
Gov. Abbott, top legislative leaders continue to push school choice program in Texas during rare joint news conference
It was a rare sight: Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and a Speaker of the Texas House held a joint news conference for the first time since 2019.
Abbott and the new Speaker, Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, gave an updated timetable on legislation that would spend $1 billion in taxpayer money to send students to private school through what's called an Education Savings Account, or ESA.
They said the House Public Education Committee will pass the school choice bill, HB 2, and HB 3, the public school funding bill next week and after that, the full House will pass the legislation after that.
The three Texas leaders appeared with former Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey along with a dozen Republican lawmakers.
Arizona was the first state in the U.S. to pass a universal program that provides taxpayer-funded education savings accounts. In Texas, the average student could receive $10,000 per year with disabled students receiving more money. Texas Democrats have said Arizona's program ballooned state spending and caused a budget shortfall.
But Ducey pushed back, saying that's not true, and that when he left office in 2022 the state had a budget surplus.
The questions of the cost of the ESA program in Texas come as some neighborhood public schools in North Texas have closed and school districts have passed deficit budgets and dipped into savings.
Democrats point to budget estimates by the Texas Legislative Budget Board that the cost of the school choice program could rise to $4 billion a year by 2030. But during the news conference, Abbott said the LBB estimates are based on "nothing but fiction" and that the legislature will pass what the state can afford.
"It's wrong, flat-out incorrect for anybody to suggest that number is going to grow larger in future years," Abbott said. "The number can only grow as large as much as the legislature decides to appropriate to it."
He also said the state still doesn't know how many students will apply for the program, which could be as high as 100,000 according to Patrick.
In response, State Representative Gene Wu, D-Houston, and Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus criticized Arizona's ESA program and said they don't want the program in Texas.
"These billions of dollars they're going to put into vouchers, that can go back home to save your local schools, but they're not doing that," said Wu. "Instead, they're doing what the billionaires want them to do."
Public school districts would lose money when students leave for private schools. But the Chair of the House Public Education Committee, Representative Brad Buckley, R-Salado, told CBS News Texas that under the House legislation, school districts would not lose more than 5% of their funding if student enrollment fell by more than 5% because of the ESA program.
Patrick said under the 2026-27 state budget passed by the Senate, the state will spend $84 billion on public education for about 5.5 million students, while the ESA program will cost $1 billion for about 100,000 students.
"So, if anyone says that we are undermining education, that is a total lie," Patrick said. "What we are doing in our K-12 public schools is funding them more than ever before."
If and when the Texas House passes the school choice program, lawmakers in that chamber will have to negotiate differences with Texas Senators, who have already passed their version of the bill. If both chambers agree to and approve the compromise school choice legislation and the governor signs it, the Texas Comptroller's office will have a year to set up the program and explain to the public how it will work.
Watch
Eye On Politics at 7:30 Sunday morning
on CBS News Texas on air and streaming
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk predicts Trump's tariffs will cause recession amid growing spat with president
Former presidential adviser and confidante Elon Musk escalated his growing feud with President Trump by saying the president's tariffs would result in a recession later this year. 'The Trump Tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year,' he wrote on his social media website, X. The remark is the latest dig at Trump's policies since the tech billionaire left his role in the administration last week as head of the government cost-cutting panel known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Musk blasted Republicans' tax-and-spending-cut bill this week, which Trump helped to shepherd through the House last month, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X on Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Beyond the president's policies, Musk also attacked Trump personally, claiming Thursday that Trump is mentioned in files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted child abuser who died in jail in 2019. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' he wrote on X. Musk's efforts with DOGE during his time in the Trump administration stirred a flurry of controversy and led to resignations of top officials in multiple agencies, including the IRS and the Treasury Department. Concerns about his team's access to private data have resulted in lawsuits. 'DOGE's mission to advise OMB and the White House on how to slash regulations and cut expenditures puts at risk important consumer safeguards and public protections,' Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group that brought a lawsuit against the administration, said in a January statement. Controversies have also been swirling about Musk's personal life. A recent New York Times investigation found that Musk was 'juggling … a drug habit far more serious than previously known.' Musk's criticism is channeling concerns among economists and business leaders about the prospect of a recession resulting from tariffs. Trump's tariffs — notably his 'reciprocal,' country-specific tariffs and triple-digit tariffs on China — have been walked back, but a highly elevated overall U.S. tariff rate relative to recent decades has remained in place. The overall tariff rate is somewhere between 10 and 15 percent now, according to various estimates, and Trump's tariffs are expected to pull in about $2.5 trillion in federal revenues. The Federal Reserve has repeatedly painted a stagflationary picture of the economic outlook in recent months. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) factored a boosted inflationary prediction of 0.4 percentage points as a result of the tariffs into its budgetary calculations this week. However, a recession is far from guaranteed, and many predictions about the economy have grown more positive as trade negotiations have continued. The U.S. trade deficit narrowed by a record amount in April following intense front-running of tariffs by importers in the first quarter, causing a collective sigh of relief from many investors. 'The drop in imports should have a positive impact on GDP, quelling any fears of a recession in the near term,' Damian McIntyre, vice president at investment firm Federated Hermes, commented Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump-Musk divorce threatens the president and the entire Republican Party
Few expected the relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk to survive four years, but the spectacular collapse of this partnership has shocked even seasoned observers with its speed and intensity. Now, as two of the world's most powerful men openly clash, there are seismic implications for the country as a whole and the Republican Party specifically. Put another way, not only does this fissure expose cracks in the GOP and MAGA coalition, it's also a considerable threat to Republicans' midterms hopes and Trump's signature legislation. The fight, which began two weeks ago when Musk expressed 'disappointment' with Trump's 'one big, beautiful' bill had initially been confined to disagreements over the legislation, rather than personal attacks. Then, on Thursday afternoon, it escalated in unprecedented, dramatic fashion. Following Trump's recent comment that he would have won Pennsylvania without Musk's help, Musk replied 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' That was just Musk's opening salvo against the man he spent roughly $300 million to get elected. The tech billionaire then went on a blistering war path. He claimed Trump was on 'the Epstein list,' supported impeachment — a touchy subject for the twice-impeached Trump — and claimed that tariffs would cause a recession. Not content with attacking Trump, Musk has also threatened to fund primary challenges to Republicans who support the bill, and has criticized both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.). With unprecedented speed, Musk went from the man who could pour hundreds of millions into Republican coffers to Republicans' enemy number one. Influential commentator Steve Bannon pushed for Musk's deportation, claiming he's an illegal alien, and Trump threatened to cancel all government contracts with Musk's multiple companies, saying Musk 'went CRAZY.' Whether or not the rumors of an impending détente between the two is enough to heal the rupture remains to be seen, but it's unlikely that all of the pieces will ever get put back together. Given Musk's deep pockets and control of social media platform X, where he has a cult-like following, Trump and the Republicans now find themselves in a treacherous spot at a precarious time. Indeed, even before the dramatic escalation, Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' was in limbo in the Senate. As Alexander Bolton noted in this publication prior to Thursday's blowup, Trump's bill is 'losing momentum in the Senate in the face of blistering attacks from Elon Musk.' To that end, Musk's criticisms of the bill and threats to primary its Republican supporters has already led two House Republicans who voted for the bill, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and John Rose (R-Tenn.), to come out against some of it. It appears that this fight has brought some Republicans back into Trump's fold. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who had been opposed to the bill prior to its passage in the House, condemned Musk, saying he 'crossed the line.' And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), another House conservative, dismissed Musk's influence, saying he is 'just another shiny object.' For their part, Republican senators who may have had doubts about Trump's signature legislation now risk being seen as taking Musk's side and being disloyal to the president. However, it would be a mistake to overlook the implications of the breakup or the dangers for Republicans. If he wants, Musk could very easily fund primaries against vulnerable GOP House members, and his control of X gives him unprecedented influence over the media ecosystem. Further, Musk's influence among the Silicon Valley cohort that moved stridently to the right in 2024 could peel off a new group of Republican voters and donors. In that same vein, there are possible electoral consequences for Republicans, even if tempers between Trump and Musk cool down. Trump was counting on the bill's passage to be a significant political tailwind that would boost his polling numbers and Republicans' midterm hopes, particularly given the ongoing chaos over tariffs and trade policy. Now, whichever version of the bill eventually passes, Republicans look like the party of chaos. It is entirely possible that this ongoing feud dents voters' confidence in Republicans' ability to competently govern, something Democrats are clearly hoping for. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are 'reveling' about the fight, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reposting Musk's attacks and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) taking digs at the 'GOP civil war.' To be sure, despite Musk's efforts, it remains likely that a version of Trump's 'one, big, beautiful bill' will still pass, but Republicans now have a bigger headache. Ultimately, divorces are always messy, but the Trump-Musk divorce is unprecedented, and it could not have come at a worse time for Republicans. With razor-thin margins in the House and the absence of Trump's much-touted trade bills, it poses the most significant threat to Republicans' midterm hopes, and by extension, the rest of Trump's term. Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic