockett a 'dumb-dumb' not because Crockett is anything of the sort, but because she's dangerously smart in ways that threaten conservative power. She knows the law. She knows how to use it. She knows how to make Republicans look like the unserious, unethical frauds they are. Kennedy knows that if people actually listen to Jasmine Crockett, if they hear her questions, watch her disassemble Republican witnesses, or see her call out right-wing hypocrisy in real time, then they might start to wonder why Kennedy and her Fox News pals never have any answers. She can't say: Jasmine Crockett is wrong about Republicans shielding criminals. Because Crockett isn't. She can't say: Jasmine Crockett doesn't understand the law. Because Crockett demonstrably does. All Kennedy can say is: Don't listen to her, she's a dumb-dumb. That's it. That's the entire intellectual offering. It's the rhetorical move of a coward. Of a hack. Of a professional gaslighter who's made a living comforting racists with the lie that any Black woman who challenges them is actually an idiot in disguise. Dr. Stacey Patton is an award-winning journalist and author of 'Spare The Kids: Why Whupping Children Won't Save Black America' and the forthcoming 'Strung Up: The Lynching of Black Children In Jim Crow America.' Read her Substack here . SEE ALSO: Fox News Is Crashing Out Over Jasmine Crockett Again Racist Host Says Rep. Crockett Pretends To Be 'Hood' SEE ALSO Fox News Insulted Jasmine Crockett Because They Fear Intelligent Black Women was originally published on
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The megabill's Medicaid cuts shocked hospitals, but they may never happen
And 2028 is not only an election year, but a presidential one. 'Are they really going to want to cut rural hospitals in an election?' asked Chris Mitchell, head of the Iowa Hospital Association. 'We're going to talk to our delegation early and often about the impact of these cuts and how looming cuts down the road impact how hospitals run in the interim.' Heartening for hospital executives is a now-long history of Congress delaying or repealing the painful parts of major legislation. Congress, for example, never allowed a tax on high-end 'Cadillac' insurance plans in 2010's Affordable Care Act to take effect, and rescinded a tax on medical devices. 'We saw it with the Affordable Care Act, and we will certainly see it with this bill,' predicted Ben Klein, a former Democratic Senate aide and founding partner of Red+Blue Strategies, a lobbying firm that counts major hospital groups and systems among its clients. Congress' habit of revisiting painful cuts also guarantees a multiyear windfall for K Street, the Washington corridor where many lobbyists have their shops. Lobbyists with ties to Trump or Republicans in Congress have already seen a surge in revenue this year. Several state-based hospital associations say they will ramp up meetings with lawmakers to stress the need for an off-ramp before the 2028 elections. Even before the megabill's enactment, some Republicans in competitive districts were suggesting Congress may need to tweak a provision restricting states' ability to extract more money from the Treasury if it causes problems for hospitals. 'If it looks like we have issues and we're not comfortable, we can change it,' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said before the House voted to pass the bill last week. 'Things are subject to change. We're going to have different members of Congress. We're going to have a new president. Things are going to be different.' If the lobbyists are successful in undoing the cuts — which mostly target Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people — it'll mean the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office expects: $3.4 trillion in deficit spending over a decade. That will have ramifications across the U.S. economy, exposing Americans to higher interest rates and slower economic growth, budget experts warn. 'If they are successful in getting these reductions delayed, modified, scaled back, … it will be a tax on future generations,' said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and longtime GOP Senate budget aide. But that's a deal hospital executives — who have predicted the cuts could threaten some facilities' survival — are willing to take. Delays and cuts States use two tools to get higher Medicaid payments from the federal government. The first is a tax on hospitals and other providers. States use the tax revenue to pay their share of Medicaid, which offers insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. Hospitals don't mind because states cover the tax with bigger Medicaid payments. Conservative advocates of reining in the practice say it amounts to 'money laundering' because states with bigger Medicaid budgets qualify for larger federal contributions. That can also free up money in state budgets to pay for other things, like coverage for undocumented immigrants. But states and hospitals say the tax is vital because Medicaid reimbursements don't cover the true costs of care. The megabill incrementally lowers the rate states can levy from 6 percent of patient revenue to 3.5 percent. In 2028, the cuts start to phase in at 0.5 percent and continue for several years until reaching 3.5 percent. The new law permits the 10 red states that have chosen not to take advantage of a provision in Obamacare encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people to keep their taxes but not increase them. Restricting the provider taxes will hit hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients hard, their advocates say. Second, the bill targets a wonky financial tool states use to boost hospitals' Medicaid revenue called state-directed payments. The tool enables states to boost the rates privately run managed care plans, which contract with states to cover Medicaid patients, reimburse providers. States have ordered higher rates for chronically underfunded hospitals and facilities. In some cases, states have required the plans to pay providers at commercial rates, which are much higher than those paid by Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Overall the bill will cut more than $1 trillion in health spending over the next decade, with the majority coming from Medicaid. This includes not just the state cuts but also the effects of other provisions, such as new rules requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school. Hospitals are trying to figure out how to make up funding gaps that could reach billions of dollars — and warning their representatives and senators of what's ahead. States could raise income taxes or find ways to shed Medicaid enrollment to help contain costs, hospital executives said. In West Virginia, facilities may delay construction projects or cut services, said Jim Kaufman, president and CEO of the West Virginia Hospital Association. Some areas that could be targeted are obstetrics or pediatric care, which are already in short supply in rural areas. 'One out of every two births is covered by Medicaid,' he said. Getting grandfathered Lawmakers are likely to hear more in the coming months about the impacts on their local hospitals. The industry has always been a powerful one in Washington since hospitals care for lawmakers' constituents and also employ many of them. The Iowa Hospital Association's Mitchell said lawmakers may think twice once they see the consequences of the cuts. 'We won't be talking theoretically,' he said. 'Unless there's intervention, we know how things will shake out.' Republicans did include a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals to stretch out over five years. Details on how that money will be distributed remain scant as states await guidance from the Trump administration. But it is unlikely to fully offset the losses, several hospital groups said. That's because rural hospitals serve mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients and the rates the government pays are usually far less than what private insurers do. In Virginia, large hospital systems in urban areas might get a sixth of their revenue from state-directed payments. For rural facilities, it is closer to a third, said Julian Walker, vice president of communications for the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Advocates for rural hospitals, as well as urban ones that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients, are highlighting their vulnerability. Larry Bucshon, a Republican lobbyist and former heart and lung surgeon who served seven terms representing an Indiana House district, said he expects Congress will have to do more to help them. 'There is going to have to be some work done to say, 'Well, we need to have more grandfathering,'' he said. Still, lobbyists for hospitals said they aren't taking that for granted. They point out that the Paragon Health Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank, made the case for changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments and that many Republicans believe strongly that Medicaid costs have grown too rapidly and that some states provide benefits to people who don't need them. That threatens the program's stability, Republicans said during the megabill debate. 'They may not be as from the Paragon Institute work inside the White House and have been pushing for these changes that have now become enshrined in law,' a lobbyist for multiple hospitals, granted anonymity to speak freely on the situation, said. At the same time, any changes going forward will likely need bipartisan support and Democrats might not be eager to help Republicans out of a jam if the GOP finds itself trying to stop unpopular provisions from taking effect in an election year. 'I don't want to hear Jeff Van Drew, or any Republican from New Jersey, or any Republican in this House telling me that they're going to correct bad things that they did today,' said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) after the final megabill House vote last week. Still, Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he wants to reverse the Medicaid cuts. 'I'm determined to ultimately reverse all the terrible things they've done to Medicaid, to the ACA, to make health care less affordable, more costly,' Pallone said.
