By Andrew, Candidate for Texas Legislature

In Texas, we pride ourselves on independence, grit, and local know-how. Whether it’s a rancher managing his land, a small-town mayor preparing for a flood, or a city council responding to a unique neighborhood challenge, we believe those closest to a problem are best equipped to solve it. This principle of local control is as Texan as the bluebonnet.

That’s why, as a veteran who has served alongside local first responders in disasters across this state, I view the recent power grabs from Austin, specifically House Bills 5 and 2127 which my opponent proudly voted for, as not just politically misguided, but as direct threats to our community safety and resilience. These laws didn’t just strip local autonomy; they engineered vulnerabilities at the very level where security and prosperity are built: our hometowns.

HB 2127: The “Death Star” Law and the Erosion of Public Safety

Dubbed the “Death Star” bill by its critics, HB 2127 is a sweeping state preemption law that blocks cities and counties from passing ordinances on a vast range of issues, from labor and agriculture to finance and natural resources, unless explicitly authorized by state statute. Its message is clear: Austin knows best.

The threat here is one of blunt-force ignorance. A city like El Paso, with its dense, binational urban fabric, faces public safety challenges that are utterly foreign to a rural county in the Panhandle. By stripping local governments of their ability to tailor solutions, HB 2127 forces a one-size-fits-none approach. Imagine a future where a city, noticing a pattern of illicit activity linked to specific unregulated commercial storage units, is barred from passing a local ordinance to require basic security standards because it touches “commerce” now controlled by the state. It ties the hands of local law enforcement and prosecutors, creating safe havens for bad actors by design.

HB 5: The Data Center Giveaway and the Crippling of Local Budgets

While HB 2127 handcuffed local regulators, HB 5 went for their wallets. This law created a massive, state-mandated property tax abatement scheme specifically for mega-sized data center projects, severely limiting a county or school district’s ability to negotiate. It tells local communities, “You will give this corporation a 10-year tax break, and you will like it.”

This is fiscal insanity with dire security consequences. Data centers are not neutral developments. They are critical infrastructure with immense demands: they consume vast amounts of water in a drought-stricken state, place extreme loads on our fragile power grid, and generate heavy industrial traffic. The property taxes they would normally pay are essential for funding the local fire departments that must train to fight electrical fires in these facilities, the sheriff’s offices that ensure their physical security, and the county engineers who maintain the roads their construction destroys.

HB 5 actively starves these local services of revenue. It forces communities to subsidize the corporate profits of a single industry while robbing them of the funds needed to mitigate the very public safety strains that industry creates. It’s not an incentive; it’s a state-mandated unfunded mandate that weakens local resilience.

The Compounded Vulnerability: A Blueprint for Insecurity

Together, these laws form a perfect storm of vulnerability. HB 5 drains the local treasury needed for first responders and infrastructure. Then, HB 2127 prevents that same community from innovating or regulating to address the unique public safety challenges that arise, whether it’s securing the supply chain for data center components or managing the environmental impact.

This isn't a small government. This is a state government that centralizes power while offloading risk and cost onto cities, counties, and school districts. It’s the opposite of the conservative principle of subsidiarity. It leaves our communities poorer and less agile in the face of complex 21st-century threats, from cyber-physical attacks on infrastructure to the exploitation of supply chains by cartels.

A Blue Dog Path Back to Common Sense

As a Blue Dog Democrat, I believe in fiscal responsibility and pragmatic, local solutions. We must:

1. Repeal or Radically Amend HB 2127: Restore the right of cities and counties to govern themselves on matters of purely local concern, especially public safety and land use. The state should set a floor, not a ceiling.

2. Replace HB 5 with Local Control: Tax incentives should be negotiated locally, transparently, and tied to strong community benefits agreements—guaranteeing high-wage jobs, investments in grid stability, and water recycling. The state’s role should be facilitation, not coercion.

3. Fund What We Mandate: If the state insists on preempting local revenue (via abatements) and local regulation, it must fully and directly fund the resulting gaps in local public safety and infrastructure budgets.

Texans deserve leaders who trust them. My experience in the military and disaster relief taught me that effective response is always local, supported by higher authority—not micromanaged by it. HB5 and HB2127 are a betrayal of Texas values, making us less safe, less solvent, and less free. It’s time to return power to the people and their communities, where it belongs.

By Andrew, Candidate for Texas Legislature

I’ve stood watch on our border. I’ve served in search and rescue missions overseas. And I’ve fought my own battle against a deadly illness, thanks to the care at MD Anderson. These experiences taught me that real security isn’t about political theater, it’s about pragmatic, common-sense solutions that protect our communities. Today, no threat embodies the failure of political posturing more than the flood of illicit fentanyl across our border, devastating Texas families.

The numbers are a moral indictment. In 2022, over 73,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. In Texas, a state I’ve served in uniform for over a decade, CBP is seizing record amounts, often in personal vehicles at our legal ports of entry. The cartels aren’t just exploiting our vast, unpatrolled lands; they are exploiting the deliberate vulnerabilities in our legal trade infrastructure. A recent GAO report found that nearly 40% of passenger vehicle traffic at major Southwest border crossings isn’t scanned by advanced detection systems. We are trying to stop a tidal wave with a sieve, while politicians in Austin and D.C. focus on photo ops instead of fixes.

As a Blue Dog Democrat, my philosophy is simple: be fiscally responsible, locally focused, and independent of party dogma. Throwing endless money at a wall or declaring an invasion does nothing to scan the cargo containers and passenger cars that are the real conduits for this poison. We need targeted, intelligent legislation that matches the threat. Here is my four-part plan:

1. The Texas Border Security Modernization Act

We must finally fulfill the congressional mandate for 100% non-intrusive inspection (NII) scanning at our ports of entry. This legislation will:

• Direct State Resources to partner with CBP and fund the installation of NII systems at the nine major passenger vehicle crossings currently lacking them, closing the 40% gap identified by the GAO.

• Create a Texas CBP Auxiliary to train and hire veterans and former law enforcement to assist with inspection logistics, reducing strain on federal agents and speeding legitimate trade.

• Invest in Next-Generation Detection at our seaports and rail crossings, where the sheer volume of cargo creates a monumental challenge.

2. The Texas First Responder and Community Support Act

When I served in disaster relief with the Texas Air National Guard, I saw that the first line of defense is always our local heroes, our sheriffs, volunteer firefighters, and EMTs. This bill will:

• Provide universal access to naloxone for every law enforcement agency and first responder unit in Texas, with mandatory training.

• Establish grant funding for local churches and nonprofits, the very groups that fed my airmen during state failures, to run community education and early intervention programs.

• Support our sheriffs with direct funding for county-level drug task forces focused on disrupting domestic distribution networks, not just the border.

3. The Rural Healthcare Access Expansion Act

My fight with cancer showed me the life-saving power of accessible, quality healthcare, a resource shamefully absent in too much of rural Texas. We must treat addiction as the health crisis it is. This act will:

• Fund the construction of regional treatment facilities in underserved areas, so no Texan has to travel hundreds of miles for help.

• Integrate addiction services into existing community health centers and VA clinics, leveraging our current infrastructure wisely.

• Expand telehealth waivers permanently for substance use disorder counseling, a critical tool for vast, sparsely populated counties.

4. The Fiscal Responsibility in Settlement Funds Act

Texas is receiving billions from national opioid settlements. As a believer in fiscal responsibility, I will fight to ensure this money isn’t swallowed by bureaucratic bloat. This legislation will:

• Mandate transparent public dashboards tracking every dollar of settlement money.

• Guarantee the majority of funds are directed to evidence-based treatment, prevention, and harm reduction, as outlined by experts.

• Create strict oversight committees, composed of healthcare professionals, law enforcement, and—critically—affected family members to guide appropriations.

My faith teaches me, “What you do to the least of these, you do unto me.” There are few more vulnerable than those trapped in the cycle of addiction and the families torn apart by it. We have a duty to act, not just accuse.

The choice is clear: more political stunts, or smart, tough, and compassionate legislation that actually secures our border, supports our heroes, and saves lives. As a combat veteran, a cancer survivor, and a proud Texan, I’m ready to fight for the real solutions our families deserve. It’s time for a common-sense approach that puts people over politics.

By Andrew, Candidate for Texas Legislature

As a Texan who believes in fiscal responsibility, common sense, and honoring the taxpayer’s dollar, I’ve reviewed the economic development playbook that’s become gospel in Austin. It goes like this: a major company proposes building a data center, promising jobs and “economic growth.” In return, the state and local governments offer staggering property tax abatements, sales tax exemptions, and even cash grants. On paper, it’s a win-win.

But as a veteran trained to assess risk and a graduate in Engineering Management, I’ve learned to look beyond the brochure. When you analyze the full lifecycle cost, especially in the context of the severe public safety and infrastructure burdens these facilities create, the math doesn’t add up. Granting massive tax breaks to data centers isn’t just generous; it’s fiscally irresponsible, forcing everyday Texans to subsidize the hidden costs of corporate profit.

Let’s break down the real bill that comes due.

The Mirage of “Job Creation” and the Reality of Strain

Data centers are not the job engines they are marketed to be. A large, state-of-the-art facility may create only 30-50 permanent, highly specialized positions. Yet, its presence triggers immediate and massive demands on public resources. It requires immense, 24/7 draws on our water supply for cooling, placing stress on aquifers and municipal systems, especially in drought-prone rural areas. It demands gigawatt-level connections to the electrical grid, contributing to grid instability and requiring public-funded infrastructure upgrades. The heavy truck traffic during construction ravages local roads not built for industrial loads.

Who pays to bolster the water infrastructure, harden the electrical grid, and repair the roads? The Texas taxpayer does, while the data center operator enjoys a 10-15 year tax abatement. We are essentially writing a check for the privilege of being strained.

The National Security and Public Safety Premium

This is where the cost calculation becomes critical. My border security and military experience informs a hard truth: our ports of entry and supply chains are vulnerable. As detailed in Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, we lack the scanning technology and personnel to physically inspect more than a fraction of the millions of containers and passenger vehicles entering legally each year. Cartels exploit this “volume vs. security” gap to smuggle fentanyl, which now kills over 70,000 Americans annually.

Data center construction, as an industry analysis shows, relies heavily on importing specialized components; servers, cabling, cooling systems, often sourced directly from manufacturers in China. A single medium-sized build can mean 10-12 shipping containers of equipment, with ongoing annual shipments. This is legitimate commerce, but it travels the exact same overwhelmed infrastructure targeted by narcotics traffickers.

Therefore, protecting Texas from the opioid crisis (a core function of government) requires a massive public investment in border security modernization regardless of data centers. We need the Texas Border Security Modernization Act to fund 100% scanning technology and the Texas First Responder Support Act to equip our sheriffs and EMTs with naloxone. These are non-negotiable public safety costs.

The Fiscal Insanity of the Double Subsidy

Here lies the irresponsibility: At the very moment when we must invest billions in hardening our border infrastructure and supporting our first responders to stop fentanyl, a crisis exacerbated by the volume of all trade, we are simultaneously giving a tax holiday to an industry that significantly contributes to that very volume.

It is a double subsidy. First, taxpayers fund the security and infrastructure upgrades necessitated by increased trade volume. Second, we forgive the taxes of a major driver of that trade volume, robbing our treasury of the revenue needed to fund those very upgrades.

We cannot afford this. The Fiscal Responsibility in Settlement Funds Act I propose is about ensuring opioid settlement money reaches treatment and prevention. It is also a principle: every public dollar must be accountable. Giving away the store to a multi-billion dollar industry while scrambling to fund basic security is the opposite of accountability.

A Blue Dog Path Forward: Smart Growth, Not Corporate Welfare

I am not anti-business. I am pro-Texas. We should welcome data centers that want to be true partners in our communities. This means:

1. Replacing Blanket Abatements with Performance Agreements: Tax incentives should be directly, transparently tied to creating high-quality jobs, investing in on-site renewable energy to reduce grid strain, and contributing to local water conservation projects.

2. Implementing a Security Impact Fee: For industries reliant on high-volume international supply chains, a modest fee should help fund the port security and inspection technology their business model necessitates.

3. Prioritizing Revenue for Core Responsibilities: Every dollar forgiven in a tax break is a dollar not spent on a teacher, a sheriff’s deputy, a mental health counselor, or a border patrol agent. Our first duty is to public safety and community resilience.

The current model asks Texas families and small businesses to pay full freight while a powerful, low-employment industry gets a free pass on the massive public costs it generates. That isn’t economic development. It’s a fiscal betrayal.

As a veteran, I believe in a fair fight. As a Texan, I believe in paying your way. It’s time our tax policy reflected those values. Let’s grow our economy without mortgaging our security and saddling our taxpayers with the hidden bills.