Press Sec dispels fake news National Weather staffing flooding; Bessent: no tax collection problem

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt systematically dispelled the emerging Democratic narrative that the Texas flooding had been exacerbated by National Weather Service staffing cuts under DOGE. Leavitt provided specific data: the San Angelo office was fully staffed with 12 forecast meteorologists. The San Antonio office had 11 forecasters. Union representatives had confirmed adequate staffing. The NWS had issued specific timely warnings throughout the July 2-3 period that properly alerted the affected region. Leavitt then updated the trade letters story — 12 additional countries would receive letters, with the deadline extended to August 1. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered his explicit fiscal framework: “We don’t have a tax collection problem; we have a spending problem.”

The NWS Staffing Allegation

The reporter opened with the specific Democratic framing. “Are there concerns within the White House or from the President himself over the cuts that happen under Musk while he was advising Doge, including the National Weather Service?”

The framing assumes that DOGE-era cuts to the National Weather Service contributed to the Texas flooding’s high casualty count. The implication is that if the NWS had been adequately staffed, the warnings would have been better and fewer people would have died.

The San Angelo And San Antonio Data

Leavitt’s response was specific. “I think I’ve already addressed that, Kristen, and what I can tell you is that these offices were fully staffed. The San Angelo office was fully staffed with 12 forecast meteorologists. There were no vacancies. The San Antonio office was operating with 11 forecasters.”

The specific numbers matter. The offices most directly responsible for forecasting in the affected region were fully staffed. 12 meteorologists at San Angelo with no vacancies. 11 forecasters at San Antonio. These are the people who issued the warnings in the hours and days before the flood.

“Fully staffed” and “no vacancies” are the specific framings. The offices were not operating at reduced capacity. They were not short-handed. They had the personnel they needed to conduct their forecasting responsibilities.

”The Union Themselves Said”

Leavitt added institutional validation. “And as Brian said, the union themselves said that there was adequate staffing.”

The reference is to the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) or similar union representing NWS personnel. When the union, which has institutional incentive to complain about staffing shortages that could affect member workloads, confirms that staffing was adequate, the administration’s framing is validated by a source that would not be expected to favor the administration.

“So I think those words speak for themselves and the numbers speak for themselves” captures the logic. Specific numbers plus union confirmation produces a factual framework that refutes the staffing-shortage narrative.

”A Once In A Century Flash Flood”

Leavitt then broadened the framing. “This was a once in a century flash flood, a tragic natural disaster, and the administration is doing all that we can on the ground to help these families during this time of need.”

“Once in a century” captures the magnitude of the flooding. Extreme weather events of this scale are, by definition, rare. The Guadalupe River flooding that occurred represents the kind of statistical outlier that happens only occasionally in any given region.

The flooding’s catastrophic character was not primarily a function of staffing or preparation. It was a function of the specific weather dynamics — an extraordinary rainfall event coupled with specific river and terrain conditions that produced rapid, deep flooding. No level of forecasting staffing could have prevented the flood itself.

The Warning Timeline

Leavitt then provided the specific warning sequence. “Well, the alerts imminently were sent out before the flood when people were sleeping because the flood hit in the very early hours of the morning. So people were sleeping in the middle of the night when this flood came.”

The timing of the flood matters. It hit during sleeping hours. Warnings issued earlier would reach some people but not others. People in cabins, tents, or other settings where smartphones might be unmonitored during sleep would not necessarily receive warnings in time to evacuate.

”Act Of God”

Leavitt used explicit religious framing. “That was an act of God. It’s not the administration’s fault that the flood hit when it did.”

“Act of God” is the traditional framing for natural disasters that are outside human control. Weather events of this scale are not prevented by administrative decisions or by institutional staffing. The flood hit when it hit. Human systems could prepare for it and respond to it, but could not prevent it.

The framing is important for political reasons. Critics who want to blame the administration for the flood’s casualty count need a causal chain that runs from administration decisions to increased flood damage. If the flood itself was an act of God and warnings were issued adequately, no such causal chain exists.

The Specific Warning Record

Leavitt then delivered the detailed timeline. “But there were early and consistent warnings. And again, the National Weather Service did its job. On July 2nd, there were initial notices of potential weather and flooding risks were issued. On July 3rd, escalating warnings throughout the day with a flood wash issued at 1:18 p.m. And then later on at 6:10 p.m. on July 3rd, the Weather Prediction Center warned of excessive rainfall and a high likelihood of flash flooding. 6:22 p.m. July 3rd, National Weather Center issued a hydraulic warning highlighting considerable flooding risks, including in Carrival County. And then there were the timely flash flood alerts at 11:41 p.m., 1:14 a.m. And then another flash flood emergency warning issued at 4:03 a.m. just before the flood hit.”

The timeline is extraordinarily detailed. The NWS issued:

July 2: Initial notices of potential weather and flooding risks.
July 3, 1:18 PM: Flood watch.
July 3, 6:10 PM: Excessive rainfall warning with high flash flood likelihood.
July 3, 6:22 PM: Hydraulic warning highlighting considerable flooding risks.
11:41 PM: Flash flood alert.
1:14 AM: Flash flood alert.
4:03 AM: Flash flood emergency warning just before the flood hit.

That sequence represents extensive, escalating warnings across the 36+ hours before the event. Communities and individuals who were monitoring official weather information had multiple opportunities to prepare or evacuate.

Why The Warning Sequence Matters

The specific timeline matters because it refutes the claim that warnings were inadequate. If the NWS had been understaffed, the claim would be that warnings were delayed, imprecise, or missing. But the specific record shows warnings that were timely (many hours before the event), escalating (increasing in urgency as the situation developed), and specific (mentioning specific counties and impact types).

The tragedy’s specific deaths and damage resulted from factors other than warning inadequacy. Some victims were in campsites where smartphone monitoring of weather alerts was not possible. Some were in structures in the flood plain where water rose faster than evacuation could occur. Some were at night in areas where alerts came after people had already gone to sleep.

The Trade Letters Update

Leavitt then pivoted to trade. “I have the sign letters that went out to both South Korea and Japan today. There will be approximately 12 other countries that will receive notifications and letters directly from the President of the United States.”

South Korea and Japan received their letters on this day. 12 more countries are scheduled to receive letters. The rollout is proceeding across multiple days.

”Tailor-Made Trade Plans”

Leavitt repeated the framework. “In weeks ago, I stood at this podium and I told all of you that the President was going to create tailor-made trade plans for each and every country on this planet. And that’s what this administration continues to be focused on.”

“Tailor-made” captures the specific approach. Each country’s trade relationship with the United States has specific characteristics — its export categories, its import dependencies, its strategic importance, its political alignment with American priorities. The administration is calibrating tariff rates to each country’s specific circumstances.

The “tailor-made” approach contrasts with uniform tariff policies that apply the same rate to all countries regardless of circumstances. The administration’s approach uses tariff policy as a specific leverage tool adjusted to each bilateral relationship.

The August 1 Extension

Leavitt announced the specific procedural detail. “The President will also sign an executive order today delaying the July 9th deadline to August 1st, so the reciprocal tariff rate or these new rates that will be provided in this correspondence to these foreign leaders will be going out the door within the next month or deals will be made.”

The deadline extension provides additional time. The previous deadline had been July 9. The new deadline is August 1. That additional three weeks allows more time for negotiation. Countries that receive the letters can use the interim period to work out modifications through direct engagement with the president.

“Or deals will be made” captures the alternative path. Countries that want to avoid the declared tariff rates can reach deals before August 1. Those deals would supersede the letters’ specifications.

”Positive Developments”

Leavitt noted the ongoing negotiations. “And those countries continue to negotiate with the United States. We’ve seen a lot of positive developments in the right direction, but the administration, the President and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker.”

“Positive developments in the right direction” suggests that countries receiving the letters are engaging constructively rather than rejecting the framework. Those engagements may produce specific deals before August 1, reducing the number of countries that ultimately face the unilateral tariff rates.

“Best deals for the American people and the American worker” is the negotiating objective. Trade policy, in the administration’s framework, is not an abstract matter of international relations. It is a concrete matter of what terms serve American workers best.

Leavitt noted the transparency mechanism. “And in the effort of transparency, these letters will continue to be posted to True Social. So you can enjoy them yourself.”

The letters are being posted publicly to Trump’s Truth Social account. That transparency means Americans can read the specific text of each letter. The approach contrasts with traditional diplomatic communications that remain private between governments.

The public posting serves multiple purposes. It provides transparency to American voters about what their administration is saying to foreign governments. It signals to the foreign governments that American commitments are public and accountable rather than hidden. It gives the administration political credit for the specific negotiating positions being taken.

Bessent On The Deficit

Treasury Secretary Bessent then delivered his specific fiscal framing. “We inherited a mess and I’m not sure where all these deficit hawks were when the team Biden was blowing out the deficit. So last year was 6.7% of GDP, which was the highest it had been when we weren’t in a recession, weren’t at war.”

The 6.7% of GDP deficit figure for the final Biden year is striking. Deficits at that scale historically occurred during major economic crises (pandemic, financial crisis, deep recessions) or during major wars. The Biden administration produced a deficit at that scale during a period that did not have the specific emergency conditions that typically justify such spending.

“Where all these deficit hawks were when the team Biden was blowing out the deficit” is Bessent’s pointed critique of the Democratic critics of the current fiscal framework. Democrats who are now expressing concern about deficit impact from the One Big Beautiful Bill were, in many cases, silent during the Biden deficit expansion. That asymmetry is not lost on Bessent.

”We Don’t Have A Tax Collection Problem”

Bessent’s core framing. “And as your previous guest said, we don’t have a tax collection problem. We have a spending problem and we are trying to get that under control.”

“We don’t have a tax collection problem; we have a spending problem” is the conservative fiscal framework in one sentence. Federal revenue at current levels, while below spending, is sufficient to fund government at reasonable scope. The deficit problem is not that revenue is too low. It is that spending is too high.

This framing differs from the progressive framework. Progressives often argue that the deficit is driven by insufficient taxation — specifically, by tax cuts for the wealthy that have reduced revenue. Under that framework, raising taxes on high earners is the appropriate deficit response.

Bessent’s framework rejects that analysis. Taxes at current levels collect adequate revenue. The deficit problem is produced by spending that exceeds what revenue at any reasonable level could fund. The response, therefore, is spending restraint rather than tax increases.

”Accelerate Growth”

Bessent added the growth dimension. “We are also trying to accelerate growth because changing the growth trajectory upward solves a lot of the deficit problems.”

Growth solves deficits in two ways. First, GDP growth produces revenue growth — higher tax receipts from an expanding economy. Second, GDP growth reduces debt-to-GDP ratios even if absolute debt is unchanged — a larger economy makes a given debt level more manageable.

Both mechanisms require actual growth. If the administration’s growth policies produce 3% GDP growth instead of 1.8%, the fiscal picture improves substantially through the revenue effect. If they produce 4% growth, the improvement is even more substantial.

Why The Growth Focus Matters

The growth focus is the administration’s specific response to fiscal criticism. Critics who argue that the bill increases deficits must assume specific growth rates. If growth matches CBO’s 1.8% assumption, the deficit criticism has force. If growth matches the administration’s 3% projection, the deficit criticism collapses.

The administration has committed to the growth projection. Voters will see whether actual growth matches the projection. If it does, the administration’s fiscal framework is validated. If it does not, the fiscal criticism gains force.

The Dual Political Fight

The day’s coverage captures the administration fighting on two fronts simultaneously. The NWS staffing narrative about Texas flooding is the specific political attack. The fiscal framework about the deficit is the broader policy framework.

Both fronts require active administration engagement. Leavitt’s detailed warning timeline refutes the NWS staffing narrative. Bessent’s growth framework refutes the deficit narrative. Each specific refutation contributes to the administration’s ability to operate without being defined by its critics’ framings.

Key Takeaways

Leavitt on NWS staffing: “The San Angelo office was fully staffed with 12 forecast meteorologists. There were no vacancies. The San Antonio office was operating with 11 forecasters.”
On the flood cause: “That was an act of God. It’s not the administration’s fault that the flood hit when it did.”
The warning timeline: detailed sequence of specific NWS alerts from July 2 initial notices through the 4:03 AM flash flood emergency warning just before the flood hit.
The trade letter update: 12 additional countries, deadline extended to August 1, letters being posted to Truth Social for transparency.
Bessent on the deficit: “Last year was 6.7% of GDP, which was the highest it had been when we weren’t in a recession, weren’t at war…We don’t have a tax collection problem; we have a spending problem.”