Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders requests major disaster declaration from President Donald Trump
On Friday, officials with the National Weather Service confirmed that at least 15 tornadoes touched down in the state during the storms.
National Weather Service confirms at least 15 tornadoes in Arkansas during weekend storms
The governor said that this disaster caused severe infrastructure damage, overwhelming amounts of debris, and hundreds of damaged homes.
'The destruction caused by these tornadoes is devastating. The Arkansans who lost their homes, businesses, and loved ones in this storm need help to get back on their feet and rebuild,' the governor said. 'We are thankful for the leadership of President Trump, and I'm submitting this Major Disaster Declaration request and hope we can get additional assistance from the federal government.'
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders declares state of emergency in Arkansas after deadly Friday night storms
Now that the governor has completed the damage assessment process, she is specifically requesting Individual Assistance and U.S. Small Business Administration disaster loans for Greene, Hot Spring, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, Sharp and Stone counties.
The governor also asked for hazard mitigation statewide.
To see the governor's full declaration, visit .
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans are considering changes to Trump's request for $9.4 billion in spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans were exploring changes Tuesday to President Donald Trump's request to cancel $9.4 billion in previously approved spending targeted by his Department of Government Efficiency, signaling potential difficulties ahead of an important test vote. The president is looking to claw back $1.1 billion of funding authority from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and about $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease and promote global stability. Congress has until Friday to get a bill to the president's desk for his signature or the spending stands. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said some GOP senators would like to see 'modest changes' to the bill. He'll need nearly every Republican senator on board to get the package approved, but some are questioning the severity of the cuts to public media and to a global health program known as PEPFAR that has saved millions of lives since it was established under then-President George W. Bush. 'We're trying to find out if there's a path forward that gets us 51 (votes) and stays consistent with what the White House proposed in terms of a rescissions package,' Thune told reporters. Republicans were expected to hear directly from Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon on Tuesday as the White House worked to address their concerns. The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts was already having some success. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to 'find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.' Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she still had questions about what the administration was seeking to cut from global health programs. Other senators are worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations. Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose the package. They see the president's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They also warn it's absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like. 'It shreds the appropriations process,' said Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. 'The Appropriations Committee, and indeed this body becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.' If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but if the Senate amends the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. 'We're encouraging our Senate partners over there to get the job done and to pass it as it is,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday. 'That's what we did.' Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump's wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said. ____ Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report. Kevin Freking, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
18 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Dismantling the Department of Education, Without Saying Why
The Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump to dismantle the Department of Education. But it won't say why. Yesterday—almost exactly a week after the Court lifted a lower court's block on Trump's plans to fire thousands of federal employees—a majority of the justices decided to give the president the go-ahead for a different set of mass layoffs. Last week, the Court provided a handful of sentences that vaguely gestured at why it might have allowed the administration to move forward. This week, it offered nothing at all. There's something taunting, almost bullying, about this lack of reasoning, as if the conservative supermajority is saying to the country: You don't even deserve an explanation. Whereas last week's case involved orders to lay off employees from across the entire federal government, this week's involves just the Education Department. Over the course of his 2024 campaign and in the first few months of his second term, Trump repeatedly announced his plans to close the agency. The department was 'a big con job,' he told reporters in February, and he would 'like to close it immediately.' In March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced plans to cut the department's workforce in half. Trump followed up with an executive order mandating that McMahon 'take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' There was one minor problem with this plan: The executive branch, at least theoretically, did not have the unilateral authority to abolish the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979. A coalition of states, school districts, and unions sued, and a federal district court temporarily blocked the administration from moving forward. That court order required the department to rehire employees already laid off, pointing to both the Constitution and a statutory prohibition against 'arbitrary and capricious' actions by federal agencies. David A. Graham: What does the Department of Education actually do? In that lower court, the government argued that it sought only to improve the 'efficiency' and 'accountability' of the department through 'reorganization,' but District Judge Myong J. Joun was unconvinced. 'A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,' he wrote. An appeals court upheld Joun's ruling, freezing Trump's plans while the district court continued to weigh the underlying legal questions. At this point— stop me if you've heard this one before —the Supreme Court stepped in. Despite a frustrated dissent from the Court's three liberal justices, the majority's unsigned emergency ruling allowed Trump to carry out his plans while the litigation in the lower courts continues. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave.' She went on: 'The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.' The odd protocol of the Court's emergency docket—sometimes called the 'shadow docket'—means that the underlying question of whether Trump has the legal authority to tear apart the Education Department remains unresolved, even as a majority of the justices have allowed him to carry out his plans. Courts—even the Supreme Court—could still find the department's dismantling illegal down the road. But in the meantime, the agency will have been devastated, perhaps irreparably. Layoffs will dramatically reduce the staffing of the already overworked Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for ensuring equal access to education, including for disabled students. The administration will eviscerate the office responsible for helping students with financial aid for higher education; the government has said that this portion of the agency's portfolio will be shifted over to the Treasury Department, but what this will look like in practice is unclear. The cuts will almost erase the Institute for Education Science, which publishes authoritative data on American schools and has already missed key deadlines this year. Given the potentially devastating effects of the Supreme Court's ruling on congressionally mandated programs, it's all the more galling that the majority didn't bother to provide even a cursory explanation of its thinking. This terseness has become common as the Court has scaled up its use of emergency rulings—rulings that, it's hard not to notice, have a striking tendency to align with the Trump administration's priorities. Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and an authority on the shadow docket, tallied the Education Department order as the 15th since early April in which the Court has granted Trump emergency relief, and the seventh in which the justices have provided not a word of explanation. (Until recently, the shadow docket was used far more rarely, and only for truly urgent matters.) Do the conservative justices feel that the president really does have the legal authority to destroy a Cabinet department on his own? Or perhaps they believe that the plaintiffs lacked the ability to bring the case at all in federal court? Maybe the reason was something else altogether. There's no way to know. This silence is damaging, both to the legitimacy of the Court and to the rule of law. The judiciary is a branch of government that is meant to provide reasons for its actions—to explain, both to litigants and to the public, why judges have done what they have done. This is part of what distinguishes law from the raw exercise of power, and what anchors the courts as a component of a democratic system rather than setting them apart as unaccountable sages. With a written opinion, people can evaluate the justices' reasoning for themselves. Without it, they are left to puzzle over the Court's thinking like ancients struggling to decipher the wrath of gods in the scattering of entrails.
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
As Waltz faces UN post hearings, an update on the Signal situation that led to his initial ousting
As Mike Waltz, President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday for his confirmation hearing, focus returns to his ousting as national security adviser over what some referred to as 'Signalgate.' The former Florida Republican congressman served mere weeks in Trump's administration before revelations that he mistakenly added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic to a private Signal chat that was used to discuss sensitive military plans, including planning for strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. Calls came quickly for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to be removed from office, accompanied by criticism of the Trump administration for failing to take action against the top national security officials who discussed plans for the military strike in Signal. After weeks of scrutiny, Waltz left his security post but was swiftly nominated to the U.N. position. Months after the chat was disclosed, questions remain over the controversy, including if federal laws were violated, if classified information was exposed on the commercial messaging app and if anyone else will face consequences. Here's what we know and don't know: ___ KNOWN: Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked. It is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of Signal, specifically that Russia was attempting to hack the app, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak to the press and spoke on the condition of anonymity. One known vulnerability is that a malicious actor, if they have access to a person's phone, can link their own device to the user's Signal — and monitor messages remotely. NOT KNOWN: How frequently the administration and the Defense Department use Signal for sensitive government communications, and whether those on the chat were using unauthorized personal devices to transmit or receive those messages. The department put out an instruction in 2023 restricting what information could be posted on unauthorized and unclassified systems. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard would not say whether she was accessing the information on her personal phone or government-issued phone, citing an ongoing investigation by the National Security Council. ___ KNOWN: The government has a requirement under the Presidential Records Act to archive all of those planning discussions. NOT KNOWN: Whether anyone in the group archived the messages as required by law to a government server. The images of the text chain posted by The Atlantic show that the messages were set to disappear in one week. ___ KNOWN: Hegseth had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols — known in the IT industry as a 'dirty' internet line — set up in his office to use Signal on a personal computer, two people familiar with the line have told The Associated Press. Other Pentagon offices have used them, particularly if there's a need to monitor information or websites that would otherwise be blocked. The biggest advantage of using such a line is that the user would not show up as an IP address assigned to the Defense Department — essentially the user is masked, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with military network security. NOT KNOWN: If use of the line left any Defense-related materials more vulnerable than they would have been on a Pentagon secure line. ___ KNOWN: The chat group included 18 members, including Jeffrey Goldberg, top editor of The Atlantic. The group, called 'Houthi PC Small Group,' likely for Houthi 'principals committee' — was comprised of Trump's senior-most advisers on national security, including Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The National Security Council said the text chain 'appears to be authentic.' NOT KNOWN: How Goldberg got added. Waltz said he built the message chain and didn't know how Goldberg ended up on the chat. He called it a mistake. ___ KNOWN: Just hours before the attack on the Houthis in Yemen began, Hegseth shared details on the timing, targets, weapons and sequence of strikes that would take place. NOT KNOWN: Whether the information was classified. Gabbard, Ratcliffe and the White House have all said it was not classified, and Hegseth said the same in a post on social media. Democrats said that strains credulity. ___ KNOWN: Hegseth has adamantly denied that 'war plans' were texted on Signal, something current and former U.S. officials called 'semantics.' War plans carry a specific meaning. They often refer to the numbered and highly classified planning documents — sometimes thousands of pages long — that would inform U.S. decisions in case of a major conflict. But the information Hegseth did post — specific attack details selecting human and weapons storage targets — was a subset of those plans and was likely informed by the same classified intelligence. Posting those details to an unclassified app risked tipping off adversaries of the pending attack and could have put U.S. service members at risk, multiple U.S. officials said. Sharing that information on a commercial app like Signal in advance of a strike 'would be a violation of everything that we're about,' said former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who served under Democratic President Barack Obama. NOT KNOWN: If anyone outside the messaging group got access to the Signal texts. ___ KNOWN: Hegseth began cracking down on unauthorized leaks of information inside the Defense Department, and his chief of staff issued a memo on March 21 saying the Pentagon would use polygraph tests to determine the sources of recent leaks and prosecute them. NOT KNOWN: Whether Hegseth will take responsibility for the unauthorized release of national defense information regarding the attack plans on the Houthis. Trump in March bristled at a suggestion that Hegseth should step down, saying 'He's doing a great job. He had nothing to do with it.' ___ KNOWN: In April, Dan Caldwell, a senior Hegseth adviser who in the Signal chat had been designated as the secretary's point person, was placed on administrative leave and escorted out of the Pentagon by security. Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters told The AP that the former Marine's sudden downfall was tied to an investigation into unauthorized disclosure of department information. NOT KNOWN: If any others affiliated with the Signal situation will face reprisals. ___ KNOWN: Also in April, Hegseth was forced to defend himself against a second assertion that he shared classified material through an unapproved and unsecured network, this time taking airstrike information from a military communications channel and sharing it in a Signal chat with his wife, his brother and others. A person familiar with the chat confirmed to The AP that Hegseth pulled the information — such as launch times and bomb drop times of U.S. warplanes about to strike Houthi targets in Yemen — he posted in the chat from a secure communications channel used by U.S. Central Command. NOT KNOWN: If that's the extent of Hegseth's Signal usage. ___ KNOWN: The Pentagon's watchdog has begun looking into Hegseth's use of Signal, and also whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter. NOT KNOWN: What the inspector general will find, or what will be done as a result of those findings. ___ Kinnard can be reached at
