Top 10 Reasons Why Conservatives are SHOCKED to See Dustin Burrows Campaigning for Katrina Pierson
OPINION
Rockwall, TX – For years, Katrina Pierson carefully cultivated an image as a fiery grassroots conservative willing to battle the Republican establishment. From cable news appearances to campaign stages, Pierson positioned herself as a voice for the forgotten conservative voter — the kind of activist who would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with ordinary Texans against the Austin political machine. That is precisely why many grassroots conservatives are now stunned to see her openly embracing one of the most controversial establishment figures in the Texas House: Speaker Dustin Burrows.
Burrows has become a lightning rod inside Republican politics, criticized by conservatives for his role in the Dennis Bonnen scandal, his alliance with the House establishment wing, his reliance on Democrat support in the Speaker’s race, and his ongoing battles with the grassroots movement. To many activists, Burrows represents the very culture of insider deal-making and power preservation that the MAGA movement was built to oppose. Yet despite that record, Pierson has welcomed his support and appears increasingly comfortable standing alongside the Austin insider crowd many conservatives believed she once opposed.
Politics often changes people. Some enter public life promising reform, only to discover that proximity to power can be intoxicating. Critics now argue that Pierson’s alliance with Burrows signals more than simple political strategy — they see it as a symbol of a broader surrender by figures who once claimed to fight for the grassroots. Whether voters view her partnership with Burrows as pragmatic coalition-building or outright political betrayal may ultimately define how conservatives remember Katrina Pierson’s next chapter.
1. The Dennis Bonnen “Target List” Scandal (2019)
This remains the defining controversy of Burrows’ career.
Burrows attended a secretly recorded meeting with then-House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and conservative activist Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans. According to the recording, Bonnen and Burrows discussed providing House media credentials and identifying Republican lawmakers for possible primary challenges.
The fallout was explosive:
- Bonnen eventually announced he would not seek another term as speaker.
- Burrows resigned as chairman of the House Republican Caucus.
- Conservatives accused Burrows of participating in an insider political purge operation.
Although investigators later concluded no criminal laws were broken, the episode permanently damaged Burrows’ reputation among many grassroots conservatives.
2. Allegations of Targeting Conservative Republicans
The same 2019 recording fueled accusations that Burrows helped create a “hit list” of Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to House leadership.
Critics argued the effort was designed to protect establishment Republicans and punish insurgent conservatives aligned with groups like Empower Texans and the Texas Freedom Caucus.
For many on the right, this controversy established Burrows as part of the House power structure that routinely fought conservative activists.
3. Winning the Speakership With Democratic Support
Burrows’ election as Speaker in January 2025 became another major flashpoint.
He defeated Republican caucus-backed candidate David Cook largely because 49 Democrats joined 36 Republicans to elect him speaker.
Conservative Republicans and activists accused Burrows of:
- Violating the spirit of Republican caucus unity,
- Empowering Democrats,
- Continuing the “coalition House” model long criticized by the grassroots.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick publicly blasted the effort, calling it effectively a “coup d’état” against the GOP caucus process.
4. Association With the “Establishment Wing” of the GOP
Burrows became closely associated with former Speaker Dade Phelan and the institutional leadership faction of the House.
After the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton, tensions inside the Republican Party intensified dramatically. Burrows was viewed by many conservatives as aligned with the anti-Paxton House leadership faction.
Though Burrows was not the central architect of the impeachment proceedings, his close alliance with Phelan politically tied him to that conflict.
5. The “Death Star Bill” (HB 2127)
Burrows authored House Bill 2127, nicknamed by critics the “Death Star Bill.”
The legislation sharply restricted the ability of Texas cities and counties to create local regulations exceeding state law in areas such as:
- labor rules,
- environmental regulations,
- agriculture,
- business operations.
Supporters called it necessary to stop a patchwork of local regulations harming businesses.
Opponents argued:
- it stripped local control,
- undermined home-rule cities,
- centralized power in Austin.
The bill triggered multiple lawsuits and became one of the most litigated Texas laws in recent years.
6. Accusations of Working Too Closely With Democrats
Even after becoming speaker, Burrows faced persistent criticism from the Republican right for preserving Democratic influence in the House.
Although committee chairmanships eventually remained Republican-only, Democrats retained vice-chair roles and influence in committee operations.
Conservative critics argued:
- Republicans should fully control the chamber,
- Democrats should not hold institutional leverage,
- Burrows was perpetuating bipartisan governance models that diluted conservative priorities.
This issue became central to Republican grassroots anger against House leadership generally.
7. Republican Censure Threats
Following the speaker race, some Republicans pushed to censure Burrows and allied lawmakers under Texas GOP Rule 44.
The rule theoretically allows censured Republicans to be denied ballot access in GOP primaries.
Burrows and his allies argued the rule violated free association rights and punished lawmakers for independent votes.
The controversy exposed a widening civil war within the Texas Republican Party between:
- institutional conservatives,
- populist conservatives,
- activist grassroots factions.
8. Allegations of Political Surveillance During Speaker Race
During the heated 2024 speaker contest, reports surfaced alleging allies connected to Burrows engaged in monitoring Democratic caucus activity.
Texas Scorecard published allegations involving political intelligence gathering tied to former Speaker Bonnen on Burrows’ behalf. The accusations intensified distrust during the already bitter speaker fight.
No criminal findings emerged publicly from those allegations, but they further fueled perceptions of insider political maneuvering around Burrows.
9. Handling of Attempts to Remove Him as Speaker
In 2025, Rep. Brian Harrison attempted to initiate proceedings to remove Burrows as speaker.
Harrison accused Burrows of:
- empowering Democrats,
- blocking conservative priorities,
- manipulating House procedures.
Burrows refused to recognize the initial motion on procedural grounds, which critics described as protecting leadership through parliamentary control.
The House later overwhelmingly shut down the removal effort.
10. Enforcement Actions During Democrat Quorum Break
During the 2025 special session over congressional redistricting, House Democrats fled Texas to deny quorum. Burrows authorized “call of the House” enforcement measures and arrest warrants compelling absent lawmakers to return.
Supporters argued:
- he was enforcing constitutional legislative duties,
- Democrats were obstructing lawful governance.
Critics said:
- the enforcement measures were excessive,
- legislators were effectively treated like fugitives,
- the House atmosphere became increasingly authoritarian.
The incident drew national attention and deepened partisan tensions.
Broader Political Significance
Burrows’ controversies are not merely personal scandals; they reflect the larger ideological war inside Texas Republican politics.
He sits at the intersection of:
- establishment conservatism,
- business-oriented Republican governance,
- institutional House traditions,
- and insurgent populist conservatism aligned with grassroots activists and figures like Paxton.
To supporters, Burrows is an effective operator who can actually pass legislation.
To critics, he symbolizes the Austin political machine conservatives have spent years trying to dismantle.
True MAGA representatives should run far away from establishment RINOs like Dustin Burrows. Katrina Pierson should know better … unless, she is not the person we thought she was.
Fate, TX
Exposed: City of Fate Withholds Documents from Disclosure Without Permission From Attorney General
Ethics Investigation Raises New Questions About Fate’s Response to Open Records Request
Fate, TX — An ethics investigation into former Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn has uncovered evidence suggesting the City of Fate possessed at least one employee complaint against former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard that it never disclosed in response to an Open Records Request submitted by Pipkins Reports.
The newly released investigative report also raises additional questions about whether City Manager Michael Kovacs fully described his receipt of employee complaint letters during his interview with the City’s outside investigator.
The documents establish the following timeline.
On November 25, 2025, Pipkins Reports submitted a Texas Public Information Act request seeking four categories of records related to Chief Lombard’s employment. Item No. 3 requested:
“Copy of any written complaints against Chief Lombard within the last 12 months prior to termination.”
On December 11, 2025, the City responded by producing Chief Lombard’s performance evaluations, termination documents, and the investigation initiated by City Manager Michael Kovacs. However, the city produced no employee complaint letters.
Because no complaint letters were produced, Pipkins Reports immediately contacted the City for clarification. The follow-up specifically noted that an anonymous employee complaint concerning Lombard had already become publicly known and requested that letter, along with any other anonymous or signed complaints concerning the former chief.
On December 16th, after Pipkins Reports challenged the City’s original response, Associate Attorney Paige Goins of Messer Fort acknowledged that one document—the anonymous letter already known to exist—had been inadvertently omitted and she sent that document to Pipkins Reports.
Then, on December 18, the City supplemented its response again by producing awards and commendations received by Lombard.
At the time, Pipkins Reports did not pursue the matter further. New information obtained through a subsequent ethics investigation has now renewed serious questions about whether the City’s response complied with the Texas Public Information Act.
Under the Texas Public Information Act, governmental bodies generally must either promptly produce responsive public records or seek a ruling from the Texas Attorney General if they believe the requested information falls within an exception to disclosure. If a governmental body fails to timely request an Attorney General ruling, the requested information is generally presumed to be public unless a compelling reason exists to withhold it. See Texas Government Code §§ 552.221, 552.301, and 552.302.
In this case, the City did not seek an Attorney General ruling authorizing its withholding of any documents.
Ethics Investigation Reveals New Information
Seven months later, in July of 2026, an unrelated ethics investigation would reveal information that casts new light on the City’s response.
The investigation originated from an ethics complaint filed by Fate resident Darcy Gildon, who alleged former Councilwoman Codi Chinn improperly involved herself in personnel matters by directing city employees to prepare written complaints concerning Chief Lombard.
Attorney Laura Mueller of Baker Robertson & O’Brien ultimately concluded that Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the city’s Code of Ethics by directing employees to provide information to her in writing. Pipkins Reports reported on that story … here.
More significant for purposes of this investigation, however, were the interviews conducted with the individuals involved.
According to the investigative report, Chinn told investigators that city employees approached her seeking assistance. She stated that she instructed them to put their concerns in writing so they could be presented to the City Council. Instead, according to her interview, the employees compiled a letter addressed to the entire City Council, after which she instructed them to deliver the letter to City Manager Michael Kovacs.
The investigative report summarizes Kovacs’ interview as follows:
“In my interview with Mr. Kovacs, we discussed his conversations with then Councilmember Chinn and the employees. Mr. Kovacs stated that he received the letter outlining the employee issues directly from an officer, but with the understanding that the information was given to him at the direction of Ms. Chinn. Mr. Kovacs also stated that Ms. Chinn kept him informed of the conversations she was having with the employees, but that he warned her against such communications.”
The report, however, does not discuss the original anonymous complaint letter that Pipkins Reports previously reported had been delivered to Kovacs through Councilwoman Chinn.
Taken together, the report’s statements—and its omissions—appear to indicate that Kovacs possessed at least two written employee complaints that would have been responsive to Pipkins Reports’ November 2025 Public Information Act request.
Two Letters, One Unanswered Question
Pipkins Reports has independently obtained copies of both complaint letters from sources outside City Hall. One anonymous letter begins with the words, “To Whom It May Concern.” The second letter is addressed to the entire City Council and was reportedly transmitted through Councilwoman Chinn.
Their existence, however, does not resolve whether the City complied with the Texas Public Information Act. The central question is whether the City properly disclosed responsive records in response to a lawful request.
As of this publication, the City still has not disclosed the separate complaint letter that Kovacs later acknowledged receiving directly from a police officer. By his own admission, City Manager Michael Kovacs is the person responsible for the dissemination of records per State Law, and therefore he is the person who should be held accountable.
If Kovacs’ statement to investigators is accurate, that second complaint letter would have existed when the City’s response to the November 2025 Public Information Act request was prepared.
A New Public Information Request
In light of the newly disclosed information, Pipkins Reports has submitted another Texas Public Information Act request seeking all written complaints concerning Chief Lombard, including the complaint letter Kovacs acknowledged receiving from an officer, the complaint letter transmitted through Councilwoman Chinn, and any additional written complaints in the City’s possession.
The request states, in part:
“On 11/25/2025, as part of Open Records Request #R001735-112525, I requested ‘Copy of any written complaints against Chief Lombard within the last 12 months prior to termination.’ The City failed to provide any responsive documents, even though it was publicly known that at least one anonymous complaint letter existed.
During the ethics investigation conducted by Baker Robertson & O’Brien, Michael Kovacs stated that he received a complaint letter from a police officer. This admission indicates the City possessed an additional responsive document that was not disclosed.
The City did not seek an Attorney General ruling authorizing the withholding of either complaint letter. This request seeks both documents, together with any additional written complaints concerning Chief Lombard.”
Whether the City ultimately produces the records—or explains why they were not disclosed nearly eight months ago—may determine whether this story ends as an administrative oversight or raises more significant questions regarding the City’s compliance with the Texas Public Information Act.
This remains an ongoing investigation. Pipkins Reports will continue to report on developments as additional records become available.
Fate Council Dropped Case Before Reviewing
Fate, TX — An ethics investigation commissioned by the City of Fate concluded that former Councilwoman Codi Chinn violated the City’s Code of Ethics before the City Council voted earlier this month to discontinue the matter, according to documents obtained by Pipkins Reports through an Open Records Request.
The report, prepared by attorney Laura Mueller of the law firm Baker, Robertson & O’Brien, found that the allegation against Chinn was “substantiated, but with mitigating factors.”
The Executive Summary states:
“After investigation, my determination is that allegation of a violation of the Ethics Code is substantiated, but with mitigating factors.”
The report concludes that Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the City’s Code of Ethics after directing City employees to provide their concerns to her in writing.
“After reviewing the Charter, the Code of Ethics, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion is that Ms. Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the Code of Ethics when she directed employees to provide information to her in writing.”
Mueller also concluded that mitigating circumstances should be considered because Chinn immediately informed City Manager Michael Kovacs about the employee concerns and because the employees ultimately submitted their written complaints directly to the City.
Council Ends Investigation
The ethics complaint summary report was scheduled to appear on the July 6 City Council agenda for executive session discussion.
Instead of going into Executive Session, the Council waived deliberative privilege and discussed the matter in open session where they ultimately voted to discontinue the ethics proceedings and drop the matter, before being presented with the findings from Mueller.
The Council did not impose any sanction against Chinn.
The following day, Pipkins Reports requested a copy of the complaint and the investigative report, and received it through an Open Records Request.
Investigation Details
According to the report, investigators interviewed Chinn, Councilman Mark Harper, City Manager Michael Kovacs, and other witnesses.
Regarding the allegations, Mueller wrote:
“In my interview with Ms. Chinn and Mr. Harper, we discussed the allegation. I questioned Ms. Chinn about her conversations with city employees and with Mr. Kovacs.”
According to the report, Chinn stated that city employees approached her seeking assistance and that she intended to present their concerns to the City Manager after compiling the information.
However, the report states that employees instead prepared a letter addressed to the City Council. Chinn then instructed them to provide the letter directly to the City Manager.
The report also summarizes Kovacs’ account of the events.
“Mr. Kovacs stated that he received the letter outlining the employee issues directly from an officer, but with the understanding that the information was given to him at the direction of Ms. Chinn.”
Previously, it was reported that Chinn provided a copy of an, “anonymous letter”, that she claims was provided by DPS officers to her. Chinn further states that she sent the letter to Michael Kovacs … who then forwarded it on to the rest of the Council. This report also states that Kovacs told investigators he had warned Chinn against communicating with employees in that manner.
Pipkins Reports continues to investigate this aspect of the situation … as the conditions shed new light on the events that have transpired with regard to the termination of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.
Meanwhile, the city council’s decision effectively ended the ethics proceeding against Chinn without imposing any sanction or issuing any formal determination of its own regarding the investigator’s findings. While the Council possessed the authority to discontinue the matter, the decision also brought the ethics process to a close despite an independent investigation concluding that a violation of the City’s Code of Ethics had occurred.
For the complainant, Darcy Gildon, the Council’s action marked the end of a process that resulted in no public accountability beyond the release of the investigative report which Pipkins Reports has now provided.
Fate, TX – Just hours after Fate city leaders submitted a list of pointed legal questions to the city’s law firm, Messer Fort notified the city it was resigning as legal counsel.
Now, Mayor Andrew Greenberg has released those unanswered questions to the public, saying residents deserve to see exactly what city officials were asking before the firm’s departure.
The release comes amid months of political turmoil inside Fate City Hall. Since the recall of former Councilwoman Codi Chinn, ethics complaints have been filed against Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Mark Hatley, while they and two other current council members now face recall elections of their own, backed by political opponents, including Councilwoman Ashley Rains, Councilman Allen Robbins, and former Councilman Scott Kelley, along with former Mayor David Billings.
Messer Fort had been hired by the City of Fate to serve as its contracted city attorney in place of employing a full-time in-house attorney. Jennifer Riche has been the attorney from that firm who has represented Fate directly. During Messer Fort’s tenure, the firm became deeply involved in several high-profile disputes, including ethics investigations, Public Information Act requests, and legal advice surrounding those matters.
According to a statement released by Greenberg, Messer Fort invited council members to submit any questions they had regarding the firm’s representation of the city. The first seven questions were submitted on July 9. Later that same day, the firm informed the city it would resign, effective July 20. Additional questions were submitted before the firm’s departure, but Greenberg said Messer Fort has not responded.
“As I mentioned during today’s City Council meeting,” Greenberg wrote. “I believe transparency is important. In that spirit, I am sharing the questions exactly as they were submitted so our residents can see what information was being requested and judge for themselves.“
The questions cover several issues that have divided the city over the past year, including Messer Fort’s handling of Texas Attorney General rulings on open records requests, the legal basis for redactions made under the Texas Public Information Act, ethics investigations involving elected officials, the firm’s analysis of potential Texas Open Meetings Act issues, and the use of city legal resources in matters questioned by council members. They also seek documentation supporting legal conclusions that influenced city decisions and ethics proceedings.
Rather than releasing only selected excerpts, Greenberg published the complete list of questions submitted to Messer Fort. The documents allow residents to review the requests in full and draw their own conclusions regarding the issues council members wanted addressed before the firm’s resignation.
Editor’s Note: The questions were originally posted as images on Facebook, making them difficult to read and appearing out of sequence. Pipkins Reports reorganized the pages, enhanced readability where necessary, and compiled them into a single PDF so readers can review the complete document in its proper order.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login