Melania Trump wears charm bracelet in honor of Texas flooding victims: 'We are grieving'
On July 11, the first lady toured devastation across Texas Hill Country alongside President Donald Trump and shared how she received the accessory, which she wore on her left wrist, during a roundtable meeting with local officials.
"We just met with the wonderful families. We prayed with them. We hugged. We held hands," the first lady said. "They shared their stories, and I met beautiful young ladies who gave me this special bracelet from the camp in honor of all the little girls who lost their lives. We are here to honor them and also to give support and help."
Melania Trump tours Texas flooding devastation in subdued ensemble
"I will be back I promised them. I pray for them and am giving them my strength and love," she added.
In a statement shared with press, Trump's official office confirmed that she was gifted a charm bracelet by the Hotze Family – to honor victims of flooding at Camp Mystic, a nearly 100-year-old nondenominational all-girls summer camp that sits on 700 acres.
The flooding has claimed the lives of more than 120 people since heavy rainfall overwhelmed the Guadalupe River and flowed through homes and summer camps in the early morning hours of July 4.
'Filled with grief and devastation': Trump surveys Texas flood damage. Live updates
The president and first lady arrived at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, before traveling to Kerrville, Texas, to survey the damage of catastrophic flooding that tore across the Texas Hill Country, as authorities and volunteers searched for the missing, and local residents mourned the dead.
Earlier in the day, Trump was pictured embracing her husband while departing the White House in a khaki-colored jacket and monochromatic army green look paired with animal print sunglasses and Converse Chuck Taylor kicks, also a fashion favorite of former Vice President Kamala Harris.
For the arrival, Trump tucked her free-flowing waves from earlier under a black baseball cap. In recent months, Trump has made selective public appearances that reflect her private, low-key nature.
However, in major moments, she has appeared alongside the president at a slew of engagements including his second Inauguration festivities, Fourth of July events, the White House Easter egg roll and the administration's multimillion-dollar festival and parade celebrating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army.
Contributing: Bart Jansen, Joey Garrison
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a 'pocket rescission' to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise. The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts. But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House's budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans. 'Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. 'So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.' 'So we'll see how it goes,' he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending. 'The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we're going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,' he said at an event. However, he also noted then that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released. Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. Vought has described the tactic as 'no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' 'A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' he said. But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief's characterization, arguing the tactic is 'illegal' and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump's first presidential term that the law does not allow 'the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. 'Pocket rescission says, 'Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?'' he argued. 'Like that's the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.' At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration's interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to. Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however. 'I don't know. I haven't researched it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. 'I'd prefer that we not do it that way.' The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it 'wouldn't bother' him if the administration sent 'a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.' There's been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration's plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026. But Republican rifts over the president's latest rescissions requests were also an issue. The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on. Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. If Congress chooses not to approve the administration's request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels. But experts have emphasized that would be 'new funding,' noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next. Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that 'the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn't get a chance to vote on it, that's the key thing.' 'I don't want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn't vote.' Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions. 'I don't care procedurally what you want to call it,' he responded. 'I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.' 'And there's a lot of Republican concern about this too,' he added.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Head Start faces new worries about its future with Trump, GOP
Supporters of Head Start are worried about the program's future as it faces Trump administration calls for budgetary cuts ahead of the next school year. The free, federally funded program for low-income families provides education for infants through preschoolers and had enjoyed bipartisan support for most of its 60-year history. But worries are mounting for both Head Start staff and parents. The Project 2025 blueprint calling for deep federal cuts proposed Head Start's elimination, and while calls to cut its budget have diminished, advocates don't feel the program is safe. The administration also is looking at enrollment changes that could impact students lacking permanent legal status who are covered by Head Start. 'A lot of people have called this death by a thousand cuts, what we've seen in the past six months,' said Casey Peeks, senior director of Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress. Head Start seemed to escape the worst possible fate after a report earlier this year by USA Today that said the White House was ready to adopt the Project 2025 blueprint and eliminate it. Despite the fears, President Trump's final proposal didn't include an increase or decrease in Head Start funding. It kept the program at the same funding level as last year. Other early preschool programs, Preschool Development Grants and the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools, were cut in the budget. Still, the flat funding could hurt as more families seek to use Head Start in an era of rising costs. 'We do have concerns that flat funding … would equate as a cut to Head Start and Early Head Start programs, given cost of living, inflationary costs, as well as just higher costs of operating services, the needs to be able to provide a competitive wage in order to have staff,' said Tommy Sheridan, deputy director for the National Head Start Association. A report last week released by the Government Accountability Office found a temporary funding freeze to Head Start at the beginning of the administration was illegal. The move put programs into chaos, and some even briefly shut down during the pause. While funding was mostly spared, Head Start has watched the Trump administration target staff and enrollment changes. In April, around 50 percent of staff at the Office of Head Start were cut and all staff at regional offices of Head Start were fired. 'We're also seeing a lot of chaos and panic among Head Start staff. They don't know if their jobs are as secure as they once were, which is really causing a problem, because it's not just Head Start, but across the early childhood sector there is a workforce shortage and these types of concerns, lack of reliability, it really doesn't help with the retention issues that are already a problem in normal circumstance,' said Peeks. The latest curveball thrown at Head Start was a notice from the Department of Health and Human Services that said undocumented students can no longer participate in the programs. The directive did not come with any clear instructions, sending programs into confusion as immigration status was never considered in Head Start's history. Twenty Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the directive while the federal government argued it 'ensures that public resources are no longer used to incentivize illegal immigration.' 'There's still a lot of confusion about what exactly it means, and we're encouraging people not to take action until there's more guidance or clarity on who exactly it affects and what the Head Start programs are required to do,' said Melissa Boteach, chief policy adviser for Zero to Three. 'But I think an important point is that it has a chilling effect, regardless, and that if you're [an] immigrant family, regardless of what your status is in terms of legal permanent residence, or mixed status family or refugee or whatever it is, you're legitimately scared of sending your child to an Early Head Start or Head Start program,' she added. Some fear this is just the beginning of an effort to go after the program despite previous bipartisan support, including during the first Trump administration. In Trump's first four years in office, Head Start received funding increases and greater support, especially at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are signs the program could come under more pressure from Republicans who say Head Start has not been accountable enough in how it has spent money. Days after Trump came into office, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce highlighted a report by the Government Accountability Office regarding abuse and negligence in Head Start programs, including child safety concerns and lack of oversight over classroom materials. 'These programs continue to suck up millions in taxpayer funding without serious accountability or oversight. We have an obligation to protect these children and end this gross negligence immediately,' Committee Chair Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said at the time. Proponents of Head Start argue there is data to show it helps lower crime rates, reduces health care costs and increase tax revenue. 'This is proof of the effectiveness of Head Start, and the effectiveness and the impact of the investment that Head Start has been making,' said Sheridan. 'And so, we believe that there's really no sound reason to interfere with that, and we believe that Congress and the administration should come together and really commit to building on the 60 year of bipartisan support that Head Start has had, and double down on that fundamental commitment that our country has made to children and to our collective future.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 ways Trump has shaped the economy in 6 months
President Trump sailed into the White House last year on confidence in his ability to handle the economy following 40-year high inflation and deep-seated financial frustration among voters. Here are the big economic hallmarks of the first six months of his second term, spanning taxes, tariffs, deficits, markets, and the dollar — and how they could affect regular Americans. Trade war 2.0 Trump has massively scaled up the reset of U.S. trade policy that he started during his first term and that was left largely in place during the Biden administration. While his country-specific tariffs have been pushed back to Aug. 1 and multiple sketches of bilateral trade deals have been announced, the overall U.S. tariff level is around its highest levels in a century, mostly due to tariffs on China. The tariff rate on China is now about 50 percent, according to different estimates, This is sparking concerns about a broader ' decoupling ' of the world's two largest economies. The Yale Budget Lab put the overall U.S. tariff level at 20.2 percent this week and Fitch Ratings put it at 14.1 percent last month. Total tariff rates have a large statistical range as they can be assembled and weighted in different ways. Trump and the White House have announced trade deals with China, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the United Kingdom — but many specifics are still forthcoming. Tariffs have likely started to show up in consumer prices. The consumer price index (CPI) ticked up to a 2.7-percent annual increase in June from 2.4 percent in May, and tariffs are expected to drive it higher. Many economists — including those at the Federal Reserve — have cast the tariffs in stagflationary terms, meaning that they'll push prices higher while detracting from growth. Gross domestic product (GDP) contracted in the first quarter as importers pulled orders in ahead of tariffs. The Atlanta Fed is forecasting 2.4-percent annualized growth for the second quarter, which would be solid. Trump has pursued his trade war with the stated goal of bringing back outsourced jobs and boost household income, but there are few signs of this happening so far. Wage growth has fallen under Trump from a 4.2-percent annual increase in February to 3.9 percent in June. U.S. wage growth has stagnated over the long term. Accounting for inflation, purchasing power of U.S. paychecks grew by just over $2 between 1964 and 2018, according to Pew Research. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs, which Trump has touted as getting a boost from tariffs, have been largely stagnant since February at 12.8 million. Tax cuts 2.0 Earlier this month, Trump signed $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts into law, most of which were an extension of the cuts he signed in 2017. The passage of the president's tax-cut bill was a major win for Trump and the Republican Party, making it through Congress much faster than analysts had expected. Experts told The Hill they didn't think it would happen until the very end of this year, especially because the House and Senate were pursuing differing reconciliation strategies to get it done. However, the tax cuts were expensive and are expected to add substantially to the national debt. Excluding interest, the law will cost $3.4 trillion through the next nine years. That will be added to the total U.S. debt stock of about $36 trillion. Fights over the debt, which regularly require the acceptable limit to be raised by Congress, have resulted in a downgrade of U.S. credit worthiness by all the big credit agencies. Trump's tax law included a $4.1 trillion increase in the ceiling so the issue won't be a political one for the time being. Debt costs could be paid for by future reductions to social programs. The tax law will kick 10 million Americans off of public health insurance in 2024. While tax cuts are traditionally thought of as economically stimulative, the congressional tax scorer projected minimal growth resulting from the Senate's version of the bill at just 1.8 percent. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) found in 2019 that real wages increased following the 2017 tax law by 1.2 percent, an amount that smaller than the overall growth in compensation in those years. 'Ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates' resulting from the cuts, CRS found. Asked what the main point of the tax law is, University of Michigan tax law professor Reuven Avi-Yonah pointed to its overall redistributive effects, which Congressional Budget Office analyses show to take resources from the poor to give to the rich. 'From a policy perspective, the main point is reverse Robin Hood,' he said in an interview. 'That's fundamentally there.' The decline of the dollar The U.S. dollar has declined precipitously in value relative to other currencies since Trump has taken office, a move that has flouted conventional economic thinking. Since inauguration day, the DXY dollar index has dropped 11 percent to 97.3 from 109.4 even as tariffs are now at near century-high levels. This has flummoxed analysts, who are venturing guesses about what's going on. While the dollar decline decreases the purchasing power of the dollar abroad, it could also bolster U.S. industrial production and the export sector in line with longer-term U.S. economic objectives. 'I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money,' Trump said Friday. 'When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens: It sounds good. But you don't do any tourism, you can't sell tractors, you can't sell trucks, you can't sell anything,' he said. Top White House economists have also talked up the benefits of a weaker dollar. 'The reserve function of the dollar has caused persistent currency distortions,' Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran said earlier this year. Miran has argued in the past that 'persistent dollar overvaluation … prevents the balancing of international trade, and this overvaluation is driven by inelastic demand for reserve assets.' In other words, scaring investors away from the dollar may work to the U.S.'s advantage. Some analysts have compared the decline to the Plaza Accord, a 1985 currency agreement that devalued the dollar and reduced the trade deficit. The financial world is starting to see results. 'With the dollar now firmly back within our estimated fair-value range, we view the risks as more balanced than at any time during the last three years,' analysts for Vanguard said Thursday. Attacks on the Fed Trump's first six months have also been marked by vociferous and repeated attacks from the president on the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell. Trump reportedly went so far as to pitch the idea of firing Powell to GOP lawmakers last week before saying that it was 'highly unlikely.' While the Fed seems content to maintain its pause on cuts for now, Trump's aggressions have shown up in financial markets. More substantially, they've also changed the conversation on monetary policy. Economists have started to worry about a Fed that takes its cues from the White House, making it less independent and more susceptible to short-term political pressures. They're worried that the Fed could become more tolerant of inflation, which could lead to financial repression — when the inflation rate surpasses the rate of interest, leading to negative long-term returns on capital. Some supporters of the president have even questioned the 1951 accord between the Fed and the Treasury, whereby the Fed handles the money supply and the Treasury issues bonds. Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who is often listed as a successor to Powell, floated 'a new accord' to replace the 1951 agreement. Warsh said the traditionally independent Fed and the Treasury Department could work together to communicate moves about the Fed's balance sheet. Markets down, markets up Stock markets took a dive at the outset of Trump's trade war and then rallied as different deals were announced, especially the one with China. The The market narrative spurred by the tariffs has reversed, and the S&P 500 index is now at all-time highs. Ownership of the stock market is heavily skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. The poorest half of Americans own just one percent of the stock. Despite the sizzling rebound in stocks, the bond market is still jittery, following a yield spike in April that prompted a course-correction on tariffs from the White House. Consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan has rebounded from lows hit during the height of the tariff rollout, but is still quite a bit lower than it was before the pandemic. Business sentiment is still flagging in various polls, and the latest anecdotal survey of the economy by the Fed is filled with complaints about policy uncertainty. Markets are also processing multiple new pieces of legislation on cryptocurrency, which have classified digital currencies as forms of payment rather than assets.
