Dana Bash Blames Climate Change, Donald Trump’s Administration For Texas Floods

CNN anchor Dana Bash suggested that climate change and President Donald Trump’s administration were to blame for the disastrous flash flooding in Texas, asking Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) to weigh in on her assessment.

Castro joined Bash on Sunday morning’s broadcast of “State of the Union” to discuss the tragic situation that was still unfolding after heavy rains caused massive floods along the Guadalupe River in central Texas — where at least 69 have now been confirmed dead.

WATCH:

CNN’s Dana Bash identifies two possible causes for the Texas flooding tragedy in questions to Dem Rep Castro:

Climate change and the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/v3SHssccmA

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 6, 2025

“How much do you think the changing climate is part of what we are seeing go on here, not just what we’re seeing in the pictures that we’re showing on the screen?” Bash asked. “But even the flood that you talked about in San Antonio in June.”

“I think climate change is obviously a part of it,” Castro agreed. “These floods are happening more often in more parts of the country and really all over the world. And so we have to face that reality and be better prepared for it and combat it.”

“And just talking about the federal government and even the local government, two Texas National Weather Service offices involved in forecasting and warning about flooding on the Guadalupe River are missing some key staff members,” Bash continued, suggesting that the Trump administration had also played a role in any issues with sending out timely warnings to the public.

“A director of the NWS Union told CNN that the Austin and San Antonio office is missing a warning coordination meteorologist due to the Trump administration’s buyouts,” Bash continued. “Do you have any indication whether those or any other cuts helped play a role in the fact that the people in the flood zone were not prepared and certainly not evacuated?”

Castro conceded that he could not say that “conclusively,” but suggested that he was at least suspicious that was the case.