OPINION – Texas conservatives have seen this movie before. A polished Republican talks tough on the Constitution, quotes the Founders on cue, rails against Washington corruption, and convinces voters he is one of the good guys. Then the pressure hits. The cameras come on. The media starts demanding blood. And suddenly the “fighter” voters elected folds faster than a lawn chair at a church picnic.

That is the growing fear surrounding Congressman Chip Roy as speculation intensifies over the Texas Attorney General race. For many grassroots conservatives, Roy is not simply another establishment Republican. He represents something more dangerous, a Republican who knows exactly how conservatives think, exactly what they want to hear, and exactly when to abandon them to protect his standing with the political class.

That perception hardened permanently after January 6.

While Democrats, corporate media, and anti Trump Republicans launched a coordinated political assault against President Donald Trump, Roy joined the feeding frenzy at the exact moment conservatives expected Republicans to stand firm. On January 13, 2021, Roy took to the House floor and declared Trump’s conduct was “clearly impeachable.” The comments were widely covered by outlets including CNN and The Texas Tribune.

At the time, Democrats were aggressively pushing impeachment while left wing media outlets painted millions of Trump supporters as domestic extremists. Conservatives across the country watched banks deplatform citizens, federal agencies ramp up investigations, and political dissent become increasingly criminalized. And there was Chip Roy, sounding almost indistinguishable from the Republicans conservatives had spent years fighting against.

Worse still, Roy’s rhetoric placed him in alignment with some of the most despised anti Trump Republicans in modern history, including Liz Cheney and Congressman Thomas Massie. Cheney ultimately became the public face of the January 6 Committee, a committee many conservatives viewed as less interested in truth than in politically destroying Trump and intimidating his supporters. Roy may not have joined that committee, but to many voters, he helped legitimize the narrative driving it.

This matters because the Attorney General’s office is not ceremonial. The Texas AG is often the final line of defense against federal overreach, politically motivated prosecutions, censorship efforts, and constitutional violations. Every time a city government wants to object to an open records request by a citizen, they need the permission of the AG. Conservatives are not looking for another Republican who caves once the editorial boards and Sunday shows begin screeching. They want someone willing to absorb political punishment without turning on the movement that elected him.

That is why Texas State Senator Mays Middleton is gaining traction among MAGA conservatives. Known by supporters as “MAGA Mayes,” Middleton has cultivated a reputation as an unapologetic America First conservative. He backed election integrity legislation, border enforcement measures, anti-ESG policies, and efforts to stop taxpayer funded lobbying by local governments. More importantly, he has not spent the past several years publicly distancing himself from the voters who dominate today’s Republican base.

To many conservatives, the contrast is glaring. Middleton looks like a man preparing for political combat. Roy increasingly looks like a man carefully managing his reputation with DC insiders while hoping Texas voters forget what happened in 2021.

And conservatives should ask themselves an uncomfortable question. If Roy was willing to publicly break with Trump during the biggest coordinated political attack against conservatives in modern history, what happens when the next crisis arrives? What happens when federal agencies pressure Texas? What happens when media outlets begin demanding prosecutions, investigations, or compromise? Does Roy suddenly rediscover his “constitutional concerns” while conservatives once again get thrown under the bus?

Roy’s defenders will point to his conservative voting record, and that’s fair. He has opposed Biden administration policies and marketed himself as a constitutional hardliner. But conservative voters are increasingly learning that voting scorecards mean very little when pressure reveals someone’s instincts.

And Roy’s instincts, at the defining moment, were not to protect the movement. They were to condemn it alongside people who openly despised it.

Texas conservatives have spent years warning about Republicans who campaign like MAGA warriors back home while quietly serving the priorities of the donor class and establishment once inside Washington. Many now fear Chip Roy fits that mold perfectly, polished, articulate, deeply ambitious, and ultimately unreliable when the stakes become uncomfortable.

The time has come to end the political careers of all who oppose the People, those who oppose the MAGA agenda.

FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted last night to censure Councilman Mark Hatley following a contentious ethics hearing that exposed deep divisions among elected officials.

The censure stems from two ethics complaints alleging Hatley improperly disclosed confidential information tied to internal discussions about the potential firing of former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard. According to testimony, Hatley shared details with local journalist Michael Pipkins of PipkinsReports.com, including references to recorded conversations with City Manager Michael Kovacs.

The complaint was filed by outgoing councilman Scott Kelley, who played a central role throughout the proceedings and ultimately did not recuse himself and voted in favor of censure.

Monday’s meeting included a formal evidentiary hearing where Hatley, represented by attorney David Dodd, presented a defense and attempted to question fellow council members. The process, however, was repeatedly constrained by legal warnings from City Attorney Jennifer Richie, who advised council members not to answer questions related to Lombard’s termination due to ongoing litigation. That guidance, issued numerous times during the hearing, limited testimony and narrowed the scope of cross-examination.

The council ultimately split along familiar lines. Kelley was joined by outgoing councilman Mark Harper and recalled councilwoman Codi Chinn in supporting the censure. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval opposed it, creating a 3–2 divide before the deciding vote was cast. Councilwoman Martha Huffman ultimately sided with the majority, breaking what would have otherwise been a tie, and would have quashed the censure.

Under Texas municipal norms, a censure is a formal statement of disapproval by a governing body against one of its own members. It carries no direct legal penalty, meaning Hatley retains his elected position and voting authority. However, such a reprimand can damage political standing, limit influence within the council, and shape future electoral prospects…if the electorate so decides.

The underlying controversy traces back to the dismissal of Lombard, which has since evolved into a broader legal dispute involving claims of wrongful termination. During Monday’s hearing, repeated references to that litigation underscored the complexity of the case and the limits placed on public disclosure. Richie’s guidance, aimed at protecting the city’s legal position, effectively curtailed testimony that might have clarified key details. Critics argue this dynamic left Hatley unable to fully defend himself against the allegations.

The political context surrounding the vote is difficult to ignore. This was Chinn’s last meeting, as she was recalled from office by the voters, in part due to her involvement in the Lombard matter. Kelley, who initiated the ethics complaint, participated fully in the decision-making process knowing that this was his last meeting. Harper has also been linked in prior discussions about leadership conflicts within city administration, and for he as well, this was his last meeting. Meanwhile, all three have supported recall efforts targeting Hatley, Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman, for additional recall, along with two new councilmen who will take their seats at the next meeting.

From a procedural standpoint, the meeting reflected a council operating under significant strain. Testimony was fragmented, legal cautions were frequent, and the final vote appeared to follow established political alliances rather than shifting based on evidence presented during the hearing. Even Hatley’s legal representation struggled to gain traction within the constraints imposed by the city’s legal posture.

Opinion

The battle for power in Fate is very real. What unfolded Monday night was not merely an ethics hearing; it was the visible culmination of an ongoing political battle inside Fate’s leadership. When a complainant votes on his own accusation; when key witnesses are effectively shielded from cross examination; when you have councilmen under recall by the very people bringing charges against their opponents; the process begins to look less like a search for truth and more like a managed outcome. It’s cut-throat politics at its worst.

What’s changed due to this Hearing? Essentially, nothing. Hatley gets a political black eye, but that’s about it. The sides were already defined, and the votes exactly as expected. Councilmen whose terms were ending anyway are now gone after delivering one last poke in the eye to their opponents. And the City Manager, who is at the heart of this debacle because of his employee decisions, and his inability to stand up to influence from Council Members… is still employed.

For residents of Fate, the final result is an up-close view into how dirty local politics can get. It diminishes the desirability of the city to new residents, hurts economic growth, and the entire process gives citizens the perspective that their city government is completely dysfunctional.

Disclosure

The author of this article was referenced during the hearing as a recipient of information discussed in the ethics complaints. The reporting above is based on observations of the public meeting and review of the proceedings.

FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted Monday night to formally recognize what it called “credible evidence” that Councilman Mark Hatley may have violated the city’s Code of Ethics, setting the stage for a hearing and potential sanctions, and intensifying an already bitter political divide.

The decision came following an executive session on Monday night, and considered a motion by Councilman Scott Kelley, who was the person who filed the ethics complaint against Hatley. Kelley’s motion asserted that the council had sufficient basis to proceed under Section 2-309.10 of the Fate Code of Ethics and Section 3.093 of the City Charter.

The motion passed with support from Codi Chinn, Scott Kelley, Mark Harper, and Martha Huffman. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval voted against the measure, according to the official meeting record and public proceedings.

It remains unclear from the meeting record whether Hatley voted on the motion concerning himself. He was not presented as voting in the negative, yet the Mayor made no mention of him abstaining either.

Mayor Greenberg highlighted that this process is political, not criminal.

Following the vote, Kelley introduced a second motion, requesting that Hatley provide a sworn affidavit within seven days addressing key questions tied to the investigation.

Those questions focused on whether Hatley had shared recorded conversations involving City Manager Michael Kovacs with anyone outside city government, including investigative journalist Michael Pipkins. The motion also sought to compel Hatley to cooperate with any additional information requests from the city’s Ethics Council.

Councilwoman Chinn clarified during the discussion that Hatley is not legally required to submit such an affidavit, implying the request is voluntary rather than enforceable under current rules.

The council set the public hearing for May 4, 2026.

That date falls after the city’s General Election on May 2, but before the results are officially canvassed on May 11, meaning the current council will still be seated at the time of the hearing.

Harper currently holds Place 2, a seat being sought by candidates Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. Rains is one of the petition members seeking to remove multiple councilmembers, including Hatley, through a new recall effort.

Kelley holds Place 3, which is being sought by former Councilman Allen Robbins and Melinda McCarthy. Robbins is also aligned with those supporting the recall of the four councilmen, while McCarthy supported the recall of Codi Chinn, which is already on the ballot for May 2nd.

Early voting for that election is scheduled to begin April 20.