Bureaucratic Blacklist: The Texas House’s War on Independent Media
When the Texas Legislature convenes every two years, the state’s 150 House members and 31 Senators meet to deliberate, debate, and pass laws that will govern the lives of 30 million Texans. Covering this process is essential to transparency and accountability in government, but the ability to do so is tightly controlled. And the man holding the keys to access? Steven D. Adrian, Executive Director of the Texas House Business Office.
Adrian is the gatekeeper of ALL press access to the Texas House of Representatives. Any journalist wishing to cover legislative proceedings must apply through his office for media credentials. Each session, applicants go through an approval process dictated by House Administration Committee Rules. In theory, this process ensures that only legitimate journalists gain access. In practice, however, it has become a bureaucratic cudgel used to keep out independent and conservative journalists who aren’t part of the Austin “good ol’ boy” media club.
A Process Designed for Exclusion
On December 9, 2024, I submitted my application for media credentials to the Texas House, complete with all required documentation. After weeks of silence, I received a response on December 30—not an approval or denial, but a request for additional information.
I submitted my response on January 28, 2025—fully answering all questions. On February 19, I sent a stern letter demanding a response and the requesting the ability to pick up my credentials… as my Texas Constitutional Rights provide. Within hours, I received a letter from Adrian himself: my application was “refused by operation of House Administration Committee Rules” for failing to meet the five-day response deadline. “This action is not subject to further review,” the letter concluded. So, five days … that’s all you get to respond … five days.
A rule designed to ensure legitimacy was instead weaponized as a pretext for exclusion.
Ok, so I clearly didn’t submit my response in time … That’s on me. But that’s not the whole story. I immediately checked online to find that, indeed, they are still accepting applications … even after rejecting mine for being late. One might call this brain-dead bureaucracy.
So, I submitted a fresh application the very next day, February 20, citing the Texas House Media Credentials website, which explicitly stated that applications were still being accepted as of February 18.
Adrian’s response? Another rejection, this time citing the exact same vague inability to determine whether my publication, Texas Liberty Journal, met the eligibility criteria. Even though, they had already received my response from the first application … albeit late. It seems that it was all too ‘unclear‘ to Mr. Adrian. Despite nearly four years of continuous publishing, 116 articles, and clear adherence to the House’s requirements, Adrian’s office claimed “uncertainty” over whether my work constituted journalism.
That’s how they getcha. They don’t say no … they say they are “unclear”, then send you a notice on a Friday afternoon … at 4:00 pm. And if you don’t respond within the 5 days …. you – are – out. Hey, it’s not their fault that you didn’t follow the rules. See how this game is played?
Moving the Goalposts
The rejection letter dated February 26, 2025 that I received, was a masterpiece of bureaucratic obfuscation. The House Business Office suddenly needed to confirm:
- Whether Texas Liberty Journal was a for-profit entity supported by advertising or subscription revenue.
- Whether it was independent of lobbying or special interest groups.
- Whether I personally was involved in lobbying or paid advocacy.
All of these criteria had already been met and documented in my previous submissions.
Undeterred, I responded the next day, with an exhaustive rebuttal. I provided links to our publication’s website, proof of financial independence, and a clear declaration of editorial autonomy. I attached exhibits proving our operational history and revenue sources. I left nothing to chance.
Yet, as of March 12, 2025—two weeks later—I have received no response. Maybe Mr. Adrian is just too busy to respond. Maybe he was too busy cashing his $257,985 salary check.
The Bigger Picture: Who Gets In, Who Gets Shut Out
This isn’t just about one journalist or one publication. The Texas Legislature meets only once every two years for 140 days. By delaying and denying credentials, Adrian’s office effectively silences voices that might challenge establishment narratives.
Meanwhile, legacy media outlets and Austin insiders waltz through the credentialing process unimpeded. The Texas Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and Dallas Morning News have no trouble gaining access. Their reporters are not subject to nebulous “uncertainty” about their qualifications. The unspoken reality is that independent, conservative, and alternative journalists are held to a different standard—one designed to exclude.
And lest I not be completely forthcoming … this is NOT the first time. Two years ago, I went through the same process. But back then, I was just getting started, and while I still met the qualifications, I was too naive to understand that this was a sick game they were playing. So I just let it go. But now, I’m a little more wise … and a lot more pissed off.
Accountability and the Public’s Right to Know
The Texas Constitution guarantees a free press, and the public has a right to access unfiltered information about their government. When an unelected bureaucrat like Steven D. Adrian, who has been employed by the state for 32 years, controls which journalists can report from the House floor, it raises serious questions about transparency, press freedom, and political gatekeeping.
If media credentials are to serve their intended purpose—ensuring legitimate, professional coverage of the legislative process—they must be applied fairly and consistently. The House Business Office should not be a tool for suppressing dissenting voices or protecting lawmakers from scrutiny.
For now, my application remains in limbo, buried in Adrian’s bureaucratic black hole. But this fight is bigger than me. It’s about whether Texas remains a place where the press can hold government accountable—or whether access to lawmakers is reserved only for those willing to play by the establishment’s rules.
One thing is clear: if Steven D. Adrian is the gatekeeper, then someone needs to hold him accountable for who he lets in—and who he keeps out. It’s time for Steven Adrian to retire.
Austin
Texas GOP Wants Closed Primaries. New Secretary of State Robert Howden Is Preparing to Fight Them.
Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.
The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.
The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.
Howden Steps Into the Fight
Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.
Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.
At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.
But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.
That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.
Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.
The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.
Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.
So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.
That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.
The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination
The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.
The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.
The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.
But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.
Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.
The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
Election
Texas Senate Hopeful James Talarico Shared Pride Event Stage With 11-Year-Old Child Drag Performer
Federal Court Upholds State Limits on Minors at Adult Drag Shows
Taylor, TX – A federal appeals court has just upheld a Florida law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances, including some drag shows. Within hours of that ruling, renewed attention was focused on Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico after reports resurfaced showing he headlined a 2021 Pride fundraiser featuring an 11-year-old child drag performer promoted as one of the event’s main attractions.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, allowing Florida to enforce its law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the decision, calling it a victory for protecting children. The ruling does not prohibit drag performances for adults, but it recognizes that states may impose limits when minors are involved.
The timing has drawn renewed scrutiny to Talarico’s record as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
According to promotional materials first highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon, Talarico was a featured speaker during Taylor PRIDE’s June 26, 2021 fundraiser in Taylor, Texas. The event was organized to raise money for “rural LGBTQ communities” and included live music, Drag Story Hour, adult drag performers, and an 11-year-old performer using the stage name “Kween Kee Kee.”
Taylor PRIDE advertised the child as “the absolute cutest & youngest of our drag performers.” Promotional posts stated the child would perform a drag routine and host “Kee Kee Storytime,” where children would participate in Pride-themed craft activities. The event was held at Texas Beer Company.
Photographs published from the event show Talarico addressing attendees from the stage and posing with participants. Additional photographs and video posted publicly show Kween Kee Kee, a local preteen named Keegan, performing in a shimmering blue dress, platinum blonde wig, and theatrical makeup during what organizers described as a Youth Drag Show. One attendee shared video of the child performing the splits before the audience.
The fundraiser also featured several adult drag performers, including Brianna Brinxx, Belladonna Dior, Felecia Enspire, and a performer using the stage name Sedonya Face.
Following criticism from conservative activists who protested the event, Taylor PRIDE defended the festival on social media. The organization rejected claims that the event was sexually explicit or exploitative and encouraged the public to review photographs from the event and decide for themselves.
Talarico’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon regarding his participation.
The resurfaced event adds to a broader record that Republicans have highlighted throughout Talarico’s political career. While serving in the Texas House, Talarico opposed legislation restricting drag performances in the presence of children and argued lawmakers should avoid harming what he described as Texas’ drag performers. He has also opposed Republican-backed legislation restricting certain transgender medical treatments for minors and has frequently spoken in support of LGBTQ causes.
More recently, however, Talarico has attempted to present himself as a more moderate statewide candidate. He has described previous remarks, including referring to God as “nonbinary,” as “cringey” and has removed some progressive messaging from campaign materials as he seeks to broaden his appeal beyond Democratic primary voters.
The renewed attention comes as cultural debates surrounding children and drag performances continue playing out both politically and legally. Florida’s appellate court victory represents one of the most significant recent rulings supporting a state’s authority to restrict minors from attending certain adult-oriented live performances, even as litigation over similar laws continues elsewhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login