The Texas House voted today to repeal the “anti sodomy” law that has been on the books since 1973. HB1738 was the first bill to make it to the House floor for a vote since the law was enacted, and subsequently deemed unconstitutional in 2003 by the Lawrence v Texas ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The bill for was authored by Dallas state representative Venton Jones, a member of the LGBTQ Caucus and long time activist.
The bill repeals Penal Code Section 21.06. Texas Penal Code Section 21.06, also known as “homosexual conduct,” makes it a Class C misdemeanor to engage in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. This means that the law criminalizes sexual activity between people of the same gender. The penalty for a Class C misdemeanor is generally a fine of up to $500.
The vote was 72 Yeas, 55 Nays, 5 Present Not Voting. The vote remains to be certified.
The bill faces an uphill battle in the Republican controlled Texas Senate. The Texas legislative session ends June 2.
11 other states still have some form of sodomy law on the books.
Today, a Montana Court struck down SB 99, a 2023 Montana law that categorically bans often life-saving health care for transgender youth. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Cross v. Montana, holding that SB 99 violates the constitutional rights of transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming care and the healthcare professionals who are providing that care.
The lawsuit challenging SB 99 was brought by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Montana. This ruling removes completely the threat hanging over Montana transgender youth and their families that their access to critical medical care would be terminated.
“I will never understand why my representatives worked so hard to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” said Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy. “It’s great that the courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, have seen this law for what it was, discriminatory, and today have thrown it out for good. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”
“Today, the court saw through the state’s vitriol and hollow justifications and put the final nail in the coffin of this cruel, and discriminatory, law,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Nora Huppert. “No parent should ever be forced to deny their child access to the safe and effective care that could relieve their suffering and provide them a future. Because Montana’s Constitution protects their right to privacy, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive.”
“We are very pleased that the Court saw through the State’s unfounded arguments about why gender-affirming medical care should be treated differently from other forms of care,” said ACLU staff attorney Malita Picasso. “The Court recognizes SB 99 for what it truly is, an effort by the State to legislate transgender Montanans out of existence.”
“The Montana Constitution protects the privacy and dignity of all Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, ACLU-MT Executive Director. “In the face of those protections, cruel and inhumane laws like SB 99 will always fail. Today’s decision should be a powerful message to those that seek to marginalize and harass transgender Montanans.”
In its ruling, the court stated:
“[t]he Court is forced to conclude that the State’s interest is actually a political and ideological one: ensuring minors in Montana are never provided treatment to address their “perception that [their] gender or sex” is something other than their sex assigned at birth. In other words, the State’s interest is actually blocking transgender expression.”
Plaintiffs in the case include Molly and Paul Cross and their 17-year-old transgender son Phoebe; Jane and John Doe joining on behalf of their 16-year-old transgender daughter; and two providers of gender affirming care who bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their Montana patients.
On December 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that SB 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on State constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the United States Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the landmark case brought by Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
More information about the case is available here.
The Trump administration is justifying the president’s claim that top U.S. law firm Susman Godfrey is a national security threat by citing its donations to an LGBTQ+ legal nonprofit.
Trump targeted Susman Godfrey in an April 9 executive order which sought to revoke security clearance from Susman lawyers and restrict their access to federal buildings. The order was seen as retaliation for the firm having represented Dominion Voting Systems in its 2021 defamation suit against Fox News after the right-leaning media outlet repeated Trump’s claims that Dominion’s voting machines helped “steal” the 2020 election from Trump. During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office last month, White House Deputy Chief of Staff went so far as to falsely suggest that the firm “is very involved in the election misconduct,” according to Bloomberg Law.
Susman challenged Trump’s order in court, arguing that it violated the firm’s and its clients’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On April 15, a federal judge granted the firm a temporary restraining order barring the administration from enforcing parts of the order while the case proceeds. The case was back in court last week, where a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department faced sharp questioning from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan about the administration’s justification for Trump’s order, according to Reuters.
On Monday, May 12, Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff posted a screenshot from court filings on Bluesky that indicates the administration’s flimsy rationale.
In his order, Trump alleged that Susman “funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology.” As evidence for the claim, which Susman denies, the Trump Department of Justice cites the fact that the firm “has provided funds to GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), which previously sued the Federal Government to enjoin Department of Defense policy, based on a radical theory of gender ideology.”
In August 2017, GLAD filed a lawsuit on behalf of five transgender servicemembers challenging Trump’s first term trans military ban. The organization later joined Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights as co-counsels in another case challenging the ban.
While Above the Law’s Joe Patrice notes that the administration’s argument that charitable contributions to an LGBTQ+ nonprofit constitute a national security threat is laughable, he also notes that the administration’s characterization of GLAD’s legal challenge is alarming.
“To call a federal [civil rights] lawsuit an effort to undermine the government requires adopting the premise that it’s a threat to make sure the government isn’t doing anything illegal,” Patrice writes.
Susman Godfrey is one of several top law firms that have been the subject of Trump’s recent executive orders. While the firm and three others have chosen to fight the administration in court, nine firms have reportedly struck deals with Trump, promising over $900 million worth of pro bono work for the administration, according to Business Insider.
“The whole point of the Susman Godfrey executive order and those like it is to intimidate law firms into abandoning advocacy on behalf of their clients,” a lawyer for the firm argued in court last week, according to Reuters. “That is unconstitutional, full stop.”
Meanwhile, as Bloomberg Law notes, the firms that have challenged Trump’s executive orders have been winning in court. Like Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have both been granted court orders temporarily blocking large parts of Trump’s orders. And on May 2, a federal judge struck down Trump’s order against Perkins Coie in its entirety, accusing the president of “settling personal vendettas” with his executive orders.
According to CBS News, in her April 15 decision granting Susman’s request for a temporary restraining order, Judge AliKhan also said that Trump’s executive order targeting the firm was “based on a personal vendetta,” adding that the administration’s attempt “to use its immense power to dictate the positions that law firms may or may not take” threatens the foundation of legal representation in the U.S.
The news out of the #txlege is heavy, but we will continue to fight back against anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation at the Capitol and across Texas.
These bills will have a massive impact on trans Texans. This week is a time of grief and a source of pain for many. During this time of uncertainty and confusion, please hold on to each other and know that you are not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Texans are in your corner.
This past Monday, we passed a key landmark. All House bills that had not been referred out of committee are no longer eligible to become law. That means that 139 of the 200+ bad bills have died—bills that would have criminalized being trans or sought to ban trans care for adults outright.
“Despite some of the worst bills dying, the news of HB 229 and HB 778 passing the House weighs heavy on all of us. No matter where the fight takes us, we will survive, and we will do it together.” -Brad Pritchett, Interim CEO of Equality Texas
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
Dozens of trans people and their allies gathered in the outdoor Capitol rotunda Friday, chanting at the top of their lungs.
They will not erase us.
The next day, the Texas House of Representatives preliminarily passed a bill that aims to do just that.
House Bill 229 strictly defines men and women based on the reproductive organs they were born with, and orders state records to reflect this binary. The bill, titled the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” lays out the “biological truth for anybody who is confused,” said author Rep. Ellen Troxclair, an Austin Republican.
The bill passed on second reading 86-36 after an at times tense debate, and is expected to be finally approved next week before going to the Senate, which has already passed several bills with a similar focus.
Surrounded by a cadre of Republican women, Troxclair said the goal of the bill was to ensure women’s rights aren’t “eroded by activists” as more people come out as trans and nonbinary. Democrats argued against the bill for almost three hours with Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, saying “it is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting.”
If this bill becomes law, more than 120,000 trans Texans would be forced to be defined in state records by the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than the gender they identify as, even if they’ve already legally changed their birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
This year, the proposals that have gained the most traction reflect a more fundamental question: what is a woman?
For conservative lawmakers, the answer is simple, and best defined by reproductive organs. For trans people and their allies, the answer is simple, and best left to an individual’s assertion of their gender identity.
Only one of those groups controls the Texas Capitol.
“We’re a state that believes in truth, and we’re a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women, the women who fought for the right to vote, to compete in sports and to be safe in public spaces, to be treated equally under the law,” Troxclair said on the floor. “But if we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won. We cannot protect what we cannot define.”
In the bill, a woman is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man is “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.” Democrats criticized this as overly simplistic, excluding trans people, but also intersex people and those who can’t conceive children.
“Any biologist knows there are variations in sex chromosomes, hormone levels and other traits … where an individual’s biological characteristics don’t align with typical male or female categorization,” said Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from Houston. “The real question is, do you believe that all people have the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of their own personal happiness?”
This bill aligns with an executive order from Gov. Greg Abbott, who declared in January that Texas only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and a non-binding legal opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said state agencies should not honor court opinions to change someone’s sex listed on official documents.
At the Capitol rally on Friday, Lambda Legal senior attorney Shelly Skeen said revoking these changed documents, and preventing people from changing them in the future, “affects every aspect of our daily lives.” Having a birth certificate or drivers’ license that reflects a different sex than their physical presentation, or that doesn’t align with their passport or other documents, could leave trans people in a legal limbo and potentially open them up to violence, she said.
It could impact the state facilities, like prisons, they are sorted into, the bathrooms and locker rooms they are supposed to use and the discrimination protections they are entitled to, Skeen said. Unlike other bills, like the so-called “bathroom bill,” this legislation does not have civil or criminal penalties for using a facility that doesn’t align with one’s sex.
Troxclair did accept one amendment, by El Paso Democrat Rep. Mary González, to clarify how intersex people, who are born with both sets of reproductive organs, fit into these definitions.
The chamber also preliminarily approved Senate Bill 1257, which would require health insurers that cover gender-affirming care also cover any adverse consequences and costs of detransitioning. The bill, authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach, passed 82-37.
Leach said he brought this bill on behalf of people who were left with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills because their health insurance wouldn’t cover the costs of detransitioning.
“The illustration that I think best describes this is, if you take somebody to the dance and they want to go home, then you have to take them home,” Leach said during the debate on Saturday.
The bill says that any insurance company that covers gender-affirming care must cover all detransition-related costs for its members, even if that person wasn’t on the health insurance plan at the time they transitioned. Democrats filed more than half a dozen amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, critiquing the bill as a health insurance mandate. None of the amendments passed.
Last session, Texas lawmakers outlawed gender-affirming care for minors. Trans advocates worry that raising the cost of covering gender-affirming care will result in health insurers not covering the treatments for adults, either.
“If you can make it painful enough for providers and insurers, health care is gone,” said Emmett Schelling, the executive director of the Transgender Education Network of Texas. “It doesn’t just feed into gender-affirming care. It bleeds into health care that we all need, that we all deserve.”
Speaking on the floor Saturday, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat, said the Legislature was telling insurance companies not to cover gender-affirming care.
“The reality is this bill, however you couch it, is about eliminating the existence of trans individuals in Texas,” Johnson said. “Stop pretending that you’re for freedom. Stop pretending that this is about the kids.”
In a moment of resistance and queer solidarity, a drag show went on despite patrons and performers being kicked out of a bar by about 20 police officers in bulletproof vests.
Police raided Pittsburgh LGBTQ+ venue P Town Bar on Friday in the middle of a drag event.
Drag artist Indica was performing alongside trans model and nightlife legend Amanda Lepore when police began to gather in the back of the establishment, QBurgh reported. When Indica finished her rendition of “Bohemian Rhapsody,” police directed patrons to exit the bar but did not explain why beyond saying it was a “compliance check.”
“We waited 30 minutes outside for them to inspect every crevice,” Indica told QBurgh. But the patrons and performers refused to let the cops quash their spirit and instead created their own public performance space.
Video captured during the wait shows the crowd belting Chappell Roan’s Pink Pony Club while Indica dances up and down the sidewalk, collecting tips.
“Guess what, divas?” she said when the performance ended. “This is why queer people have gotta stick the f*ck together in 2025… Make some noise for the queer people in your life everybody.” The crowd cheered.
QBurgh described the moment as one of “resistance, solidarity, and improvisational beauty” and one that “reminded everyone there that drag isn’t just entertainment, it’s political. And when the music stops, the queens don’t.”
Police proceeded to allow 70 people to reenter the bar, saying it had been over capacity with the 130 people who were in attendance.
“The raid was a jarring experience in 2025,” one witness said. “Dozens of state police, geared up with bulletproof vests, flooded the bar and told us to get out. None of the officers would explain what was happening. We stood in the rain for maybe 30 minutes or so until most patrons were let back in. Fortunately the situation was calm and orderly, but they really just overtook this queer space with an entire fleet of police to ‘count heads’ or whatever their excuse was.”
Corey Dunbar, a security guard for P Town Bar, praised the way the staff handled the incident, saying they “ensured patrons’ safety and nerves during the process” since “many people were shaken up.”
State police told QBurgh the raid was instigated by the Allegheny County Nuisance Bar Task Force. It is not known who made the initial complaint that led the cops there.
Witnesses said officers would not look the queens in the eye and would not answer their questions about why things like this never happen at straight bars. Indica also said that some officers even asked to take selfies with Lepore.
Can’t get enough Flee Red States? Need better reminder as to when we post new blog articles? Then please give us a follow on our social media platforms!
The Colorado Senate gave final approval Tuesday to a heavily amended bill adding legal protections for transgender people in a 20-14 vote after hours of debate and opposition from Republican senators.
House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act in honor of a transgender woman killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, would make it a discriminatory act to intentionally not refer to a transgender person by their chosen name. It also requires school policies be “inclusive of all reasons” that a student changes their name, and it says schools must allow students to choose from any variation contained in dress code policies.
The bill includes a provision that says someone does not need a court order if they want to change their gender marker on a driver’s license or other identification a second or third time. Colorado allows an “X” gender marker on state IDs, but that has led to some people having trouble with student loans and passport applications, so some people may want to change their gender markers back. It will also allow a county clerk to issue a new marriage license to someone who has legally changed their name.
“This bill’s needed because if transgender residents were never harassed, denied services, or mocked in official settings, additional clarification would be unnecessary,” Sen. Chris Kolker, a Littleton Democrat, said Tuesday. “The lived evidence shows that gaps persist.”
Kolker sponsored the bill alongside Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat, Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, and Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a Lakewood Democrat.
The House voted 39-24 to accept the Senate’s many amendments to the measure and 40-24 to approve it again as amended. Democratic Reps. Regina English of Colorado Springs and Naquetta Ricks of Aurora joined Republicans in voting against accepting the amendments to the bill.
House Republicans continued echoing parental rights concerns during debate that went into late Tuesday evening, which bill supporters said were unfounded under the latest version of the bill.
“The continued mischaracterization of these policies needs to stop,” Garcia said Tuesday night. “It is a disservice to Coloradans who are really trying to understand what is in this bill, and we should be honest and truthful about what we are agreeing to or disagreeing with without exaggeration.”
The measure will now go to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ desk to be signed into law. Two Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting against the bill: Sen. Kyle Mullica of Thornton and Sen. Marc Snyder of Manitou Springs.
The Senate adopted an amendment Monday that removed a portion of the bill that would have shielded parents who help their child obtain gender-affirming care from laws in other states that outlaw the practice — a part of the bill some supporters had reservations about due to potential legal implications. A Senate committee cut part of the section last week, on top of many other substantial amendments, but bill sponsors offered an amendment deleting the section entirely.
Colorado already has a shield law in place that protects people who travel to Colorado for abortion or gender-affirming care from lawsuits and criminal prosecution initiated in other states, and Winter said the original intent of the cut section was to strengthen those protections.
We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable.
– Nadine Bridges, One Colorado executive director
Another two amendments added Monday made technical and terminology changes, and changed the description of a “chosen name” to mean a name someone wants to be known by related to “disability, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, national origin, or ancestry, so long as the name does not contain offensive language and the individual is not requesting the name for frivolous purposes.” Winter said that change made the policy inclusive of all reasons someone may want to change their name, not just gender identity.
Republican senators acknowledged and thanked bill sponsors for removing provisions that would have affected child custody decisions — the most controversial portion of the original bill — but said many constituents don’t realize that was removed and continue to express concern. Republicans still said the bill would affect parental rights related to chosen names and dress codes in schools.
Senate Minority Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the measure still interferes with the “sacred” parent-child relationship even as amended and draws the state into “personal family matters.”
“(House Bill) 1312, despite its protective intent, creates a system where schools and state agencies become the arbiter of deeply personal family decisions,” Lundeen said. “By mandating inclusive name policies, enforcing gender neutral dress codes, enlisting the (Colorado Civil Rights Division) to police speech, this bill risks transforming schools and courts into areas where the state overrides parental authority. We must not allow government to intrude into and fracture the trust between parents and children.”
Rod Pelton, a Cheyenne Wells Republican, said he received more communications related to House Bill 1312 than any other bill this session. Other senators from both sides of the aisle have said the same.
One Colorado, one of the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy groups in Colorado, and Rocky Mountain Equality both support the bill in its current form after various amendments were adopted. The organizations initially supported the bill, but changed to an “amend” position with unspecified legal concerns after it passed the House.
“We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable,” One Colorado Executive Director Nadine Bridges said in a statement the organization posted to Facebook. “Pro-equality legislation is not just about creating hope, but creating a better reality. It is a fight that we all need to be in together to protect our community, our family.”
Democrats control strong majorities in both chambers of the Legislature.
The Texas House agreed late Thursday to let the governor determine the countries whose residents, governments and other entities could be banned from buying property here.
Members granted the governor such power when they amended Senate Bill 17, whose real estate sales restrictions were limited to countries that the U.S. national director of intelligence has designated as national security threats. Currently, that list includes only China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
After giving the governor the ability to expand the list of restricted countries, the House then gave SB 17 preliminary approval in a 85-60 vote. The bill now heads back to the Senate.
State Rep. Nate Schatzline, the Republican from Fort Worth who introduced the amendment, said the goal was to make sure that any threats to Texas could quickly be addressed.
“Our governor can act swiftly rather than waiting for a year for that to be added into the [director of national intelligence’s] designated country list,” he said.
That amendment drew rebuke from Democrats.
“This gives the governor unfettered power to add whatever county he wants to in this bill,” said state Rep. Gene Wu, chair of House Democratic Caucus. “It’s kind of dangerous to say one person can decide whatever country he or she wants to add to this without any oversight, without any controls — this is the definition of overreach.”
Schatzline’s amendment also allows the governor to bar people “transnational criminal organizations” to the list of entities barred from buying Texas property. Schatzline pointed to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as an example.
State Rep. Cole Hefner, the Mt. Pleasant Republican carrying SB 17 in the lower chamber, described the bill during Thursday’s hourslong debate as “securing Texas land and natural resources and making sure that this precious resource does not fall prey to adversarial nations and oppressive regimes that wish to do us harm.”
The bill’s advancement came over opposition from Democrats who are concerned that it could be used to potentially discriminate against Asian Americans.
The bill will need one more House vote before it goes back to the Senate. The upper chamber previously approved a version of the bill, but House members amended several key portions of it Thursday.
The Senate’s previous version would have exempted anyone or any entity that leased the property to someone else for under 100 years. The House limited that exemption to property leased to someone else for one year or less. Rep. Mitch Little called the 100-year lease exemption “a loophole that you could drive a Mack truck through.”
The House also previously amended the bill to exempt lawful permanent residents.
But Democrats failed to make changes to the bill several times Thursday. Their failed amendments included provisions that would have exempted visa holders such as medical students and researchers, performers and athletes. They also raised concerns that the law could hurt the Texas economy.
SB 17 is Brenham Republican Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s second attempt at limiting who can buy property in Texas. Similar legislation she authored in 2023 died in the House. In committee hearings this year, she described the legislation as protecting Texas’ assets from “hostile nations.”
“This is a matter of national security,” she said in March. “Texas must act now to protect our land, food sources, water, and natural resources.”
A batch of new, more conservative lawmakers were elected to the House last year, giving new life to legislation that struggled in previous sessions. Chief among those measures are the creation of school vouchers.
If passed, the bill goes into effect Sept. 1 and would only apply to purchases or acquisitions after that date.
It would require the attorney general’s office to create a process to investigate possible violations and refer the matter to a district court. If the court finds a violation, it would be authorized to order the purchaser to divest from the property either by selling it or terminating the lease, according to the House Research Organization’s most recent analysis of the bill. The court also would be required to refer the matter for potential criminal offenses.
The amount of Texas property owned by entities from outside the U.S. is not tracked in detail, aside from agricultural land. But Joshua Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, said it is likely a very small fraction. In the U.S. overall, Chinese investors own less than 1% of total foreign-held acreage, according to 2021 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Investors from Russia, Iran and North Korea collectively own less than 3,000 acres.
But to Abraham George, chair of the Texas Republican Party, 1% is too much — which is why the bill was a party priority.
Rep. Angie Chen Button, who was only the second Asian American woman to serve in the Legislature and whose parents fled from China, also spoke in support of the bill Thursday night, saying the bill aims to “protect our freedom, liberty and national security.” She introduced a similar bill last session.
Some Asian Texans are concerned the bill would create animosity and “state-sanctioned racial profiling,” said Lily Trieu, executive director of the civic engagement group Asian Texans for Justice.
The bill doesn’t prohibit purchases of land based on national origin, which would violate federal civil rights laws. Instead, it prohibits people based on their permanent residence.
Wu, who immigrated to the United States from China as a child, said the bill could impact not just Chinese people in Texas, but members of all Asian communities in the state.
“Nobody knows the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean, right? Nobody knows what your immigration status is,” he said in an interview. “When they discriminate against you … when they look for people to assault, they don’t really care what you are. They care that you have Asian face.”
Trieu said the group’s No. 1 concern is that individuals shouldn’t be conflated with governments.
“Just like how no one here would want to travel to another country and be held individually accountable for what Governor Abbott does or what President Donald Trump does,” she said.
“These individuals should not be held accountable for what the government of their national origin does, or what their ideology is, or what, you know, the government does as an entity.”
Trieu said the group was formed to engage Asian Texans in civic participation such as voting, but this bill galvanized people into getting involved in legislation.
Wu expects the bill is just the start of that. And even with its passage, he sees it as a loss for the Republican Party because it could push Asian American voters to shift to the Democratic Party in the 2026 midterm elections.
“I think the Republicans are heading into gale force winds in 2026 if they want to alienate and make enemies of an entire community who for a large part has stayed out of politics,” he said in an interview.
The news out of the 
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.