SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
donald trump
100+ People Dead in Texas—Just 2 Months After Former National Weather Service Chiefs Warned of 'Nightmare' Scenario
While the agency and outside meteorologists say the NWS provided timely and accurate forecasts, the fatal flooding is generating fresh alarm about cuts and open positions.
Jul 07, 2025
As the official death toll from catastrophic flooding in Texas ticked above 100 on Monday, concerns over vacancies as well as job and potential funding cuts at the National Weather Service continued to mount—even as the NWS and independent meteorologists insisted that the agency had "issued timely warnings in advance of the deadly floods."
The flooding came just over two months after all living former directors of the NWS published a letter sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 and its cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of the NWS in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The five men—Louis Uccellini, Jack Hayes, Brig. Gen. D.L. Johnson, Brig. Gen. John J. Kelly Jr., and E.W. "Joe" Friday—wrote on May 2 that "even if the National Weather Service remains level funded, given the interconnectedness of all of the parts of NOAA, there will be impacts to weather forecasting as well. We cannot let this happen."
"These proposed cuts come just days after approximately 300 National Weather Service... employees left the public service to which they had devoted their lives and careers," the ex-directors pointed out. "That's on top of the approximately 250 NWS employees who were fired as a result of their probationary status in new—often higher-level positions—or took the initial buyout offered by the Trump administration in early February."
"That leaves the nation's official weather forecasting entity at a significant deficit—down more than 10% of its staffing—just as we head into the busiest time for severe storm predictions like tornadoes and hurricanes," they continued. "Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life. We know that's a nightmare shared by those on the forecasting frontlines—and by the people who depend on their efforts."
Discussing recent job reductions with The Associated Press on Monday, Uccellini, whose tenure leading NWS included Trump's first term, warned that "this situation is getting to the point where something could break."
"The people are being tired out, working through the night and then being there during the day because the next shift is short-staffed," he said. "Anything like that could create a situation in which important elements of forecasts and warnings are missed."
For the flooding in Texas, the NWS Austin-San Antonio office had five meteorologists working, rather than two, as part of its "surge staffing" protocol.
However, Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the NWS Employees Organization, a union that represents government workers, also told NBC News that the agency's Austin-San Antonio office does not have a permanent science officer, who conducts training for and implements new technology, or a warning coordination meteorologist, who has contact with media.
That office "is operating with 11 staff meteorologists and is down six employees from its typical full staffing level of 26," NBC reported. The nearby San Angelo office "is short four staff members from its usual staffing level of 23. The meteorologist-in-charge position—the office's top leadership position—is not permanently filled. The office is also without a senior hydrologist."
Despite some open positions at the two offices, the NWS began warning of potential flooding as early as Thursday morning, and as conditions worsened overnight, the agency issued its first warning for "life-threatening flash flooding" for parts of Kerr County at 1:14 am Central Time Friday, according to CNN.
"But questions remain about how many people they reached, whether critical vacancies at the forecast offices could have affected warning dissemination, and if so-called warning fatigue had been growing among residents in a region described as one of the most dangerous in the country for flash flooding," the network noted.
As Fahy put it to Politico: "The crux of this disaster is a failure of the last mile of communication... The forecasts went out, they communicated the forecasts, they disseminated the watches and warnings. And the dilemma we have is there was nobody listening at 4 o'clock in the morning for these watches and warnings."
Wisconsin-based meteorologist Chris Vagasky similarly told NBC that "the forecasting was good. The warnings were good. It's always about getting people to receive the message... It appears that is one of the biggest contributors—that last mile."
As The New York Times reported:
In an interview, Rob Kelly, the Kerr County judge and its most senior elected official, said the county did not have a warning system because such systems are expensive, and local residents are resistant to new spending.
"Taxpayers won't pay for it," Mr. Kelly said. Asked if people might reconsider in light of the catastrophe, he said, "I don't know."
As of Monday evening, 104 people are confirmed dead, most of them in Kerr County, which includes Camp Mystic, a Christian all-girls summer camp that lost at least 27 campers and counselors. The AP reported that "search-and-rescue teams carried on with the search for the dead, using heavy equipment to untangle trees and wading into swollen rivers. Volunteers covered in mud sorted through chunks of debris, piece by piece, in an increasingly bleak task."
In a statement to multiple news outlets, the NWS provided a detailed timeline of its alerts. The agency also said that it "is heartbroken by the tragic loss of life in Kerr County" and "remains committed to our mission to serve the American public through our forecasts and decision support services."
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday sent a letter to Roderick Anderson, acting inspector general at the Department of Commerce, urging an investigation into "the scope, breadth, and ramifications of whether staffing shortages at key local National Weather Service... stations contributed to the catastrophic loss of life and property during the deadly flooding."
"The roles left unfilled are not marginal, they're critical," he emphasized. "These are the experts responsible for modeling storm impacts, monitoring rising water levels, issuing flood warnings, and coordinating directly with local emergency managers about when to warn the public and issue evacuation orders. To put it plainly: They help save lives."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt lashed out at him and reporters for such scrutiny on Monday, saying that "unfortunately, in the wake of this once-in-a-generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Sen. Chuck Schumer and some members of the media. Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning."
In addition to the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency—previously led by billionaire Elon Musk, the richest person on Earth—pushing layoffs and retirements, Trump's administration is working to boost fossil fuels that drive the global climate emergency.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Monday, a study published by ClimaMeter found that the floods in Texas were caused by "very exceptional meteorological conditions" that cannot be explained merely by natural variability.
Former Common Dreams staff writer Kenny Stancil is a senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project, which has documented "Trump's attacks on disaster preparedness and response."
"The deadly Texas floods will not be the last manifestation of extreme weather turbocharged by fossil fuel pollution," Stancil wrote in a Monday blog post. "In an era of escalating climate threats, we need a stronger public sector with more resources to mitigate risks, help people weather storms, and adapt to the future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
SCOTUS v. Democracy: 7 Supreme Court Decisions Brought Fascism to America
Trump v. CASA, Inc. was the coup de grace, capping six earlier and toxic SCOTUS decisions which, scattered over two centuries, collectively enabled this moment.
Jul 07, 2025
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2025 created in President Donald Trump an American fascist dictator.
The decision in the case Trump v. CASA, Inc. did not seem momentous. It declared only that Federal District judges could no longer issue “universal” injunctions to foreclose nationwide harm; they could now grant relief only to a plaintiff in a specific lawsuit. But the decision was far from trivial: Trump v. CASA, Inc. was the coup de grace, capping six earlier and toxic SCOTUS decisions which, scattered over two centuries, collectively enabled fascism.
In deciding Trump v. CASA Inc., the six conservative justices of the Roberts Court agreed with the Republican Party’s inane claim: The injunctions of Federal District judges across the country were impeding President Trump’s ability to govern.
A president who can break laws at will is a dictator. The political system creating and accommodating this condition is fascism. Donald Trump is a dictator heading a fascist regime.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller: “Our objective, one way or another, is to make clear that the district courts of this country do not have the authority to direct the functions of the executive branch.”
Attorney-General Pam Bondi: “Active liberal… judges have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump’s policies.”
The argument is laughingly specious, plausible but dead wrong in describing what is actually transpiring. It is no more than misleading spin, resting on two audacious assumptions: (1) The “functions of the executive branch” never violate the law, and “President Trump’s policies” certainly have not. (2) The “active liberal judges” who think otherwise are knee-jerk partisans with not a shred of professional integrity.
Injunctions in lawsuits are issued to block the defendant’s illegal action from continuing to harm the plaintiff, when the judge determines the lawsuit is warranted and the harm is serious. Federal District judges deal with issues nationwide in scope—their purview is every bit as wide as the Supreme Court’s—and if they believe the harm from the defendant’s action poses a threat to the nation at large, the injunction is applied “universally” across the country. We have followed this protocol since it was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Federal District judges do not engage in blocking actions they know to be legal. The injunction in the case at hand and some 40 others against Trump were issued by judges who thought his actions were not, and were harmful nationwide.
Did they make judgment calls? Yes, Federal District judges don’t do anything else. Do they ever make bad ones? Certainly, but they err on the side of caution. If they’ve misjudged, and the enjoined action turns out to be legal, its interruption does no serious social harm. If they’ve judged correctly, and the action is in fact illegal, its interruption prevents serious social harm.
Here, then, is what Mr. Miller, Ms. Bondi, et al., are truly seeking: No Federal District judge should be empowered to protect the nation’s well-being from President Trump’s illegal actions.
And that’s what the Supreme Court’s decision has now codified.
Trump v. CASA is truly cataclysmic. After 236 years of upholding the rule of law, the Supreme Court has now offered Trump an off ramp. He can violate any law he pleases and not be enjoined from jeopardizing the American people.
A president who can break laws at will is a dictator. The political system creating and accommodating this condition is fascism. Donald Trump is a dictator heading a fascist regime.
Fascism is defined in scholarly literature as far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist governance, characterized by a dictatorial leader, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, frequently a fusion with corporate power, and often a cult of personality.
Here we are.
The Supreme Court’s first toxic decision occurred in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison. With no constitutional authority to do so, Chief Justice John Marshall’s Court overturned a law passed by an elected Congress and signed by an elected president. How democratic was that? SCOTUS has exercised the power of judicial review ever since, throwing out both federal and state laws.
Corporate oligarchy was the intermediate step between government by the people and fascism.
The next devastating decision was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 83 years later. In this case the court upgraded the status of U.S. corporations from artificial persons created by state charters, to that of legal persons, with constitutionally protected rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, petition for redress of grievances, and freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Corporate personhood is prima facie preposterous—in fact its granting was technically illegal—but today it is “settled law.”
The misfortunes of judicial review and corporate personhood joined forces in two more SCOTUS decisions, in 1976 and 1978. Buckley v. Valeo found unconstitutional the Corrupt Practices Act of 1910, and declared spending money in political campaigns is an exercise of free speech. Two years later, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state law prohibiting corporations from spending money in political campaigns. The court concluded, citing Buckley, spending money in political campaigns is free speech and corporations have that right, protected by the Constitution.
But money doesn’t utter sounds or leave marks, and corporations don’t walk, eat, breathe, make love, or succumb to disease. Money is speech and corporations are people? How can that be? These two absurd concepts set the nation on the path to fascism.
Both Buckley and Bellotti, however, retained some minor restrictions on corporate spending: “Some conditions apply.” But spend the corporations could, and savagely they did. Over the rest of the 20th century, American corporations exercised their rights of free speech to dominate campaign finance, and their rights of petition to dominate congressional and executive branch lobbying. When the constant stream of corporate money became more influential in Washington than citizens’ episodic votes, democracy was displaced. Corporations succeeded in tilting the crafting of public policy to favor corporate interests over the American people’s well-being. (The nation’s physical infrastructure decayed, for example, while the defense corporations prospered.) Corporate oligarchy was the intermediate step between government by the people and fascism.
The minor restrictions on corporate spending were lifted by the next toxic decision, Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. The court declared corporate political spending could not be constitutionally constrained. “Some conditions [no longer] apply.”
The grip of corporate oligarchy tightened, expressed vividly in the first Trump administration’s slashing of corporate taxes. But at the end of those four years the transition to fascism appeared in dramatic fashion, when Trump refused to leave office, and his cult of personality stormed the Capitol.
Trump was subsequently indicted in two federal cases involving his presidency, for a total of 48 felonies. He denied everything and fought back, claiming his prosecution would handicap future presidents’ freedom of choice, especially in national security issues, if they feared prosecution when out of office. He took his case to SCOTUS.
The Roberts Court showed its propensity for accepting inane arguments. In Trump v. United States, July 1, 2024, the court declared immunity from prosecution for former presidents, if their violations of law were incidental to “official acts.”
No one is above the law, the Roberts Court proclaimed, except presidents.
Then a year later Trump v. CASA Inc. was the straw that broke democracy’s back.
SCOTUS v. DEMOCRACY brought us fascism and fashioned a dictator. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority continues as Trump’s compliant servant. Pam Bondi is his defense attorney. The sycophantic Republican Congress passed a law massively enriching the corporate and the wealthy at the direct expense of everyone else. No democracy on Earth would do that, ever.
And no country is a democracy if commanded by a single unaccountable man.
Trump can violate, has violated, is violating, will violate any law he chooses and face no universal injunctive interdiction. If he is sued for violating federal statutes and Pam Bondi fails with demonstrated vigor to dismiss the charges, his prosecution is postponed by Department of Justice policy until he is out of office. And once out of office Trump is immune.
But that may not happen. he may not leave office. If Trump can ignore the 14th Amendment in voiding birthright citizenship, he can ignore the 22nd and run for a third term. Or he might declare martial law and suspend elections altogether.
What will stop him? He’s 79. Maybe death. Anything else?
Angry, well informed, organized, and committed people are already protesting in the streets. That could stop him, but only if the movement grows larger.
Toppling Trump is by no means out of reach. Scholars Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan tell why in their book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Based on their rigorous research into historic conflicts, they offer a “rule of thumb.” An autocratic regime is in mortal peril when 3.5% of the people register civil resistance.
Doing the math we need a bit more than 12 million Americans to do this, and we may be about halfway home. An estimated 4-7 million individuals have joined in thousands of protests multiple times since Trump was inaugurated.
So, people, we have to get that many more into the streets. Full stop.
This article is drawn from a book the author is completing, The Triumph of Corporate Oligarchy: How It Defeated Democracy, Savaged a Thriving Nation, Normalized Fraudulent War, and Brought Forth Donald Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days After Giving Big Tax Cuts to Billionaires, Trump to Hit Workers With $2 Trillion Tax Increase
Trump insists that other countries will pay the tariff, but there is no reason for anyone to care about whatever idiocy comes out of Trump’s mouth. Who knows what Trump actually believes, but in reality-land we pay the tariffs.
Jul 07, 2025
Donald Trump seems to be doing everything possible to show his contempt for ordinary working people, many of whom voted for him last fall. Just after signing his big bill, which gave massive tax breaks to the rich while taking away health care insurance for 12 to 17 million people, Trump announced that he will hit workers with one of the largest tax increases ever.
The tax increases take the form of the import taxes, or tariffs, that Trump plans to impose on the goods that we import from the rest of the world. While we won’t know the actual size of these taxes until Trump sends us his letters, based on what he has said to date, it will almost certainly be several trillion dollars if they are left in place over a decade. Taking a low-end figure of $2 trillion, that would come to $16,000 per household over the next decade.
Whatever Trump may say or think, people in the United States will be paying his tariffs.
To be clear, Trump insists that other countries will pay the tariff, but there is no reason for anyone to care about whatever idiocy comes out of Trump’s mouth. Trump said that there are 20 million people, with reported birthdays putting them over 115, getting Social Security (The number of dead people getting checks is in the low thousands.).
He said China doesn’t have any wind power; it leads the world in wind power. And Trump said global warming isn’t happening and slashed the budget for monitoring weather. Now 70 people are dead in Texas from floods for which they and state officials were not adequately warned.
The dead people in Texas, their families, and the rest of the country don’t have time for Donald Trump’s make-believe world. It doesn’t matter that Trump says other countries will pay the tariffs. Who knows what Trump actually believes, but in reality-land we pay the tariffs.
This is not hard to demonstrate. We have data on import prices through May of this year. This is before many of Trump’s tariffs hit, but items for most countries already faced a Trump tax of at least 10 percent, with much higher taxes on goods from China, as well as aluminum and cars and parts.
If other countries were paying the tariffs, then the prices of the goods we import, which do not include the tariff, would be falling. They aren’t.
To start with the big picture, the price of all non-fuel imports was 1.7 percent higher in May of 2025 than it had been in May of 2024. That doesn’t look like exporters are eating the tariffs. If we want a base of comparison, non-fuel import prices rose by just 0.5 percent from May of 2023 to May of 2024. If we want to tell a story of exporters eating the tariffs, we’re going in the wrong direction.
If we look to motor vehicles and parts, the numbers again go in the wrong direction. Import prices are 0.7 percent higher than they were in May of 2024. If we turn to aluminum the story is even worse. The price of aluminum imports was 5.4 percent higher in May of this year than a year ago.
There is a small bit of good news on apparel prices. This index for import prices was 2.9 percent lower in May of 2025 than the prior. But before celebrating too much, it’s worth noting that the price of imported apparel goods had already been dropping before Trump’s tariffs. It fell 0.3 percent from May of 2023 to May of 2024.
It’s also worth noting that much of this apparel comes from China, where items now face a 54 percent tariff. Insofar as our imported apparel comes from China, this 2.9 percent price decline would mean exporters are eating just over 5 percent of the tariff. That would mean that if Trump imposed import taxes of $2 trillion over the next decade, we will pay $1.9 trillion of these tariffs.
In short, whatever Trump may say or think, people in the United States will be paying his tariffs. They amount to a very big and not beautiful tax increase on ordinary workers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular