Texas GOP Ropes Public Safety Office Into Hunting Democrats

Anyone can submit tips to help the Texas GOP catch state Democratic lawmakers.

The Republican Party has turned to the Department of Public Safety to help it rein in liberal state representatives who fled Texas to avoid a vote intended to redistrict the Lone Star State.

Texas House Speaker Duston Burrows revealed Monday that Republicans had tasked DPS to create a tip line—(866) 786-5972, incidentally the same number as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Fusion Center—hoping that average citizens would help them hunt the wayward lawmakers.

“Many have submitted tips about the whereabouts of absent members,” Burrows said Monday. “For example, over the weekend, we received word of a rally in Fort Worth where a couple of absent members were allegedly making an appearance. We took this as actionable intelligence, and DPS was dispatched immediately.

“Although in this instance, members did not end up being physically present at the event, we will keep following every credible lead until these members return,” he added.

Texas Republicans have dutifully responded to Donald Trump’s demand that the party create five new right-wing seats ahead of the midterm elections. State conservatives unveiled their new House maps last week, proposing to practically eviscerate historically Democratic districts.

State Democrats absconded the state in order to avoid the vote. The party began fundraising late last month to offset the $500-a-day fines they’ll incur as a result. (Texas House rules prevent lawmakers from using their campaign funds to cover the fines, which were imposed in 2023 after an unsuccessful attempt to stop a Republican-led overhaul of the state’s election laws.)

Burrows promised that the absent Democrats would be the ones footing the DPS’s bill as the agency works to capture them.

“We are keeping receipts for every gallon of gas, every mile traveled, and every hour of overtime associated with the pursuit of these missing members,” Burrows said. “Under Rule 5, Section 3 of the House Rules, those breaking quorum will be held financially responsible for the cost they’ve created, not the taxpayers.”

Over the last several days, the Texas House has sued 33 Democrats in Illinois and six in California, with more on the way.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Monday remarks about the deployment of troops on the streets of Washington, D.C., may have already harmed the Trump administration in its legal battle over the deployment of troops on the streets of Los Angeles.

Monday marked the beginning of a three-day trial in which California is making the case that Hegseth and the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 federal law forbidding the use of the military for civilian law enforcement purposes—during its crackdown on L.A. protests against its immigration agenda.

During a Monday press conference on Trump’s federal takeover of D.C., Hegseth announced that the National Guard will be “flowing into the streets of Washington in the coming week” and that “there are other units we are prepared to bring in—other National Guard units, other specialized units.

“They will be strong, they will be tough, and they will stand with their law enforcement partners,” Hegseth said. And “this is nothing new for DOD,” he added. “In Los Angeles, we did the same thing, working with the California National Guard, working with ICE officers.”

The comments apparently caught the ears of those hoping to prove that Hegseth unlawfully deployed troops in Los Angeles.

According to journalist Adam Klasfeld of the legal affairs publication All Rise, California’s attorney on Monday moved to enter Hegseth’s announcement of National Guard deployment—and, specifically, his comments about the troops “stand[ing] with their law enforcement partners” and having done “the same thing” in L.A.—into evidence.

Hegseth’s comments were ultimately admitted by the judge, Klasfeld reports, despite the Trump administration objecting on the grounds that they were not already on the exhibit list. The judge reportedly observed that the remarks could not have been included on the exhibit list previously, considering they just happened.

This is apparently the sort of mishap that occurs when one doesn’t wait for their potential military occupation of one city to play out in court before moving on to the next.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser does not think President Trump’s hostile takeover of the D.C. Police Department is a “disaster.”

The mayor held a press conference on Monday after Trump announced he’d be invoking Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, kicking off an aggressive crackdown that gives him temporary control over the nation’s capital. He has also activated the National Guard.

“When you testified to Congress after the 2020 racial justice protests, when there was concern that Trump might take control over MPD at that time, that that would be a ‘complete disaster’ and that you were worried that you were gonna lose control of the city,’” a reporter asked Bowser, “can you reflect on this moment today? Do you feel that you’re at risk of losing control of the city? Are you worried this is going to be a complete disaster?”

Bowser offered a mild, diplomatic answer, which she had done many times up to that point in the press conference.

“I’m gonna work every day to make sure it’s not a complete disaster, let me put it that way,” Bowser replied, refusing to directly condemn the decision.

“And I think that with [Metropolitan Police] Chief Smith’s leadership and her expertise in both the federal space and the local space, we are gonna do our level best … to maintain the trust that D.C. residents have in us,” she continued. “What could be a disaster is if we lose communities who won’t call the police. That could be a disaster. What would be a disaster is if communities won’t talk to the police if a crime has been committed, and could help solve that crime. That could be a disaster. It could be a disaster if people who aren’t committing crimes are antagonized into committing crimes. That would be a disaster. So we’re gonna work every day to … get this emergency put to an end, I’ll call it the so-called emergency. And continue to do our work. And at the same time, make sure … we don’t want [the National Guard’s] time to be wasted.”

Bowser also told reporters that she had only expected Trump to announce his calling in of the National Guard, not to invoke Section 740 to take over the Metropolitan Police Department. However, she downplayed the level of control that Trump would levy over the MPD, stating that officers would continue to answer to Smith, even as Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi just very aggressively stated the opposite earlier that same morning.

“MPD reports to the chief of police, and they are subject to D.C. local laws as well as federal laws,” Bowser replied, when asked if MPD would comply with a different set of federal rules during the takeover. She also noted that she would defer to President Trump in regard to what constitutes an “emergency” situation.

“I’ll end by saying this … we know the tools that are available to the district if we have or are experiencing a surge in crime. And I put them in place before, including curfews. I’ve asked the Council to pass the emergency legislation, I’ve asked the Congress for additional funds. We’ve done all of those things. So there’s nobody here, and certainly nobody who works for me, who wants to tolerate any level of crime.”

What could have been a strong, pointed statement in the face of an authoritarian overreach was more of a timid announcement of cooperation on Bowser’s part. And while Bowser’s continued calls for D.C. statehood were all well and good, they did little to address the immediate concern that the nation’s capital—very much not experiencing a crime epidemic—will be overrun with aggressive police who only answer to Trump.

On Monday, Representative Doug LaMalfa of California became the latest Republican to face furious constituents, at an in-person town hall in Chico.

Many Republicans haven’t held such events for months—GOP leaders advised lawmakers to avoid them earlier this year—so the handful who’ve decided to break the advised embargo in recent weeks have endured fierce confrontations with their constituents.

But LaMalfa hasn’t appeared in Chico for an in-person town hall for much longer than that: Before Monday, it had reportedly been eight years since his previous one in town, as Chico City Councilmember Katie Hawley noted early in the event. At that point, LaMalfa had already been berated by the audience, including with shouts of “No fascism in America!” and “You need to be impeached!”

Hawley remarked, “If Chico City Council was a public event only once every eight years, I think we would have a room exactly like this.” She continued, “The less frequently you show up and have town halls like this, I believe that the harder it will be to facilitate the conversations.”

Throughout the event, LaMalfa faced raucous jeers, as well as tough questions and criticisms.

One resident, who identified himself as the son of Holocaust survivors, said, “People being kidnapped without arrest warrants, without trial, without recourse, by the president of the United States’s ICE armies is clear evidence of how a fascist, authoritarian government works. We are not headed toward an authoritarian fascist government; we are already there.”

Another resident called Trump’s spending plan (the so-called “one, big beautiful bill”) the “big bullshit bill” and was chastised by LaMalfa for their language. “Fuck you!” replied several in attendance.

Multiple people voiced concerns about SNAP and Medicaid cuts under the plan—with one pointing out that people in the area depend on those services to “help keep them alive.” Another common cause of concern was Israel’s war on Gaza, on which LaMalfa maintained a staunch, pro-Israel stance.

Trump’s efforts to defund PBS and NPR also elicited outrage from the attendees. LaMalfa responded to one such comment with, “Well, the people have many, many choices to receive media,” only to be met with resounding boos.

Another resident expressed concern about Trump’s tariffs. “Article 1, Section 8 talks about the power of Congress to regulate foreign trade,” he said. “It doesn’t say anything about the president unilaterally creating tariffs.”

Several in attendance also registered their worries about public education under Trump. LaMalfa, for his part, suggested that the more pressing issue regarding public schools is that they need “to be focused on what the children really need”—the so-called three R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic—instead of on “ancillary things” like “climate change” and “LGB.”

A particularly interesting question came toward the tail end of the event, when a resident asked if LaMalfa supports the ongoing GOP attempt to gerrymander Texas in order to tilt Congress in his party’s favor. The move has led California Democrats to propose retaliatory redistricting that could possibly sound the death knell for LaMalfa’s political career.

“Texas shouldn’t be doing that,” LaMalfa said. “California shouldn’t be doing this. This is going to start a grass fire all across the country. Every single state will try to change it based on a political outcome.”

Same-sex marriage could soon be back on the Supreme Court docket.

Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, is appealing her case. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys’ fees, reported ABC News Monday.

In a petition filed last month, Davis claimed that her First Amendment rights protecting her religious freedom effectively immunized her from repercussions for denying the licenses.

“The mistake must be corrected,” Davis’s attorney Mathew Staver argued in the petition, further condemning Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges as “legal fiction.”

“This court should revisit and reverse Obergefell for the same reasons articulated in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center,” reads one titled portion, under which Staver claims that “Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.”

Staver’s argument alluded to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs, which overturned the nationwide right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. In his 2022 opinion, Thomas argued that the court “should reconsider” its substantive due process precedents, including contraception, same-sex marriage, and even same-sex relationships.

Davis served six days in jail for refusing to issue the licenses. Her appeal marks the first time that the nation’s highest judiciary has been formally asked to reconsider the landmark decision.

“If there ever was a case of exceptional importance,” Staver wrote, “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Gay marriage was effectively legalized in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell that keeping marriage licenses from same-sex couples was discriminatory. The decision mandated that all states issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples, and required states to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions, as well.

Marriage equality was further protected at the federal level in 2022, when the Respect for Marriage Act became law, requiring all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. It did not, however, formally legalize gay marriage, so if the Supreme Court were to take up Davis’s case and overturn Obergefell, gay marriage rights would fall with it.

Roughly 69 percent of Americans support same-sex marriages, according to a 2024 Gallup poll. Republican support for gay couples’ equal rights has dipped in recent years, however, from a record high of 55 percent in favor of it in 2021 to 46 percent in 2024.