'Evil, bad person': Trump dodges Texas flood warning query with stinging reply
Donald Trump and US First Lady Melania Trump visited Texas on Friday, July 12, after heavy rainfall caused the Guadalupe River in Kerr County to rise 26 feet in less than an hour — killing at least 121 — including dozens of children at the nearby Christian summer camp, Camp Mystic.
Over 2,100 responders from local, state and federal agencies are on the ground, with the search for more than 170 missing people still underway, reported ABC News.
During his visit to Texas in the aftermath of the floods, Donald Trump was asked for his response to those who say the warning alerts didn't go out in time and that more people could have been saved.
Rebuffing the question, the POTUS instead praised the response efforts.
"Well, I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances," Trump said. 'I just have admiration for the job that everybody did. There's just admiration.'
Besides labelling the reporter's query as 'evil,' Trump further went on to say:
'I think this has been heroism. This has been incredible. Really, the job you've all done." "It's easy to sit back and say, 'Oh, what could have happened here or there, maybe we could have done something differently.' This was a thing ... that's never happened before."
The deadly floods claimed the lives of several children who had been attending a girls' summer camp located near the Guadalupe River, where rising water levels swept away cabins, bridges and roads.
Camp Mystic said it had lost 27 campers and counselors in the deluge, reported Bloomberg. KERRVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 11: Community members embrace during a candlelight vigil to honor the lives lost in the flash floods that claimed more than 120 lives on July 11, 2025 in Kerrville, Texas. More than 160 people are still missing after storms cells halted over the area, dumping nearly 15 inches of rain and causing a 22-foot rise along the Guadalupe River.
Officials in Kerr County, which saw the highest number of casualties, reported that 36 children and 60 adults have been killed to date. Around 160 people remain missing.
The statewide death toll is expected to mount as rescuers continue to search through debris for those missing, mentioned a report by Bloomberg.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
Senate Raps Secret Service One Year After Trump Assassination Bid, Vance Posts 'Iconic' Pic
Last Updated: A U.S. Senate report released on Sunday said a "cascade" of failures allowed a gunman to shoot at Donald Trump during a campaign rally last year. A report of the US released on Sunday said a 'cascade" of failures allowed a gunman to shoot at Donald Trump during a campaign rally last year and faulted Secret Service discipline, including the lack of firings in the wake of the attack. A recent report accuses the Secret Service of negligence and communication failures in planning and executing the security for Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear with a bullet last year. 'This was not a single error. It was a cascade of preventable failures that nearly cost President Trump his life," stated the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting current and former presidents and their families, as well as visiting foreign leaders and some other senior officials. On the first anniversary of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, US Vice President JD Vance called the moment the 'most iconic" he has ever witnessed in American politics. Sharing a now-famous image of Trump raising his bloodied fist moments after the shooting, Vance posted on X: 'Remains the most iconic moment I've ever seen in American politics. One year ago today." Remains the most iconic moment I've ever seen in American politics. One year ago today. — JD Vance (@JDVance) July 13, 2025 During the July 13, 2014, rally, one attendee was killed and two others were injured in the shooting. The gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was subsequently shot to death by Secret Service agents. Kimberly Cheatle resigned as the director of the Secret Service 10 days after the shooting, amid harsh scrutiny of the agency's role, and six Secret Service agents on duty during the attempt received suspensions ranging from 10 to 42 days, the agency said on Thursday. The committee argued that more than six officials should have been punished, noting that two of those disciplined received lighter penalties than recommended. It also emphasised that no one was fired. Current Secret Service Director Sean Curran stated that the agency has received the report and will continue to cooperate with the committee. 'Following the events of July 13, the Secret Service took a serious look at our operations and implemented substantive reforms to address the failures that occurred that day," Curran said. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
New Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
The avertible influence of anti-U.S. bluster
It is true that Indian social media influencers have come of age. They probably have more views and clicks than mainstream media practitioners and influence millions more. However, here's the danger. First of all, their titles and headlines are misleading. Mere clickbait. They include, often misleadingly, if not mischievously, the name of some important political bigwig or another. US President Donald J. Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in reverse order, are their favourites. They also claim, week after week, video after video, that some 'big action' is being planned. Or some big crash, when it comes to finfluencers, is in the offing. 'Modi checkmates Trump' or 'Dedollarisation Underway' are examples of the kind of headlines I am talking about. Of course, few, if any, of their dire warnings or hopeful predictions pan out as promised. Instead, the viewer is taken for a ride through more dangerous drivel or speculative slosh. Worse, many content creators and handles are faking images and voices of famous personalities, such as Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, or Jordan Peterson, to post content that has nothing to do with these worthies. Some of this material is disinformation, plain and simple, weaponised and deployed for not-so-innocent and outright sinister ends. However, a lot of it is only boasting and bluster, good for business and profits. For, I am told, many of these channels are raking in huge bucks, some in stratospheric numbers exceeding ₹50 lakh or even ₹1 crore a month. With very little investment. Even among the best of these influencers—whom I won't name, as some are friends—the content is variable and not always reliable. However, one clear trend among all the pro-government channels is a mocking of US President Trump and an exaltation of our own great leader. No harm in old-style patriotism, you say? But there is a downside to this, which I must spell out. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, we may end up talking, even shouting and screaming too loudly, while holding a little one. This doesn't augur well for a rising power like India. Why? Self-delusion is sure to land us in a hole which we have dug for ourselves. I am going to stick my neck out here: India, to go on doing well, probably needs the US more than the US needs us.
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Scrap the asylum system—and build something better
THE RULES for refugees arose haphazardly. The UN Refugee Convention of 1951 applied only to Europe, and aimed to stop fugitives from Stalin being sent back to face his fury. It declared that anyone forced to flee by a 'well-founded fear' of persecution must have sanctuary, and must not be returned to face peril (the principle of 'non-refoulement'). In 1967 the treaty was extended to the rest of the world. Most countries have signed it. Yet dwindling numbers honour it. China admits fewer refugees than tiny Lesotho and sends North Koreans home to face the gulag. President Donald Trump has ended asylum in America for nearly everyone except white South Africans, and plans to spend more on deporting irregular migrants than other countries spend on defence. Western attitudes are hardening. In Europe the views of social democrats and right-wing populists are converging. The system is not working. Designed for post-war Europe, it cannot cope with a world of proliferating conflict, cheap travel and huge wage disparities. Roughly 900m people would like to migrate permanently. Since it is almost impossible for a citizen of a poor country to move legally to a rich one, many move without permission. In the past two decades many have discovered that asylum offers a back door. Instead of crossing a border stealthily, as in the past, they walk up to a border guard and request asylum, knowing that the claim will take years to adjudicate and, in the meantime, they can melt into the shadows and find work. Voters are right to think the system has been gamed. Most asylum claims in the European Union are now rejected outright. Fear of border chaos has fuelled the rise of populism, from Brexit to Donald Trump, and poisoned the debate about legal migration. To create a system that offers safety for those who need it but also a reasonable flow of labour migration, policymakers need to separate one from the other. Around 123m people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution, three times more than in 2010, partly because wars are lasting longer. All these people have a right to seek safety. But 'safety' need not mean access to a rich country's labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution. In 2023 OECD countries received 2.7m claims for asylum—a record number, but a pinprick compared with the size of the problem. The most pragmatic approach would be to offer more refugees sanctuary close to home. Typically, this means in the first safe country or regional bloc where they set foot. Refugees who travel shorter distances are more likely one day to return home. They are also more likely to be welcomed by their hosts, who tend to be culturally close to them and to be aware that they are seeking the first available refuge from a calamity. This is why Europeans have largely welcomed Ukrainians, Turks have been generous to Syrians and Chadians to Sudanese. Looking after refugees closer to home is often much cheaper. The UN refugee agency spends less than $1 a day on each refugee in Chad. Given limited budgets, rich countries would help far more people by funding refugee agencies properly—which they currently do not—than by housing refugees in first-world hostels or paying armies of lawyers to argue over their cases. They should also assist the host countries generously, and encourage them to let refugees support themselves by working, as an increasing number do. Compassionate Westerners may feel an urge to help the refugees they see arriving on their shores. But if the journey is long, arduous and costly, the ones who complete it will usually not be the most desperate, but male, healthy and relatively well-off. Fugitives from Syria's war who made it to next-door Turkey were a broad cross-section of Syrians; those who reached Europe were 15 times more likely to have college degrees. When Germany opened its doors to Syrians in 2015-16, it inspired 1m refugees who had already found safety in Turkey to move to Europe in pursuit of higher wages. Many went on to lead productive lives, but it is not obvious why they deserved priority over the legions of other, sometimes better-qualified people who would have relished the same opportunity. Voters have made clear they want to choose whom to let in—and this does not mean everyone who shows up and claims asylum. If rich countries want to stem such arrivals, they need to change the incentives. Migrants who trek from a safe country to a richer one should not be considered for asylum. Those who arrive should be sent to a third country for processing. If governments want to host refugees from far-off places, they can select them at source, where the UN already registers them as they flee from war zones. Some courts will say this violates the principle of non-refoulement. But it need not if the third country is safe. Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister, wants to send asylum-seekers to have their cases heard in Albania, which qualifies. South Sudan, where Mr Trump wants to dump illicit migrants, does not. Deals can be done to win the co-operation of third-country governments, especially if rich countries act together, as the EU is starting to. Once it becomes clear that arriving uninvited confers no advantage, the numbers doing so will plummet. The politics of the possible That should restore order at the frontier, and so create political space for a calmer discussion of labour migration. Rich countries would benefit from more foreign brains. Many also want young hands to work on farms and in care homes, as Ms Meloni proposes. An orderly influx of talent would make both host countries and the migrants themselves more prosperous. Dealing with the backlog of previous irregular arrivals would still be hard. Mr Trump's policy of mass deportation is both cruel and expensive. Far better to let those who have put down roots stay, while securing the border and changing the incentives for future arrivals. If liberals do not build a better system, populists will build a worse one. For subscribers only: to see how we design each week's cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
