Restoring Consent: A New Bill to Protect Communities from Unilateral School District Splits

 

Restoring Consent: A New Bill to Protect Communities from Unilateral School District Splits

James Scott Trimm 

About a year ago, residents of the Keller Independent School District were confronted with a proposal that stunned the community. Behind closed doors, members of the school board advanced a plan to fundamentally restructure the district—first by renaming it “Alliance ISD,” and then by splitting it into two separate districts, one of which would reclaim the name “Keller ISD.” This was not a minor administrative adjustment. It was a sweeping structural transformation affecting governance, taxation, school zoning, and the identity of the community itself. And it was attempted without a vote of the people.

From the beginning, that fact alone set off alarm bells across the community. The central issue was not simply whether the proposal was wise or unwise, or whether a split might have long-term benefits or drawbacks. The issue was that it was being advanced at all without a mechanism for voter approval. A school board has authority to administer a district. It does not have authority to redefine the district itself without the consent of those who live within it. The proposed split would have reallocated hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and liabilities, redrawn attendance boundaries, altered governance structures, and changed the long-term financial obligations of taxpayers. These are legislative-level decisions in substance, even if they originate at the local level. Yet the people most affected—parents, taxpayers, and voters—were never given a binding vote. That is not a procedural oversight. It is a failure of first principles.

The 2024 Republican Party of Texas Platform is not vague on this point. It explicitly affirms that government properly exists by the consent of the governed. That principle is not decorative language. It is the foundation of republican government itself. The platform reinforces this idea in multiple ways, calling for limits on government power, affirming the central role of parents in education, and emphasizing accountability and transparency in public decision-making. And yet, in Keller ISD, a small group of officials attempted to carry out a transformational restructuring without ever seeking that consent. There was no referendum, no binding vote, and no mechanism by which the governed could actually govern. That is not self-government. That is authority substituting itself for consent.

By the time the public became aware of the proposal, it had already progressed beyond preliminary discussion. Reporting indicates that Tim Davis represented Keller ISD during the split effort and was alleged to have been involved in developing its legal framework. If accurate, that suggests the proposal had moved into structured planning before the public was ever brought into the conversation. Then came a sequence of events that is difficult to ignore. On March 10, 2025, State Representative David Lowe filed Texas House Bill 4156, legislation addressing the creation of new school districts by detachment and requiring a structured process including voter approval. Just four days later, on March 14, the Keller ISD split was abruptly abandoned.

The reasons given for that reversal were substantial. The district was carrying approximately $700 million in outstanding bond debt, and any division would have required complex and costly allocation of that obligation. At the same time, the Texas Education Agency had begun reviewing complaints regarding governance and transparency. The superintendent had already resigned in opposition to the plan. Each of these factors, standing alone, would have raised serious concerns. Taken together, they made the proposal untenable. But they do not answer the deeper question raised by the episode: how did a plan of this magnitude advance so far without the consent of the people?

The legislative response that followed demonstrated that this concern was widely recognized. House Bill 4156 was not left standing alone. On May 15, 2025, State Representative Charlie Geren filed Texas House Bill 5089, an identical measure reinforcing the same framework. State Representative Nate Schatzline publicly emphasized the importance of community voice, transparency, and accountability, explicitly framing the Keller ISD outcome as an example of the will of the people being heard. And yet, despite that recognition, neither bill ultimately became law. HB 4156 was never granted a hearing. HB 5089 was unanimously approved in committee, but died in the Calendars Committee as the legislative session ran out of time. The issue was acknowledged. The solution was partially constructed. But the work was not completed.

That is why this issue must be addressed again in the next legislative session. The failure of those bills was not a failure of principle. It was a failure to fully develop and carry forward a solution that matches the seriousness of the problem. With decades of involvement in legislative activism, including time working as a legislative staffer, I have seen how legislation can fall short—not because the idea is wrong, but because it is not fully formed or sufficiently grounded. For that reason, I have taken the step of drafting a new bill that builds on what was started, corrects its weaknesses, and provides a more complete and defensible framework.

The original bill made important improvements to the process, particularly in requiring petitions and elections. But it remained largely procedural. It did not explicitly anchor itself in the foundational principles that justify those procedures. It left significant discretion to administrative bodies in the allocation of assets and liabilities, relying on the vague concept of “equitable” division rather than a clear, objective standard. And it did not directly address the constitutional risks that arise when structural changes produce unequal access to educational resources.

The new bill addresses each of these shortcomings directly. It begins by stating clearly that the creation of a new school district by detachment must be grounded in the consent of the governed, drawing directly from the principles and language of the 2024 Republican Party of Texas Platform. It makes explicit that local governing bodies possess only delegated authority and may not unilaterally redefine political boundaries. It affirms the role of parents and voters in decisions that directly affect the education of their children, consistent with the platform’s emphasis on parental rights, limited government, and accountability. These are not rhetorical additions. They are statements of legislative intent that guide how the law must be interpreted and applied.

Where the prior bill relied on subjective notions of equity in dividing assets and liabilities, the new bill adopts a clear, objective formula modeled on Wisconsin Statute 66.0235. Assets and debts are allocated proportionally based on taxable property value, using certified appraisal data. This removes ambiguity, limits discretion, and provides a standard that is predictable and defensible. At the same time, the bill preserves local flexibility by allowing districts to adopt an alternative arrangement—but only if both sides agree through identical resolutions approved by a three-fourths supermajority. That ensures that any deviation from the formula reflects genuine consensus, not unilateral advantage.

The new bill also addresses a critical issue that the prior legislation left largely untouched: equal protection. It does so carefully and narrowly. It does not impose quotas, demographic targets, or ideological frameworks. Instead, it simply requires that any proposed detachment not materially diminish the ability of any group of students to access substantially equal educational opportunity. At the same time, it explicitly states that the law does not require demographic balancing or forced redistribution. The purpose is not to engineer outcomes, but to prevent actions that would clearly violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Finally, the bill reinforces the principle of mutual consent. A new district may be created only if it is approved both by voters in the detaching territory and by voters in the remaining district. This ensures that no community can be divided unilaterally, and that both sides of the proposed change have a voice in the outcome. It restores balance to a process that, as Keller demonstrated, can otherwise move forward without meaningful public input.

Keller ISD was the catalyst for this effort, but it is not the only place where such a situation could arise. The underlying issue is structural. Without clear statutory safeguards, similar proposals can emerge elsewhere, advancing rapidly and only later coming to public attention. That is not how republican government is meant to function. Structural changes of this magnitude require more than administrative approval. They require the consent of the governed.

This bill is an effort to restore that principle in a clear, enforceable, and constitutionally grounded way. It does not attempt to micromanage local decisions. It does not impose ideological mandates. It simply establishes a framework in which major structural changes cannot occur without the knowledge, participation, and approval of the people who will live with the consequences.

The full text of the new bill appears below.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to creation of a school district by detachment of territory from an existing school district.

---

WHEREAS

WHEREAS, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; and

WHEREAS, decisions that fundamentally alter the structure, boundaries, or governance of a political subdivision must be subject to the approval of the voters directly affected; and

WHEREAS, the authority of local governing bodies is limited to powers delegated by the people and does not extend to unilateral restructuring of political boundaries without voter approval; and

WHEREAS, parents have a fundamental interest in the education of their children, including the governance and structure of the school districts in which their children are educated; and

WHEREAS, transparency and accountability in public decision-making require that major structural changes be subject to open processes and direct voter consent;

---

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

Sec. 13.099.

(a) It is the intent of the legislature that any creation of a school district by detachment of territory be grounded in the consent of the voters residing in the affected areas.

(b) A governmental body may not unilaterally alter the boundaries or structure of a school district without providing a meaningful opportunity for voter approval.

(c) This subchapter shall be construed to:

• preserve the right of voters to approve or reject structural changes to their local school district;
• ensure that parental interests are represented in decisions affecting the education of their children; and
• promote transparency, accountability, and public participation in the governance of school districts.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

Sec. 13.100.

• "Board" means the State Board of Education.
• "Detaching territory" means the geographic area proposed to be removed from an existing district to form a new district.

SECTION 3. INITIATION OF DETACHMENT

Sec. 13.103.

(a) Creation of a new district by detachment is initiated by a petition presented to the board.

(b) A petition must:

• describe the metes and bounds of the proposed district;
• be signed by at least 20 percent of the registered voters residing in the detaching territory within each affected district; and
• be addressed to the board.

(c) The petition must include:

• a general statement of the educational and financial impact of the proposed detachment; and
• a proposed plan for governance and transition.

SECTION 4. HEARING AND ELECTION

Sec. 13.104.

(a) Not later than the 30th day after receiving a petition, the board shall hold a public hearing to determine its validity.

(b) If valid, the board shall order an election to be held on the same date in:

• the detaching territory; and
• the remaining territory of each affected district.

(c) The ballot shall permit voters to approve or reject the creation of the new district.

(d) The new district is created only if:

• a majority of votes in the detaching territory favor creation; and
• a majority of votes in the remaining territory of each affected district favor creation.

SECTION 5. CREATION OF DISTRICT; ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

Sec. 13.105.

(a) If all requirements of this subchapter are met, the board shall adopt a rule creating the new district.

(b) The board shall appoint a board of seven trustees for the new district to serve until the next regular election of trustees.

(c) Proportional Allocation — Default Rule

The board shall assign assets and liabilities proportionally based on taxable property values using certified appraisal data.

(d) Alternative Agreement by Supermajority

Districts may agree to a different allocation if approved by identical resolutions with a three-fourths vote of each board.

(e) Equity Safeguards

• No district may be materially impaired;
• Allocation must be equitable to taxpayers.

(f) Property Transfer

Property in the detaching territory transfers to the new district unless otherwise agreed.

(g) Debt Allocation

The new district assumes its share of outstanding indebtedness.

(h) Equal Protection

No detachment may materially diminish equal educational opportunity.

(i) Prohibited Effect

No detachment may create disparities based on race or socioeconomic status.

(j) Limiting Construction

This section does not require demographic balancing or forced redistribution.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act takes effect September 1, 2027.

 

SD-9 Delegates Removed from the Texas GOP Convention for Upholding Party Platform Principles

Opposition to the Keller ISD split without a public vote put grassroots Republicans at odds with party leadership—and cost them their place as delegates.

---

About a year ago, residents of the Keller Independent School District were confronted with a proposal that stunned the community. Behind closed doors, members of the school board advanced a plan to fundamentally restructure the district—first by renaming it “Alliance ISD,” and then by splitting it into two separate districts, one of which would reclaim the name “Keller ISD.” This was not a minor administrative adjustment, but a sweeping structural transformation affecting governance, taxation, school zoning, and the identity of the community itself.

And it was attempted without a vote of the people.

From the beginning, that fact alone set off alarm bells across the community. This was not a routine administrative decision. It was a proposal that would permanently alter the structure of a public institution, redistribute resources, redraw boundaries, and reshape the educational landscape for thousands of families. Yet the people most affected—the parents, taxpayers, and voters—were not given a direct say in whether it should happen.

The plan ultimately collapsed under intense public pressure. But what followed made clear that this was not merely a local controversy. It exposed a deeper dividing line within the Republican Party itself: between those willing to move forward without consent, and those insisting that our stated principles actually mean what they say.

The 2024 Republican Party of Texas Platform is not vague on this point. It explicitly affirms that “government properly exists by the consent of the governed” (Plank 11) . That is not rhetorical flourish. It is the foundation of republican government itself. And yet, in Keller ISD, a small group of officials attempted to carry out a transformational restructuring without ever seeking that consent. There was no referendum, no binding vote, no mechanism by which the governed could actually govern.

That is not self-government. That is authority substituting itself for consent.

The platform reinforces this principle in multiple ways. It calls for limiting government power to its proper bounds (Principles §4) , yet a school board’s authority to administer a district does not extend to redefining the district itself without the people. It affirms that parental rights are foundational (Plank 17) , yet a decision directly affecting where children attend school and how resources are allocated was advanced without giving parents the deciding voice. And it emphasizes accountability in the exercise of authority (Plank 10) , yet this proposal emerged from closed-door discussions, only becoming public after it had already taken shape.

By the time the public became aware of the proposal, it had already moved beyond casual discussion. Reporting indicates that Tim Davis represented Keller ISD during the split effort and was alleged to have been instrumental in developing the legal strategy behind it. If accurate, that suggests the effort had progressed into structured planning and execution before the public was ever brought into the conversation. That alone raises serious questions—not just about the proposal itself, but about the process used to develop it.

Then came a sequence of events that is difficult to ignore.

On March 10, 2025, State Representative David Lowe filed House Bill 4156, legislation addressing the creation of new school districts by detachment and ensuring that such actions would require a structured process, including voter approval. Just four days later, on March 14, the Keller ISD split was abruptly abandoned.

The stated reasons were financial and administrative. The district faced approximately $700 million in existing bond debt, and a split would require tens of millions in additional funding to allocate that debt fairly. At the same time, the Texas Education Agency had begun reviewing complaints regarding the district’s governance, including concerns about transparency. The superintendent had already resigned in opposition to the plan.

Each of these factors is significant. Together, they raise a simple and unavoidable question: why did a plan that had advanced so far collapse so quickly?

This article does not speculate. But the timeline speaks for itself.

What followed is just as important.

House Bill 4156 was not an isolated effort. It was reinforced at the state level. On May 15, 2025, State Representative Charlie Geren filed House Bill 5089, an identical measure. State Representative Nate Schatzline publicly emphasized the importance of community voice, transparency, and accountability, explicitly framing the outcome in Keller ISD as an example of the will of the people being heard.

This matters.

Because it demonstrates that the demand for a referendum was not a fringe reaction or a temporary political position. It was a position shared and advanced by conservative Republican legislators—and it was entirely consistent with the principles laid out in the Republican Party platform.

In other words, the dividing line is clear.

Those who sought to split the district without a vote were acting contrary to our stated principles.

Those who insisted on a referendum were acting in alignment with them.

I write this not as an outside observer, but as someone directly involved at the time. I was serving as District Director for State Representative David Lowe, and in that capacity I addressed the Keller ISD School Board twice on his behalf—first to state clearly that a decision of this magnitude should not be conducted without a general referendum, and then to announce that he would be filing legislation to require such a vote. I was also personally engaged in the issue, speaking out publicly as these events unfolded, and I was proud to do so—upholding the conservative principles of our Party Platform.

What I saw firsthand were not citizens resisting solutions, but citizens insisting on process—parents and taxpayers who understood something fundamental: that how a decision is made matters just as much as the decision itself.

Because process is not secondary.

Process is the safeguard of principle.

That is why what happened next is so troubling.

According to reporting by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, several Republicans who opposed the Keller ISD split were later removed from the delegate list for the Texas GOP Convention.

We voted in the Republican primary.
We attended our precinct convention.
We followed the rules.

And yet we were excluded.

My wife and I were ultimately excluded from serving as delegates after I publicly opposed the Keller ISD split and advocated for a referendum—raising serious questions about whether adherence to the Republican Party Platform is being treated as a disqualifying position.

I have spent more than four decades working within the Republican Party in Texas—as a grassroots volunteer, precinct chair, campaign worker, strategist, and legislative staffer. My involvement dates back to the early 1980s, including work on campaigns such as Charlie Evans for State Representative and the Pat Robertson campaign in 1988. I later served as a Precinct Chair in Tarrant County, a member of the County Executive Committee’s Resolutions Committee, and a consultant helping recruit and support Republican candidates at the grassroots level.

My work has also included serving as a strategist, advisor, and campaign manager for State Representative David Lowe, working in the political department of the Don Huffines campaign, and serving as District Director in the Texas House. I have also contributed to policy development as a Bill Analyst for Texas Policy Research, focusing on legislation grounded in limited government, individual liberty, and free enterprise.

My wife and I have consistently supported Republican candidates and causes throughout that time.

Neither of us has ever supported a Democrat—openly or otherwise.

Taken together, these events raise a serious question—not just about a school district, but about the integrity of process itself.

What happens when the public is excluded from a decision of this magnitude?

What happens when that decision is developed without transparency?

And what happens when those who object—on principled, platform-based grounds—are later excluded from participation?

The people of Keller ISD answered part of that question.

They stopped the split.

They insisted on being heard.

And in doing so, they upheld the very principle the platform proclaims: consent of the governed.

The legislators who called for a vote upheld it as well.

The lesson is simple, but it is not optional.

If we are serious about our platform, then we must be consistent.

We cannot claim to believe in consent of the governed, limited government, parental rights, and accountability—and then set those principles aside when they become inconvenient.

Because if those principles do not apply here—

then where do they apply?

A Breakthrough for Medical Freedom in Texas - Chronic Pain Resolution Passes in Three Senatorial District Conventions

 

A Breakthrough for Medical Freedom in Texas

Chronic Pain Resolution Passes in Three Senatorial District Conventions

By James Scott Trimm

Today marks a significant turning point in the effort to restore medical freedom for chronic pain patients in Texas. What began as a grassroots concern raised at the precinct level has now advanced through three separate Senatorial District Conventions, signaling that this issue is no longer isolated or easily ignored.

Across the state, delegates in SD 9, SD 16, and SD 30 each considered versions of the P.A.R.T. Texas Chronic Pain Resolution. These were not coordinated rubber-stamp actions, but independent deliberations by separate bodies of grassroots activists. Yet all three arrived at the same essential conclusion: current policy governing chronic pain treatment is not working, and it must be corrected.

In SD 9, the resolution was adopted without alteration as a new platform plank. In SD 16, a slightly modified version was adopted, also as a new platform plank. In SD 30, a version of the resolution itself was adopted and included in the official Resolutions Report. While the forms varied slightly, the substance remained intact. Across three districts, the same message emerged — the doctor–patient relationship must be restored, and the rights of chronic pain patients must be protected.

This level of convergence is not accidental. It reflects a growing recognition among grassroots conservatives that something has gone fundamentally wrong in the way chronic pain is treated in this country. For years, policy in this area has drifted away from the principles of limited government and individual liberty, and toward a system dominated by regulatory pressure, corporate compliance, and bureaucratic control.

All three of these Senatorial Districts will now forward their adopted versions of the resolution to the Texas Republican Party Resolutions Committee, where they will be considered for inclusion in the 2026 Texas Republican Party Platform at the State Convention in June. This is how the platform is built — not from the top down, but from the ground up, beginning with ordinary delegates who recognize a problem and take action to address it.

And just as importantly, this is how legislation begins.

In Texas, the party platform is not merely symbolic. It serves as a roadmap for lawmakers heading into the next legislative session. When an issue rises from the precinct level, is adopted at multiple Senatorial District Conventions, and is ultimately incorporated into the state party platform, it creates both political momentum and institutional support for legislative action.

In other words, what happened today is not the end of the process — it is the beginning of it.

If this plank is adopted at the State Convention, it will pave the way for legislation to be filed in the next session of the Texas Legislature. This is how the system is designed to work: a concern raised by grassroots Texans moves through the party structure, becomes a platform priority, and is then translated into concrete legislative proposals.

The importance of this moment becomes even clearer when viewed in the broader context. As previously discussed , the current regulatory environment surrounding chronic pain treatment represents a departure from core conservative principles. Federal prescribing guidelines, originally intended to be advisory, have been transformed in practice into binding rules. They are enforced not through legislation, but through a web of regulatory agencies, insurance requirements, pharmacy policies, and corporate compliance structures. In effect, law has been created without a vote.

The consequences of this shift have been profound. Physicians who once treated chronic pain patients according to their professional judgment now practice under constant pressure and scrutiny. Many have stopped treating pain altogether. Patients who were stable for years under legitimate medical care have found their treatment reduced or eliminated, not because of individual medical need, but because of external rules imposed far outside the exam room.

This system rests on a narrative that does not withstand careful examination. While prescription-related overdose deaths did rise in the early 2000s, they peaked more than a decade ago. The ongoing crisis in overdose deaths has been driven primarily by illicit substances — especially fentanyl and other synthetic opioids — often in combination with stimulants and other drugs. Chronic pain patients and their physicians were not the primary drivers of this crisis, yet they have borne the brunt of the policy response.

From a conservative perspective, this raises a fundamental question: why is government power being directed at lawful patients and doctors instead of the illicit drug market? When policy harms responsible individuals without solving the underlying problem, it is not merely ineffective — it is unjust.

What the resolutions passed today represent is a reassertion of principle. They affirm that medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their physicians. They insist that guidelines must remain advisory rather than becoming de facto law. They call for protections for both patients seeking lawful treatment and physicians acting in good faith according to sound medical judgment. These are not radical ideas. They are consistent with the longstanding conservative commitment to limited government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.

The progress seen today did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects the work of P.A.R.T. Texas (Pain Awareness Right to Treatment), which has sought to bring this issue into focus and give a voice to those who have too often been overlooked. Chronic pain patients are not statistics, and they are not abstractions in a policy debate. They are individuals — Texans — whose lives have been profoundly affected by decisions made far from their own circumstances.

The road ahead remains critical. At the State Convention in June, delegates will determine whether these resolutions become part of the official platform of the Texas Republican Party for 2026. From there, the next step is clear: translating that platform into legislation that restores balance, protects patients, and reestablishes the doctor–patient relationship as the foundation of medical care.

What happened today demonstrates that this issue is gaining traction where it matters most — at the grassroots level. It shows that delegates across multiple districts are recognizing the same problem and moving in the same direction. And it confirms that the pathway from concern to policy to law is not theoretical — it is actively unfolding.

For millions of Texans living with chronic pain, this is more than a procedural step. It is the beginning of a process that can lead to real, tangible change. And for those who believe in the principles of limited government and individual liberty, it is a reminder that those principles must apply consistently — including in the exam room.

The movement to restore medical freedom in Texas has not reached its conclusion.

But after today, it has clearly entered its next phase.

Disclosure: The author serves as President of P.A.R.T. Texas, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization advocating for the rights of chronic pain patients and the physicians who treat them. He has been involved in conservative political activism in Texas for more than forty years and previously served as a legislative staffer.

 

The Platform Plank as passed in SD 9

Healthcare Independence

Chronic Pain Care

NEW PLANK

Texans suffering from chronic or intractable pain should have access to compassionate, individualized treatment without unnecessary government interference. Federal prescribing guidelines must remain advisory, not binding. We support protecting the doctor-patient relationship, defending physicians acting in good faith, and ensuring that healthcare decisions remain grounded in personal responsibility, sound medical judgment, and limited government.

 

The Platform Plank as it passed in SD 16

Health and Human Services

Medical Freedom & Informed Consent

NEW PLANK: “Medical Freedom and Chronic Pain”

Be it resolved that federal policies that limit availability of opioids and other pain medicines that prevent access to properly prescribed pain medicine by legitimate, law-abiding pain patients must be reversed.

Be it further resolved that the doctor-patient relationship must be protected, and physicians that act in good faith must be defended from bad government protocols, in order to ensure that healthcare decisions remain grounded in personal responsibility, sound medical judgment, and limited government.

 

The Resolution as it passed in SD 30

 

Resolution Supporting Medical Freedom for Chronic Pain Patients and Their Physicians

WHEREAS, the Republican Party has long championed limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and respect for the doctor-patient relationship; and

WHEREAS, medical freedom is a fundamental component of personal liberty, ensuring that Texans can make healthcare decisions in consultation with their physicians without unnecessary government interference; and

WHEREAS, Texans suffering from chronic or intractable pain deserve access to compassionate, individualized medical care that preserves their dignity, independence, and quality of life; and

WHEREAS, governmental and non-governmental prescribing guidelines intended as advisory recommendations have been treated as binding rules by employers, regulators, insurers, and pharmacies, undermining medical judgment and restricting otherwise legal and legitimate patient care; and

WHEREAS, misapplied governmental and non-governmental guidelines unnecessarily impede physicians from treating chronic pain patients, leaving many Texans without effective treatment for their pain despite responsible compliance with medical advice;

---

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican Party of Texas affirms its strong support for medical freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility in healthcare decision-making for patients with chronic pain; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we support policies ensuring that governmental and nongovernmental prescribing guidelines for chronic pain remain advisory rather than de facto law within Texas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we support legislative protections for chronic pain patients seeking lawful treatment and for healthcare providers acting in good faith according to sound medical judgment; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Republican Party calls upon Texas lawmakers to safeguard medical freedom and protect the doctor-patient relationship from unnecessary intrusion while promoting responsible, ethical medical care for chronic pain consistent with the principles of liberty and accountability.

A Milestone for Medical Freedom in Texas

 

 

A Milestone for Medical Freedom in Texas
Precinct Conventions Advance Resolution Supporting Chronic Pain Patients and Their Physicians

By James Scott Trimm

Last night marked an important milestone in the growing movement to restore medical freedom for chronic pain patients in Texas.

At Republican precinct conventions in both Tarrant County and Dallas County, delegates passed a resolution supporting the rights of chronic pain patients and the physicians who treat them. The resolution will now move forward to the 9th and 16th Senatorial District Conventions, where it will be considered for advancement to the Texas Republican Party State Convention as a potential platform plank.

For millions of Texans living with chronic or intractable pain, this moment represents something many have not felt in years: hope.

For too long, chronic pain policy has been shaped by fear, bureaucracy, and one-size-fits-all guidelines that often override the judgment of physicians and the needs of individual patients. Federal prescribing guidelines that were originally intended to be advisory have too often been treated as if they were binding law, leading insurers, pharmacies, and regulators to impose rigid restrictions that were never approved by Congress and never intended to function as hard limits.

The result has been devastating for many patients.

Across Texas and the nation, responsible patients who followed their doctors’ instructions have seen treatments abruptly reduced or eliminated. Physicians who once provided compassionate care have been pressured to stop treating pain altogether. Many Texans now struggle simply to find a doctor willing to help them manage legitimate medical conditions.

The resolution adopted last night addresses this crisis directly.

It reaffirms core conservative principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and respect for the doctor–patient relationship — and calls for policies ensuring that federal guidelines remain advisory rather than being treated as de facto law.

It also calls for legislative protections for both patients seeking lawful treatment and physicians acting in good faith according to sound medical judgment.

In other words, it restores a principle that should never have been abandoned: medical decisions belong in the exam room, not in distant bureaucracies.

Texas is home to millions of people living with chronic pain.

National public-health estimates show that approximately 51–55 million Americans live with chronic pain, and 17–20 million suffer from high-impact chronic pain that significantly limits their daily activities.

Texas represents roughly 9 percent of the U.S. population. When that ratio is applied to national health data, the implications are staggering.

An estimated 4.6 to 5 million Texans live with chronic pain.

Among them, roughly 1.5 to 1.8 million Texans suffer from severe, life-limiting pain that affects their ability to work, function, and live normal lives.

These are not small numbers. These are not fringe cases.

They are our neighbors, our coworkers, our parents, our spouses, and our friends.

And when you include the family members who care for and support them, the number of Texans directly touched by chronic pain easily reaches into the tens of millions.

This is not a marginal issue in Texas.

It is one of the largest and least-represented medical-freedom issues in the state.

The resolution that passed at precinct conventions states:

Resolution Supporting Medical Freedom for Chronic Pain Patients and Their Physicians

WHEREAS, the Republican Party has long championed limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and respect for the doctor-patient relationship; and

WHEREAS, medical freedom is a fundamental component of personal liberty, ensuring that Texans can make healthcare decisions in consultation with their physicians without unnecessary government interference; and

WHEREAS, Texans suffering from chronic or intractable pain deserve access to compassionate, individualized medical care that preserves their dignity, independence, and quality of life; and

WHEREAS, federal prescribing guidelines intended as advisory recommendations have often been treated as binding rules by regulators, insurers, and pharmacies, undermining medical judgment and restricting legitimate patient care; and

WHEREAS, excessive regulation discourages physicians from treating chronic pain patients, leaving many Texans without effective treatment despite responsible compliance with medical advice;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican Party of Texas affirms its strong support for medical freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility in healthcare decision-making; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we support policies ensuring federal guidelines remain advisory rather than de facto law within Texas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we support legislative protections for chronic pain patients seeking lawful treatment and for healthcare providers acting in good faith according to sound medical judgment; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Republican Party calls upon Texas lawmakers to safeguard medical freedom and protect the doctor-patient relationship from unnecessary regulatory intrusion while promoting responsible, ethical medical care consistent with the principles of liberty and accountability.

This resolution did not appear out of thin air. It is the result of growing grassroots concern from Texans who recognize that chronic pain policy has drifted far from the principles of liberty and responsible medical care.

Helping to spearhead this effort is P.A.R.T. Texas (Pain Awareness Right to Treatment), a new 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to defending the rights of chronic pain patients and the physicians who treat them.

P.A.R.T. Texas is working to bring attention to the unintended consequences of current policy and to promote solutions grounded in both compassion and common sense. The organization believes that Texans suffering from serious medical conditions should not be treated as suspects simply for seeking relief from pain, and that physicians should be free to practice medicine according to their professional judgment without fear of unnecessary regulatory retaliation.

The adoption of this resolution at the precinct level represents an important first step. In the Republican Party of Texas, precinct conventions are where grassroots activists begin shaping the ideas that eventually become party platform planks and legislative priorities.

Last night’s votes show that the issue of medical freedom for chronic pain patients is beginning to resonate with grassroots conservatives.

The resolution now moves to the senatorial district conventions, and if adopted there, it could advance to the state convention where delegates will determine the official platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

The road ahead remains long, but last night demonstrated something powerful:

Texans are beginning to recognize that defending the doctor–patient relationship and protecting the dignity of chronic pain patients is not a fringe issue.

It is a liberty issue.

And the movement to restore that liberty has begun.

— James Scott Trimm

Disclosure: The author serves as President of P.A.R.T. Texas, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization advocating for the rights of chronic pain patients and the physicians who treat them. He has been involved in conservative political activism in Texas for more than forty years and previously served as a legislative staffer.

Freedom vs. the Nanny State: Why Conservatives Should Stand Up for Chronic Pain Patients

 

 

Freedom vs. the Nanny State: 
Why Conservatives Should Stand Up for Chronic Pain Patients
By
James Scott Trimm

 

For conservatives and libertarians, the issue of chronic-pain treatment should not be controversial.
It should be obvious.

Over the last decade, Americans have watched the steady expansion of government power into areas that were once considered private, personal, and beyond the reach of bureaucracy. Nowhere has this overreach been more visible than in the exam room, where federal agencies, insurers, pharmacies, and corporate policies increasingly dictate medical decisions that should belong to patients and their physicians.

Instead of trusting individuals and doctors, the system has adopted a paternalistic mindset:

We know what’s best for you — even if you suffer for it.

This strikes directly at core conservative values:

• personal freedom

• bodily autonomy

• limited government

• personal responsibility

• the sanctity of the doctor–patient relationship

From a conservative perspective, current chronic-pain policy is not just bad medicine.
It is bad governance.

It represents the nanny state at its worst — overriding medical judgment, restricting lawful treatment, and placing bureaucratic rules above human dignity.

This is a medical-freedom issue, and conservatives should start treating it like one.

---

When Guidelines Become Law Without a Vote

For most of American history, medical decisions were made by patients and doctors, not by federal regulators.

That changed during the opioid panic of the early 2000s.

Federal agencies issued prescribing guidelines that were supposed to be advisory. They were never passed by Congress, never voted on by the public, and never intended to function as hard limits.

Yet in practice, those guidelines became de facto law.

Regulators enforced them.
Insurance companies enforced them.
Pharmacies enforced them.
Corporate policies enforced them.

Doctors who treated pain aggressively were investigated.
Patients who needed medication were treated as suspects.
Stable, responsible people were forced to taper off treatments that had worked for years.

Instead of individualized care, we got one-size-fits-all rules.

Instead of medical judgment, we got algorithms.

Instead of freedom, we got control.

Conservatives have warned for decades about exactly this kind of government overreach.
On this issue, those warnings turned out to be right.

---

The Narrative That Justified the Crackdown

The entire system of restrictions rests on one claim:

Prescription pain medication caused the overdose crisis.

That claim has been repeated so often that many people assume it must be true.

But the government’s own data tells a different story.

According to CDC, NCHS, and NIDA mortality statistics, prescription-involved overdose deaths rose in the early 2000s, peaked around 2010, and then leveled off or declined. Meanwhile, total overdose deaths continued to rise dramatically, driven not by prescriptions, but by illicit drugs — especially fentanyl.

Consider the shift:

• In 1999, synthetic opioids like fentanyl were involved in fewer than 1,000 deaths.

• By 2023, synthetic opioids were involved in tens of thousands of deaths per year.

• Prescription-involved deaths remained relatively stable after their peak.

Even at their highest point, prescription deaths were only a fraction of total overdose deaths.

The modern overdose crisis was not driven by chronic-pain patients or their doctors.

It was driven by the illegal drug market.

---

The Real Crisis: Fentanyl, Meth, Cocaine, and Polysubstance Deaths

The pattern over the last twenty-five years is clear.

Prescription deaths rose early, then plateaued.
Heroin deaths rose for a time, then declined.
Synthetic fentanyl exploded.
Stimulant deaths surged.
Polysubstance deaths became the norm.

Methamphetamine deaths increased more than thirty-fold since the late 1990s.
Cocaine deaths rose sharply after the mid-2010s.
A majority of overdose deaths now involve more than one drug.

CDC reports show that many stimulant deaths also involve fentanyl, meaning people are not dying from one substance, but from unpredictable mixtures in the illicit supply.

This is a poisoned-drug crisis, not a prescription-drug crisis.

Yet policy did not focus on the illegal market.

Instead, it focused on the easiest target:

Doctors and patients who were following the law.

---

Chronic Pain Patients Became Collateral Damage

As the crackdown intensified, the people who suffered most were not criminals.

They were chronic-pain patients.

People with spinal injuries.
People with nerve damage.
People with degenerative disease.
People with cancer.
People who simply wanted to live without constant agony.

Many had been stable for years under responsible medical care.

Then the rules changed.

Doctors were pressured to cut doses.
Pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions.
Insurance companies denied coverage.
Patients were labeled high-risk simply for needing treatment.

Some were forced into withdrawal.
Some turned to the street out of desperation.
Some lost the ability to work, function, or live normally.
Some did not survive.

All of this happened while overdose deaths kept rising.

When policy hurts innocent people without solving the problem, conservatives should ask a simple question:

Why is government doing this at all?

---

Medical Freedom Is a Conservative Principle

The Republican Party has long stood for limited government, individual liberty, and respect for personal responsibility. Those principles should apply to healthcare as much as to any other area of life.

Medical freedom means:

Patients should make decisions with their doctors.
Guidelines should not become mandates.
Physicians should not practice in fear of regulators.
States should not surrender authority to federal bureaucracy.
Policy should be based on facts, not panic.

These principles are not radical.

They are consistent with everything conservatives say they believe.

And they point toward reforms that restore balance instead of expanding control.

---

A Conservative Approach to Reform

Policy discussions in Texas and elsewhere are increasingly focused on restoring the proper balance between safety and freedom.

Proposals being discussed include protections for the doctor-patient relationship, limits on corporate and bureaucratic interference, stronger due-process protections for physicians, safeguards for patient privacy, and recognition of the state’s authority to regulate medical practice under the Tenth Amendment.

These ideas do not promote abuse.

They promote responsibility.

They recognize that adults should be treated like adults, and doctors like professionals, not suspects.

They reflect a simple principle:

Government should not stand between a suffering patient and lawful medical care.

---

Time for Conservatives to Reclaim This Issue

For too long, the debate over pain treatment has been framed as a choice between public safety and personal freedom.

That is a false choice.

We can fight illegal drugs without punishing legitimate patients.
We can reduce overdoses without destroying the doctor-patient relationship.
We can protect communities without turning federal agencies into the nation’s medical supervisors.

Conservatives should not be afraid to say this.

Freedom does not stop at the exam-room door.

And if we truly believe in limited government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty, then defending the rights of chronic-pain patients is not a liberal issue, not a partisan issue, and not a fringe issue.

It is a conservative one.

- James Scott Trimm 

Disclosure:The author serves as President of P.A.R.T. Texas, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization defending the rights of chronic pain patients and the physicians who treat them. He has been involved in conservative political activism in Texas for more than forty years and previously served as a legislative staffer.

Nick Fuentes Is Still Toxic—And That’s the Good News

 

 

The last two weeks have been a bruising spectacle for the conservative movement. Tucker Carlson’s fawning interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes ignited a firestorm—not only for its uncritical platforming of a Holocaust denier, but for what it revealed about creeping antisemitism at the edges of the right. When Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts released a video defending Carlson and deriding a “venomous coalition” of critics, it seemed, for a moment, that the dam of moral clarity might break.

It didn’t.

The backlash was swift, fierce, and—for once—nearly universal. Senator Ted Cruz declared that anyone who sits silently while Fuentes praises Hitler is “a coward, and complicit in that evil.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reminded conservatives that “no one should feel obliged to carry water for antisemites.” Jewish leaders from across the ideological spectrum withdrew from Heritage’s Task Force on Antisemitism in protest. And inside Heritage itself, longtime fellows and staff publicly called for Roberts to resign.

Rabbi Yaakov Menken, head of the Coalition for Jewish Values, resigned from Heritage’s antisemitism task force, calling Roberts’ defense of Carlson “validation of antisemitism masquerading as free speech.” His letter was blunt: “We cannot lend legitimacy to an institution that platforms hate.” Mark Goldfeder of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and the entire Young Jewish Conservatives network soon followed suit.

Within a week, Roberts was apologizing to staff in a closed-door meeting: “I made a mistake and I let you down.” But his refusal to renounce Carlson—and the revelation that Heritage had quietly sponsored Carlson’s podcast—only deepened the revolt. Veteran Heritage scholar Robert Rector invoked William F. Buckley Jr.’s historic expulsion of the John Birch Society, reminding Roberts, “You have to expunge all antisemitism. You have to expel the lunatics.”

By Wednesday, the internal revolt had spilled into public view. Legal scholar Amy Swearer told Roberts she had “no confidence in your leadership,” calling his response “a masterclass in cowardice.” One staffer described the damage to Heritage’s reputation as “the worst I’ve ever seen.”

What’s remarkable is not merely Heritage’s implosion—it’s the reaction it provoked. In an era when “owning the libs” often replaces principle, the conservative establishment drew a bright line. From the Senate floor to think tank hallways, antisemitism was called out by name.

That’s the silver lining in this mess: Nick Fuentes is still toxic. He remains persona non grata outside the darkest corners of the internet. Despite attempts to launder his image under the banner of “Christian nationalism” or “America First,” the mainstream right isn’t buying it.

The Roberts fiasco proves that moral antibodies still exist within conservatism. The same movement that once purged the John Birch Society for paranoia now faces the same test—whether to tolerate hate for the sake of unity or to draw boundaries for the sake of conscience.

This time, conservatives are choosing the latter. And that’s something worth defending.

-- James Trimm 

Will the Real Israel Please Stand?

 

Will the Real Israel Please Stand?
By
James Scott Trimm

 

I am proud to say that the Texas Republican Party is a pro-Israel party, with a pro-Israel platform, and that earlier this month at the State Convention 95% of Texas delegates voted in favor of the pro-Israel plank of the Texas Republican Party Platform.

That said, antisemitism in the world, the US and in Texas is on the rise.  And unfortunately there are efforts to undermine the pro-Israel aspect of the Texas Republican Party.  There were efforts to remove the plank by some, and an effort to exclude the term "antisemitism" was successful.  

Now certain voices in our party are asking "Will the Real Israel Please Stand?" challenging the legitimacy of the modern State of Israel and what they call "Christian Zionism".

Let me begin by saying that "Zionism" is simply the belief that the world's only Jewish state has a right to exist.  If you don't believe that the world's only Japanese state has a right to exist, then you are anti-Japanese.  And if you don't believe that the world's only Jewish state has a right to exist, then you are an antisemite.  Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.  

Those making these attacks are disguising their anti-Zionism (antisemitism) as mere "eschatology" and interpretation of biblical prophecy.  They then present an interpretation which casts modern Israel and the Jewish people as a false-Israel.  Some will go so far as to identify them as the "synagogue of Satan" mentioned in Revelation. 

Christian eschatology falls under three categories, premillenialism, postmillenialism and amillenialism.  Premillenialists believe that Jesus will return to establish his 1,000 year Kingdom.  Postmillenialists believe that the Church will build the Kingdom and Jesus will return to receive it.  And amillenialists believe that the Church is the Kingdom. Premillenialism can be further subdivided into Historical Premillenialism and Dispensationalism.  Dispensationalists tend to believe that there will be a rapture of the Church followed by a seven year tribulation and then Jesus makes his final return to establish his Kingdom on earth.  The majority of Evangelical Christians in the United States are Premillenialists, mostly Dispensationalists.While Amillenialists, like Premillenialists, see a great tribulation coming and "dark decline" in the last days, Postmillenialists see the Church building God's Kingdom on earth in the last days.  This gives rise to "Kingdom Now" and "Dominion" theology.  So-called Christian Nationalism is an outgrowth of this Kingdom Now theology.  In many cases, these individuals wish to create an American Christian Theocracy.

These three different theologies tend to shape one's view of Israel.  Premillenialists, especially Dispensationalists, tend to view the Church and Israel as two separate entities.  They believe that the Jewish people are God's chosen people and that God's plan for Israel and the Jewish people is not over.  As I said, these are the majority of Evangelicals in the United States.  It is this theology that Andrew Iskar, Christian Nationalist writer and speaker, calls "dubious theological shackles."  

This leaves us with Postmillenialism and Amillenialism.  Those who subscribe to these theologies fall into two major groups: Dual Covenant Theology and Church Israel Replacement Theology. Dual Covenant theology teaches that the Church and Israel (i.e. the Jews) each have their own dynamic relationship with God thru separate Covenants.  While Church Israel Replacement Theology (also known as Supersecionism, teaches that the Church has replaced Israel, and that the Church, not the Jewish people, is the true Israel. One may hold to supercesionism without being an anti-zionist a supersionalist need not oppose the right of Japan to sexist or be anti-Japanese.

Finally a special note is required regarding the Roman Catholic Church.  Under the Vatican II declarations, the Catholic Church recognized that the Jewish people have a Covenant relationship with God apart from the Church, and rejected antisemitism and in 1994 the Roman Catholic Church established diplomatic relations with Israel, recognizing it's right to exist.  However some fundamentalist Roman Catholics reject these moves by the Church.

Now these different views see modern Israel as fitting into Biblical Prophecy in different ways, but many of them see a prophetic significance to the birth of the modern State of Israel.  Whole books have been written on this topic.  The Republican Party has always been pro-Israel and our Texas Republican Party Platform has always been pro-Israel.  

Allow me to share my own view, of biblical prophecy concerning the birth of modern Israel.   

1 Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:
2 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:
3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:
4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;
5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.
6 Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen:
7 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the heathen that are about you, they shall bear their shame.
(Ezekiel 36:1-7 KJV)

I have included only the first seven verses here, but you may want to read the whole chapter.  God does not restore the Jewish nation because of merit.  He does not do so because of anything the Jews have done.  Ezekiel 36 tells us that God would restore the Jewish people to their land because of their terrible mistreatment at the hands of other nations.  And this is exactly what happened.  In the wake of the holocaust, there was great sympathy for the Jewish people, and the UN voted to partition land for Israel out of the British Mandate (there was never a Palestinian State there).  

Is God done with the Jewish People?  The prophet Jeremiah writes:  

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
(Jer. 31:35-37 KJV)

What is the “Synagogue of Satan” mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9?   Both passages identify this group as “those who say they are Jews but lie”.

An interpretation of the above texts have surfaced which interprets these texts to refer to those Jews who do not accept Yeshua as the Messiah. But an honest look at the Scriptures will show that it is not possible to identify the “Synagogue of Satan” in this way.

To begin with it is important to recognize that the same John wrote both Revelation and the Gospel of John. Not only is this the traditional understanding, but there are a number of common elements that point to the common authorship of these two books. Both books identify the Messiah as the “lamb” (Jn. 1:29; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12; 14:1) and as the incarnate “word” (Jn. 1:1-3, 14; Rev. 19:13) and both refer to the “living waters” (Jn. 4:10; 7:38; Rev. 22:1). 

Now we must look at how John uses the word “Jew” in his own writings. John himself frequently invokes the term “Jews” to refer to Jewish people who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. For example:

“therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus” (Jn. 5:16)
“the Jews sought more to kill him” (Jn. 5:18)
“the Jews then murmured at him” (Jn. 6:41)
“the Jews sought to kill him” (Jn. 7:1)
etc. etc. etc.

Clearly John has absolutely no objection whatsoever to using the term “Jews” to refer either to Jews who accepted Messiah or those that rejected him. Therefore the statement in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 cannot be criticizing the usage of the word “Jews” to describe Jews who don't believe Jesus in the Messiah. Otherwise John would here be criticizing his own inspired writing in the Gospel of John in which he does just that himself frequently!

In closing, this is our Texas Republican Party Platform on Israel.  Do not be fooled: