The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - January 24, 2025

Episode Date: January 24, 2025

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion.Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email [e-mail] — they just might be answered on a future podcast.This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses:President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance Take Oaths of OfficeTrump Spotlights Gov. Abbott, Attorney General Paxton in Post-Inauguration SpeechTrump Executive Orders to Declare Border National Emergency, End Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal ImmigrantsEl Paso Port of Entry, CBP One Immigration App Reportedly Shut Down After Trump InaugurationPresident Trump Issues Executive Orders Restoring Offshore Oil Drilling, Expediting Energy Project PermittingDEI, Gender Identity Federal Hiring Practices Eliminated in Trump Executive Order$330 Billion State Budget Filed with Additional Property Tax Relief, $1 Billion School Choice ProgramState Senator Files Bill to Increase Protections for Sexual Abuse VictimsState Representative Sues Political Organization Over Text Messages Doxxing Cell Phone Number

Well, you are, it also is brought to you by Cameron Abrams because you're moderating multiple panels. Public Education School Choice Panel, hosted by Cameron Abrams, brought to you by Cameron Abrams. The Border and Immigration Panel, sponsored by Cameron Abrams, brought to you by Cameron Abrams, questioned by Cameron Abrams, moderated by Cameron Abrams. Yeah, well, once we get the AI technology ramped up, we're just going to have an entire panel of Cameron Abrams. Just Cameron Abrams. Just asking each other questions. We should have like holograms of you asking yourself questions.

We're going to get there. This is basically what the office is like every day. That's so true. I think Cameron's more prepped to be a moderator than anybody because Cameron is a question asker. Howdy, folks. It's Mackenzie here with Brad, Cameron, and Mary-Lise on another edition of the Weekly Roundup. We're about to, I mean, we're going to record, we're going to do our normal thing, but Mary-Lise and Brad, y'all will be heading over to the house here soon to watch the house rules debate. Which, I hope, as a member of the press, strictly just as a member of the press,

that there are fireworks and people go a little hand on the floor for the rules. Because the speaker vote was a little bit, you know, I mean, it was crazy. I should not complain about the spectacle of the speaker vote, because for months we had a lot going on. But it did kind of end up a little bit less publicly contentious than we expected. So I'm hoping today changes that a little bit. Yeah, well, it's sounding like as we sit here and everyone's working their way through the rules that there is going to be some fireworks.

People are pissed. I'm excited. And yeah, we'll see if this... That's the title of this podcast episode. The provisions, but it's sounding like there's... well, first of all, there's no Dem chairs. And so that was the attempt by leadership to, you know, assuage the concerns of the right. You're saying that there are no Dem chairs in the proposed rules right now. We'll see what happens on the floor.

But then, you know, there lot that um that people on both sides are angry about yeah we'll see shocking people are angry about the rules oh it's just gonna be fun i'm excited i'm ready for like the first fight obsession to actually have it speaker vote counts but it was pretty tame it was it was tame maybe not on the floor behind the scenes but publicly from the mic so it was pretty tame guys we do have our big kickoff event happening next Tuesday, which is wild. It is sold out, folks. I would recommend you be on the wait list

if you want. But for the most part, it's going to be hard to get more folks in. We're excited about that. We've had so much interest. It's been awesome. But part of my random tasks in preparing for this event

is making like a playlist for between the panels just to make sure there's some background music playing. And I kind of want y'all's perspective. random tasks in preparing for this event is making like a playlist for between the panels just to make sure there's some background music playing and i kind of want y'all's perspective i just sent you guys the link for it it is it is maslin named it country fun that's what she named the playlist um in all of like the av documents for the folks running the slides so i was like i'll name it that um but this is kind of what i've got so far we've got some randy travis and george straight brooks and dunn john denver

jolly parton alabama i had to have alabama in there if you're gonna play in texas you gotta have a fiddle in the band what am i missing now i got some turnpike troubadours which i was super excited about flatland flatlands on there of course josh abbott band um maybe some josh turner josh turner great idea otherwise it looks great what do you guys think okay cam is this like all your genre of music i feel like it's not i'm gonna get some people that might come after me. But I don't listen to country at all. Really? Zero. None.

That's kind of a bummer. No, but it's. It's like a major bummer. But it's also sort of nice when I do encounter it in the wild. Because it's like, wow, this is a nice song. I never heard this before. They're like, oh, this is a top ten hit. Like, well, it's the first time I'm hearing it. You're like, well, it's catchy. Yeah, it's catchy. I like it.

So, yeah, I'll enjoy it. No, I don't have anything against it. It's just not my preferred genre. Got it. So I may not be able to tap you for recommendations for this one specifically. Well, the ones I threw out before the podcast started were were shot down. Yeah. Pretty quickly. But, yeah, maybe I'll do some research. I was playing a Randy Travis song earlier and Mary Lee Scoseth's a classic. Add it.

And I was like, heck yes. Brad is a big, good Texas country fan. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Almost all I listen to,

that and Divorce Dad rock. Oh, my gosh. What counts as Divorce Dad rock? Creed. Creed. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. And Nickelback. Yep. dad rock oh my gosh what counts as divorce creed creed yep yep yep nickelback yep i'm six feet from the edge yep well done cameron maybe we need some muscadine bloodlining oh my gosh there's that the porch swing angels one of my favorite it's like their biggest song but i really love that song maybe it's not their biggest song i don't know i'm gonna add that good one they opened for turnpike when i when my husband and i saw

turnpike a couple years ago when they were like back and i was like no way it was gonna look it's it's fun when you know the opener too you never know it's just fun okay well i'll keep working on it and folks we have a couple days till the event so if you have recommendations for like classic country um texas country with a little red dirt thrown in there, shoot it my way. We're trying to keep it kind of upbeat for between panels. Like, we're not putting a ton of ballads in here, you know? It's not really the vibe. No really upbeat, like, high-energy stuff.

There's not going to be a light show. Right. Yeah, there's not going to be a light show, but should be a little a little still a little upbeat it's also not gonna be like chris stapleton belting a ballad though i did find a way to put some stapleton on here because he's a favorite of mine you know right that's what i'm just saying well it's been a big week in news we should probably jump in um cameron we're gonna start with you donald trump took the oath of office this week we all watched watched from here. It was kind of wild watching everything go down. Tell us a little bit about just what happened from A to B.

Yeah, it was, like you mentioned, one of the biggest things that has happened over the course of the past year. Very, I wouldn't say unexpected for some, but it was a big moment because of the very contentious election, the time between when he was elected on November 5th to where we got now. There's been a lot that's happened. So we finally got to the moment here where he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath. Well, did he put his hand on the Bible? That's the whole question. I think we have solved the riddle if he's actually the president. Yeah, I think he's the president, but I laugh that that was what you chose to say. Yeah, yeah. But I'll just read some brief quotes from his inauguration speech because what was interesting, he took twice as long as compared to his first inauguration speech. Also took place indoors. It was like 30 minutes, I think, the speech. Yeah, yeah. So it was quite an intimate setting for such a momentous occasion.

And for people who are watching the inauguration happen, some interesting positioning of guests. You know, obviously the first family was seated in the first row right behind the president. But then right behind them was the tech giants. You know, we saw Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Google CEO. So very interesting alignment happening there and the positioning of people where they're on camera. So it was quite deliberate in my mind, at least. And interesting to see some Texans sprinkled throughout, right?

You have like Brooke Rollins and Scott Turner and Ratcliffe all walking around. And then it's like, oh, there's Zuckerberg too. Like it was a really wild day to watch just who's crossing paths. Which any inauguration, that's the case. But it was interesting because there are several Texans in that. Well, yeah, there were several Texans there. Mary Lisa is going to talk about that some more. But Trump talked about bringing America into a golden age, saying he

wants America to be the envy of every nation, saying he's going to put America first. And obviously, very prepared, reading off the teleprompter, not the traditional Trump style. But for those who continued watching the feed were immediately noticed after he stepped down from the podium made his way to the overflow room he did go off the cuff a little bit more there uh we got some comments about uh melania's hat we got her shoes her. We got comments about the election being too big to rig. So very much a throwback to normal Trump style in his rhetoric there. But just a big occasion. I think everyone was tuned in. If I remember off the top of my head, over 25 million people tuned in to watch the inauguration. It's been lots of reactions to what he has done since taking the oath with all the executive orders, but we're going to get into that later.

Absolutely. Lots to chat about this week. Lots of fodder on the federal level. Mary-Lise, let's talk about that too, because after that teleprompter speech, that swearing in ceremony speech, Trump went down and talked to some supporters, and I believe in Emancipation Hall, to walk us through what happened there. Yeah, so he was right in front of, I believe it's the Statue of Freedom. It's the same one that's at the top of the Capitol.

And definitely a highlight of this speech was when he started talking about Texas. And it was funny. It reminds me of there's this, I think you'd call it a meme, of Leonardo DiCaprio pointing at this screen. He's's watching the screen and then he starts pointing at it. It was like us watching it. And then Donald Trump starts talking about Texas all of a sudden. And he started off by talking about Governor Greg Abbott and saying he's done such a good job, the governor of Texas. And then he realized, oh, Governor Abbott's out in the crowd.

And then he cracked a joke. Gosh, I'm glad I said he did a good job. Oh, I got lucky or something like that. Yeah. And then Trump directed his comments towards Abbott. And he said, now you're going to have a partner that's going to work with you, referencing the border. And he said, because not only did he not have a partner, he had people selling you a wall. And he was, of course, referencing the situation where the Biden administration was attempting to sell some of the border wall materials and Texas was attempting to buy it. Trump then spoke, he said a few kind of, a few different sentences about Governor Abbott. He said the governor wanted to buy it. They wouldn't sell it to him. That man had to suffer. He did an unbelievable job. He said he was a very popular governor, but now he's an unbeatable governor because of his border policies. And then he talked about, he said,

you did this because it was the right thing to do, but sure as hell worked politically. And then Trump started talking about our Attorney General Paxton. He talked about when the border walls are being, the materials are being sold off. He said he called the Attorney General and said that Paxton is pretty good at pushing people around. He told Abbott, you've got a great Attorney General. And then he talked about just how glad he was he mentioned that they had a really good governor in Texas. There were moments I wasn't so happy with him, but not too many, I can tell you that. So that was definitely a cool moment for Texas to see our governor and our attorney general talked about during the second post-inauguration speech.

Yeah, and he really lingered on talking about Abbott and especially Attorney General Kim Paxton during that speech, which was interesting. He kind of, you know, focused on them for, what was it, five, ten minutes almost, it seemed. So, yeah, it was cool to see them on screen. And it was Dan Patrick was there, Attorney General Kim Paxton, Greg Abbott, any number. I don't know how many state legislators were there. Oh, my gosh, yeah, so many. So Texas really had a big presence at the inauguration. Which was also interesting because we did see that the President Pro Tem of the Senate, Brandon Creighton, got to kind of exercise his line of succession duties where because the governor and the lieutenant governor were um out of state he was acting governor for a while senator brandon creighton so that was even

kind of interesting to watch um which was really interesting but yeah that speech was literally a texas speech like the post sweden speech was largely all about texas and i would almost say that i mean it was surprising, but also not surprising at the same time, because Abbott and Texas really have been the face of action regarding the border during the Biden administration. I mean, you know, everyone was talking about Abbott and Texas and the razor wire, the border materials being sold off. So it almost didn't make sense that Trump would bring them up but it was still surprising you laugh watching i've watched the reaction to him his my newsletter this week

oh you know the reaction of trump seen abbott in the crowd yeah so many times because he looks and he like walks away from the podium puts his hands in the air like look at that there he is like i just mentioned him and there he is and he's like how could we not get you in the front row which i thought was also really funny um but it was just an interesting thing to be watching from here. And it was like, Mary-Lise, and you're like, I'm on it. Immediate story. Well, definitely go read that. Kind of check out the different comments and check out that video too,

because it's funny to watch Trump's reaction. Brad, if all goes well today, we'll also include, since this is being recorded before the House rules, we'll have something, a little snippet from you later on, on the House floor as a preview, kind of telling folks what's going on. So it likely won't be recorded before the House Rules end, but at least you can kind of give folks an idea of what's going on at that point. But give us a preview of the House Rules fight today ahead of the House gaveling in. So as the House rules draft was filed this morning, I believe they'll have to suspend the rules to take it up because of the 24-hour filing deadline thing.

I think that's correct. We're getting our, a lot of these House rules, one, they're in flux, and two, we're getting our feet back under us in terms of what the actual deadlines for these things are. But it's like the posting period. The posting period, yes. And so they were released.

The intention is to handle that today. Maybe it gets pushed. Hopefully not. But it's possible if there's enough. It's possible what gets pushed. The rules. The rules. But first, before they get to the rules,

they'll handle the housekeeping resolution. That's typically a pretty benign document full of office budgets, responsibilities of house administration, things like that. But last session, the no dem chairs amendmentchairs point of order against that was enabled by language that was put in the housekeeping resolution that prohibited house resources from being used for political purposes. So there's going to be an attempt to strip that. Also, there's a provision related to an attorney hired by the house to represent the house. So those are the two big points of contention that I've heard. We'll see if those get stripped, how quickly and easily they get stripped, but then we'll

move on to the rules, which right now looks like it's going to be a massive fight. And so, um, as drafted and I'm kind of irritated by it because i did a whole preview of the rules fight in my newsletter and now all of that is just irrelevant not all of it but a lot of it um because it's just like oh my gosh um it's uh it's it because of the way they formatted this, it just changes the dynamics of this whole debate. And so in the rules, the big question is, was there going to be a ban on minority party chairs?

And there is. Only, as of the draft, we'll see how it plays out, but as of the draft, we'll see how it plays out, but as of the draft, majority party members may only chair standing committees. However, minority party members may only be vice chairs on standing committees. between the right flank, which is demanding an elimination of that, and the Democratic caucus, which most of them want to preserve some kind of authority here. And so they're trying to thread a needle. I think it's kind of an impossible needle thread on this. And it's kind of bearing out right now with the reactions to this proposal that's going on at the moment. Now, the vice chairs do get a bump in power and authority on these committees. It is not, I've heard co-chairs basically.

It's not exactly that. Chairs are still above on the hierarchy and still have more authority. Now, there are a couple of things that the chair would have to grant. They'd have to consult vice chairs on hearings, the agendas for those hearings, and allow witnesses, called witnesses, that the vice chair wants. So those are three pretty big departures from where vice chairs have been, which have been largely pretty neutered. And the reason that there is conversation happening surrounding this is because under the rules, then you could not make a Democrat a chairman. But you could make them a vice chairman. Correct?

You have to under this. Yes, you have to. They all have to be Democrats, all the vice chairs. And so therefore, this is changing the role of a vice chair a little bit, which typically, I mean, it all depends on the committee. But there's not a ton of power relegated to vice chair, at least right now. And so this would change that a lot, allowing them to have a little bit more say in the process or quite a bit more say. I would say quite a bit more, just not more than the chair. Yes, of course. But there's like deference that's given the vice chair according to the rules.

And it's not just kind of a ceremonial position. Or again, depending on the relationship between the chairman and the vice chair, that's a totally different, like they could be very different. But usually this is somebody who stands in for the chair. Like if they're not there or they step out for a minute, like it's not always somebody who's going to be super influential in the committee process necessarily. Yeah. Well, a reaction I've heard from some staffers is that they prefer the old way to this because Republican staffers, they would rather have a few Democratic chairs where you can direct legislation away from than have these vice chairs that you can't, that are in every committee that you can't get around.

Right. Right. So that's one point. This is clearly the – Especially on committees where there historically has not been Democrat influence in that way. Right. Let's say that there's like, you know, last session I'm trying to remember a good example of this. But a committee where it was kind of locked and loaded.

Republicans were pretty – they had the majority majority there was a chairman in that position and now that would change a lot of that dynamic right on these committees where potentially you know state affairs where big bills go through like those kinds of committees where there's a little bit more at stake for both the majority and the minority party yeah Yeah, absolutely. So there's going to be a big fight over that on the floor. How they end up tweaking, if at all, this language will be fascinating to watch. There's going to be efforts to strip some of that power from vice chairs. It's going to be a fight, you guys. I'm so excited to watch this.

Yeah, well, I had dinner plans today. I don't think I'm going to get to that. So there's that. And we do expect to get to the rules today. As far as I understand, the intention is from House leadership, the intention is to do the rules today. So we shall see. As long as it's not next Tuesday, folks.

Put in that plea right now. Please do not do that. Do not do that rules today. So we shall see. As long as it's not next Tuesday, folks. Put in that plea right now. Please do not do that. Do not do that next Tuesday. Other aspects of this that are notable, it eliminated, the House proposed rules eliminates six standing committees, business and industry, county affairs, defense and veteran affairs, juvenile justice and family issues, County Affairs, Defense and Veteran Affairs, Juvenile Justice and Family Issues,

the Resolutions Calendar, and Urban Affairs. Which is interesting. Why are they getting rid of the Resolutions Calendar? Oh, that is interesting. Yeah. But based on my count, four of those are committees that are currently chaired by Democrats. Okay. Now, if this didn't happen, that may well have changed, right? But just based on the makeup of these committees from last session, that seemed pretty interesting.

Also, two standing committees are created, a DOJ committee, Cameron. Oh. You're going to be following that one a lot, I'm sure. I'm the DOJ reporter now. You're the DOJ reporter. And then an intergovernmental affairs committee. And then, so with these elimination, committee eliminations, they have moved those responsibilities into various other committees so lots of to parse through their other notes it expands committee membership on ten current committees and was done so to ensure that members can serve on two committees each it sounds like that was what was stated in the the proposal but then here's another pretty big one. It creates permanent standing subcommittees.

And those do not, as of now, have any limit to the partisan makeup and the chair, vice chair of these subcommittees. So it's conceivable that these Democrats could be appointed chairs of subcommittees. And that's similar – it's similar to something I heard over the stretch of the speaker race, creating these – trying to find a way to get rid of Democratic chairs without losing Democratic votes for speaker. Finding other ways to give them say in the process. And one was floated of creating these budget subcommittees that all make up appropriations. Now, that's not what happened here, but it's kind of like that. It's a different version. Different version, yep.

So we'll see how it plays out. And subcommittees typically just are a more specified policy jurisdiction. So if you've got the Appropriations Committee, you could have a subcommittee relegating conversation, debate, and policymaking to just one article of the budget. It's that kind of process. This is going to be very interesting. Yeah.

There is a fight about this. There is confusion about whether subcommittees will have minority party chairs or not. It's a 250-page document. There's a lot to parse through. And we just got it this morning, too, like right before the rules. Yeah. Which is why they'll have to suspend them to get it on the floor. Yeah.

And I'm sure that's going to be a point of contention when they get to the floor. Why didn't you give us enough time to read this? Things like that. And just to clarify to you, Brad, for our listeners, explain when you're saying who's authored these, like who has authored these rules that are being proposed? Also, they can be amended. So we'll see amendments on the floor.

Yes. And I think a lot of these issues will be settled by amendments on the floor. Yes. And I think a lot of these issues will be settled by amendments. Yes. Now, I will say, I should add that this blueprint is a departure from what Burroughs had said, had indicated in the speaker's race that he would leave it up to the floor. Now, that was with the understanding, oh, the current rules allow them chairs, allow minority party chairs and we'll have an up or down vote. So, you know, he's trying to thread a needle here and we'll see if he does it cleverly enough. Yeah. But the author of the rules is Chairman Todd Hunter. And so he'll be the one. Who certainly worked in tandem with the speaker and leadership. Like that's what's being proposed. This is coming from the leadership of the House. Yeah, 100%.

And so he'll be the one laying this out, fielding all the amendments, things like that. And he's in for a long day, I think. Yeah, I think so too. This is going to be interesting. Okay, well, Brad, thank you. And this is probably where we'll splice in a little update from Brad on the floor, if all goes according to plan.

So maybe we break here. What do you have to say, Brad? Well, that was anticlimactic. We've had two actual days of action on the floor in the Texas House. And where are the fireworks? There are not that many. We had, of course, the speaker's race went as it did, as we've talked about. And then today on the floor with the rules, the much anticipated set of rules, we have just, I think as this is spliced in, have just laid out the details well as they're passed after the floor today. That is exactly how it'll be set up. There were no amendments. And we really just had debates for about 45 minutes. And so as things stand, Republicans will only chair standing

committees. Democrats will only vice chair standing committees. And then all the language that came with that remained in. Chairman Hunter on the floor talked about how it was, he addressed some concerns, for example, that it was sent out at 4 20 in the morning on thursday to members ahead of the vote today and he said you know not even the speaker got an advanced copy of this i felt it was important to get everyone the the rules at the same time and that's what happened he addressed other concerns about you know debate over this and representative tony tinderholt wanted to push it back either to early next week or later next week that was denied chairman hunter said that we we've hashed out this

issue basically the democratic chair issue. For two to four years now, everyone's pretty solid on where they're at on it. That was his response. And then we got some more lines of questioning. Representative Harold Dutton was on the back mic for a while. Joe Moody was there. Brian Harrison and Nate Schatzlein were both there. It was building up to something. There were a lot of amendments filed. One was to strike some of the vice chair language. Another one was related to the housekeeping resolution, which we didn't even get to today. Not sure when that will happen, maybe tomorrow on Friday.

But it was adopted as proposed, and the reason that occurred without any amendments was because Representative Jerry Patterson called the question, which is a mechanism to stop debate and just have a vote. And so that requires 25 signatures. He had 47 Republicans and 42 Democrats on that list. And that list of members who signed that will be in the House Journal once it's uploaded. And so we don't have a list yet. But the motion to call the question passed 107 to 35. Right before that occurred, Representative Mike Schofield got up and basically said, you know, this is the nuclear option. If you do this, we're going to do it back to you later down the road in session. You know, I'm pretty

sure that'll happen at some point. We'll see on what. But the last time we saw a motion or the question called was, I think, during the fourth special session. It was either third or fourth on the border bill, SB4. So it's seldom used. It's not used often, but it's increasingly being used in this really fractious moment for the House. But overwhelmingly it passed. Members wanted it to, wanted this to just be considered, taken up and move forward, get to policy. That was the stated reasoning. And then the rules package itself passed 116 to 23. So you had 12 members who voted against the motion to call the question end up voting for the rules package. And we've already seen some members tweet out, I was happy to vote

against Democratic chairs. It clearly is a, you know, this has been a campaign talking point for years, and members were trying to find a way to take this home to their district. And this is the method that House leadership found, and so far it's worked. Now it might come back to bite them in the rear at another point like Scofield alluded to. But for now, the rules are done. The formalities of the opening session are done. Now we're going to get to policy. The governor's state of the state occurs on February 2nd. Speaker Burroughs said after this that the process for assigning committees will now begin. Pledge cards were sent out. Members will start to turn those in. Then they make the assignments we're definitely not I don't

think unless they work in overdrive going to have committees by the end of January as Mike Toomey when he was Speaker Phelan's Chief of Staff promised but they say they're working on it now and we shall see where the where the chips Of course, six committees were eliminated, two were created. Then we're going to see what it's like with all these permanent subcommittees. But for now, there will be no Democratic chairs in the Texas House, and there will be a lot of quibbling on how much of a win for the right side of the political spectrum that is, especially vis-a-vis this language about vice chairs.

But as I said in the weekly roundup just before this cut in, there's questions about how powerful vice chairs are, but they are not more powerful than the chairs under this set of rules. So we shall see how it plays out. Overall, pretty, you know, dud of a day in the Texas House. Oh, wow. Interesting. And we're back.

And we're back. Okay, there we go. Okay, Cameron, let's go to you here. Let's talk about executive orders. President Trump has certainly been busy signing all sorts of things this week. Yeah. Executive actions, executive orders, all sorts of resolutions, all sorts of stuff. But let's talk about specifically some border-related executive orders that have been very big this week.

Yeah, more than 100 executive orders, hundreds of presidential actions. So it's been very busy for this Trump administration so far. Some of the big things I'd probably highlight here are the national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, which will allow for the Trump administration to direct certain personnel and resources and equipment to help bolster border security, calling the illegal immigration issue that has arisen over the past decade. So that was very interesting. An aspect of the Trump campaign was unleashing American energy,

and he has done that with an executive order declaring an energy emergency, which is going to allow for rolling back a lot of the oversight and regulation and permitting required for oil drilling and things of that nature. So two really big items there. Some other interesting things were related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Offices, DEI chiefs in many of these federal agencies, those positions are being rolled back. And we've already seen reactions online from different websites of these federal agencies changing over some of the names of these positions and even taking down entire websites that are hosting different departments. Very interesting there. One of the more controversial, let's say, executive orders was related to birthright

citizenship. In the executive order, it's seeking to sort of clarify some of the aspects of that 14th Amendment. So we've already seen legal challenges filed. I think there's been three. Surprise, surprise. This is the nature of a new administration and executive orders like this. Absolutely. Yeah, many of these are going to of a new administration and executive orders like this. Absolutely.

Yeah, many of these are going to be challenged legally. But the flood the zone technique, I think, is actually sort of working because as we've already seen, people who are maybe against some of these executive orders don't know which one to choose to focus on since there's been hundreds filed. So of course, some things are going to get lost in the mix there. So we'll see what happens. I think another interesting thing to mention is some of these pardons. There was pardons of the people who have been in jail for the January 6th riot. There was the pardon to Ross Ulbricht that Trump promised at the Libertarian Party Convention, which I just think is really interesting. Even if that contingency of voters is just maybe one, one and a half percent of the overall vote, that can really swing an election. And he

didn't have to actually follow through on that promise. And he did. Lots of promises made, promises kept emails coming from the White House this week. Like that's literally the subject line is and it just listing the promises made, promises kept. Yeah. And pardoning pro-life protesters who were in jail for violating some i believe it was the face act that was enacted during it was at the obama administration and so um pro-lifers being pardoned so lots of things happening in just a few days many of these orders being signed just hours after he was inaugurated. And again, going back to inauguration day, if people were watching the live streams at the time, Trump doing something

unorthodox, taking a desk into an arena to sign executive orders in front of a massive crowd as everyone cheered. So that was a campaign rally-esque. And then front of a massive crowd as everyone cheered. So that was a campaign rally-esque. And then all of a sudden he just wields the executive pen and there he is signing executive orders. Yeah. And another interesting thing there is he then went back to the White House and signed executive orders in front of a press gaggle.

And it took hours to sign these executive orders, not just because the volume of the number of orders he was signing, but because he was answering questions throughout the entire thing. And he wasn't just sticking to the executive order that he was signing, answering questions. People were asking about Ukraine and Israel and all sorts of stuff. And so it was an eventful day. To say the least.

And we still have a whole lot to get into here related to the executive orders. Yeah, absolutely. Well, on that note, tangentially, there are some federal agencies are reacting to the new Trump administration. Tell us about what is happening with this. Well, just as soon as Trump took the oath, we saw immediately the CBP1 app was disabled. And there was issues with, oh, is this because it's on MLK Day and the CBP1 app doesn't process claims on holidays, but we actually ended up seeing a press release that the CBP1 app was not going to be able to be accessed.

Which is Customs and Border Patrol. So the CBP1 app is a way for migrants to submit claims for entry into the United States. And so there's been lots of issues, not just related to the CBP One app, but the wide array of claims that can be made via the CBP One app. You know, that's a separate discussion about the visas and asylum claims and things. But it's the process. It's the process. It's the process.

So and another interesting thing that happened just, again, moments after he took the oath of office, we saw increased activity at the border, especially at the El Paso port of entry, where there were videos coming out where on the loudspeakers, it was saying people who were trying to cross at this port of entry, if they were attempting to do that, could result in arrest and prosecution. So things changed very quickly. Things changed very quickly. It was very interesting to see. And then in the hours and days after now, we've already seen Tom Homan come out on a variety of different news networks talking about how ICE agents are beginning to conduct raids in different parts of the United States and many of these major metropolitan cities that have really been the epicenter of the United States and many of these major metropolitan cities that have really been the epicenter of the illegal immigrant crime that was a big talking point during the campaign. So

we're seeing lots of things happening all at once and we're going to continue to see things over, you know, this entire administration, but really over the next few weeks as the executive orders are gonna be begun to be enacted. Yeah, absolutely rolled out in a more substantive way than just on paper, but we're already seeing that this is being rolled out and things are happening as a result of them. Cameron, thank you. I'd encourage folks too,

like as we're talking about all this stuff, but definitely go and check out Cameron, Mary Elise and Brad's coverage. All three of them have covered some of the changes of the incoming Trump administration and what's going on so we've coverage all of the texan.news on that note let's talk about executive orders relating to energy Brad very much a Texas centric issue tell us give us a rundown so we issued I think four at least that we compiled on the first day. And one was declaring a national energy emergency, another unleashing American energy. And then one more was a wind power lease ban on federal lands, at least for new leases.

Similar to what Biden did with oil and gas drilling but with wind turbines. And if people had watched Donald Trump on the Joe Rogan podcast he was talking about the whales. The whales. And the birds. And the birds and how they're affected by these wind farms. Wait Trump was saying this or RFK was saying this?

What did I say? I said Trump on the Trump on Rogan was? this? Whatever I say. I said Trump on the – Trump on Rogan was? On Rogan. Okay. I don't remember that part of the conversation. I don't think RFK would say that. No.

He's an environmentalist guy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you know, another criticism of these wind farms that we see here in Texas, especially with the proposed one off the coast of Galveston, is like, well, hurricanes, is that going to pick these things up and throw them into Civilization, right? I mean it's probably slightly far-fetched, but it's not entirely out of the question, right? like it is possible total happened, so President issued that

All three all four of these were very similar in theme, you know, just altering the United States' position on energy, ramping up oil and gas production as much as possible. I think nuclear power was part of it as well. just shifting it away from what Trump described in these orders as the Green New Deal policy under the Biden administration and shifting it back towards a more traditional Republican focused approach on this. Well, one of the interesting aspects of this unleashing American energy EO was the elimination of the EB mandate. Yeah. And I think that's going to be a showdown between federal government and seat governments because in California, they have a mandate for all electric vehicles or all cars on the

road need to be electric vehicles by like 2032 or something, 2035. Good luck with that. So we're going to see a showdown between, you know, the federal government and different states. It's just the fronts are changing, right? When the Biden administration was in office, Texas was a front for that. Now it's switching to California, right?

It's just changing. Yeah. So I got all of them listed on the website if you want to look at it. But generally, it's rescinding a ton of the energy-related executive orders that Biden did, implementing new ones, new policies, new directives, a new way of applying the Endangered Species Act. That's something that we've seen cause a lot of friction between particularly landowners, not just in the energy industry, but just generally overall. Well, I can mention this now. I was going to bring it up for my tweeter-y.

Tweeter-y. But, you know, just a day after the inauguration, or two days after, Trump held a press conference with Sam Altman and Larry Ellison and another CEO, the CEO of SoftBank. I don't remember his name, but he was planning to invest, Trump was saying, $500 billion in a new project that is focused on building AI data centers. And what do just, not just AI data centers, but crypto mining centers, which are very prevalent here in Texas, those things suck up a ton of energy. And so you can kind of see this coalition of the tech CEOs and the Trump administration where the tech CEOs want to build these data centers and they need to roll back these energy regulations so they can

actually power them. And that was on display with not just the EO, but his press conference. Well, and you add that to the context of the power grid in Texas. Lieutenant Governor Patrick held a whole hearing. It was business and commerce in the Senate, but they held a hearing on this stuff. That was one of his big takeaways, that all these data centers and crypto facilities are coming in, and they're sucking out a lot of power. So we have to compensate for that. Now, they do because they're, especially the crypto miners are flexible loads.

They can be turned off when the margin gets tight and it benefits both them and us on both sides of the electricity ledger on that. So, you know, there's trade-offs on this with everything. And so, you know, that is, it is a fascinating aspect of where we see Lieutenant Governor Patrick, at least to some degree, depart from the Trump administration's policy when it comes to Texas. And, you know, the administration's not taking into account all of Texas's concerns on this, right? Like, they have a whole country to run. But it very much affects Texas, and both good and bad. Yeah. A lot of Texans in political office, holding political office, have the year

of the administration. So it'll be interesting to see how that's handled in the future. Well, Bradley, thank you. Cameron, you mentioned it a little bit earlier, but let's talk DEI and how the Trump administration basically on day one is addressing a very big change in that department. Well, they weren't shy about how they were naming- The Trump administration not being shy? About how they were naming some of these executive orders, like for example, ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. You kind of already know what the EO is going to do with a title like that, but it's eliminating DEI and related programs across the federal government and really focusing on bringing merit-based hiring practices back to the federal government.

It also terminating DEI positions related to, quote, environmental justice and all equity action plans. One of the interesting things, like how Brad mentioned, the energy-related EOs are actually more of rollbacks of previous executive orders. Similarly, with these EOs related to gender identity and DEI, one of the EOs is actually revoking actions related to racial equity and gender identity. And one of the most uh i know we use the word interesting all the time but it's it's it's just eyebrow raising where uh there is a presidential action to codify policies that recognize women as biological females men as biological males i guess i guess that has become necessary to do via executive order,

just the times we're in. So just some updates there from people. At the time, Trump had issued 42 executive orders on Monday and took 115 personal actions, including over 200 executive actions. So some big shakeups there. Lots going on. Absolutely. Cameron, thank you. Well, let's talk about the state budget. I think that's been, I mean, that's usually a huge story. We've just had other huge stories this week as well. But Brad, the draft budgets are out for both the House and the Senate here in Texas. Give us the details. So overall, there's about a $300 million difference between the two chambers in their initial draft budget. First of all, though, this starts in the

Senate because they alternate bienniums. Yeah, this year, this session, it will start. So Senate will lead on that. House will lead on the appropriations bill, supplemental appropriations bill, which is supplementing the current biennium. It's like part two. Yeah. So like when there's cost overruns or cost shortfalls, they can reappropriate money based on what happened over the two years of the biennium. So there's that right off the bat. The Senate's draft proposal is a $332.9 billion blueprint.

That's about $11.6 billion increase in all funds. And it is confusing as heck. The general, the delineations between general revenue, general revenue dedicated, the federal funds, other funds, all funds, like there's all kinds of different categories and, you know, layers to this. So that is the all funds increase. A lot of it's contingent on constitutional amendments passing, and that'll be on various line items. We saw that a lot last session, including on the energy fund and the water infrastructure fund, things like that. So

there's that, the top lines on property tax relief, which I think, if I remember correctly, was the first thing both chambers mentioned when they were running through the details. Yep, the Senate's $32.2 billion total on property tax relief. It's hard to tell how much of an increase that exactly is from last session because the total amount of money from last session was about $18.6 billion, I believe. But then you have cost increases of just local governments, appraisals, all that stuff. So how much in the sentence figures is totally new property tax relief? I'm not sure exactly, but it's around, it's between $6 and $9 billion. So there's that. I think we talked about on the

last podcast maybe we didn't but lieutenant governor patrick noted a intention to raise the homestead exemption by forty thousand dollars last session they raised it by 60 so bringing standard homestead exemption to 100k and then senior and disabled one has an extra $10K. So they're $110K. So this, if passed, would move the line to $140K and $150K, respectively. Lieutenant Governor's not backing down in the Senate from wanting homestead. That was a big fight last session. Last session.

Yep. The House's version is more vague. Their version, according to Speaker Barroso's release, listed out like $6.5 billion in new tax relief, but it left it vague on how they're going to apply that. Do you think this will be the first front in which the Speaker and the Lieutenant Governor can determine their working relationship in a meaningful or big high high-stakes kind of way? I think that'll be school choice and education. Even more so than the property tax?

Like, the budget's not – I mean, that's coming up. That'll come up quickly. Yeah. I think both chambers are going to want – Because school choice is also part of this, right? So, like, we'll get to that in a second. I think the House wants to push pretty fast an education bill. Maybe logistics render that impossible. But the lieutenant governor said that'll be the first thing to pass as a school choice program.

I think they'll get to this pretty early. And we'll start to see the battle lines drawn on that. But property taxes will happen as well. Notice there's no appraisal cap, at least so far, proposed in the House version, which is what we saw the massive fight happen over last time around. Moving on to Pub Ed, both chambers have a billion dollars outlined for education savings accounts.

That's, of course, Governor Greg Abbott's top priority. They also have a $4,000 pay raise for teachers. Now, for rural teachers, that is $10K pay raise. between they also have between about five and five and a half billion outlined for public school funding increase i think part of that is for esas but then you got the teacher pay you've got the basic allotment things like that so we'll see how that this is just the amount of money that's going to be put towards this. This is not the mechanisms by which we reform public education. So there's that. You're back in the budget Brad. And I will go, yeah, right? It's that time of the biennium again. I will go rather quickly through these other ones.

Five billion dollars for additional money to the Texas Energy Fund. The Senate last session passed or approved in their budget 10 billion dollars in conference committee it was only half that they want to and along with governor abbott governor abbott want to add an additional 5 billion 2.5 billion for water infrastructure senator charles perry is leading on that uh 3 billion in the senate's plan for the dementia instituteia Institute of Texas, that Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas that Lieutenant Governor wants to have modeled

after the cancer version that we've had for a while. $500 million for the Texas Film Incentive, $6.5 billion for border security, which is notable because it's not a decrease from the last biennium. And with the Trump administration taking more active role at the border, there was a lot of talk about reducing that appropriation. Well, as of now, it's not.

The House's version also outlines money. I believe it was like $2, $2.5 billion for the Texas Nuclear Fund. So there's a lot more in there. I go through it all in peace. And there's going to be a lot of fights to be had, particularly behind the scenes on this stuff. But those are the initial blueprints. And Cameron will be doing a deep dive on school choice

and what that looked like at this time last session and kind of detailing that as well. So keep an eye out for that. Bradley, thank you. Mary Elise, coming to you. A senator filed two bills related to protections of sexual abuse victims last week. Tell us more. Yes. So Senator Angela Paxton filed Senate Bill 835 and Senate Bill 836, and they're both related to the protection of sexual abuse victims, just in different ways. Senate Bill 835 introduced certain measures

that would ensure that certain confidentiality disclosures can't be used to silence what Paxson said, childhood sexual abuse victims. And the other one, Senate Bill 836, focuses more on increased confidentiality during litigation for cases involving the sexual abuse evidence. Senate Bill going back to 835 states that any confidentiality agreements, including employee nondisclosure agreements and DAs, are void in cases where it would, quote, limit the party's ability to notify a local or state law enforcement agency of any act of sexual abuse committed against a child. And so again, that was Senate Bill 835. And 836, on the other hand, prohibits forensic medical examination evidence from sexual

abuse victims from being used to investigate or prosecute a misdemeanor offense or an offense alleged to have been committed by the victim from whom the evidence was collected. And the bill clarifies that no such evidence should be made available to the public, including a visual image or recording made as a part of the examination. So that was Senate Bill 836. Paxton spoke on these bills that she's filed and said the decision of how and with whom to share one's story should be the sole decision of the survivor. And Senator Paxton said that this is going to be a particular focus of hers during the 89th Texas legislature, just focusing in particular on legislation that'll protect sexual abuse victims in various ways as seen with this Senate Bill 835 and 836.

So that'll be interesting to see how that moves through and to see what other sorts of bills she might introduce that are related to protection of sexual abuse victims. So there you go. Well, we'll keep an eye on those bills making their way through the process. Mary Elise, thanks for your coverage. Bradley, last but not least, a lawsuit was filed involving a Texas House member. Tell us about it. So State Representative Pat Curry, who's a freshman Republican from Waco, sued political donor and one-time candidate Chris Ekstrom over text messages sent out by his PAC, the Courageous Conservatives PAC, that included the representatives personal cell phone number lawsuit filed

in McLennan County names Ekstrom the courageous conservatives pack and five John or Jane does as the defendants the back on December 6 this was of course one day before the caucus meeting that resulted in the walkout and all that jazz. Courageous conservatives packed it on a text and it read, quote, in all caps, Turncoat Pat Curry betrayed our vote. He has left the Republicans to side with the Democrats in electing a new closet Democrat speaker, Dustin Burroughs. We need your help. It then called on members to or recipients to send their displeasure to Curry and gave

his cell phone. And so his phone was blown up. And apparently, as he told me, it was his the one he uses for business. And Curry owns he's a very, very very wealthy member he might be the wealthiest member in the legislature yeah um he owns various companies so he's wheeling and dealing all the time according to him you know that'd be a fun story to write the legislature's net worth that would be super him gary gates means middleton i don't know who takes the cake on that but all three of those are up there so Is this something you've seen before?

Personal numbers of members being put out into the public? I'm sure it's happened before. It became a big thing in the speaker's race, and it hurt the reform side. Yeah. Um, this one specifically now Curry still voted for the cook, but, um,

the personal numbers of Mahalo place, a Democrat from Dallas, Jeff Leach, Republican from Plano and Lacey hole Republican from Houston. We're all sent out. And so, um, it did not help. Well, because you always see activist campaigns when something comes up,

like call your congressman or call your senator, and it's their office. Right, right. And there were a lot of texts being sent out that did just have office phones, but not by these guys. You know, Ekstrom is, you know, kind of a troublemaker. He likes to do what he wants to do. And he is the sole Texas funder that I've seen in this Courageous Conservatives PAC, which part of the lawsuit is it's not registered in Texas.

It is registered as a federal PAC, but it's spending registered in texas it is registered as a federal pack but it's spending money in a texas political um race right not in a congressional or senate race in a state house race contest the speakership so like part of the lawsuit is that he's avoiding uh disclosure requirements the ways he's doing that. And, yeah, so he's getting sued. And if anybody has the money to take this as far as they want to, it's Pat Curry. So we shall see where that goes but it's it's members curry specifically but others pushing back against this kind of outside fury that occurred specifically this one because it was very clumsy

right um it wasn't office numbers it wasn't um more tailored language. It was, I read it off, pretty inflammatory. Now, they would argue they were correct in describing it that way, but it revved up a lot of people and blew up Pat Curry's phone. So apparently he got some threats on there too as a result of it. So we'll see messy politics yeah delightful stuff um thanks for covering that bradley i'll turn to the twittery section here guys um cameron let's start with you well like i mentioned during the energy section uh on the eOs. Donald Trump announced an AI infrastructure project called Stargate, looking to invest $500 billion into this project, building data centers across the country. Larry

Ellison of Oracle, he was there at this press conference and said, first data centers are already under construction here in Texas. So just thought that was interesting to bring up as it relates to our energy discussion that we had. But then also this tension between Trump's relationship with the tech CEOs and then how the Make America Great Again base feels about these tech CEOs, especially as it relates to H-1B visas. Wrote an entire newsletter about that. People want to go check it out. So yeah, I just thought that that was interesting to bring up. Absolutely. Well, on a similar adjacent kind of note, Mary Lise, what you got? Well, yeah, so mine kind of piggybacks off of that. But I saw that Elon Musk responded to this announcement. And obviously, Elon Musk has a pretty prominent position with Trump's administration. He responded saying that

they simply don't have enough money for this and really questioning it and essentially saying it doesn't look as though it's really possible, this project Stargate. Well, I'm not completely sure on the finance side of things. I can talk about the interpersonal relationship side. Yeah. Because Elon Musk and Sam Altman, the leader of OpenAI, are currently engaged in a legal battle because there was issues with OpenAI being a public company versus a private company, Elon Musk being part of the board and pushing for certain things about it being open source. So they're in this sort of legal struggle.

Now, Elon Musk being such a close confidant of Trump and then Trump appearing with Sam Altman was kind of interesting there. That's what's also interesting is you're the president of the United States. It's not like there are so many different, it's just so much more complex than having an individual relationship with one very prominent,

but wealthiest man in the world, business owner of many different companies. Like it's so much more complex than that. So it's. Well, the complexity goes even deeper because there's been a, a look back at Sam Altman's political history. And over the last decade,

since Trump has entered the public political arena, Sam Altman was very much anti-Trump early in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. So his relationships with someone like Reid Hoffman as well, who is very much a he's a tech billionaire, but very much anti-Trump funding many Democrat organizations, activist organizations through his different philanthropy efforts. So Sam Altman's previous anti-Trump stance, his relationship with individuals who are actually, who were actually working against Trump getting into office, not just in 2016, but 2020, 2024. So the complex web of relationships here all comes back to these data centers yeah

that was a good um meeting for the weave the weave i do mention the weave in my uh newsletter this week oh yeah subscribe to texan and hear about the weave trump's method of talking talking really um bradley what you got saw a tweet by ed mckinley it is a reporter at the houston chronicle right now um he said quote ag commissioner sid miller rehired his friend and aide todd smith at the texas department of agriculture shortly after smith pleaded guilty to commercial bribery charges for fraudulently soliciting tens of thousands from farmers seeking hemp licenses. That was a very long, drawn-out legal process over years. And finally, earlier this year, well, last year, now, Smith pled guilty. It was a plea deal to just basically get the case off the books.

So Ed quoted Miller as saying, quote, He wasn't guilty. He pled out because he was facing a George Soros judge and a George Soros district attorney and a Democrat jury in Travis County. They basically slapped him on the wrist and sent him along his way. It's the same thing they did to Trump, weaponization by the Democrats. So under the plea deal, Smith avoided jail time, but he paid $10,000 in restitution. Take that for what you will. You know smith has become kind of a lightning rod in

capital circles but um the ad commissioner stuck by it and he brought him back into the fold i have an uncle named todd smith so whenever todd smith i'm like oh todd you're uncle todd you're at it again you're at it again My Twitter for the week is something we just announced on Thursday while we're recording here, but we're so excited. We've said that we're having the comptroller, Glenn Hager, that we're having Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick at our event, and we just announced and can confirm that Speaker Dustin Burroughs will also be there. So we're super excited about that. Are you surprised? No, I was feigning surprise.

Yeah. When did we book that? Who did that? We're very excited to have him join our event. It's going to be a full slate of state leaders chatting with our reporters and subscribers and folks listening in at the event. It's going to be awesome.

Just keep that in mind. We have the speaker coming as well. It's going to be a fun day. I'll be tuned in. Will you? I oh you're uh you're not contractually obligated you're not gonna go the brad route and say i'm contractually obligated to be here you're just gonna say i'm gonna watch it no i you know if i could i would have sponsored the event get my name on totally you know brought to you by camera rooms that. That would have been, we should do that anyways because it is brought to you. Sponsored individual panels. Well, you are, it also is brought to you by

Cameron Abrams because you're moderating multiple panels. Public education school choice panel hosted by Cameron Abrams, brought to you by Cameron Abrams. The border and immigration panel sponsored by Cameron Abrams, brought to you by Cameron Abrams. Questioned by Cameron, moderated by Cameron Abrams. Yeah, yeah well once we get the ai technology ramped up we're just gonna have an

entire panel of cameron abrams just asking each other questions we should have like holograms of you asking yourself questions we're gonna get basically what the office is like every day that's so true i think cameron's more prepped to be a moderator than anybody because cameron is a question asker. He's got curiosities and is just naturally very good at this. I appreciate that. My heart goes out to you. Thank you, Cameron.

I appreciate it. Okay, folks. Well, we are right in an hour here. And with Brad's addendum, knock on wood, that hopefully comes in, we'll be set. So, folks, thanks for listening. We'll catch you next week, post-event, with all the rundown of everything. Let's go check out the House Rules.

Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at thetexan.news. Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics. And send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting us an email to editor at thetexan.news. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.