Skip to main content

Angry crowd confronts Republican Rep. Mike Flood at Nebraska town hall over Trump policies

Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., leaves the House Republican Conference caucus meeting at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

(BELLUVUE, Neb.) — While Congress is out of session this week, a House Republican encountered a hostile crowd at a heated town hall meeting in Bellevue, Nebraska, Tuesday night – a sour reception that may preview the tenor other lawmakers could face heading into the midterm elections.  

Rep. Mike Flood faced repeated boos and shouts from audience members as they pressed him on the SAVE America Act, Israel, NATO, the bipartisan housing bill, the Trump administration’s policies and more, as seen on video of the town hall recorded by ABC affiliate KETV in Omaha.

While it’s uncertain how many in the audience were constituents, Tuesday’s contentious event wasn’t the first time Flood has found himself before angry crowds at town halls. Flood was shouted down and booed in Seward, Nebraska, where hundreds of people attended his town hall May 28 of last year, while defending the then-proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The month after Trump signed the bill into law, Flood faced a hostile crowd once more during an August town hall in Lincoln as the audience questioned its impact on Medicaid.

“F—— liar!” one attendee shouted at Flood Tuesday while he was discussing violent crime rates declining and the Trump administration’s ongoing deportation efforts.

“Listen, violent crime is down – ask the people of Washington, D.C., how much safer Washington is today compared to a year ago,” Flood said as the audience jeered.

“Violent crime is down in American cities. Violent crime is down in New York City. A lot of people that came here that were committing crimes have either been incarcerated or deported. The numbers speak for themselves,” Flood said.

Flood also was drowned out by the audience as he voiced his support for the proposed SAVE America Act and voter ID laws – key issues that are part of President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

“What I can’t stand is what is so objectionable about having to show a driver’s license, a passport, or a birth certificate at your place where you vote,” Flood said, as the attendees booed. 

The congressman further said that while Nebraska in his “opinion” deals with “little” election fraud, he added, “when people believe that our elections are secure, it breeds respect for the law, our democracy, our country, our election leaders. There are so many benefits.”

A man in the audience demanded the congressman explain the evidence he has to back up claims of election fraud, which Trump continues to promote without evidence to support his claims. Flood pushed back, saying he believes Joe Biden was duly elected president in the 2020 election. 

”I have never argued that there was an inaccurate result, and I always recognized Joe Biden was our president, so I am not a congressman that has ever made that claim,” Flood responded.

Constituents further heckled Flood when the congressman said, “I want to be very clear: We have no greater ally in the Middle East than Israel,” prompting loud boos from the audience.

“What happened in Israel was horrific,” Flood said, referring to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas. “If that had happened on our soil, we as Americans would rise up and eliminate that threat.”

As the conversation continued to scrutinize the Trump administration’s foreign policy, Flood also appeared to defend the administration’s actions in Iran

“We need to finish the job. We cannot put up with a regime that in the last 12 months has killed 45,000 of their own people. That is wrong. We have to have moral clarity here,” he said. “I support Israel.” 

While Trump attends the NATO Summit in Turkey, Flood said he fully supports the alliance, declaring it “has contributed greatly to the security of the world. I think they’re an important part of us.”

Flood received a more positive response regarding other topics, such as when he called Russian President Vladimir Putin “a thug” and voiced his support for Ukraine. He also earned some applause when he expressed confidence that the bipartisan housing bill currently on Trump’s desk will become law. 

“If [Trump] doesn’t sign it, it becomes law, and the good news about this is next week it’s likely to be a public law,” he said. “That’s what I’m focusing on – bipartisan common-sense results.”

However, when Flood brought up the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes massive cuts to government benefits such as Medicaid and SNAP food assistance, the audience loudly booed. Several constituents raised concerns about losing SNAP benefits under the new law. 

“I want people that are food insecure to get resources. I also want people that are able-bodied and can work to work. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t expect free healthcare,” Flood said.

Flood’s comments about Medicaid prompted one audience member to shout “tax the rich” in response.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Former US archivists warn that Trump’s effort to ignore records law jeopardizes national security and government continuity

(CNN) — Former leaders of the National Archives — which preserves and protects the nation’s most important documents — are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Trump administration’s effort to ignore the Presidential Records Act, a decades old law that requires presidents save all official records from their time in office.Six archivists, who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, argue that the law is critical in maintaining “continuity of governance” and protecting national security.The archivists — a coalition covering every living person to have previously held the role before Marco Rubio’s brief appointment to the position at the beginning of Trump’s second term — filed an amicus brief Wednesday in support of a lawsuit from presidential scholars, historians and public transparency groups.The legal fight began after the Trump administration said it believed the president did not need to comply with decades-old record-keeping obligations set by Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The law, which Trump’s Justice Department has claimed is unconstitutional, is intended to preserve documents so that future presidents, members of Congress, courts and the public can understand how an administration made critical decisions.“Preserving presidential records ensures that new leaders can have immediate and ongoing access to the data, strategy, and rationale behind past policy decisions,” the group said, noting that, in their experience, the most “frequent request for preserved presidential records comes from the incoming president’s national security advisors.”The archivists signed on to the brief are Trudy Huskamp Peterson, John W. Carlin, David S. Ferriero, Debra Steidel Wall, Colleen Shogan and William J. Bosanko — as well as Gary M. Stern, a former agency general counsel.The plea from the former archivists comes months after a federal judge in Washington said that White House staff must preserve their official records while the lawsuit plays out in court but declined to put any restrictions directly on the president, the vice president, the National Archives and archivist.In the May ruling, US District Judge John Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) was likely constitutional, rebuking the stance taken by the Justice Department earlier this year. The Justice Department has appealed the ruling to the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are slated for October 16.The PRA requires presidents and their staff to preserve White House records and turn those records over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.It was instrumental in the chain of events that led to Trump’s prosecution for allegedly mishandling classified documents that he took from the White House at the end of his first term.The legal fight stems from a conclusion from Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel, a Justice Department office that gives advice to the executive branch, that the law was unconstitutional. The OLC memo was seen as an audacious move for a number of reasons, including for how it seemed to eschew Supreme Court precedent backing Congress’ power to regulate presidential record preservation. The guidance only addressed the preservation of email and text messages, rather than all electronic records, which the PRA covers.The American Historical Association and the left-leaning government transparency group American Oversight quickly filed a lawsuit, warning that presidential records they intend to use for their research “will be irretrievably lost” if the court didn’t intervene.The former archivists say the PRA “helps to bridge the gap between the outgoing and incoming administrations.”“Geopolitical tensions do not pause for an inauguration,” they wrote in the court filing. “Presidential records include the entire holdings of the National Security Council… such as sensitive intelligence assessments, treaty negotiations, and operational contingency plans. Ensuring that these files are preserved and seamlessly made available to new administration officials allows incoming national security advisors and cabinet officials to evaluate active threats, maintain diplomatic momentum, and make informed decisions during unexpected global crises.”The administration has rebuffed concerns, insisting that the “lion’s share” of presidential records are being preserved, because work being done by presidential staff on White House-issued phones is being kept.CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story