RED OAK, Texas — It was standing room only, overflow rooms packed, and tempers running high. Yet after hours of objections from residents, a divided Red Oak City Council voted around midnight to approve a massive data center project, leaving many citizens convinced their elected officials had already made up their minds long before the first speaker approached the podium.

The May 11 meeting drew such a crowd that even reporters struggled to get inside. According to Fox 4 News, the council chamber seats 136 people, and at least 70 additional residents had to wait outside or gather in a separate room because of capacity limits. The issue before the council was a proposal to rezone more than 800 acres of farmland for what would become another large data center development. Residents packed the meeting to oppose it. By multiple accounts, no organized speakers appeared in support of the project.

According to Fox 4, city leaders allotted one hour for supporters and one hour for opponents to speak. Residents later complained that the process appeared tilted against citizens because there were virtually no supporters present, while opponents continued lining up to address the council.

The proposal ultimately involved rezoning approximately 830 acres and included a tax abatement package approved by a 4 to 1 vote. Fox 4 reported the council entered executive session for nearly an hour before returning shortly before midnight to cast the decisive vote. Residents who remained said they were willing to stay until 2 a.m. if necessary.

Mayor Mark Stanfill and council members Willie Franklin Jr., Ricardo Miller, and Tim Lightfoot formed the majority approving the measure. Councilman Jeffrey Smith cast the lone dissenting vote. Critics say the four officials effectively ignored overwhelming public opposition and pressed ahead anyway.

Residents repeatedly raised concerns about noise, electrical demand, water consumption, and the location of the facility near schools. City officials argued the project would not use city water for cooling and emphasized the economic benefits and tax revenue expected from the development.

Those assurances did little to calm residents.

“How many of these data centers are next to your house, Mr. Mayor? How many are on the east side of town?” resident Martel Edwards asked during the meeting.

Kim Sterman expressed concern about children attending nearby schools.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen to the children who are going to be going to schools,” Sterman said. “All of our schools over there, the high school and the junior high are going to be pretty close to this new patent board facility. Y’all don’t know what’s going to happen.“

Residents also complained that city officials threatened individuals displaying anti-data center signs on their property, allegations reported separately by local media and discussed by residents during and after the controversy. Those claims could not be independently verified by Pipkins Reports.

The battle in Red Oak reflects a growing national trend. Data centers are essential to modern computing and artificial intelligence systems. But communities across Texas and the country have increasingly questioned the rapid expansion of these facilities.

Critics point to concerns over electricity demand, environmental impacts, noise, and the industrialization of previously rural land. Some studies and utility reports have warned that rising AI related power consumption could place additional stress on electric grids and contribute to higher costs for consumers.

Residents expressed frustration that another major project was being approved despite widespread opposition. Some expressed that the process to replace the Mayor and other City Council members, began last night and that the action they have taken regarding the Data Center has sealed their fate.

Sources: Red Oak YouTube; Fox 4 News; City of Red Oak records;

Fate, TX — Monday night’s Fate City Council meeting delivered another dose of controversy and intrigue. Residents who came expecting routine municipal business instead witnessed discussions involving a recall election, disputed recordings, ethics complaints, charter interpretations, and an ongoing struggle over the future direction of city government.

Among the most controversial topics was that of a proclamation declaring June as, “Nuclear Family Month”.

Many people showed up to express their displeasure with the Mayor’s Proclamation. Among the dissenters was former Councilman Mark Harper. Harper tried to express that the proclamation would be a First Amendment violation. In the days leading up to the meeting, Harper and his wife, Sonya, used social media to rally opposition to the proclamation.

Several advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community came out in protest. They believe that the proclamation was exclusionary to same-sex couples with children. But praising one model is not the same thing as declaring other models illegitimate, inferior under the law, or unworthy of respect.

Just as a city may issue a proclamation recognizing military families, such does not exclude civilian families. A city may celebrate small local businesses, but it doesn’t mean they are attacking large corporations. Governments frequently highlight specific groups, traditions, or institutions because they believe those groups have made valuable contributions. Recognition is not necessarily exclusion. This applies to same-sex couples.

Supporters of the proclamation reject claims that the Proclamation violated the First Amendment.

First, government officials are not required to be secular. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that religious references are deeply embedded in American public life. Every City Council meeting opens with a prayer; virtually all of them from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Proclamations recognizing Christmas, Thanksgiving, National Days of Prayer, and similar observances have existed throughout American history. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.“

Second, a proclamation is not a law. The Fate proclamation does not compel anyone to believe anything, attend church, adopt a particular family structure, marry, have children, or embrace Christianity. It creates no penalties, no regulations, and no government program. It is merely a symbolic expression of values. The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between government coercion and government expression.

Third, elected officials have First Amendment rights too. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and the City Council are allowed to express viewpoints. Governments issue proclamations all the time recognizing Pride Month, Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Veterans Day, and countless other causes and constituencies. The fact that some residents in the LGBTQIA+ community disagree with the message does not make it unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects speech people dislike just as much as speech people support.

In fact, in this same meeting, Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented a proclamation to declare June 2nd, 2026, as Codi Chinn Day. This follows Chinn’s removal from office through the recall process earlier this year. Some residents have criticized Chinn’s social media activity, referring to her social media style as, “toxic”, while others have defended her conduct. Many residents question whether a recalled councilperson deserves an appreciation award at all.

Mayor Greenberg acknowledged that initially, he let his own personal anger and frustration get the better of him as he first decided that Chinn would not get a proclamation. He acknowledged that he made that decision as “Andrew”, not as, “Mayor”. After he settled on allowing the proclamation to go forth, he had missed the deadline for the previous meeting, thus causing a delay that some in the community interpreted as a slight. After reflection, he wanted to make it right.

Thus, a proclamation is not a law. It is a symbolic expression of opinion that residents are free to agree or disagree with.

Another significant action before the council was the consideration of an ordinance ordering a special election to determine whether Councilwoman Martha Huffman should be removed from office through the recall process. Huffman elected not to have a hearing over the matter, and thus her recall is the first to be considered. The motion passed, and her recall will be on the November general election ballot.

Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented information and research concerning charter provisions governing council vacancies, an issue that has arisen following the recall of former Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The presentation included discussion of Charter Review Commission deliberations, prior council actions, public records, meeting minutes, and constitutional considerations regarding the city’s vacancy procedures.

According to Greenberg’s presentation, several past appointments, including that of former Councilman Scott Kelley, may not have complied with the charter’s vacancy provisions.

Going forward, as the council follows the written & approved language of the charter, appointments will be made for only the 6-month period between November and May elections.

The council voted that an appointment will be made for Place 1, which will last until November, when an election will be held to finish out the unexpired term to May 2027 … which will then culminate in the regularly scheduled election for that seat.

Transparency was another major theme of the evening.

After Mayor and Council reports, the Council adjourned once again into executive session to discuss with attorney, matters of ethics complaints filed by Former Councilman Mark Harper against Mayor Greenberg, Ethics complaints against Mark Harper, and Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. This executive session ended just before midnight.

Upon return,  Councilman Allan Robbins moved to find that Greenberg had violated ethics and asked that the council proceed with sanctions against the mayor. The motion was 2nd by Councilwoman Ashley Gains. The mayor expressed that there was no credible evidence that was sufficiently explained. The motion failed on a 4-2 vote, ending the matter without sanctions against the mayor. The complaint is now closed.

Initial screening of ethics complaint against Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. The Council found that investigation of the complaint is sufficient and that an investigative report will be submitted to the Council at the July meeting.

Initial screening of ethics complaint against Mark Harper by Darcy Gildon. The Council voted to dismiss the complaint after determining that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant further action. Motion submitted by Robbins and 2nd by Rains. Only Mark Hatley voted against the motion. The matter is now closed.

The meeting concluded Tuesday morning, just after midnight.

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.