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.
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton
AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.
The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.
According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.
Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”
By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.
The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem joined national security leaders in a dual-state event to commemorate a historic decline in border crossings, according to an official release from the Department of Homeland Security. The event spanned two locations, Arizona and North Dakota, in a single day, highlighting coordinated efforts to strengthen border security. Noem, alongside other officials, marked the achievement as a significant milestone in national security policy.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a measurable drop in unauthorized border crossings, attributing the success to enhanced enforcement measures and inter-agency collaboration. Specific data on the decline was not detailed in the initial announcement, though officials emphasized the impact of recent policy implementations. The two-state commemoration underscored the geographic breadth of the issue, addressing both southern and northern border concerns.
In Arizona, Noem and security leaders reviewed operations along the southern border, a longstanding focal point for immigration enforcement. Later in the day, the group traveled to North Dakota to assess northern border security, an area often overlooked in national discussions but critical to comprehensive policy. The dual focus aimed to demonstrate a unified approach to protecting all U.S. borders, per the department’s statement.
The official release from Homeland Security included remarks from Noem, who praised the dedication of personnel involved in the effort. “This decline in crossings is a testament to the hard work of our agents and the effectiveness of our strategies,” she said. Her comments were echoed by other leaders present, though no additional direct quotations were provided in the initial report.
Background on the border security initiatives reveals a multi-year push to address vulnerabilities at both entry points. Southern border challenges, particularly in Arizona, have long dominated policy debates due to high volumes of crossings and complex terrain. Meanwhile, northern border issues in states like North Dakota often involve different dynamics, including trade security and seasonal migration patterns. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized resources for both regions, though specific funding allocations remain undisclosed in the latest update.
The cause of the reported decline ties directly to recent enforcement actions, though exact mechanisms were not specified in the announcement. Officials pointed to improved technology, increased staffing, and stronger partnerships with local and state authorities as contributing factors. Further details on these efforts are expected in forthcoming reports from the department, which has committed to transparency on border metrics.
Opinion
The recognition of a decline in border crossings signals a potential turning point in how the nation secures its frontiers. Celebrating this achievement in two distinct regions reinforces the importance of a comprehensive strategy that does not neglect less-discussed areas like the northern border.
Events like these also serve as a reminder that security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental duty of government. Prioritizing resources and personnel to protect sovereignty while maintaining lawful entry processes should remain a core focus, ensuring that progress is sustained through consistent policy and accountability.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login