Trump Calls Reporter 'Evil Person' For Asking About Families Impacted By Texas Flood
'Several families we heard from are obviously upset because they say those warnings, those alerts didn't go out in time, and they also say that people could have been saved,' said a reporter from CBS News Texas. 'What do you say to those families?'
'I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances,' Trump replied. 'This was, I guess [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi [Noem] said a one-in-500, one-in-1,000 years [disaster]. I just have admiration for the job that everybody did.'
The flooding has devastated Central Texas. Authorities have confirmed at least 120 deaths across six counties and that at least 170 people remain missing. Kerr County's Joint Information Center reportedly confirmed that 36 people who died there were children.
The National Weather Service said it issued two flood warnings overnight before the disaster hit.
Kerrville Mayor Joe Herring Jr. told CNN he 'didn't even have a warning,' noting that around 8 p.m. on Friday he only saw a forecast for a 'chance of rain.' He added that he lost two friends to the floods.
Trump nonetheless went on to tear into the reporter for asking him about impacted families.
'Only a bad person would ask a question like that, to be honest with you,' he continued during the exchange Friday. 'I don't know who you are, but only a very evil person would ask a question like that. I think this has been heroism. This has been incredible.'
Reporter: Several families are upset because they're saying the alerts didn't go out in time. What do you say to those families?Trump: I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances… Only an evil person would ask a question like that pic.twitter.com/TZNJPxsJ0U
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 11, 2025
The flooding was caused by heavy downpour that made the Guadalupe River rise some 26 feet in less than an hour. The New York Times reported Saturday that the National Weather Service in San Antonio and San Angelo had significant vacancies when the storm hit.
Trump slashed roughly 600 positions at the government agency earlier this year.
'It's easy to ask, to sit back and ask, 'What could have happened here or there? Maybe we could have done something differently,'' Trump said Friday after scolding the CBS News reporter. 'This was a thing that's never happened before.'
Trump was far more gracious after hearing from a reporter from conservative outlet Real America's Voice, who thanked the president and other representatives at the event for their response to the disaster, and said: 'Well, that's a nice reporter. That's a nice question.'
Report: FEMA Repeatedly Loosened Oversight At Texas Camp Where 27 People Died In Flooding
Trump Tours Texas Flood Sites And Defends Officials Amid Mounting Questions About Response
Trump's Response To Disaster In A Red State Doesn't Bode Well For Others
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
24 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Says Attorney General Bondi Should Release ‘Credible' Epstein Files
Trump Says Attorney General Bondi Should Release 'Credible' Epstein Files President Trump said that Attorney General Pam Bondi has handled convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's case 'very well' despite the backlash from Trump's MAGA base. Photo: Al Drago/Press Pool; Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
The Paramount comics, Colbert and Stewart, are sharp critics of the '60 Minutes' deal
NEW YORK (AP) — This isn't a joke. They've made that clear. CBS 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert condemned parent company Paramount Global's settlement of President Donald Trump's lawsuit over a '60 Minutes' story as a 'big fat bribe' during his first show back from a vacation. Colbert followed 'The Daily Show' host Jon Stewart's attack of the deal one week earlier. Stewart works for Comedy Central, also owned by Paramount, making the two comics the most visible internal critics of the $16 million settlement that was announced on July 1. Colbert's 'bribe' reference was to the pending sale of Paramount to Skydance Media, which needs Trump administration approval. Critics of the deal that ended Trump's lawsuit over the newsmagazine's editing of its interview last fall with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris suggested it was primarily to clear a hurdle to that sale. 'I am offended,' Colbert said in his monologue Monday night. 'I don't know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company. But, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.' He said the technical name in legal circles for the deal was 'big fat bribe.' Jon Stewart terms it 'shameful' Stewart began discussing the 'shameful settlement' on his show a week earlier when he was 'interrupted' by a fake Arby's ad on the screen. 'That's why it was so wrong,' he said upon his 'return.' He discussed the deal in greater detail with the show's guest, retired '60 Minutes' correspondent Steve Kroft, making his views clear through a series of leading questions. 'I would assume internally, this is devastating to the people who work in a place that pride themselves on contextual, good journalism?' Stewart asked. 'Devastating is a good word,' Kroft replied. A handful of media reports in the past two weeks have speculated that Skydance boss David Ellison might try to curry favor with Trump by eliminating the comics' jobs if the sale is approved. A representative for Ellison did not immediately return a message for comment on Tuesday. It would be easier to get rid of Stewart, since he works one night a week at a network that no longer produces much original content. Colbert is the ratings leader in late-night broadcast television, however, and is a relentless Trump critic. The antipathy is mutual. Trump called Colbert 'a complete and total loser' in a Truth Social post last fall, suggesting CBS was wasting its money on him. 'HE IS VERY BORING,' Trump wrote. Colbert slips in a quip Colbert alluded to reports about his job security in his monologue, pointing to the mustache he grew during his vacation. 'OK, OK, but how are they going to put pressure on Stephen Colbert, if they can't find him?' he joked. Colbert and Stewart both earned Emmy nominations this week for outstanding talk series. Together with ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, all three nominees are tough on Trump. CBS News journalists have largely been quiet publicly since the settlement's announcement. Two top executives, CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, both quit or were forced out prior to the settlement for making their dissatisfaction about the idea known internally. Reporting about the settlement on the day it was announced, 'CBS Evening News' anchor John Dickerson said viewers would have to decide on their own what it meant to them. 'Can you hold power to account after paying it millions?' Dickerson asked. 'Can an audience trust you when it thinks you've traded away that trust? The audience will decide that. Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people.' ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and
