Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hasn’t been shy about taking on big entities breaking Texas law, be it Meta, ActBlue or MyChart. Now Paxton has taken aim at an association intertwined with the heart of America’s legal system, the American Bar Association.
Texas is investigating the American Bar Association’s alleged anti-competitive law school accreditation practices.
According to Attorney General Ken Paxton, the investigation will examine whether accreditation requirements set by the American Bar Association (ABA) “have unlawfully restricted competition or increased the cost of legal education, including through requirements affecting faculty compensation and law school operations.”
Paxton alleged that the American Bar Association has “weaponized” its “significant influence over legal education” across the nation to “artificially inflate faculty salaries, exclude law schools who challenged the ABA’s view of ‘elite’ legal education, and impose costly, burdensome accreditation requirements.”
Additionally, he alleged that the ABA uses its accreditation power to “impose unconstitutional racial and gender preference requirements on law schools’ admissions and hiring processes.”
Paxton also argued in his Wednesday announcement that this anticompetitiveness has levied significant costs on both existing and potential law schools, which deprives “the market of innovative, lower-cost approaches to legal education.”
“There must be competition and a fair playing field when it comes to law school accreditation, or else we risk inflated costs for students, unfair restrictions, and illegal discriminatory practices,” said Paxton. “My office will investigate whether the law school accreditation process has been used to unlawfully limit competition and burden students and institutions. No organization should be permitted to use its position of influence to violate our antitrust laws.”
Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion that eliminates the requirement for law students to attend an ABA accredited law school before taking the state bar exam, which Paxton noted will open new avenues for students to attain a legal education.
The court’s opinion highlighted that it intends to continue giving “approval to schools that satisfy a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA.”
For the majority of America’s history, lawyers didn’t need either American Bar Association imprimatur (or even a law degree) to practice law. Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow never went to law school. Parallel to the New Deal, the ABA and the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) sought to cartelize the legal profession to restrict access and raise rates. Previously, self-study and apprenticeship was the path to a legal career.
Forcing law schools to implement quotas and cram social justice down student’s throats is a good reason to strip the ABA of its law school gatekeeper powers.
Microsoft is in the news again, and if you’re familiar at all with that company, you know that means bad news. (What’s the last time Microsoft news being good news? Ballmer stepping down? The release of Windows 3.1?)
In an exclusive Meet the Press interview set to air this weekend, the Microsoft co-founder told Kristen Welker that artificial intelligence is “certainly powerful enough to drive events that… cause a billion deaths” – then used the line to demand federal legislation, law-enforcement monitoring, and an end to industry self-regulation.
Gates is touting AI as a species-level emergency, and calling for handing over total control to politicians and a new class of global inspectors.
Welker put the extinction question to him directly: “Do you believe AI is powerful enough to end all of humanity?”
Gates answered: “AI is certainly powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths, you know, so even though it’s pretty hard to get to 100%, there’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools.”
Of course. This is part of the AI psy-op in which some AI megacorps argue that AI is so dangerous that you have to go regulate those other megacorps, and we have just the regulators to do it.
Microsoft accidentally wiped some nonprofit customers’ M365 data before their retention period expired – and now says it cannot tell them what disappeared, or even whether they lost anything.
The cockup followed Microsoft’s retirement of its Microsoft 365 Business Premium grant, which gave eligible nonprofits ten free licenses for the productivity suite.
Microsoft announced in May 2025 that the grant would not renew after July 1 that year. It offered eligible nonprofits up to 300 free Microsoft 365 Business Basic licenses, alongside discounted pricing for plans including Business Premium.
The company urged customers to move users onto another nonprofit plan before cancellation to avoid disruption or data loss. Organizations could also export anything they did not intend to retain in Microsoft 365.
The problem arose after the subscriptions were deactivated. In an email to one affected customer seen by The Register, Microsoft admitted that, “due to an error,” it had deleted remaining data before the retention and export window closed. Attempts to recover it had failed.
“We have now investigated the recovery options, but unfortunately, the data cannot be recovered,” Microsoft said.
Redmond cannot determine what disappeared either. The company said it was “currently unable to provide a list showing which data may have been deleted or whether any data was deleted at all.” It could say only that the problem involved expired Business Premium subscriptions.
“Keep from deleting customer data” should be a task tens of orders of magnitude easier than “preventing Skynet.” Yet Microsoft can’t even handle that.
You should backup your data. You should have multiple backups of your data. You should have multiple rotating or rolling backups of your data. You should have multiple rotating or rolling backups of your data saved to different types of backup media. Ideally, you should have multiple rolling or rotating backups of your data saved to different types of backup media including off-site backups.
To make the salient points yet again: 1. When you store your data in “the Cloud,” you’re simply storing your data on someone else’s computer. 2. Cloud storage should never be your only data backup solution.
Never rely on a single point of failure for your data. Especially when that single point is Microsoft.
Los Angeles spends a lot of taxpayer money on affordable housing, $399,228,000 in state funding and $1,919,897,000 in federal money for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Given all that spending, how does Los Angeles rank nationwide in housing affordability? Dead last.
Des Moines, Iowa, ranked first and Los Angeles ranked last in Realtor.com’s inaugural report grading the 100 largest U.S. metros on housing affordability and homebuilding activity.
The results highlighted how local zoning and permitting can affect housing affordability in different areas.
The real estate platform’s first Metro Affordability and Homebuilding Report Card, released on Sept. 16, showed that Des Moines received an “A+” grade with a score of 83.4, the highest among the 100 metros analyzed, reflecting its strong residential construction activity and affordability.
The city has a median listing price of $349,903, with the monthly mortgage payment requiring 27.5 percent of a median-income household’s income, below the commonly cited threshold of 30 percent.
The calculation assumed a 10 percent down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 6.5 percent interest rate.
At the other end of the list, Los Angeles received an “F” grade with a score of 12, leaving it at the bottom of the 100-metro ranking.
The median listing price in the city stands at $1.129 million, requiring a household earning the median income to spend 84.4 percent of its income on the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home, according to the report.
Meanwhile, the report said that local housing policies can help explain the gap between the highest- and lowest-performing metro areas in new home construction and affordability.
“Beyond land availability, the biggest difference between the ‘A’ metros and the ‘F’ metros is local housing policy, especially related to zoning and permitting,” Realtor.com senior economist Joel Berner said in the report.
“The ‘A’s share regulatory flexibility and streamlined approval processes, while the ‘F’s are locked in restrictive land-use frameworks.”
The report noted that Des Moines had a permit-to-population ratio of 1.85, meaning the city was issuing permits for new homes at a rate 85 percent higher than the national average relative to its population.
By contrast, Los Angeles’ ratio of 0.47 meant that the city was permitting less than half the national average relative to its population.
“The combination of extreme affordability pressure and limited new supply placed it at the bottom of the class,” the report noted.
Along with Los Angeles, New York City, Providence, Rhode Island, Honolulu, and Boston also had failing grades.
For example, Berner said, Boston has four times as many pages of zoning law as Austin, Texas, and 79 percent of its land is zoned, compared with just 15 percent in Austin.
Minimum parking mandates apply to 88 percent of land in Boston, while in Austin, the requirement is 37 percent.
Boston also has less land that allows unrestricted accessory dwelling units, limiting the supply of smaller, more affordable homes.
Thanks to gobs of government spending, armies of regulators, and the tireless efforts of Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles has managed to make itself the least affordable city in America! A fine demonstration of what the Democrat Party can do to a city if they just run it long enough.
But don’t worry! That same tax and regulatory climate is driving major movie studios out of Los Angeles, taking all those high-paying movie industry jobs with them to states like Texas and Tennessee. After that happens, expect lots of houses to hit the market right as LA’s economy starts contracting in earnest…
Regular BattleSwarm readers know I’ve become quite the immigration hawk. All illegal aliens should be deported, NGOs that helped carry out the illegal alien invasion should be investigated, disbanded and their members prosecuted, the cost of applying for a H-1B visa should be raised above $100,000, and the government should crack down hard on companies (I’m looking at you, Microsoft) who have abused the H-1B system to avoid hiring Americans.
But now someone has finally come up with a crackdown idea that’s just stupid and counter-productive.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is floating the end of a 60-day grace period that currently allows some immigrants to remain in the United States after they lose their jobs.
Migrants with temporary work visas such as H-1B visas would have to immediately leave the country if they no longer have a job, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a proposed rule filed on Sept. 10 and set to be formally published in the Federal Register on Sept. 11.
Such visas are contingent on an immigrant’s employment, and a company sponsors the employee. Some of the visas are granted only to workers who have specialized expertise.
DHS originally provided the grace period to encourage immigrants who no longer have jobs to remain in the United States and try to obtain another form of legal status or get another job, Mullin said. But rulemakers did not sufficiently consider the negative effects of the grace period, such as burdening immigration officers who handle additional paperwork from visa holders during the time period, he said.
“DHS now believes that once the alien is no longer fulfilling the very specific conditions under which he or she was admitted or otherwise provided status, such status, as well as the authorization to remain in the United States, should definitively cease and the impacted alien should immediately depart the United States (unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United States),” he wrote.
Immediately? Is the guy supposed to walk out of his termination meeting and straight onto an ICE bus to rush him onto the next plane back to Hyderabad? Is General Raul Alejandro Bastilla Pedro de Veloso de Maldonado from Parks and Rec running immigration enforcement now?
Does he even get a chance to cash his last check?
Unlike illegal aliens, visa holders have entered the United States by a process that obeys the law. They are legal, not illegal, aliens. As such, they’ve entered into legally binding contacts, bought goods, and participated in other economic and contractual activities afforded the full protection and due process of the law. Not giving them time to wind down affairs is being needlessly and pointlessly cruel to people who “worked hard and played by the rules.” It inflicts collateral damage on people doing business with them. Apartment managers, car leasing companies, utilities, etc. will all be left in the lurch by the sudden departures mandated by this proposed rule.
if the H-1B visa program is being abused (and it is), then crack down on the people and employers abusing it. Or even suspend the program entirely until better monitoring systems can be put into place. But don’t make it a nightmare for people following the rules of the system just so you can point to this bit of immigration crackdown theater as a meaningless gesture to prove how serious you are.
You can leave comments on this proposed rule here.
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns in the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional.
In the case of Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix found that the requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority once the NFA’s taxes on making or transferring those arms were eliminated. The taxes were reduced to zero last year.
The court found that the NFA, as enacted in 1934, passed constitutional muster as an act of Congress’s taxing power because the regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—aided the collection of NFA taxes.
This is in line with the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case, Sonzinsky v. United States, in which the high court ruled the NFA is a legal exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. In that decision, the court found that the government could gather information on the owners of certain firearms and their accessories that were subject to the NFA’s $200 excise as part of the tax collection process.
Wednesday’s ruling in response to two consolidated cases—Jensen v. ATF, with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF—in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, held that once Congress eliminated the taxes for suppressors, the constitutional foundation for registration was eliminated as well.
“In sum, the Court concludes that the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional,” Hendrix’s ruling states.
On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category labeled “any other weapon” from $200 to $0. However, the items were still required to be registered under the NFA.
Machine guns and destructive devices are still subject to the $200 tax and its requirements. Under Hendrix’s ruling, the category “any other weapons” is still subject to the requirements even though it is not taxed.
The court has issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but leaves them in place for the “any other weapons” category.
Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to allow the government to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling itself is pretty interesting, as Judge Hendrix made clear he was ruling only on the constitutional issues that provide the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.
With the NFA’s taxes now eliminated, each set of plaintiffs alleges that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers. They also claim that those same NFA provisions infringe the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms.”
The Court agrees on the first point and need not reach the second. By zeroing out the transfer and making taxes for most NFA firearms, Congress eliminated the constitutional basis for the regulations that formerly supported the taxes for those firearms. No longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified—as they have been for nearly 90 years—under Congress’s taxing power. See Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937). And because Congress enacted the challenged NFA provisions under the Taxing Clause only, the NFA cannot be retroactively justified under another power that Congress never invoked, such as its authority to regulate interstate commerce. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Thus, the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.
That last part is fairly huge: Because Congress didn’t cite the Commerce Claus in setting up the NFA, it can’t defend it on that basis now that taxing provisions have been stripped away. Why, it’s almost as if congress can only pass laws based on enumerated constitutional powers.
Hendrix continues:
With that understanding, the Court accepts the plaintiffs’ invitation—offered at the motions hearing—to forgo adjudication of their Second Amendment claims. The Court does not decide constitutional questions unnecessarily, especially when the plaintiffs will receive no less relief than they would get for prevailing under the Second Amendment.
By not ruling on the Second Amendment claims, Hendrix does not foreclose additional challenges to the NFA on Second Amendment grounds.
Hendrix concludes his opening summary:
But to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional. Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters, and the defendants cannot save the NFA’s regulatory scheme by referring to a power that Congress never invoked. Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.
The downside for gun owners: Because congress did not eliminate the tax on machine guns and destructive devices, the lawsuit did not ask for relief on NFA regulations surrounding those still-taxed items. But I wonder if narrowing the justification of the NFA solely to taxation might not provide avenues for challenging those provisions of the act with no direct connection to that taxing purpose.
Here’s additional analysis from William Kirk of Washington Gun Law:
He covers most of the points above, but also goes into Hendrix’s discussion of “facial vs. as-applied” challenges to constitutionality. Not being a lawyer, this stuff is pretty murky to me (even murkier than “standing” or “ripeness”), so take a look at his discussion of that if you’re interested.
This ruling was a win for gun owners, though it is almost certain to be appealed, unless President Trump intervenes and orders the ATF not to appeal.
I also wonder if Hendrix’s ruling might provide the basis for a lawsuit to overturn the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That’s the act that bars the transfer of any machine guns not already registered with the ATF to civilians. If the NFA is purely a taxing act, then it could be argued that barring new guns from being sold does not further the purpose of generating revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
Two pro-gun attorneys do a deepish dive into legal carry dos and don’ts near schools, and its pretty useful stuff.
“Can you legally carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school? Does a Texas License to Carry protect you under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act? Can you carry while walking your child to the entrance—or must you remain inside your vehicle? Armed Attorneys Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes take a deep dive into Texas school carry laws and the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. They explain the major differences between Texas LTC holders and non-license holders, where Texas law prohibits firearms, and what ‘school premises’ actually means under the Texas Penal Code.”
Richard Hayes: “And the place to find this law just as our framework is Texas Penal Code 46.03.A1. This is our school school sponsored activities.” Let’s quote that:
Places Weapons Prohibited
a)
A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, location-restricted knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05 (Prohibited Weapons)(a):
(1)
on the premises of a school or postsecondary educational institution, on any grounds or building owned by and under the control of a school or postsecondary educational institution and on which an activity sponsored by the school or institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or postsecondary educational institution, whether the school or postsecondary educational institution is public or private, unless:
(A)
pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the school or institution; or
(B)
the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H (Definitions), Chapter 411 (Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas), Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section applies, on the premises of a postsecondary educational institution, on any grounds or building owned by and under the control of the institution and on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of the institution;
“Postsecondary educational institution” is college, and they’re not going to get into campus carry stuff here, though they do note the laws are different between public and private, since private can completely ban carry if they want to.
RH: “Today we’re talking about K through 12 schools. And I think the first thing to point out here, we’re really talking about three places. Premises of a school, school sponsored activities, and then passenger transportation vehicles.”
RH: “It’s really, really important to hone in on [that exception], written authorization from the institution or somebody— Of, let’s say, the school board, or the principal or the superintendent, they can write, hey, this person is allowed to carry here.”
Emily Taylor: “If you think you can get written authorization, get it personalized to you and keep a snapshot of it, you know, on your person, if not the a copy of the actual document itself, just in case, because you don’t want to get arrested for that felony and have to prove it later. Getting arrested for a felony sucks and is expensive and they’re not giving you your bond money.”
They’re also not getting into the armed teacher’s etc. programs.
“The other word I want us to hone in on here is premises. And we define it and it means something really specific. In this section, premises means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. So, we’re talking about the building.”
ET: “This is again something that is very misunderstood. Most gun owners in Texas don’t realize you can carry, I mean, frankly, open or concealed, although open carry in this situation is going to get you a lot of unwanted attention, but you can carry up to the doors of the school. you just cannot cross the threshold while you’re carrying unless you fall into an exception.”
ET: “Now, not only do most carriers not know that, but again, we have DA’s offices and local law enforcement who will threaten to arrest people for going through the school drop off and pickup line while armed. So, that’s not against the law, but lots of people read the statute and don’t bother to figure out what premises means.”
RH: “We do need to spend just a little bit of time on school sponsored activities. And there’s really three key components here that you need to be aware of. So it has to be in a location that’s owned and under the control of the school, and a school sponsored activity needs to be taking place in that location. So if it’s missing one of those prongs, okay, you have private property, school sponsored activity there. Hey, guess what? It doesn’t satisfy that requirement.”
But! RH: “Parking lot. Generally not going to be part of the premises. Not a big deal. But if a school sponsored activities taking place there, well now we have land, you know, a location that’s owned under the control of the school, an activity is taking place there, that falls into probably a prohibited place category. Yep. Band practice, field day, right. Something to that effect where it wouldn’t normally be prohibited because it’s not the premises, but all of a sudden you got a school sponsored activity. You’ve got to be prepared to disarm yourself in that situation.”
RH: “The other thing folks need to be aware of is the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Law passed out of the ’90s.”
RH: “Generally it’s illegal to possess or carry a firearm within 1,000 ft of the grounds of a school. So, we’re talking property line, not a building here, but I think the exceptions are kind of the key part here because, you know, there are some big exceptions.”
ET: “It does not apply to the possession of the firearm on private property, not part of the school grounds. So, if you live within 1,000 ft of the school, well, you’re accepted there.”
ET: “Another exception, and this is the one that covers, I think, most of us, is if you have a handgun license from the state in which the school sits. So, you’re in a Texas school zone, it’s got to be a Texas license. If you’re one of those people who likes to carry under a Florida non-resident license while you’re in Texas, doesn’t cover you there.”
RH: “If the firearm is unloaded and locked up. All right, so if you’re passing through the school zone, maybe this applies.”
RH: “And I think it’s worth noting here. Do we see people get prosecuted for violating federal gunfree school zone law by itself?”
ET: “No, I’ve never seen it.”
RH: “Usually it’s tied in connection with something else going om”
ET: “Drugs.”
RH: “And then if the school contracts with somebody, let’s say security guard or whatever. All right, that those folks are accepted. And then the last one is let’s say you’re on foot, not in a vehicle, and you’re passing through to get to hunting grounds. We have that as well.”
Breaking it down: ET: “License holders following the law. Non-license holders, not so much.”
RH: “So can a Texas license to carry holder carry within 1,000 ft of the grounds of a school?”
ET: “Yes, absolutely.”
RH: “The next one folks have is school pickup and drop off. Now there’s been a lot of controversy about this.”
ET: “The the best argument is still a failing argument, but the best argument the schools have when they try to prosecute you for such a thing is saying that the school pickup and drop off is a school sponsored activity. Uh, no.”
ET: “Where the school will try to get people is, let’s say you’re going through the line, you get out of your car to help your child into the car and they say, ‘Aha, I saw your gun for a second there. We’re going to call local law enforcement. We’re going to call the DA.”
ET: “We have we have negotiated those on the front end, and we have never ever seen someone— I think we saw we had one guy actually arrested and it was quickly dismissed. But for the most part, people call us, we start talking to them right on the front end and it’s like even the local DAs who were terrible will finally agree like, yeah, okay, I don’t think that was really a violation of law.”
Bigger school districts are the ones that seem to be trying to get lawful gun owners in trouble on technicalities.
ET: “I think we have one more sort of complicated issue that people ask about a lot which is what if my car is parked on the school grounds and is it different if I work at the school?”
RH: “The answer to that is no. And we actually have a very good law on this. So this is Texas Education Code 37.0815 and this is our transportation or storage of firearm and ammunition by license holder in a school parking area.”
ET: “This is for people who are employees of the school district. So long as they have a license to carry and so long as their vehicle is locked and inaccessible and the firearm is concealed in the vehicle, they cannot be fired for having a gun in the vehicle.”
RH: “And there’s three things to trigger this protection. The firearm has to be concealed. The vehicle has to be locked. And you have to have a license to carry.”
This seems like pretty useful stuff, as the State of Texas has provided lots of legal protections for LTC holders.
For most of the 21st century, Texas had a pretty welcoming attitude toward data center construction: Come on down! Like every other type of economic investment, from factory to fab to corporate HQ, if you had just about any need for a facility that would generate money and jobs, officials at all levels of Texas government would bend over backwards to provide you with some mix of incentives, subsidies and tax abatements, along with the state’s famous low tax and low regulation environment, to get you to build in the Lone Star State.
The massive AI data center build-out is changing those sentiments. A whole lot of people are starting to view AI as a job destroyer rather than creator, data centers are seen (rightly or wrongly) as too water- and power-hungry, and too much of a hassle for the relatively small number of local jobs they create.
And Texas politicians seem to be listening to the complaints.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has laid out rules “to make massive data centers pay for their own grid upgrades and curb their impact on residential power bills.”
Gov. Greg Abbott is praising new moves by Texas regulators that he says will prevent residential ratepayers from subsidizing the state’s data center boom.
In a filing sent to the governor this week, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) outline steps to make “large computational loads” pay more of their own costs and to tighten reliability rules for massive new projects.
This comes as polling has shown Texans are concerned that the energy-intensive projects will strain the power grid and water supply.
On June 10, Abbott ordered regulators to ensure data centers pay for the transmission and other infrastructure they require instead of shifting those costs onto Texas families. He also directed PUCT and ERCOT to structure interconnections so data center growth helps lower residential electric bills and to develop additional protections for ratepayers.
PUCT Chairman Thomas Gleeson’s July 17 response embraces that framing, saying Texas should welcome economic development “but it must do so in a manner that prioritizes affordability, reliability, and the interests of the residents who depend on the grid.” He stressed that Texans “will not be negatively impacted by the interconnection of these large electric consumers.”
The commission’s filing describes new rules and rulemakings aimed squarely at large loads. A February rule standardizes how utilities report proposed big loads into ERCOT’s forecasting, which regulators say will help avoid overbuilding transmission that would otherwise flow into customer rates.
Another change goes to who pays for new steel in the ground.
After a May review found that rapidly growing demand from large computational loads is driving costly grid upgrades, PUCT opened a rulemaking to require big loads to shoulder those costs. The proposal would make large customers post financial security for interconnection, use any forfeited security to offset transmission rates, and start paying transmission charges as soon as capacity to serve them is available—even if the data center hasn’t energized yet.
Regulators are also trying to keep existing megawatts from quietly disappearing into private deals.
A March rule says generation that was available to Texans before September 1, 2025 must remain available, even if it will primarily serve a new large load going forward. Any such arrangement must be vetted by ERCOT, and PUCT can impose conditions to protect reliability.
Meanwhile, ERCOT is moving to a “Batch Zero” study of all qualifying large loads of 75 megawatts or more, designed to evaluate their combined impact and identify needed upgrades through 2032. Future batch studies and a new interconnection‑screening process are meant to prevent clusters of data centers from overburdening the grid.
Beyond current authority, PUCT and ERCOT are asking lawmakers to give them clearer power over big end‑users.
They want explicit authority to set reliability requirements for large computational loads, the ability for ERCOT to order those loads to curtail directly, mandatory registration of large data centers with both agencies, and an expansion of the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act to cover owners of big load facilities, not just generators and transmission owners.
Texas legislators are rethinking a tax break for data center equipment that sailed easily through the Capitol 13 years ago.
The Finance Committee of the Texas Senate convened on Monday morning to hear testimony on House Bill (HB) 1223, a state law passed during the 83rd Legislature in 2013 that created a sales tax exemption for tangible personal property purchased for essential use in qualifying data centers.
Analysts from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, an industry spokesman, and a local activist all testified before a committee that was largely critical of the law, revealing a growing distaste in both parties for data center development — and highlighting the obstacles to repealing a law that was just as bipartisan.
“What we thought we were voting for back in 2013, it’s a much different animal these days,” said Finance Committee Chair Joan Huffman (R-Houston).
HB 1223 passed the House unanimously and the Senate by a vote of 23 to eight.
In the first biennium after it passed, Texas ceded $14.6 million in sales tax revenue due to the exemption, according to the committee meeting notice.
The amount of forgone revenue has since ballooned to $3.3 billion for the upcoming biennium, said Brad Reynolds, an analyst from the comptroller’s office.
That’s quite a bit of cheddar.
Before.
Much of the growth took place recently, Reynolds told the committee. From 2014 through 2020, just 10 facilities successfully sought the exemption. In this fiscal year alone, the state has already certified 59 new data centers and is considering five more.
When asked by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) when the “hockey stick hit,” Reynolds said applications for certification shot up starting in 2021 as remote work trends took hold and the demand for remote data storage grew.
“It had a lot to do with the increasing digitization of the economy,” Reynolds said.
Data centers devoted to artificial intelligence account for about a quarter of the industry today, according to Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for Data Center Coalition, who also testified.
“Cloud [computing] and the basic digital infrastructure that we all depend on continues to be the dominant reason for data center development,” Diorio said.
Members often revisited the question of whether data centers would have clustered in Texas without the tax break.
Thirty-five other states offer a sales tax exemption for data centers in some form, Reynolds told Bettencourt, who called the exemption “one of the drivers of where they bring their location, their equipment.”
HB 1223 only applies to single-user data centers. Multi-tenant data centers cannot make use of the benefit, according to the statute.
“Do you think these data centers would stop coming to Texas or proliferate regardless of whether they’re exempt or not?” state Sen. Pete Flores (R-Llano) asked Reynolds.
Reynolds said that “Texas is the second-largest colocation, multitenant data center market in the country.”
“That all happened without any sales tax exemption,” Reynolds said.
Colocation (where different companies have their own servers inside a data center side-by-side with those of other companies) looked like it was going to be big for a while, but then hypervisor-based systems like AWS (where massive CPU, RAM, and storage pools are split into dozens or hundreds of virtual machines) came to dominate the remote server service market.
Democrats and Republicans alike took turns at the microscope, scrutinizing data centers’ purported benefits to the state.
Bettencourt pointed to the “national security imperative” of having a well-supplied set of American-developed data centers.
State Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (D-McAllen) and Carol Alvarado (D-Houston) both questioned how many permanent jobs the industry creates.
“Data centers, from May 2023 to May 2024, were responsible for a 69 percent year-over-year increase in construction activity. That far outpaces any other sector,” Diorio responded to Hinojosa, adding that even temporary jobs such as construction tend to stretch out over several projects in a full pipeline of development.
Members frequently referred to the results of a comptroller’s audit of 20 of the 138 data centers currently benefiting from the exemption in the state. According to the audit, six of the 20 facilities failed to meet the law’s qualification requirements.
“It’s really shocking to me that you would say, in your 20 audits of 138 — again, everybody can do the percentages there — that six of the 20 you audited don’t meet the certification,”
If you’re gonna take Big Tex’s taxpayer money, you have to abide by Big Tex’s rules.
Lawmakers are questioning whether Texas’ generous tax breaks for data centers are working as intended after state officials confirmed several facilities failed to meet eligibility requirements.
During a Monday meeting of the Texas Senate Committee on Finance, senators discussed the future of section 151.359 of the Texas Tax Code, which allows qualifying data center developments that meet a certain threshold of commerce to be exempt from the state sales tax. In order to qualify, a data center must be a minimum of 100,000 square feet, commit to investing an additional $200 million within five years, and create at least 20 qualifying jobs.
Brad Reynolds, the chief revenue estimator in the comptroller’s office, stated that his audit division has been in the process of doing compliance checks on data centers using the exemption.
“[T]o date we have 20 of such audits that are either in process or already have been completed. One of those six came forward voluntarily [and] asked to have their certification removed [because they] lost their electricity supplier via ERCOT. The other five missed the 100,000 square-foot requirement. The others have missed the job creation requirement, which tells you really how little employment is stemming from this,” said Reynolds.
Reynolds admitted that in 2013 when House Bill 1223 was passed, which exempted data centers from the sales tax, the legislature estimated only one new facility per year.
However, the comptroller’s office saw an additional two to three facilities put up per year initially.
“I would say the early estimates are significantly too low to begin with because, as I say, the first few years we had about twice as many centers come in than we anticipated; and with spending at a higher level than those minimums, so they were too low to begin with, and of course never anticipated the kind of rapid development [in] numbers and scale that we see today,” stated Reynolds when asked about the extra capital investments.
He offered the committee a simplified version of the estimation that the comptroller’s office does. As more hyperscale data centers are developed in Texas, the cost of extra electricity consumption, as well as sales-taxable IT equipment, totals $107 million in forgone taxes and rises to $246 million by the third year of the facility’s operation.
Meta Platforms and the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock on Tuesday announced a venture to develop and operate a data center campus in El Paso, Texas, a project that would cost about $14 billion in development.
The race to build out AI infrastructure has prompted tech giants to turn to debt sales worth tens of billions of dollars and seek external capital from fund managers such as BlackRock due to an unprecedented scale of investment.
Meta said BlackRock-managed funds will take an 80% ownership stake in the venture, with Meta retaining the remaining 20%. A portion of BlackRock’s investment will be financed through $12.5 billion in debt. Meta will also receive a $1 billion distribution to align ownership.
Meta will contribute land and in-progress construction assets worth about $2.3 billion, while BlackRock will make a cash contribution of about $4.9 billion, the company said.
The Facebook-parent will enter into lease agreements with the venture, allowing it to secure computing capacity without directly funding and owning the campus itself, at a time when investors are concerned if data center investments will pay off.
Borrowing by tech companies has hit a fever pitch, with BofA Global Research saying that AI-related bond issuance reached $270 billion by early July this year, nearly doubling what was raised in all of 2025.
“Meta has said it plans to invest $600 billion in AI infrastructure, including data centers and new jobs in the U.S. by 2028, with an aim to fast-track work on personal superintelligence, which could help spin up new cash flows from the Meta AI app, ad tools and smart glasses.” I assume Meta’s AI push will be as laughably unsuccessful as its money losing virtual reality efforts.
Hey, I get to use the after part of the meme as well!
Also, given concerns over excessive water use, El Paso is not the place I would choose for a data center.
America and the world need data centers, but after the initial construction phase, they create a lot less local jobs than a fab or factory. The electricity and water-use concerns are real, but using closed-loop rather than evaporative cooling methods should greatly minimize the latter. A big step should be making sure big data pays market rates for their water and electricity rather than receiving state and local subsidies for them.
I’m pretty sure Texas will still let data centers get built in the state, but the days when Big Tech could expect a free ride to do so are coming to an end.
The Austin City Council is supposed to serve the people of Austin, but recent actions suggest that they’re a lot more interested in doing the bidding of a Fortune 5 company than serving mere citizens.
The Austin City Council has approved a series of agenda items to facilitate a colossal new development just east of the city’s current limits. Amazon Robotics, a subsidiary of the online megaretailer, will anchor the proposed complex.
The council approved these items during a marathon meeting on Thursday.
At issue is a proposed municipal annexation followed by the creation of a so-called “tax increment reinvestment zone” that supporters say is necessary to coordinate the extension of basic infrastructure to the currently unincorporated area.
The proposed facility would be located on a spit of land known colloquially as “Dog’s Head” between US Highway 183 and the Colorado River.
Name checks out.
This is just east of Austin’s Montopolis neighborhood, near the city’s airport.
“This is double the size of downtown. This is ten times the size of the Domain,” one speaker stated during public testimony.
(The Domain, for those of you outside Austin, is one of those hoity-toity mixed use developments with high end retail, restaurants and yuppie apartment complexes (assuming anyone still uses the word “yuppie” anymore). The nearest Apple store is there. Some people blithely call it “a second downtown,” but they seem do a much better job keeping the gibbering street lunatics out. Parking is a pain.)
The controversial 2,600-acre proposal came to light this past May when area residents discovered a 37-page development agreement on an Austin City Council agenda. The residents, some of whose homes were directly in the path of the proposed new roadways, had just 57 hours’ notice before the May city council meeting.
All Austin City Council members are lefty Democrats these days, and nothing says “service to the downtrodden” like bulldozing some peon’s house to satisfy an international megacorporation.
In addition to the Amazon facility, proponents envisage an interconnected series of residential developments, commercial developments, and outdoor recreational facilities.
You don’t need secret annexation plans to do most of that, you just need to buy the land, fill out the proper filing permits and zoning requests, and pay the money to get it all built. It’s not easy, but Austin developers have been doing it for a long damn time.
The development in question does not currently have a public-facing website.
Funny about that.
Beyond the suddenness with which the project was sprung on local residents, its mechanism raises additional questions.
Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) are a legal vehicle for Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which typically diverts property tax revenue from the area into a special development fund instead of a municipality’s general budget. They are governed by Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code.
Proponents argue that TIF funding eases new development.
Opponents argue that tax carve-outs narrow the tax base, which inevitably begets higher tax rates for everyone else.
“The state law is very clear and it starts with the Constitution, which requires fair and uniform taxation,” local activist Bill Bunch stated during public testimony.
“This is nowhere close to being fair in uniform taxation.”
Snip.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation has described TIRZ/TIF funding as a form of “invisible government.”
“TIRZ is a speculative scam that always ends up raising other people’s taxes to subsidize the TIRZ projects,” former Austin City Councilmember Don Zimmerman told Texas Scorecard.
The Dog’s Head TIRZ controversy comes at a time of unprecedented fury at municipal fiscal priorities.
Earlier this month, the city manager released the latest in a string of record–setting budgets that included a record-setting tax increase.
Last month, the city clerk officially certified a ballot measure that could impose new fiscal transparency requirements.
If passed, the referendum would amend the city charter to require independent audits of municipal finances every five years.
Additionally, if the city council wants to pursue a future tax rate election, the proposed charter amendment would require the municipal government to complete such an audit before calling the election.
The referendum follows the landslide defeat of Proposition Q, a ballot measure that could have enshrined hundreds of millions of dollars in municipal spending, in November 2025.
The article doesn’t say whether eminent domain will be used to seize land if existing property owners refuse to sell, but I rather strongly suspect so. (Thanks, Kelo vs. New London.) I also wonder whether this super-secret fast track gets around Texas law requiring majority approval of any municipal annexation. If it doesn’t, and it still requires a majority vote for the annexation, and for Amazon and/or Austin to negotiate a fair market value purchase with the landowner, then fine and dandy. If it doesn’t…
As for the business itself, I’m sure it will be a successful, profitable venture that will create jobs in Austin while reducing jobs by replacing people with robots elsewhere.
If the Austin City Council is willing to drop everything to engineer secret annexation plans at the bidding of giant megacorps, one might well ask what the entire point of the mono-party, Democrat-run Council actually is…
Happy Independence Day Eve! We plan to celebrate America’s 250th Birthday tomorrow in the time-honored tradition: Blowing things up.
More Democrat welfare state fraud, dispatches from the Democrat Civil War, another very bad week for Russian logistics (and aircraft, and any Russians trying to buy fuel), Eurocrats want lowly peons to die of heatstroke rather than use the air conditioning enjoyed by their betters…
…a followup to the weird Plano ISD booster club story, plus Mexican Batman. It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
Finally: “DOJ Grand Jury Probes Neville Roy Singham’s Marxist NGO Empire.”
Fox News’ Asra Nomani reports that on Monday, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York, authorized by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is examining whether Singham, NGOs he funded, or their leaders committed wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, or other financial crimes.
Prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking bank records and other financial documents, according to Nomani’s sources.
Nomani’s team recently reported that Singham pumped $285 million through a Goldman Sachs donor-advised philanthropy fund and shell entities before it flowed into US nonprofits, while a broader review showed that $591 million flowed across five continents from 2017 through 2025.
More color from the report:
Of that money, Fox News Digital established a documented $278 million flowed directly from Singham into organizations that “sow discord” in the U.S., as House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith put it earlier this year at a hearing a dynamics called “foreign malign influence.”
Singham, who resides in China, has a long track record of assisting far-left entities, such as Code Pink and the Party for Socialism and other socialist NGOs, that oppose U.S. interests and support U.S. adversaries.
According to investigative reports (e.g., New York Times, 2023), Singham has worked closely with pro-CCP propaganda networks targeting the US.
Any Democrat or NGO staffers who knowingly accepted communist Chinese money need to go to prison.
“RFK Jr. Says 1 Million Obamacare Enrollees Lacked Social Security Numbers. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said 1 million people were enrolled in Obamacare health plans without Social Security numbers, as the Trump administration pledged to intensify efforts to combat fraud in federal health care programs.” Was ObamaCare designed from the ground up to provide taxpayer-funded medical care for illegal aliens, or did Democrats just see the opportunity along the way?
Finally Redux: “Supreme Court: States Can Ban Trans Athletes From Girls’ Sports.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states can block biological transgender males from competing in girls’ sports. In a 6-3 ruling, the court gave an iron-clad answer to the question.
Writing for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires schools to carve out an exception for transgender athletes who’ve undergone hormone therapy or never experienced male puberty. States can draw the line at biological sex, full stop – no judge-administered athlete-by-athlete fairness hearings required. The ruling reverses both the Fourth Circuit (which sided with West Virginia’s B.P.J.) and the Ninth Circuit (which sided with Idaho’s Lindsay Hecox), and lands squarely in the wake of last year’s Skrmetti decision, extending its “this is a sex classification, not a transgender classification” framework from medical care straight into the locker room.
The transsexual madness gripping the left deserves its own chapter in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
“DOJ Sues States Over Alleged Failure To Turn Over Food Stamp Data. The Trump administration has sued four states, accusing them of withholding crucial data on food stamp applicants.” The only surprise is that California is not among them.
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania refused to turn over information to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would let federal officials identify fraud, Trump administration lawyers said in lawsuits filed on June 26 against the states.
Officials are asking judges to enter injunctions that would force state authorities to hand over the last five years of applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food stamp program known as SNAP.
The USDA requested the SNAP data in 2025, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump that directed agencies to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, and many states complied with the request.
Data from those states showed that states had enrolled some 186,000 people in SNAP despite those people being deceased, among the discrepancies that added up to $3 billion in wasteful spending, the department said in a report.
We known Minnesota isn’t turning it over due to the massive fraud lining Democrat pockets, and the same is probably true in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Kentucky is pretty red, but Democrat Governor Andy Beshear must be doing his best to gear up the fraud there.
The Democratic Party has two main factions right now, which can conveniently be described as the Organized Crime Democrats, who view the government as primarily a vehicle to distribute resources and power to friends, allies, and clients who can be counted on to return their largesse with reliable votes, and the Bolsheviks, who want to do all those things as well, but whose overriding goal is the destruction of the United States and Western Civilization and replace it with Third World communism.
For decades, at least, the Organized Crime Democrats have dominated the party, but they have tolerated and even fostered the growth of the Bolsheviks with the mistaken belief that no group of clients can ever be more reliable than those who could not in a million years vote for the Republicans.
Snip.
The OCDs’ alliance with and fostering of the radical left has come back to bite them in the nether regions now. As their resources have become constrained, the Bolsheviks have become ever more powerful, and as is always the case, the revolutionaries despise their allies as much as their ideological opponents, and now feel ready to take them out.
And, so far, their putsch is working, and the OCDs are rightfully frightened.
I had previously reported on this civil war much earlier, but I used the terms “insane wing” and “corrupt wing.” (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
Here’s a follow-up to yesterday’s post on Russian full shortages. “4km Line for Fuel in Russia’s Zabaykalsky Krai Region: 28 Hour Wait!” That’s all the way out east near Mongolia.
A JOINT PROJECT BY the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel and the investigative website The Insider has uncovered the existence and inner workings of a previously unknown Russian intelligence and cover action unit. The unit’s formal name is Military Unit 75127, but it is known within Russia’s intelligence establishment as Center 795. The Russian government reportedly created the unit in December 2022—less than a year following the Kremlin’s full military invasion of Ukraine.
Snip.
Notably, unlike other special activities units in Russia’s intelligence arsenal, Center 795 does not appear to reside within the GRU. Instead, it appears to operate independently of military intelligence oversight and to report directly to General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff of and First Deputy Minister of Defense, or to one of his subordinate deputy defense ministers.
According to the investigative reports, the existence of Center 795 was revealed when one of its officers, Denis Alimov, used Google to translate a message sent to him by a Serbian operative living in the United States. This allowed the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation to use a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant and access the Google Translate transcripts. Alimov was eventually arrested in Bogotá, Colombia, on February 24, 2026, after arriving there on a Turkish Airlines flight from Istanbul, Turkey. He is currently awaiting extradition to New York.
A Minnesota pardon board that includes Gov Tim Walz among its three members has issued a full pardon to a convicted Laotian child-molester, torpedoing Homeland Security’s effort to deport him. The 42-year-old convict, Tou Lue Vang, submitted a letter to the board saying he regretted what he did — and just like that, his criminal record is now clean as a whistle via unanimous decision.
“Governor Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting,” said DHS spokeswoman Lauren Bis. “These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting. Tou Lue Vang lost his legal status following his conviction for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl.”
Find someone who loves you as much as Democrats love illegal alien child molesters…
The European Commission’s headquarters was forced to shut down its air-conditioning system on Friday due to the heat wave.
Staff working at the Berlaymont building received a text at midday, reading: ‘BERL — URGENT — Due to extreme weather conditions, forced shut down of air cooling system from floor 1 to 7 for the rest of the day.’
The 13-story building is home to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, her 26 commissioners, and about 3,000 staff. Von der Leyen works on the 13th floor, and most of her commissioners’ offices are housed on floors eight or above.
Britons have been ordered to remove air conditioning from their homes – despite the country baking in up to 40C heat this week – under a fresh Net Zero crackdown.
Planning officials at councils have told residents to take down their cooling units over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.
They say AC, despite the heat, should serve only as a ‘last resort’.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a sweeping Texas election security law banning paid vote harvesting.
Senate Bill 1, passed in 2021, aimed to extensively reform election security and eliminate paid vote harvesting with increased criminal penalties for offenses.
Vote harvesting is the practice of collecting and returning completed ballots, which can be used as a cover for voter fraud and voter coercion. Paid harvesters are often intent on delivering results for a specific candidate or measure.
A source told Axios the DOJ started the investigation after a “whistleblower complaint” in Southern California.
Gallego’s problems began after numerous women came forward accusing his bestie, former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), of sexual misconduct.
In April, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) claimed, “There is a woman that allegedly is coming forward with attorneys, wants to go on-record about an incident that occurred between the two of them at the same time, and the event was sexual in nature, allegedly.
Last week, I wrote about how Politico scrutinized Gallego’s financial records and discovered he used leadership PAC campaign cash to fund luxury outings with his family since he launched his Senate campaign in 2023.
The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed an inquiry into those allegations against Gallego on Monday.
Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging California’s Plastics Act, arguing it imposes burdensome regulations on companies doing business with California and will increase the cost of everyday American products.
The lawsuit, which Paxton joined alongside the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and 16 additional attorneys general, calls the California law a “blatant and unprecedented attempt to impose its own policy preferences on the entire nation” and argues that it infringes on the sovereignty of other states.
Implemented May 1, “the Plastics Act” places new requirements on goods containing plastic shipped into and out of California, affecting both producers and consumers nationwide.
The act forces companies that sell products in the state to reduce single‑use plastic packaging, make it recyclable or compostable, and help pay for recycling and cleanup. It does this through strict reduction and recycling targets by 2032 and an extended producer responsibility program that shifts costs from taxpayers to packaging producers.
Paxton’s office expressed alarm that the regulations and fees will drive up prices for everyday goods and discriminate against out-of-state businesses.
“I am challenging California’s Plastics Act to protect businesses from unnecessary regulations and Texans from higher costs on the products they use every day,” said Paxton. “Texas has always been a place where businesses can thrive, and I will ensure it remains that way. I will not allow California lawmakers to harm Texas businesses.”
The lawsuit further challenges California’s decision to place the private organization Circular Action Alliance in charge of implementing the law.
According to the complaint, the CAA would collect roughly $500 million annually from businesses while operating with little public oversight or transparency.
So a left-wing, radical environmental NGO gets to benefit directly by running left-wing, radical environmental program. What are the odds?
The Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) determined on Friday that a woman who regretted her gender modification surgery did not file her claims too late to take her providers to court, in a case centered on the state’s statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases.
Soren Aldaco of Tarrant County sued her healthcare providers and counselors for fraud and negligence over their roles in obtaining gender modification procedures for her, including a double mastectomy at age 19 — a procedure she later came to regret.
After the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth rejected Aldaco’s appeal in November 2024 on the basis that her medical claim had expired, affirming the Tarrant County district court’s prior summary judgement, SCOTX accepted her petition for review and scheduled the case for oral arguments on February 11, 2026.
A SCOTX opinion was then issued by Justice James P. Sullivan four months later on Friday morning, reversing the finding that her claims had expired on the basis that the clock began ticking once the injury occurred, not when her therapist recommended her for the procedure.
Aldaco’s therapist, Barbara Rose Wood of the Three Oaks Counseling Group, wrote her a letter of recommendation for a double mastectomy after the Crane Clinic advised her that she would need one in order to move forward with the procedure.
Those who inflicted radical surgery on teenagers in the name of social justice deserve to lose every dime they own.
In response to lawmakers’ request for a pause on extra-high-voltage transmission lines, transmission service providers admitted reliance on wind and solar power, along with government intervention, is driving Permian Basin energy issues. This aligns with a third-party report that the lines are primarily built to support wind and solar, while local reliable generation alternatives were never fully examined.
Providers argued that public utility commissioners do not have the power to grant lawmakers’ request to pause the project. The next day, state senators announced they would hold a hearing on the proposed lines in late July.
This centers on ERCOT’s 765-kilovolt Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP), a key part of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP). STEP proposes three transmission lines spanning over 1,200 miles to move power from East Texas into the natural-gas-rich Permian Basin, with routes crossing North Texas, Central Texas, and South Texas.
The three lines are split into five interconnected segments for Phase 1. Phase 2 would build 765-kV lines from Northeast-East Texas southward through Central and South Texas. This eastern portion would tie into the lines leading into the Permian Basin.
On June 24, in a joint filing, Transmission Service Providers (TSPs) Oncor, Lower Colorado River Authority Transmission Service Corporation, AEP Texas, and City of San Antonio-owned CPS Energy admitted that the risk to sustained electrical supply in West Texas is “greatest during low-wind, no-solar conditions, when the Permian Basin relies heavily on imports” from the lower voltage 345-kV network.
The TSPs’ filing was in response to a June 15 brief by more than 40 state lawmakers asking PUCT to pause the project. They filed it in support of pro-landowner American Stewards of Liberty’s motion to defer deciding the need for the first four segments.
The lawmakers cited Dr. Brent Bennett, who wrote the May 2026 study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). Bennett warned that the “main effect of the 765-kV lines is to integrate more wind and solar into the ERCOT grid,” and that helping ERCOT “manage [such] a future system … to meet growing industrial demand” is the “primary rationale” for the lines.
This comes roughly five years after the 2021 winter blackouts. Two failures that energy specialist Jason Isaac said contributed to the problem are overreliance on “unreliable” wind and solar and market-distorting subsidies for wind and solar.
Bennett wrote that more transmission “does not ensure that enough new reliable generation will be built to meet demand and could even discourage such generation if the transmission provides wind and solar favorable market access.”
Bennett and ASL believe that building new dispatchable power generation, such as natural gas, in the Permian Basin was not fully examined as an alternative. The TSPs wrote they “do not dispute” that more such generation would benefit the Permian Basin.
When local taxpayers used cash, a tax office employee would put the cash in an envelope and record the payment as part of a “batch” of payments in the office’s tax collection software, Spindlemedia.
After reaching between $15,000 to $20,000, an employee would close that batch of payments in the software. At this point, Williams was responsible for depositing the cash from the envelopes into the district’s bank accounts.
Williams’ indictment alleges that she stole $996,174 in cash and disguised the theft by reversing payments recorded in certain batches, recorded those payments in new batches, and kept the new batches open for long periods in the Spindlemedia software.
Las Vegas cops busted a transgender gunman who allegedly planned a casino massacre using a huge cache of weapons.
Allison Howlett, 36, who was born a man but lives as a woman, was arrested Saturday on charges of making terroristic threats, assault with a deadly weapon, auto theft, gun theft and other offenses.
The wild story unfolded shortly after 9:30 a.m. Saturday when Howlett’s former spouse, who is female, called police to report Howlett had stolen her car and the vehicle held numerous firearms, Henderson Police Chief Reggie Rader said.
You know how the MSM always report “arsenals” that seem like fairly puny gun collections? That isn’t the case this time.
The officers were shocked to see that Howlett had been sitting on a handgun and had an MP5 submachine gun sitting on the back seat.
When cops searched Howlett’s car, they recovered 22 other guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Cops who searched the suspect’s home in Henderson found 30 more firearms, including automatic rifles, plus ammo, grenade launcher attachments and silencers.
Officers said Howlett made several threats going back years, a including a 2024 call where Howlett threatened a mass shooting.
Here’s a weird follow-up to a weird story. “Plano ISD Sued Over Arrests of High School Booster Club Mothers.”
Mothers from a Jasper High School choir booster club filed a lawsuit claiming Plano Independent School District (ISD) participated in civil conspiracy and had them falsely arrested.
The lawsuit, which names Laura Cervantes and the Jasper High School Choir Booster Club as the plaintiffs, describes the series of events that led to the filing.
Cervantes was elected as president of the booster club in 2019, and in June 2022 the club was filed as an incorporated nonprofit organization. The club utilized a Prosperity Bank account, and three directors, Cervantes, Krisinda Lingenfelter, and Maria King, assumed oversight.
Cervantes’ lawsuit states, “Neither Plano ISD, nor any of its employees, were members, officers, or employees of the organization” at that time.
The directors reportedly sought funding from Plano ISD for repairs in the theater, but allege that the district then flipped the script, asking the booster club to instead fund improvements. When they responded that repairs were not in the description of the club’s functions, Plano ISD claimed that the booster club was no longer acting in compliance with district guidelines and staged a coup, according to Cervantes.
The district disavowed the club and elected new leadership, despite the club operating as a legally separate entity from the district. The lawsuit claims that during that time, “Defendants continued to divert the Booster Club’s mail, kept it, opened it, and used its contents (namely bank statements).”
The lawsuit also claims that the newly elected booster club directors, along with the school’s fine arts director, subsequently went to Prosperity Bank in order to replace the original club directors as authorized signers on the account.
The lawsuit states, “These Defendants’ conduct likely constituted the crime of forgery under [the Texas Penal Code], because they intentionally presented documents intended to defraud the bank and harm the Booster Club by taking over its funds.”
Eventually, the bank notified the three moms that it would be closing the account, and they proceeded to take the check and deposit that money into another bank account at Vantage Bank in the name of the booster club. The check bounced.
In August 2024, a Plano Police Department detective executed a probable cause affidavit — which Cervantes claims was “based entirely off the knowingly false statements of each Defendant” — and obtained warrants for the arrests of Cervantes, Lingenfelter, and King “for the felony offense of theft over $2,500 but less than $30,000.”
They were booked into the Collin County Jail with their bonds set at $25,000 each.
A Collin County grand jury declined to indict the women “for any crime for want of probable cause, and the prosecution was terminated in Cervantes’s favor.”
Plano ISD released a statement about the legal drama, arguing that school-affiliated organizations, including booster clubs, “must follow established guidelines for financial accountability, annual audits and open communication with district leaders.”
The statement did not address the termination of the prosecution, or the district-led formation of the new booster club, but maintained, “Plano ISD did not file any suit against the former booster club- these proceedings were strictly between the current booster organization and the previously disbanded group.”
The statement by Plano ISD also detailed that they gave the $4,437.39 recovered from the old booster club’s account to the new club.
On May 27, the federal lawsuit was filed with Cervantes at the helm. Allegations cover 11 items, from false arrest and unreasonable seizure of property to violations of the rights to free association, free speech, petition.
The lawsuit alleges, “Plano Independent School District and its employees conspir[ed] with private citizens to assume control over a private non-profit organization, take control of its property and monies, and eventually, have the directors of that organization falsely arrested and publicly humiliated – all because the officers of a high school choir booster club would not bend the knee to an out-of-control public school district.”
It seems inexplicable that Plano ISD threw three booster club members in jail in order to steal their $4,437.39…
Republican U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas has introduced legislation that would prohibit federal funding for higher education institutions that partner with the Chinese Communist Party.
H.R. 9123 would “establish intelligence community funding restrictions on institutions of higher education that have a relationship with certain entities in the People’s Republic of China.”
The legislation amends the National Security Act of 1947 to prohibit intelligence community support for any higher education institution that participates in a series of relationships with entities tied to China.
This would seem a common sense policy implemented that should have been implemented long before now. Communist China is always looking to steal technology from the West through its “Thousand Talents” espionage program, and Chinese nationals have been stealing technology from American universities (including Texas A&M) for a while now.
Examples of these entities include:
Confucius institutes
Institutions that participate “in the Chinese defense industrial base”
Institutions that are “affiliated with the Chinese State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for the National Defense”
Institutions that receive “funding from any organization subordinate to the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party”
Institutions that provide “support to any security, defense, police, or intelligence organization of the Government of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party”
The legislation also places restrictions on partnerships that undermine America’s relationship with Taiwan and on Chinese propaganda efforts against U.S. citizens.
This is a good first step, but we should go further and ban Chinese nationals from holding any position at any U.S. research university, laboratory or institute that takes federal money.
To paraphrase Bob Dylan, you have to serve somebody, and it shouldn’t be communist China. As I’ve said before, anything that discourages colleges and universities from working with a genocidal communist dictatorship is a good thing.
