I think the tide is turning and the superexpressive attacks on the LGBTQ+ people, both adults and kids is not working well for republicans. I think they will see at local levels people are not buying it and are working to stop efforts to wipe all mention of LGBTQ+ people from society. Hugs
‘This is more than a policy victory,’ Equality Florida said.
LGBTQ advocates are celebrating several bills — including one that could have banned Pride flags flown at government buildings — stalling out this Session.
“Once again, we’ve done what many thought was impossible: not one anti-LGBTQ bill passed this session,” Equality Florida’s Executive Director Nadine Smith said in a statement Saturday.
The Legislative Session ended Friday although lawmakers failed to pass a balanced budget.
Some of the dead bills including HB 75/SB 100 that would have banned government buildings, schools and universities, from flying flags that represented a “political viewpoint.”
The proposal was sponsored by outgoing state Sen. Randy Fine before he left for Washington, D.C.
“How would we feel if the city of Palm Bay or the city of Ormond Beach flew the Make America Great Again flag from City Hall? How would we feel if a teacher hung that in their classroom?” Fine said during a March committee hearing. “The idea is whether it’s political viewpoints that we agree with or we disagree with, let’s keep that stuff out of government buildings.”
Equity Florida lobbied against the bill with its public policy director Jon Harris Maurer calling the flag ban “unnecessary, unclear, unconstitutional and dangerous.”
“It does not help Floridians struggling with insurance and housing affordability,” he said. “Instead, it is a made-up solution to a culture war for political purposes, but it will have real harms.”
Ultimately, Fine’s bill was withdrawn, failing to reach the Senate floor.
Equity Florida also heralded the defeat of other bills, including HB 1495/SB 440 to prevent governments from using the preferred pronouns for people who are transgender and other bills targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI.)
The organization pointed to its grassroots campaign this Session with 400 LGBTQ activists lobbying during “our largest largest advocacy week ever,” 16,000 emails sent to lawmakers and about 325 in-person meetings with legislators.
“It’s students and seniors, faith leaders and frontline workers, parents and teachers, standing together and making sure lawmakers hear us loud and clear: we will not back down,” Smith said in a statement.
Gabrielle Russon
Gabrielle Russon is an award-winning journalist based in Orlando. She covered the business of theme parks for the Orlando Sentinel. Her previous newspaper stops include the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Toledo Blade, Kalamazoo Gazette and Elkhart Truth as well as an internship covering the nation’s capital for the Chicago Tribune. For fun, she runs marathons. She gets her training from chasing a toddler around. Contact her at gabriellerusson@gmail.com or on Twitter @GabrielleRusson
A think tank founded by Stephen Miller sued Roberts and the office that administers the judiciary, claiming that the White House should run the federal courts.
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 04: U.S. President Donald Trump (L) greets Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump was expected to address Congress on his early achievements of his presidency and his upcoming legislative agenda. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)LESS
Close allies of President Trump are asking a judge to give the White House control over much of the federal court system.
In a little-noticed lawsuit filed last week, the America First Legal Foundation sued Chief Justice John Roberts and the head of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.
The case ostensibly proceeds as a FOIA lawsuit, with the Trump-aligned group seeking access to judiciary records. But, in doing so, it asks the courts to cede massive power to the White House: the bodies that make court policy and manage the judiciary’s day-to-day operations should be considered independent agencies of the executive branch, the suit argues, giving the President, under the conservative legal movement’s theories, the power to appoint and dismiss people in key roles.
Multiple legal scholars and attorneys TPM spoke with reacted to the suit with a mixture of dismay, disdain and laughter. Though the core legal claim is invalid, they said, the suit seems to be a part of the fight that the administration launched and has continued to escalate against the courts over the past several months: ignoring a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a wrongly removed Salvadoran man, providing minimal notice to people subject to the Alien Enemies Act, flaunting an aggressive criminal case against a state court judge.
The executive branch has tried to encroach on the power of the judiciary in other ways too, prompting a degree of consternation and alarm unusual for the normally-staid Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. As TPM has documented, DOGE has already caused disorder at the courts and sent out mass emails to judges and other judiciary employees demanding a list of their recent accomplishments. Per one recent report in the New York Times, federal judges have expressed concern that Trump could direct the U.S. Marshals Service — an executive branch agency tasked with protecting judges and carrying out court orders — to withdraw protection.
These are all facets of an escalating campaign to erode the independence of the judiciary, experts told TPM. The lawsuit demonstrates another prong of it: close allies of the president are effectively asking the courts to rule that they should be managed by the White House.
“It’s like using an invalid legal claim to taunt the judiciary,” Anne Joseph O’Connell, a professor at Stanford University Law School, told TPM.
“To the extent this lawsuit has any value other than clickbait, maybe the underlying message is, we will let our imaginations run wild,” Peter M. Shane, a constitutional law scholar at NYU Law School, told TPM. “The Trump administration and the MAGA community will let our imaginations run wild in our attempts to figure out ways to make the life of the judiciary miserable, to the extent you push back against Trump.”
A FOIA from America First
The America First Legal Foundation filed the suit on April 22.
It came after the group first filed a FOIA request in July 2024 to the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts asking for “all records referring or relating to (1) Clarence Thomas or (2) Samuel Alito” and all communications with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), starting in April 2023. Both Democrats have led investigations into the influence of wealthy political donors’ money on the court, the conservative legal movement’s long-term plan to capture the high court, and alleged ethical violations by Justices Thomas and Alito. The Judicial Conference, which is composed of senior federal judges and operates via an array of committees, sets policy for the judiciary.
Ethan V. Torrey, legal counsel of the Supreme Court, rejected the request in a September 2024 letter, per an exhibit filed along with the complaint.
Daniel Z. Epstein filed the FOIA request, and is listed as lead attorney on the lawsuit. Epstein currently represents President Trump in his personal capacity in the lawsuit against CBS over an October 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.
Stephen Miller, the longtime Trump aide, founded the America First Legal Foundation in April 2021, describing it as the “long-awaited answer to the ACLU.” Over the next few years, the group succeeded in slowing down or blocking several Biden administration policies, often by filing in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo courthouse, which is presided over by a judge who is notably receptive to conservative arguments. Its priorities often match those of Trump’s second term; it attacked diversity programs, protections for LGBT students, immigration, and supposed “wokeness” in corporate America. Miller himself has been a public driving force in the most aggressive and lawless elements of the second Trump administration’s effort to bulldoze through civil liberties in the name of increasing the tempo of deportations.
In an email after publication, an America First Legal spokesperson cited a 1991 9th Circuit decision in a case brought by a federal judge seeking to force the Administrative Office to pay for a private defense attorney he wanted to hire in a lawsuit brought over his work as a judge. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit found that AO was a “non-Article III adjunct,” akin to a magistrate judge or special master: a body that serves the courts, but is not a court itself. America First Legal didn’t immediately reply to a follow-up question from TPM about whether it could address its claim that the Judicial Conference is also an independent agency of the executive branch.
When the suit was filed in April, it received a small round of coverage that focused on FOIA element of the claim.
Legal experts suggested to TPM that the FOIA piece is something of a trojan horse. The Judicial Conference and Administrative Office’s denial of the FOIA request provides standing to sue, and thereby ask a federal judge to declare that the two judicial bodies “are subject to the FOIA as independent agencies within the executive branch.”
In terms of importance, a judge finding that core parts of the judiciary are independent agencies of the executive branch would dwarf any FOIA material America First Legal might receive. The lawsuit itself seems to acknowledge this. At one point, in language channeling that of a protection racket, America First Legal observes that “Federal courts rely on the executive branch for facility management and security. Federal judges, as officers of the courts, need resources to fulfill their constitutional obligations.”
New extreme for an old theory
There is a level of irony here.
For years, conservative legal scholars have pushed the idea that power in the executive is unitary, granting the President the ability to exert direct control over all federal officials who carry out federal law. It opens the door to a level of presidential power that hasn’t been seen until this administration, and which the Supreme Court may ratify this term.
This lawsuit asks the judiciary to extend that logic to its own operations, potentially dealing a fatal blow to judicial independence.
This argument reaches a provocative peak when it comes to the Judicial Conference of the United States. There, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can appoint members to committees. The lawsuit says that this means Roberts may, at times, fall under the President’s power — for FOIA purposes, of course.
“Accordingly, if the Chief Justice does indeed have this power to appoint officers, then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA,” the suit reads.
Melissa Murray, a professor at NYU Law, pointed out that the suit raises a number of bizarre scenarios. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, “does the Chief Justice have to recuse himself?” she asked.
“It does seem like poking the bear,” she added.
As of this writing, lawyers for Roberts and the U.S. Courts director have not appeared on the docket. In other cases filed against parts of the judiciary, the Justice Department’s Civil Division has appointed attorneys.
The DOJ did not return a request for comment. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts declined to comment. The Supreme Court also did not return requests for comment.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that federal courthouses will soon start serving Trump steaks, or that Kid Rock will be called on to provide filler sound during sidebar sessions.
Blake Emerson, a professor at UCLA Law, called the suit’s claims “outlandish,” and said that if it somehow succeeded, it would grant the White House control over “the means by which the judicial branch functionally operates.”
O’Connell, the Stanford Law Professor, described it to TPM as more of an attempt to tell a story about “how much power they think the executive should have” than a serious legal claim.
“There is no chance that this will prevail,” she said.
Musk gave Trump $290 million. The quid pro quo? Deregulation.
– The NLRB dropped union-busting charges against SpaceX – The EPA backed off fines for environmental violations – The FAA continues approving launches despite rocket explosions – The FCC is giving Starlink favorable… pic.twitter.com/jH64dF6m1c
SpaceX, already one of the biggest NASA and Pentagon contractors, could win billions of dollars in new contracts if President Trump’s budget proposal is approved by Congress.
Elon Musk at the White House in April.Credit…Eric Lee/The New York Times
Eric Lipton has spent the last 18 months examining SpaceX contracts with the federal government and how federal agencies regulate SpaceX and other companies controlled by Elon Musk.
Elon Musk and SpaceX are big winners in Donald J. Trump’s 2026 spending plan.
President Trump is delivering on Mr. Musk’s wish list at both NASA and the Pentagon to reorient federal spending on space in a way likely to drive billions of dollars in new business to Mr. Musk’s space technology company, if Congress signs off on the budget plan.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Trump is calling for a massive jump in spending, an extraordinary 13 percent increase, almost entirely through allocations in a Congressional budget reconciliation plan under consideration.
The jump would happen while many other federal agencies would be slashed, in part to supercharge federal spending in two areas where SpaceX is positioned to profit: a vast missile defense system and space missions to Mars and the moon.
Mr. Trump has proposed a Golden Dome defense system to track and kill missiles headed toward U.S. targets, possibly sent by China, Russia, North Korea or other rivals.
Pentagon officials say SpaceX is considered likely to be the top recipient of this burst of new spending, which could generate billions of dollars in new contracts for the company.
That is because SpaceX manufactures both rockets that can launch military payloads into orbit and satellite systems that can deliver the surveillance and targeting tools needed for the project, which would require the largest military investments the United States has ever made in space.
Mr. Trump’s budget plan also calls for an undisclosed but large amount of new money for “U.S. space dominance to strengthen U.S. national security.”
SpaceX is already, by far, the largest recipient of Pentagon spending on existing military low-earth-orbit communications systems, and it gets the largest cut of Pentagon rocket launch contracts. Congressional approval for the plan to significantly expand this spending would be a giant win for Mr. Musk and SpaceX.
Mr. Trump’s proposed budget calls for Pentagon spending for 2026 to be $113 billion greater than for this year. But that increase would come entirely from allocations Congress is considering via its reconciliation plan for the 2025 fiscal year, according to Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former space industry executive, who pointed to a footnote in Mr. Trump’s plan.
NASA’s budget faces overall cuts in Mr. Trump’s plan, but there are increases that largely match SpaceX’s own corporation priorities.
The spending plan goes after Mr. Musk’s commercial rivals, calling for NASA to phase out funding for the Space Launch System, a rocket program being led by Boeing, and also the Orion astronaut capsule, being built by Lockheed Martin, which was part of three planned flights to take humans back to the moon.
Instead, Mr. Trump’s budget calls for “more cost effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions,” an industry that SpaceX now dominates. Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, which has developed its own new rocket, also could be a big beneficiary of this shift, industry executives said Friday.
Both Blue Origin and SpaceX have moon landing systems that NASA is contracted to use and that have not, at least so far, been targeted for cuts.
“Their design is easier to do than SpaceX,” said Doug Loverro, a former NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations who has also been an adviser to the Trump administration, referring to Blue Origin’s moon landing plan.
The NASA budget also calls for $1 billion in new spending to focus on a mission to Mars, which has been the primary driving force for Mr. Musk since he first started SpaceX. He is already building a new rocket, called Starship, to attempt to deliver on this plan.
“SpaceX’s handprints are all over this,” said Mo Islam, a co-founder of Payload, a commercial space news site. “I don’t see there is any other way to look at it. SpaceX is positioned to be the primary beneficiary of the majority of these budgetary moves.”
There are some items in the NASA budget that could result in declines in spending at SpaceX, such as less spending on the International Space Station, where SpaceX delivers both cargo and astronauts.
But SpaceX still will likely emerge the winner. It recently won an $843 million contract to “de-orbit” the space station when it is retired in 2030. And Mr. Musk has pushed Mr. Trump to speed up that retirement date.
“The decision is up to the President, but my recommendation is as soon as possible,” Mr. Musk wrote on his social media platform, X, in February.
In the 2024 fiscal year, SpaceX secured $3.8 billion in federal contracts, most of it from NASA and the Pentagon. The company has taken a total of $18 billion in federal contracts overall in the last decade, a New York Times analysis of federal contracting data shows.
Experts like Mr. Loverro have long argued that NASA is too focused on an over-budget and behind-schedule moon program called Artemis, particularly the parts of the effort that rely on Boeing and Lockheed. That said, Mr. Loverro said the new spending plan “does impact SpaceX in a lot of very positive ways.”
But Mr. Harrison, the former industry executive, said it also opens up SpaceX and the Trump administration to potential criticism.
“It taints this now all with a suspicion of improper influence,” Mr. Harrison said. “Even if these are legitimate questions.”
Eric Lipton is a Times investigative reporter, who digs into a broad range of topics from Pentagon spending to toxic chemicals.
President Trump arrives in Warren, Mich., to deliver a speech marking his 100th day in office on April 29. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump arrives in Warren, Mich., to deliver a speech marking his 100th day in office on April 29. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump says a recession is OK in the short term, in a clip of a pre-recorded interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” released on Friday.
Why it matters: Business owners and politicians alike have shared fears of a recession given the uncertainty surrounding the president’s tariffs.
The latest: When Welker asked Trump whether he’s “comfortable with the country potentially dipping into a recession for a period of time” if he were able to achieve his long-term goals, the president initially avoided answering the question directly.
“Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history. Why don’t you talk about them?” he instead said.
But after Welker pushed more, Trump responded, “Yeah, everything’s OK. I said, this is a transition period. I think we’re going to do fantastically.”
When asked if he was worried about a recession, Trump said: “Anything can happen. But I think we’re going to have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think we’re going to have the greatest economic boom in history.”
The full interview will publish on NBCNews.com on Sunday.
Last Wednesday, Trump predicted during a Cabinet meeting (where everyone was required to praise him while Gulf-of-America caps were aligned across the table) that higher prices caused by tariffs will mean “children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls.”
I’m sure fathers buy their daughters as many dolls as they cry for, because dads are weak for their daughters, but I doubt they buy 30 for Christmas. Am I wrong? What I’m thinking, is that he bought Ivanka thousands of dolls and maybe half as many for his other daughter, what’s-her-name. He probably bought a gazillion GI Joes for Jr and maybe a few Barbies for Eric.
I had “action” figures, not dolls, when I was a kid. Not only did I have superheroes like Batman and Spiderman, I also had a Fonzie (who suffered a traffic accident when I hid him in a lamp and one of his cool legs melted off). I even had an Epstein from Welcome Back, Kotter. Of course, I had a bunch of Star Wars guys. Oh, crap, maybe I did have 30, but I didn’t get 30 for Christmas.
What’s surreal here is that Trump is a glutton. From what I’ve heard from his friends, he’s also a pack rat and a hoarder. His offices are full of useless crap he doesn’t need. It’s all junk. But now this billionaire, who purchases portraits of himself and has multiple homes and golf resorts, is telling Americans to cut down on their consumerism. What?
This is probably the first time in the modern era that the Republican message is, “Don’t spend so much money.” Wasn’t one of Trump’s campaign messages, “Make America wealthy again?” It was along with, “Make America hate again.”
At the cabinet meeting, Trump said, “You know, somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”
Yeah! Screw those spoiled brats! If nothing else, instead of buying them so many dolls, make them get a job and pay rent and board. You can ship them off to Arkansas, where Governor Sarah Huckabee Hound Sanders has greatly loosened child labor laws.
When you go to McDonald’s and they’re screaming for the Happy Meal toy, make that brat pay for that Happy Meal.
In 1995, my life was a living hell every time we went to McDonald’s because my kid was always screaming for the Black Power Ranger, and we got Pink Power Ranger every. fucking. time, and my son would lose his shit. I should have melted them like I did to poor Fonzie.
I still have nightmares about Pink Power Ranger.
Trump also said, “They (China) have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much of which — not all of it — but much of which we don’t need.” This….THIS coming from the asshole selling us Trump straws. This grifter probably wants us to stop buying so much shit from China and buy more of his shit…from China.
Trump is out of touch because he thinks the tariffs will only hike prices for useless shit. But people need to eat too, and some are taking out loans to buy groceries. The other option is to make your kid eat his GI Joe.
Stephen Miller said, “If you had a choice between a doll from China that might have, say, lead paint in it, that is not as well-constructed as a doll made in America that has a higher environmental and regulatory standard and that is made to a higher degree of quality, and those two products are both on Amazon,” Miller said, “then, yes, you probably would be willing to pay more for a better-made American product.”
Lead paint? Someone tell Baby Goebbels that imports sold in America are often subject to the same regulatory standards as domestic products. Also, during Trump’s first term, his Environmental Protection Agency tried to roll back safety standards that would expose children to…wait for it….lead paint.
If you really want to freak your kid out, buy them a Stephen Miller doll. The brat will be begging for a Pink Power Ranger after that.
A Stephen Miller doll would be like a Goebbels version of Chucky.
Creative note: Proofer Laura wrote, “This is unspeakably gross.” I told her she should be ashamed of herself for looking at it… after I sent it to her.
Marlon Wayans is opening up about his 24-year-old trans son Kai, and the importance of parenting with “complete acceptance.”
The comedian appeared alongside his brother Damon Wayans on the April 30 episode of the IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson podcast. While discussing parenting advice, Marlon said that Kai’s transition “taught me what real, unconditional love was.”
“When they went through the transition, I actually went through the transition,” he said. “I went from denial to complete acceptance, and it took me a week to get there.”
Wayans joked that although he believes “only God can judge… If that’s a mistake and we get to heaven and God don’t let my child in, I’m going to shave a beard and sneak them in through the back.”
“I’m going to love my baby… I’m a father, and I’m always going to defend them,” he continued. “I’m always going to protect them. I’m always going to respect them. And there’s nothing anybody could ever tell me.”
The White Chicks star added that when it comes to the public’s reaction to him supporting Kai, he could care less about losing fans in the process.
“I lost people that are small-minded, small-hearted, and self-loathing,” he said. “So, goodbye… For every one I lose, I gain 150 more.”
This isn’t the first time that Wayans has used his platform to support Kai and other trans youth. Back in February, the actor defended his son after Soulja Boy called him a transphobic slur while publicly feuding with Wayans.
“You know you can get cancelled for transphobic slander like this,” he tweeted at the time. “Fortunately for you that you don’t have a career. Apparently, You BEEN cancelled for the last 17 years. Crank that was 2007. We waiting.”
Wayans previously opened up about supporting Kai during a September 2024 appearance on The Jennifer Hudson Show, explaining that after his son came out, “I went through the five stages of grief to get to the beautiful, magical place called acceptance.”
“I learned that my family, my brothers, my sisters, have prepared me to be a rock in our family,” he said. “[Kai is] the same child they was before, they’ve just got a beard now. Okay. Same baby.”
May 4, 1961 A group of Freedom Riders left Washington, DC for New Orleans in a first challenge to racial segregation on interstate buses and in bus terminals; it was organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). The Freedom Riders dining at a lunch counter in Montgomery before traveling to Jackson, Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana. Read more about the freedom riders 50 Years After Their Mug Shots, Portraits of Mississippi’s Freedom Riders
May 4, 1970 Ohio National Guard troops opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding nine others, one permanently disabled. The previous day, President Nixon had announced a widening of the Vietnam War with bombing in neighboring Cambodia. There were major campus protests around the country with students occupying university buildings to organize and to discuss the war and other issues. Read more about that day at Kent State with pictures
May 4, 1983 A “sense of the Congress” resolution, intended to urge a halt to all testing of nuclear weapons, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives (287-149). The support for a nuclear freeze, ending all American and Soviet nuclear weapons testing, was widespread. In ballot resolutions in 25 states, the freeze had passed in all but one, losing in Arizona by just two points.
Students are shown at Carl Wunsche Sr. High School, 900 Wunsche Loop, Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025, in Spring.
Melissa Phillip/Staff Photographer
A lawmaker pushing to ban non-human behavior in schools says he based his bill on a conversation with a school administrator, who has since denied so-called furries are a problem in her district.
During an at-times tense hearing Tuesday night, Republican state Rep. Stan Gerdes said he filed the bill after hearing “reports of the presence of a furry” in a Smithville school. He said he called the district superintendent in November, who told him “this is happening in districts across the state” and schools don’t have the ability to stop it.
“We just want to help them have the tools to get some of the distractions out of the classroom so we can get back to teaching time,” Gerdes told the House Public Education Committee.
But the Smithville school district issued a public statement last month disputing Gerdes’ claims. It said Superintendent Cheryl Burns told Gerdes there were no litter boxes on campus for use by students dressed as cats, but as a courtesy to the lawmaker, she “made the extra effort to walk the campus to confirm.”
“At this time, the District has no concerns related to students behaving as anything but typical children,” the statement said.
Still, Gerdes argued the legislation was needed to curb the “extremely concerning” trend while providing scant evidence furries are a problem, or even present, in Texas schools.
Both Gov. Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dustin Burrows have backed the “Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education (F.U.R.R.I.E.S) Act,” which would prohibit any “non-human behavior” by a student, including wearing animal ears or barking, meowing or hissing.
The bill includes exceptions for sports mascots or kids in school plays and would only apply to grades 6-12. Still, it includes a clause that would amend the family code to deem schools “allowing or encouraging” a child to “develop a dependence on or a belief that non-human behaviors are societally acceptable” as child abuse.
The furries trend has existed for years, at least among adults. Many like taking on animal personas, dressing up in costumes and attending gatherings. The annual Anthrocon convention in Pittsburgh draws thousands.
Rumors about classrooms adapting to child furries appeared to start online in 2022. School districts in Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska later debunked claims they were providing litter boxes in bathrooms, and the fact-checking team at PolitiFact could not find any credible news reports that supported the claim.
Under questioning from a Democrat on the panel, who cast the bill as part of a “smear campaign” against public schools, Gerdes could not point to a single example of a school providing litter boxes to students.
Gerdes, a two-term legislator and past aide to former Gov. Rick Perry, said his office has received “some reports of them.”
“Did I go to these school districts and visit and see it with my own eyes? No,” Gerdes said.
When Gerdes introduced the legislation last month, he said he fully expected members of the subculture he was targeting to show up at the Capitol “in full furry vengeance” when the bill was heard.
“Just to be clear — they won’t be getting any litter boxes in the Texas Capitol,” the Smithville Republican said in a press release announcing the bill.
But there were no so-called furries or litter boxes at the late-night hearing Tuesday. Instead, the four people who showed up to testify against the measure included a public school teacher and a Texan who worried the measure could affect students with disabilities.
State Rep. James Talarico, a Round Rock Democrat who grilled Gerdes on the legislation, called the bill a “joke,” but said it would have serious consequences for educators. Teachers and schools could face fines of $10,000 to $25,000 for allowing behavior prohibited by the bill.
Talarico questioned whether a student licking their fingers after eating Cheetos would be prohibited by language in the bill, which defines “non-human behavior” as “licking oneself or others for the purpose of grooming or maintenance.” He asked whether students reading “Animal Farm” would be flouting the law if they made sounds like the characters in the book.
Gerdes said neither would meet the intent of the bill, and said he would be open to working with Talarico on the language to make him more comfortable with the legislation.
“I’m not comfortable with any bill that’s going after a non-existent issue,” Talarico responded. He cast the bill as part of an effort by Republicans to undermine public schools.
“Governor Abbott has used this litter box rumor to paint our schools in the worst possible light,” Talarico said. “That’s because if you want to defund neighborhood schools across the state, you have to get Texans to turn against their public schools. So you call librarians groomers, you accuse teachers of indoctrination, and now you say that schools are providing litter boxes to students. That’s how all of this is tied together.”
Gerdes denied the accusation. Later in the hearing, state Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican, defended Gerdes as a supporter of public schools and cast Talarico’s opposition to the legislation as part of an “obsession” with the governor.
“His hatred for Gov. Abbott and for private school vouchers or educational savings accounts has just gone too far,” Leach said. “You’re highly respected,” he told Gerdes, “and this bill doesn’t change that.”
The committee left the measure, House Bill 54, pending.
Gabrielle RussonMay 3, 2025
‘This is more than a policy victory,’ Equality Florida said.
Scottie's Playtime 